A rather hilarious "debate" between Intelligent Design and Evolution

[Guest JoshIcy]

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate, and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory incorrect that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Intelligent Design runs on this same principle. But how they do it, is totally different. Intelligent Design is ran on a mechanic that "there is something else", and 90%+ of these people who believe it can use Evolution and Science in their everyday life without shunning others. Assuming you can take it as, their beliefs and their chosen morals.

 

Don't make this mistake again.

[Muluck]

This type of debate always comes down to personal belief' date=' regardless of the amount of data and facts each side has.

 

I for one think Intelligent Design is far from the truth, but don't ask me to fully back up my statement, because I can't. No one can fully back their statement when it comes to this argument.

[/quote']

 

No, it doesn't. You can't just chose to ignore evidence because it doesn't fit your beliefs. lolwut? Sure You can I do it all the time! And there is no data/facts for the ID side, it's all attempts to discredit the evidence for the evolution side.

 

That's bull. Of course you can back up your statement. The problem would be actually finding a positive claim for ID instead of negative claims for evolution.

 

Please don't be stupid. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't get involved.

 

Now, if you want to say, answer me this: what evidence do you have that evolution is in any way faulty or otherwise insufficient to explain how life on Earth got to where it is today?

---

This type of debate always comes down to personal belief' date=' regardless of the amount of data and facts each side has.

 

I for one think Intelligent Design is far from the truth, but don't ask me to fully back up my statement, because I can't. No one can fully back their statement when it comes to this argument.

[/quote']

 

No, it doesn't. You can't just chose to ignore evidence because it doesn't fit your beliefs. And there is no data/facts for the ID side, it's all attempts to discredit the evidence for the evolution side.

 

That's bull. Of course you can back up your statement. The problem would be actually finding a positive claim for ID instead of negative claims for evolution.

 

I think you misinterpreted my statement.

I said "I for one think Intelligent Design is far from the truth.", usually that means that someone doesn't agree with it, which proves to be true in this case because I do not agree with it.

 

No, I understood your statement. But you merely thinking that Intelligent Design being "far from the truth" means nothing unless you have evidence to back it up. You say you have none, which might be true in your case, but it is entirely false that there isn't any evidence at all.

 

Sir I never said there wasn't any evidence, I merely said that you can't absolutely prove that either statement is right or wrong.

 

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate' date=' and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory [i']incorrect[/i] that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Intelligent Design runs on this same principle. But how they do it, is totally different. Intelligent Design is ran on a mechanic that "there is something else", and 90%+ of these people who believe it can use Evolution and Science in their everyday life without shunning others. Assuming you can take it as, their beliefs and their chosen morals.

 

Don't make this mistake again.

 

Foreboding a topic, because people don't think the way you do.

Not communist like at all.

People will always have a different view point, and people will always debate them differently.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

The theory of Intelligent Design is utterly incompetent compared to the more fine-tuned' date=' logical, believable theory of Evolution.

[/quote']

 

If its so much more believable then why do Millions of people believe in Intelligent Design?

 

Are you saying that, if millions of people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, it would automatically become the most logical theory?

 

And to answer your question, it's because there are hundreds of misconceptions and outright lies when it comes to how the general public views evolution. For instance, do you think that scientists today believe that humans evolved from chimps?

 

No, I just merely chose not to believe the theory of evolution. And something is not "logical" just because it seems "logical" to certain people. Intelligent Design seems very "logical" to many people, and the same goes for evolution. And there are plenty of misconceptions about Creationists as well.

 

On what grounds do you chose not to believe it? What evidence do you have that makes you think it is incorrect?

[Tentacruel]

The theory of Intelligent Design is utterly incompetent compared to the more fine-tuned' date=' logical, believable theory of Evolution.

[/quote']

 

If its so much more believable then why do Millions of people believe in Intelligent Design?

 

Are you saying that, if millions of people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, it would automatically become the most logical theory?

 

And to answer your question, it's because there are hundreds of misconceptions and outright lies when it comes to how the general public views evolution. For instance, do you think that scientists today believe that humans evolved from chimps?

 

No, I just merely chose not to believe the theory of evolution. And something is not "logical" just because it seems "logical" to certain people. Intelligent Design seems very "logical" to many people, and the same goes for evolution. And there are plenty of misconceptions about Creationists as well.

