Evolution question of the day (spiritual, spirit, America, myths)

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

YEC sites are NOT science based.

Care to answer the outstanding question of the Victoria Waterfall gorges being 100,000 years old based on known erosion rates of sandstone sandwiched between the harder granite surrounding it?

Speaking of the formation of hydrocarbons like petroleum, here is another interesting fact that the Young Earth Creationists' theories on Noah's flood cannot address: If you add up all of the fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) consumed on the earth since 1751 A.D. (roughly the start of the Industrial Revolution), human beings have burned an amount of fossil fuels equal to that which would have required all the plants growing on the Earth over a time span of 13,300 years.

Source:Sediments, Fossils, and Noah'Flood. NOT!

you will notice he also makes mention of the bitumen used by your St. Noah to seal his mythical ark.

I believe a lot of your science sites are assumption based, which masquerades as science. And one can believe a lot of theories, yet theories based on assumptions will not always lead you to the truth. And when obvious facts are in front of your face, do you just ignore them? Well, that is where the road ends for me. I myself like hard evidence. I can make guesses about how things occured in the past. Yet I would fall into the same camp as those who push their assumptions. And sometimes they are so convinced of their logical view, that other evidence is filtered out.
And when hard evidence is present, that is evidence that should not be ignored. And that is why I ask the question, if coal is millions of years old. Why are they finding manmade objects in that coal? So now do you just ignore those facts and imbrace your theories? Or do you ask the most obvious question?

What's that 800 pound gorilla doing in the middle of the room?

[sanspeur]

Campbell...ALL Creationist sites and those that write for them are either liars or are deluded...That is the purpose of these sites....They are there not to tell any truths, but like yourself to discredit real science. Believing what these sites publish is tantamount to subscribing to fairy tales...You cannot make science fit myth....That is not the way it works.

Every time you use one of these sites to back up one of your ridiculous creationist ideas you discredit yourself, and your lame attempts to insult and discredit me and others are not going to take, at least not for me.

Some recent discoveries by science in this field may be hard for YOU to believe, but what you believe is impossible for most of the world to believe. We live in the constantly changing real world, whereas your reality is not real at all but a static ancient myth. It seems to me that your brain has itself been fossilized.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Campbell...ALL Creationist sites and those that write for them are either liars or are deluded...That is the purpose of these sites....They are there not to tell any truths, but like yourself to discredit real science. Believing what these sites publish is tantamount to subscribing to fairy tales...You cannot make science fit myth....That is not the way it works.

Every time you use one of these sites to back up one of your ridiculous creationist ideas you discredit yourself, and your lame attempts to insult and discredit me and others are not going to take, at least not for me.

Some recent discoveries by science in this field may be hard for YOU to believe, but what you believe is impossible for most of the world to believe. We live in the constantly changing real world, whereas your reality is not real at all but a static ancient myth. It seems to me that your brain has itself been fossilized.

Well, it is true we do live in a constantly changing real world, yet real truth never changes. Most of what is posted on Creationist web sites, is information that has been brought to us from the secular world. And it is information that often has not been considered by believers in Evolution. And the reason for that, is they have been programed to believe a theory that lacks any credible (HARD) evidence. And even now, when I present historically documented evidence, you attack the Creationist web site as if they manufactured the stories. Which is not the case. I believe most people from either end of the arguement are not liars. And I believe for you to suggest such a thing, is pretty much over the top. And I also think your belief that the Bible is just a myth, is out of step with recent discoveries that confirm it's accuracy. It appears to me, that you have such a slanted and bias view of the Bible, that you are not allowing yourself to consider recent and valid discoveries that confirm it. It is not ancient myth that confirms my belief in the Bible. It is modern discovery.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

I believe a lot of your science sites are assumption based, which masquerades as science. And one can believe a lot of theories, yet theories based on assumptions will not always lead you to the truth. And when obvious facts are in front of your face, do you just ignore them? Well, that is where the road ends for me. I myself like hard evidence. I can make guesses about how things occured in the past. Yet I would fall into the same camp as those who push their assumptions. And sometimes they are so convinced of their logical view, that other evidence is filtered out.
And when hard evidence is present, that is evidence that should not be ignored. And that is why I ask the question, if coal is millions of years old. Why are they finding manmade objects in that coal? So now do you just ignore those facts and imbrace your theories? Or do you ask the most obvious question?