 

On what grounds do you chose not to believe it? What evidence do you have that makes you think it is incorrect?

 

There is not enough evidence that I have been presented with to make me believe evolution. On what ground do you chose not to believe creation?

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate' date=' and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory [i']incorrect[/i] that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Exactly. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory is reworked or thrown out. But the reason it's called a theory is because there is evidence, and multitudes of it. Saying something is "merely a theory" is to make clear you know nothing about what a theory actually is in science.

---

The theory of Intelligent Design is utterly incompetent compared to the more fine-tuned' date=' logical, believable theory of Evolution.

[/quote']

 

If its so much more believable then why do Millions of people believe in Intelligent Design?

 

Are you saying that, if millions of people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, it would automatically become the most logical theory?

 

And to answer your question, it's because there are hundreds of misconceptions and outright lies when it comes to how the general public views evolution. For instance, do you think that scientists today believe that humans evolved from chimps?

 

No, I just merely chose not to believe the theory of evolution. And something is not "logical" just because it seems "logical" to certain people. Intelligent Design seems very "logical" to many people, and the same goes for evolution. And there are plenty of misconceptions about Creationists as well.

 

On what grounds do you chose not to believe it? What evidence do you have that makes you think it is incorrect?

 

There is not enough evidence that I have been presented with to make me believe evolution. On what ground do you chose not to believe creation?

 

Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And you must not be looking hard enough if you can't find enough evidence. Either that, or you don't want to, which makes this entire discussion pointless. But I'll assume the former. What do you want to know about evolution?

[Tentacruel]

Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And you must not be looking hard enough if you can't find enough evidence. Either that' date=' or you don't want to, which makes this entire discussion pointless. But I'll assume the former. What do you want to know about evolution?

[/quote']

 

How did life start? Like, what was the first piece of matter that came into existence?

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And you must not be looking hard enough if you can't find enough evidence. Either that' date=' or you don't want to, which makes this entire discussion pointless. But I'll assume the former. What do you want to know about evolution?

[/quote']

 

How did life start? Like, what was the first piece of matter that came into existence?

 

Now we're getting somewhere. What you want to know is not evolution, but the origin of life. If you want to know about that, I can point out the Miller-Urey experiment, which successfully created multitudes of organic compounds from what we believe to be around at the time life first appeared. There are plenty of other things to look at, but I find that this experiment is a good starting point for those who want to learn about how we currently believe life started on Earth.

 

Now, do you have any questions about evolution?

[Tentacruel]

Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And you must not be looking hard enough if you can't find enough evidence. Either that' date=' or you don't want to, which makes this entire discussion pointless. But I'll assume the former. What do you want to know about evolution?

[/quote']

 

How did life start? Like, what was the first piece of matter that came into existence?

 

Now we're getting somewhere. What you want to know is not evolution, but the origin of life. If you want to know about that, I can point out the Miller-Urey experiment, which successfully created multitudes of organic compounds from what we believe to be around at the time life first appeared. There are plenty of other things to look at, but I find that this experiment is a good starting point for those who want to learn about how we currently believe life started on Earth.

 

Now, do you have any questions about evolution?

 

Not really. I have no problem with the process of evolution, only the theory of evolution involving the origin of life.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And you must not be looking hard enough if you can't find enough evidence. Either that' date=' or you don't want to, which makes this entire discussion pointless. But I'll assume the former. What do you want to know about evolution?

[/quote']

 

How did life start? Like, what was the first piece of matter that came into existence?

 

Now we're getting somewhere. What you want to know is not evolution, but the origin of life. If you want to know about that, I can point out the Miller-Urey experiment, which successfully created multitudes of organic compounds from what we believe to be around at the time life first appeared. There are plenty of other things to look at, but I find that this experiment is a good starting point for those who want to learn about how we currently believe life started on Earth.

 

Now, do you have any questions about evolution?

 

Not really. I have no problem with the process of evolution, only the theory of evolution involving the origin of life.

 

That's just it: the theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. That's the area of abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution. If you want to learn more, I just found this lovely paper that puts it in pretty much layman's terms: http://student.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/html/abiogenesis.pdf

 

Now, since you don't seem to have any problems with the actual theory of evolution, is there anything else?

[Tentacruel]

Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And you must not be looking hard enough if you can't find enough evidence. Either that' date=' or you don't want to, which makes this entire discussion pointless. But I'll assume the former. What do you want to know about evolution?

[/quote']

 

How did life start? Like, what was the first piece of matter that came into existence?

 

Now we're getting somewhere. What you want to know is not evolution, but the origin of life. If you want to know about that, I can point out the Miller-Urey experiment, which successfully created multitudes of organic compounds from what we believe to be around at the time life first appeared. There are plenty of other things to look at, but I find that this experiment is a good starting point for those who want to learn about how we currently believe life started on Earth.

 

Now, do you have any questions about evolution?

 

Not really. I have no problem with the process of evolution, only the theory of evolution involving the origin of life.

 

That's just it: the theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. That's the area of abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution. If you want to learn more, I just found this lovely paper that puts it in pretty much layman's terms: http://student.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/html/abiogenesis.pdf

 

Now, since you don't seem to have any problems with the actual theory of evolution, is there anything else?

 

Not really, I guess I have no further problem with evolution.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate' date=' and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory [i']incorrect[/i] that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Intelligent Design runs on this same principle. But how they do it, is totally different. Intelligent Design is ran on a mechanic that "there is something else", and 90%+ of these people who believe it can use Evolution and Science in their everyday life without shunning others. Assuming you can take it as, their beliefs and their chosen morals.

 

Don't make this mistake again.

 

Foreboding a topic, because people don't think the way you do.

Not communist like at all.

People will always have a different view point, and people will always debate them differently.

 

When the differences are so vast, it becomes mind boggling to see why people would even debate this. People who believe in either can coexist, seeing as we're all using technology built by science and evolution of ideas. So I guess it boils down to ego... And how did is it communist? That last line was merely out of personal disdain. I didnt make it against the rules or anything -_-"...

 

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate' date=' and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory [i']incorrect[/i] that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Exactly. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory is reworked or thrown out. But the reason it's called a theory is because there is evidence, and multitudes of it. Saying something is "merely a theory" is to make clear you know nothing about what a theory actually is in science.

 

No it's because I'm putting the well-being and beliefs of those who believe it above some little egotistical debate such as the one posted. And mind you, I dont believe in intelligent design myself. But as I said above... I guess debates like this one is always ego.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And you must not be looking hard enough if you can't find enough evidence. Either that' date=' or you don't want to, which makes this entire discussion pointless. But I'll assume the former. What do you want to know about evolution?

[/quote']

 

How did life start? Like, what was the first piece of matter that came into existence?

 

Now we're getting somewhere. What you want to know is not evolution, but the origin of life. If you want to know about that, I can point out the Miller-Urey experiment, which successfully created multitudes of organic compounds from what we believe to be around at the time life first appeared. There are plenty of other things to look at, but I find that this experiment is a good starting point for those who want to learn about how we currently believe life started on Earth.

 

Now, do you have any questions about evolution?

 

Not really. I have no problem with the process of evolution, only the theory of evolution involving the origin of life.

 

That's just it: the theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. That's the area of abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution. If you want to learn more, I just found this lovely paper that puts it in pretty much layman's terms: http://student.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/html/abiogenesis.pdf

 

Now, since you don't seem to have any problems with the actual theory of evolution, is there anything else?

 

Not really, I guess I have no further problem with evolution.

 

Now do you see what I mean when I say it's a bunch of misconceptions or, more maliciously, outright lies that prevent the general populous from understanding evolution? I'm sure many people held the same position as you, without knowing what evolution even was and yet thought that it was wrong. It's akin to someone not believing in the Theory of Relativity because a person on the radio claimed it doesn't explain how the universe came into being. This is, of course, true, but the Theory of Relativity never stated that it explained anything to that effect.

---

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate' date=' and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory [i']incorrect[/i] that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Exactly. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory is reworked or thrown out. But the reason it's called a theory is because there is evidence, and multitudes of it. Saying something is "merely a theory" is to make clear you know nothing about what a theory actually is in science.

 

No it's because I'm putting the well-being and beliefs of those who believe it above some little egotistical debate such as the one posted. And mind you, I dont believe in intelligent design myself. But as I said above... I guess debates like this one is always ego.

 

What well-being? Are you claiming that we should just sit idly by while people continue to make false claims because it makes the people who believe them happy? If someone was claiming that the Holocaust never happened, wouldn't you want to argue against that claim if you knew how, even though there might be people who feel better believing that it never happened?