What's that 800 pound gorilla doing in the middle of the room?

He is eating your brains out with a spoon.

The site in question is you bothered to look at it is a Christian site. Just not all believers believe the crap of YEC

Still you avoid my question of the Victoria Waterfalls - why is that so difficult for you to answer?

Do you even believe in erosion? Or is that just some debbul science?

Known IOW tested and proven rates of erosion of sand stone (wedged between harder granite) is what formed the gorges and it took 100,000 years not 6000.

I will not answer your questions because it is obvious you read nothing we post.

One of the "old" seven wonders of the world disproves your YEC myth.

You want some more erosion proofs that are more than 6000 years old?



Formed by pebbles rotating and carving out the "pots". This is sandstone and has been carved out from the surface.

More pics here: blyde river canyon potholes

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

He is eating your brains out with a spoon.

The site in question is you bothered to look at it is a Christian site. Just not all believers believe the crap of YEC

Still you avoid my question of the Victoria Waterfalls - why is that so difficult for you to answer?

Do you even believe in erosion? Or is that just some debbul science?

Known IOW tested and proven rates of erosion of sand stone (wedged between harder granite) is what formed the gorges and it took 100,000 years not 6000.

I will not answer your questions because it is obvious you read nothing we post.

One of the "old" seven wonders of the world disproves your YEC myth.

You want some more erosion proofs that are more than 6000 years old?



Formed by pebbles rotating and carving out the "pots". This is sandstone and has been carved out from the surface.

More pics here: blyde river canyon potholes

So you believe it took X-amount of years for Victoria Waterfall to form, only because you (ASSUME) the water volume, or flow, has always been the same. And you (ASSUME,) the amount of sediment available to grind away the stone, has always been the same. And you (ASSUME,) the rock that is nolonger present, was of the same hardness as what we see today. So your conclusion is based on only what (YOU BELIEVE), and yet, not on what you know. I avoid such questions, because once you start down the road of assumptions, you enter the world of make believe. And sound science, should never be based on assumptions about the unknown.

[Raena77]

Originally Posted by SuSuSushi

Would you mind showing us factual evidence of this claim please?

[Raena77]

Originally Posted by Raena77

We all need to plant a tree.........no I'm not some tree hugger, nor a earth hippie.......however inorder to stop the millions of co2 we release in the air we need to help the earth. Plants need to breath from our carbon dioxide and their waiste is oxigen which we need to survive!!!.....Damnit do u understand what I'm trying to say....

[Raena77]

Originally Posted by bluepacific

No not true. With him it's not the word MAY, it's more of the word Insists. Then the reader is to simply take it on Faith, then avoid altogether any logical foundation for the of a beginning of things, and move on to an hypothesized explanation of how everything morphs blindingly without reason or rhyme into design, structure, order, perfection, brilliant engineering, etc. Whatever this man's involvement years ago in biology, he has long since abandoned for his own personal version of religio/political Evangelism and mission for world conversion of the masses to his faith. He's parroted every slick under handed method used by the Mega-Church evangelical world for duping people into his own version of cultism. Sheeeish, the guy even has his own Red Church Bus.

A "Wired Magazine", columnist, Gary Wolf actually wrote a good article on this very subject. "The church of the Non-Believers"
Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers

Very good article from a guy who does'nt seem to be religious himself. I even agree with some of the points Dawkins mentions about American Politicians coming out of the closets and admitting their atheists. They don't because going to bed with religion has brought votes and favours. I think this guy could surprisingly be one of them.
Video - George Bush: Bible is not literally true, Evolution is Fact - tangle.com

There is A Father God who is the all seeing and a Mother god who is very active in creation and granting you help.

[MontanaGuy]

Raena77 wrote:

There is A Father God who is the all seeing and a Mother god who is very active in creation and granting you help.

Really? I'm not familiar with the Mother God and it doesn't mention her in the Bible. Is she the one who dusts and cleans heaven and tidies things up?

[ZugZub]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Raena77 wrote:

Really? I'm not familiar with the Mother God and it doesn't mention her in the Bible. Is she the one who dusts and cleans heaven and tidies things up?

And makes little god-babies and brings Father God his martini and slippers when he comes home in the evening. Mother God always wears a crisply ironed modest dress with pumps and a pearl necklace, and is always perfectly coiffed and is only in heaven to serve Father God.