[Guest JoshIcy]

Extreme examples to prove a point. Uugh...

 

If the persons says "No God Made that" or something ridiculous, then yes beat that into the ground. Whatever. But if they say "no it was gods will that helped me along", then don't that's perfectly fine as it remains in the realm of beliefs. In the case of the holocaust, just mention it and if the person is in-denial seek help.

 

Intelligent Design... Is... God... Out of respect for a certain user on this forum and my respect for his beliefs I shall not continue. But if you wish to speak to me about this part on MSN, I'll be happy to oblige.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Extreme examples to prove a point. Uugh...

 

If the persons says "No God Made that" or something ridiculous' date=' then yes beat that into the ground. Whatever. But if they say [i']"no it was gods will that helped me along"[/i], then don't that's perfectly fine as it remains in the realm of beliefs. In the case of the holocaust, just mention it and if the person is in-denial seek help.

 

Intelligent Design... Is... God... Out of respect for a certain user on this forum and my respect for his beliefs I shall not continue. But if you wish to speak to me about this part on MSN, I'll be happy to oblige.

 

But such a claim is unscientific because it has not one bit of evidence to support it. I'm not here to debate religion. You are free to believe what you want. But when those beliefs start contradicting scientific consensus, that's where I draw the line. But sure, go ahead and believe that there is some higher power that somehow directs evolution towards a purpose or goal. Just don't bring it up in a scientific debate unless you can back it up with evidence.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Extreme examples to prove a point. Uugh...

 

If the persons says "No God Made that" or something ridiculous' date=' then yes beat that into the ground. Whatever. But if they say [i']"no it was gods will that helped me along"[/i], then don't that's perfectly fine as it remains in the realm of beliefs. In the case of the holocaust, just mention it and if the person is in-denial seek help.

 

Intelligent Design... Is... God... Out of respect for a certain user on this forum and my respect for his beliefs I shall not continue. But if you wish to speak to me about this part on MSN, I'll be happy to oblige.

 

But such a claim is unscientific because it has not one bit of evidence to support it. I'm not here to debate religion. You are free to believe what you want. But when those beliefs start contradicting scientific consensus, that's where I draw the line. But sure, go ahead and believe that there is some higher power that somehow directs evolution towards a purpose or goal. Just don't bring it up in a scientific debate unless you can back it up with evidence.

 

Then those same people shouldn't be walking into a scientific debate. *burp* Both sides need to agree again. But I guess I read it a tad wrong, (due to my own disdain for when these 2 subjects cross).

[Muluck]

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate' date=' and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory [i']incorrect[/i] that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Intelligent Design runs on this same principle. But how they do it, is totally different. Intelligent Design is ran on a mechanic that "there is something else", and 90%+ of these people who believe it can use Evolution and Science in their everyday life without shunning others. Assuming you can take it as, their beliefs and their chosen morals.

 

Don't make this mistake again.

 

Foreboding a topic, because people don't think the way you do.

Not communist like at all.

People will always have a different view point, and people will always debate them differently.

 

When the differences are so vast, it becomes mind boggling to see why people would even debate this. People who believe in either can coexist, seeing as we're all using technology built by science and evolution of ideas. So I guess it boils down to ego... And how did is it communist? That last line was merely out of personal disdain. I didnt make it against the rules or anything -_-"...

 

Debates like this is forbidden when I debate' date=' and with great reason. When you boil it down to it, science is nothing but a system of theories based on what you can observe; this is known as fact. But should something else prove this theory [i']incorrect[/i] that old fact ceases to exist and a new one takes its place.

 

Exactly. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory is reworked or thrown out. But the reason it's called a theory is because there is evidence, and multitudes of it. Saying something is "merely a theory" is to make clear you know nothing about what a theory actually is in science.

 

No it's because I'm putting the well-being and beliefs of those who believe it above some little egotistical debate such as the one posted. And mind you, I dont believe in intelligent design myself. But as I said above... I guess debates like this one is always ego.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but if you think this is a debate, why is it still in General?

The belief behind that is that if it's not in the Debate Forum, and it isn't clearly specified as a debate of which we the people are to pursue, then it's not a debate, and you just set the grounds for nothing..

 

The point being is, there is a difference between stating a position, and arguing a position.

Stating a position is just that, stating your position.

Arguing your position would then be classified as a debate.

[Dark]

A tad off topic, but Chaos Pudding needs to learn something. As long as a religious text says something in contradiction with science, you can always throw facts out the window and believe whatever you want. If I told everyone I believe in a pink monkey doll in space holding a banana peel, with all the properties of a "God", they'd say I was crazy. Isn't that what they believe in, minus the monkeyness and banana peel? Furthermore, they'd ask me to prove it. But I can't stop laughing after they say that. D:

 

Isn't ID based off of the idea of a "supreme being". Not sure if it's a counterpart with creationism, but ID sounds like it'd have religious context. :/

[Tentacruel]

A tad off topic' date=' but Chaos Pudding needs to learn something. As long as a religious text says something in contradiction with science, you can always throw facts out the window and believe whatever you want. If I told everyone I believe in a pink monkey doll in space holding a banana peel, with all the properties of a "God", they'd say I was crazy. Isn't that what they believe in, minus the monkeyness and banana peel? Furthermore, they'd ask me to prove it. But I can't stop laughing after they say that. D:

 

Isn't ID based off of the idea of a "supreme being". Not sure if it's a counterpart with creationism, but ID sounds like it'd have religious context. :/

[/quote']

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Intelligent Design is more vague and general term for Creation. Like, its more politically correct.

[T. Sankara]

Wasn't this all from Pagans? Creationism I mean? Because, from what I learned (I may have misinterpreted this), it wasn't until science and Christianity (or religion in general for that matter) that there was a problem. So if they can coexist, why does it matter who's right and who's wrong?

 

There'll be a definite, indisprovable answer someday. So I'm just gonna wait out the ride and find out.

[Dark]

I don't care if people believe in ID. As long as they don't put religion over facts.

 

And how does creationism make any sense seeing that we share bone/muscle structure with many animals? And that our DNA is pretty close to many animals?

 

Oh, and intelligent design seems like bullshit. Giving humans an appendix is really smart, right God? Doesn't do much, but you better hope it doesn't explode!

[CrabHelmet]

I don't quite understand how you can have a debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution. As I understand it, Intelligent Design basically says "Yeah, Evolution is completely true... but, uh, it's all just as God planned because God is Light Yagami." How can you debate whether the current state of the universe came about automatically or whether God used the power of Laplace's Demon to construct the universe in such a way that the current state of the universe would come about automatically? There is nothing to debate; when Watchmaker!God is invoked in this manner, there is no argument but "I believe" and no counterargument but "I disbelieve". Intelligent discussion, if it was ever present, immediately comes to a grinding halt and no progress can be made.

 

Then again, the comments made in this thread seem to indicate that the Intelligent Design side was actually trying to refute Evolution, indicating that it was really just ordinary, vanilla Creationism with the name changed to make it look like a compromise with Science.

[The Dark One]

I don't quite understand how you can have a debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution. As I understand it' date=' Intelligent Design basically says "Yeah, Evolution is completely true... but, uh, it's all just as God planned because God is Light Yagami." How can you debate whether the current state of the universe came about automatically or whether God used the power of Laplace's Demon to construct the universe in such a way that the current state of the universe would come about automatically? There is nothing to debate; when Watchmaker!God is invoked in this manner, there is no argument but "I believe" and no counterargument but "I disbelieve". Intelligent discussion, if it was ever present, immediately comes to a grinding halt and no progress can be made.

 

Then again, the comments made in this thread seem to indicate that the Intelligent Design side was actually trying to refute Evolution, indicating that it was really just ordinary, vanilla Creationism with the name changed to make it look like a compromise with Science.

[/quote']

 

The Intelligent Design pushed into schools is basically the latter. Intelligent Design is a complete misnomer. Obviously you can suspect that ultimately God is around and has a plan for the universe. That doesn't just encompass evolution, it also covers for quantum mechanics, etc. You don't need to stick God into evolution again for emphasis. Inevitably all such occurrences screw with the principles of evolution and make it into something it's not. There's ID textbooks out there, and they are REALLY different.

 

Now. Random conversation I had with somebody on youtube. This is a PMed continuation of me refuting some random stupid post he had in response to a video relating to evolutionary biology that I was too lazy to look up again:

 

[spoiler= 1 Creationist Dogma]

You argue that evolution has massive support. If that's the case, then perhaps you can shed light on this fact. Why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? The answer is obvious ... there was no history!

Think about it! Evolutionists claim that man evolved over billions of years (that's billions with a "B"). If there were any truth to these false claims by unscrupulous & unethical scientists, then man's historical record should span back at least hundreds-of-thousands of years, if not millions. There is no record of a cataclysmic event that destroyed mankind prior to 4,000 B.C. And if there were, surely some of the survivors would have passed this information down to generations to follow.

 

Biblical claims seem insanely absurd to modern evolutionists, who have convinced themselves that the earth is billions of years old. Ironically, they have absolutely NO EVIDENCE of such longevity. Evolutionists have sought out dishonest scientists, who distort the facts, use faulty testing methods, and make erroneous assumptions (unethically stating such assumptions as if they were facts). Evolution is at best still a THEORY. Yet, children are brainwashed in public schools all across the world, with evolution, which is taught as if it were a fact. This is wrong on every level ethically.

 

One of the simplest and best proofs that evolution is a joke, is the FACT that there is NO recorded history prior to 4,000 B.C. The world's history is CLEARY defined by SIX world powers since time began: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Since Rome's fall in 476 A.D., there have been no world-powers (many super-powers; but, no world-powers). At the time of Moses, Egypt ruled the world. Before Egypt, there is absolutely nothing recorded in history about a world-power.

 

The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. for those who claim to believe in evolution. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. Prove me wrong! I dare you. Show me ANY RECORDED civilization before 4,000 B.C. And I don't mean some pottery jugs or ceramic fragments or items that you claim are 14,000 years old. Show me evidence of civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. You cannot. In fact, it is difficult to find much recorded history before 2,500 B.C., because the flood of Noah's day destroyed most of it. How can evolutionists be so moronic and foolish as to totally ignore this incredibly obvious fact? There is NO recorded history prior to 4,000 B.C.--no writings, no carved stones, no battles, no wars, no countries, no nothing! It's as if mankind just suddenly began (which is exactly what the Bible teaches happened). God created man out of the dirt, the elements, of the earth.

 

There were no humans before approximately 4,000 B.C. Hard to imagine? Why should it be? There is no history to indicate that humans existed prior to 4,000 B.C. This fact is irrefutable. Oh sure, some stubborn evolutionists are going to start talking about carbon-dating, archeological findings, etc. BUT, the bottom line is that the history of mankind should be traceable far beyond 4,000 B.C., going back million of years IF evolution were true.

 

 

Before you start claiming that that carbon dating has revealed facts etc, stop and consider this fact.

For C-14 dating the conditions are:

1. The material to be dated must be organic

 

2. The organism to be tested must have gotten its C-14 from the atmosphere

 

3. The sample has remained chemically and physically a closed system since its

emplacement.

 

4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the

organism lived.

 

 

 

Are there things that can't be carbon dated?

 

The method doesn't work on things that didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures since their carbon might originate from dissolved carbonate rocks limestone. This in turn causes problems in dating animals that eat sea food.

 

We can't date things that are too old. After about 10 half lifes, there is very little C-14 left to measure. We can't date oil paints because they utilize old petroleum. We can't date fossils because they contain often preservatives. Others argue we can't date them because they are too old but it has been done anyway as we showed above.

 

Can we prove that Carbon dates are accurate?

 

There are usually two ways cited to do this by:

 

 

1. We can date things for which historians know "the right answer." (evolution is based on blind guesses)

 

2. We can date things that have been dated by some other method. In other word, we need FACTS, PROOF, FLAWLESS EVIDENCE.

 

 

Science has therefore eliminated carbon-14 dating due to being far to inaccurate.

The ball is in your court.

 

 

 

[spoiler= 1 My Response]

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Paragraph 1. Written and oral history is generally filled with gaps, and frankly quite often inaccurate. Keep in mind though, that the Sumerians (started around 5000BC, by the way, Earth is older than 4000, even most Creationists would agree it's closer to 7000) only developed a system of writing about 3500BC. So we've only got about 5500 years of writing to work with. Oral history just doesn't have that kind of longevity, so it's no surprise that there is little the way of accounts from times before then. It can also be noted that oral history is distorted from telling to telling, and while it can be surprisingly accurate, nobody would accept and such predating legends as holding any weight after this much time for alteration. Lastly, it's worth pointing out that our species is only about 100,000 years old. (Nomadic before the agricultural revolution) Obviously nothing older than that will be found. Certainly nothing billions of years old. 1 billion years ago, the first bacteria were around. Not mammals. Not birds. Not reptiles. Not even fish. Certainly nothing resembling a human.

 

As a side note, numerous cave paintings, tools, and decorative items have been found which have been dated in excess of 4,000 years old. The oldest among them tend to fall approximately 35,000 years ago. These have been dated using not only radiocarbon (the validity of which I will discuss later), but other radiometric techniques such as uranium dating.

 

Paragraph 2. Skipping past your moralistic bullshit, I will simply address the issue of the Earth's longevity. Radiocarbon dating is obviously not the method used to estimate the lifespan of the Earth, due to its limitations regarding age and material. Other methods of radiometric dating (uranium, lead, potassium, argon, etc.) are instead used. These provide dates within a much longer span of time. The amount of time since the Earth has cooled is mostly irrelevant though, since numerous other sources suggest a universe far older than Young Earth Creationists would believe. For example, light travels at a certain speed. As a result, when looking far enough away through a powerful enough telescope, you are essentially looking back in time. The universe is thought to be approximately 15 billion years old.

 

Back to evolution. Yes, the Theory of Neodarwinian Evolutionary Synthesis is just a Theory. Go look up what a Theory means in science. It's not the same a hypothesis. Not withstanding that a Theory is the highest level of certainty that an explanation for an event can achieve in science, note that we are talking here about a Theory that is nearly universally accepted. There is no seriously considered Theory in competition with the Evolutionary Synthesis. I repeat. None. Creationism is not scientific. It does not have supporting evidence. It has not survived popular scrutiny. It is not a Theory. It should therefore not be taught in schools. Simple.

 

Paragraph 3. As I mentioned early, the first known systems of writing were only developed around 5,500 years ago. We DO have examples of writing from this period. That being said, it is not surprising that such artifacts are few and far between. This stuff doesn't last forever. And obviously writing is not the only way to keep track of history. Archeological evidence of civilizations far predates any available records.

 

Paragraph 4. Civilization did not exist prior to 4,000 BC. This period was known as the agricultural revolution, and marks the transition from nomadic to agricultural lifestyle. Cultures, however, DO predate this time frame. Pottery, etc. is a perfectly valid method of identifying these cultures, regardless of what you'd like to think.

 

Frankly though, evolution doesn't deal with and doesn't care about civilization or culture. Evolution deals with and cares about changes in the biology of a species over time.

 

Paragraph 5. Civilization dates back to the Sumerians about 5,000 BC. Writing, and therefore the records you hold so valuable, date back as far as 3,500 BC. This is all nice and dandy, but is not the basis of our estimates of the span of human existence. As I mentioned, there is no justification for your belief that we would have records of these periods. We do, however, know about cultures. And yes, these cultures are found through archaeology, etc. This is not a stupid holdback of stubborn evolutionists. It's another well-accepted science.

 

Your argument is basically this:

 

You: Gasoline doesn't burn

Everybody else: Cards are evidence of burning gasoline

You: Those don't count

 

Now, onto carbon dating.

 

Your assertion that it is inaccurate has a valid basis. However, you don't realize that these inaccuracies are actually accounted for by scientists involved in the field when giving these dates. Methods such as analysis and subsequent carbondating of tree rings, verification with other, more stable if less precise, dating methods, etc. gives us an idea of the "carbon-picture" of a particular period. Radiocarbon-years can then be converted into chronological years with the knowledge of the amount of carbon14 in the atmosphere at the time. In addition, geologists use a variety of methods to check for carbon contamination.

 

The most compelling evidence comes simply from the fact that Carbon dating consistently gives similar time frames for artifacts of the same originating time period. Simply, regardless of whether you'd like to think it should work in theory, it demonstrably DOES SO in reality. Sure, it's not all that precise (a several thousand year margin of error in older samples, for example) and we know it.

 

Now, onto your points about its limitations.

 

1. Obviously true. Other radiometric dating techniques are used for nonorganic materials.

 

2. This too is true. Thus carbondating of aquatic animals is highly unreliable.

 

3. Not exactly. Contamination is an issue, but not to this extent. Some environmental situations have more of an impact than do others.

 

4. Yup. This is achieved through a variety of other methods. Rest assured though, that it IS achieved.

 

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html

 

Here's a few links that may be of great interest to you.

 

 

 

[spoiler= 2 I'm going to Hell, apparently]

don't have the faith to believe in evolution. You can send me all the links you want that claim, and ONLY claim that evolution is real and they won't do anything for me. In fact, I didn't waste my time reading over anything you sent.

God IS real. He does exist and regardless of what you believe, he still IS your God and you WILL bow to him one day. Your opinion doesn't count for anything. What you believe has no bearing on reality. The only reason you reject God is because you hate the idea of having to answer to him eventually so you and your little friends invented the concept of evolution to weasle your way out of believing in God and invented stories that support your claims and offer "proof" to make you feel better etc etc.

 

Fire burns whether you believe it or not. Poison will kill you whether you believe it or not. Water will drown you whether you believe it or not. God is real and his word is living proof of this fact. You rejecting it does nothing to change the reality that he is your creator and God. Scripture tells us that "every knee shall bow and confess that he IS God almighty". This you can take to the bank and bet your life on it.

 

You can reject him or accept him as your savior. If you reject him then it's a choice that you make. If anything, you will remember these words long after you're gone. Somebody took the time to warn you and you spit on it. Fine. Live your life and your fantasy. I couldn't possibly care less about what you think or believe.

 

 

 

[spoiler= 2 I thought that was funny]

Lol.

 

I've been perfectly reasonable this entire discussion, presenting rational arguments and refuting the attempts at arguments you have made.

 

You can't beat me with logic, so you turn to screaming about hellfire. I won't have it. Sorry.

 

Thing is, you:

A. don't have any basis on which to suggest that I don't believe in God. Many, in fact the MAJORITY of people believe in both evolution AND God. It's not an impossibility.

 

and B. have the gall to claim that your barrage of insults and pseudo-logic was some attempt to save me. If God exists (I'm agnostic, by the way, not an athiest. I've been Christian for most of my life), I think he'll forgive you. But if he was as ready to damn as you seem to think, then certainly you are the one who will be living in flames for an eternity.

 

Lastly: Imagine if I told you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster would kill you by dropping a giant meatball on your head if you didn't eat spaghetti tomorrow night for dinner. Would you be scared> Would you be trembling? Would you be know, somewhere deep inside you that you're just trying to deny the inevitable reality of the FSM's wrath?

 

No. You'd be laughing. Well guess what I'm doing.

 

You're just scared that maybe when you die, you rot. And you feel the need to attack others to make yourself feel more secure about your place in some eternal afterlife. Wake the funk up and realize that Young Earth is a flawed concept envisioned by radical nutjobs. I'm no radical when I'm saying that evolution has some serious weight behind it. Yeah, it's a Theory. And like numerous scientific Theories in the past, it might change or be scrapped as new evidence presents itself.

 

But guess what, it's the best funking option we've got. And geology is the best funking option we've got if we want to study rocks. And archaeology is the best funking option we've got if we want to study early human cultures. And paleontology is the best funking option we've got if we want to study prehistoric forms of life.

 

Once, the idea that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe was denied as blasphemy because it disturbed SOME religious people that we wouldn't be at the center. Guess where we are now. Everybody accepts that the Earth is, in fact, NOT the center of the universe. Instead, we've got religious holdovers trying to push off ANOTHER field of science. Biology. Creationism is not science. It's dogma. Ok?

 

I think I was tolerant enough of you before, but there comes a point where you go too far. You're a funking extremist radical. You've got more in common with shits like Al'Qaeda than you do with a mainstream American. I just hope that some day, if you open your funking eyes and realize what you've wasted your life on, you'll think back to this and wish you'd been open-minded enough to listen.

 

But then, you probably never will.

 

Unless, of course, you're merely a troll. In which case I congratulate you, dear sir, for getting such a strong response out of me. Plenty of lulz, I think.

 

 

 

Warning for the little kiddies out there that find themselves offended by bad language. I got a bit explicit with him in my second response, because I was so infuriated by his second message. He really was being quite discriminatory.

 

I made sure to remove his name to protect his identity.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I thought I would share something I found hilarious:

 

Me too, it's when people misspell "intelligent". It's funny because it's ironic!

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

I thought I would share something I found hilarious:

 

Me too' date=' it's when people misspell "intelligent". It's funny because it's ironic!

[/quote']

 

Gah! Stupid Chrome with the lack of a spell check.

[Dark]

I thought Chaos Pudding would yell at me if I pointed it out.

 

So I shut up. <_<