Announcement

**The diplomat** · July 31, 2003, 22:35

I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate. I am secure with my position.

**GePap** · July 31, 2003, 22:42

Originally posted by The diplomat

Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know.

What for? There can be no fossil record of the story in Genesis. The very existance of beings that no longer exist, speically sea creatures, makes no sense if you follow the rest of the text. (you can hardly imagine they "drowned in the flood", now can you?)

I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate. I am secure with my position.

Good for you: less embarassment that way.

**Boris Godunov** · July 31, 2003, 22:46

Originally posted by The diplomat
There is physical evidence for quantum theory! Quantum entanglement has been observed. And, there is also the double slit experiment. If you emit only one electron at a time at a double slit, you still observe an interference pattern, eventhough there is only 1 electron.

It is not direct observation, but observational inference, which is poo-pooed by creationists, especially when they refer to the fossil record.

Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know.

Um, the point was that one of the major (false) claims of Creationists is that there is no fossil evidence for evolution, hence it isn't true. The repeat this lie all the time. So for one of them to say "who cares" if there is no fossil evidence is just funny, since creationists claim to care about such a thing so much!

I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate. I am secure with my position.

Fair enough, but I find it hard to believe people who are so secure in there position will post any and every desperate attempt to refute evolution, even when a little cursory digging will show such "refutations" have been dispensed with a long time ago (i.e. that old "Top Evidences Against Evolution chestnut). Next time, just post the old Second Law of Thermodynamics argument and let it all hang out.

**The diplomat** · July 31, 2003, 22:51

Originally posted by GePap
What for? There can be no fossil record of the story in Genesis.

Why not? if the animal became a fossil, then it will be in the fossil record.

The very existance of beings that no longer exist, especially sea creatures, makes no sense if you follow the rest of the text.

What do you mean?

**GePap** · July 31, 2003, 23:02

Originally posted by The diplomat
Why not? if the animal became a fossil, then it will be in the fossil record.

The time frame for the creationist universe is well under a million years fr the planet earth. If you happen to find a 75 million year old fossil, well, problem, no? Besides, what could a creationist use the fossil for besides historical curiosity? It can;t possible help porve the sotry of crwation true: and disproving the current version of evolutionary theory is NOT the same as proving creation.

What do you mean?

In genesis, God creates everything: now, since we have the story of creation since then on file (accoridng to this world view), one needs only to study it to find that there is no mention of any cataclysm on earth vast enough to destroy whole eocnsystems but one, the Great Flood. but the problem here is that the text tells us God took precussions to save his animal creations . But of course sea creatures would be in no danger (unless you count the great dilluting of the water by adding so much fresh water,,makes you wonder how the salt-water fish made it? And how would fresh water oens take the increased salts??

Sorry, but the whole notion of "creationist scientists" shows this side has lost the intellectual battle. A true creationist take it on faith period. To attempt to gather evidence (of which there can be none, save Creation itself as a true believer would say) is to try to fight the battle on the ground of the other, and you are sure to fail then.

**The diplomat** · July 31, 2003, 23:09

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It is not direct observation, but observational inference,

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Quantum entanglement experiments deal with real measurements of quantum states. In addition, Quantum teleportation of particles has been directly observed. Physicists can measure the particle's momentum for example. That's real direct observation.

Fair enough, but I find it hard to believe people who are so secure in there position will post any and every desperate attempt to refute evolution, even when a little cursory digging will show such "refutations" have been dispensed with a long time ago (i.e. that old "Top Evidences Against Evolution chestnut). Next time, just post the old Second Law of Thermodynamics argument and let it all hang out.

So you'd rather that I never debate, and just hide in a room without questioning anything?

I debate not because I am insecure, but because I enjoy discussing these things. I like the exchange of ideas. That is the only way a person is going to learn and grow.

**The diplomat** · July 31, 2003, 23:14

Originally posted by GePap
The time frame for the creationist universe is well under a million years fr the planet earth.

I am sure you are aware that not all creationists believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Only "young Earth creationist" believe that. There are many creationists who do not belive it.

Originally posted by GePap
Besides, what could a creationist use the fossil for besides historical curiosity? It can't possible help prove the story of creation true

If the Flood occured, then we can expect the animals to have been deposited, and fossilized in a certain order. The fossil record confirms this order, lending credence to the Flood. So, believe it or not, creationists can study the fossil record.

**GePap** · July 31, 2003, 23:19

Originally posted by The diplomat

I am sure you are aware that not all creationists believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Only "young Earth creationist" believe that. There are many creationists who do not belive it.

notice I said a million years. If one believe man has been there from almost the beginning (and no, that notion that "days" means somehting else in Genesis than in every other chapter of the book is silly), then earth can not be that old.

**Odin** · July 31, 2003, 23:20

The aquatic ape theory has connections with extreme feminists with a political ax to grind, those things can be expained more easily as adaptations to hot, dry areas:

Reduced Hair

This is related to humans being the only mammals to have sweat glands over our entire bodies. Hair would prevent the evaporation of sweat by the dry winds of east Africa

Extra body fat and large breasts

Fat metabolism releases more water than carbohydrate metabolism, which is advantagous in a dry climate with limited water.

Bipedalism

Seeing over tallgrass, less skin area exposed to hot, noonday sun.

Creationists should quit BSing us with thier psudoscience. Diplomat, I am a biology enthusiast. If you argue with me over evolution you will loose.

So quit with your creationist BAMs.

**Tuberski** · July 31, 2003, 23:21

Originally posted by GePap

notice I said a million years. If one believe man has been there from almost the beginning (and no, that notion that "days" means somehting else in Genesis than in every other chapter of the book is silly), then earth can not be that old.

Why would it be silly? Until the earth and sun are created, there are no days as we know them.

Days on Jupiter are probably longer than on earth correct?

ACK!

**Odin** · July 31, 2003, 23:25

Diplomat, the Flood is thought to represent a mssive flood in Mesopotamia 4300 years ago (around the time of Gilgamesh). many western religions have legends of a great flood and this seems to be an interpretation of this. A great flood is also told in Mesopotamian and Greek myths.

**Odin** · July 31, 2003, 23:27

Originally posted by Tuberski
Days on Jupiter are probably longer than on earth correct?

ACK!

Shorter, 10 hours.

The creation story is a myth, just like the creation myths of all other cultures. Myths are, by definition, FICTION.

**Agathon** · July 31, 2003, 23:27

Originally posted by The diplomat
I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate.

Famous last words.

**The diplomat** · July 31, 2003, 23:28

Originally posted by Odin
Creationists should quit BSing us with thier psudoscience. Diplomat, I am a biology enthusiast. If you argue with me over evolution you will loose.

So quit with your creationist BAMs.

I don't intend to argue evolution with you. Just keep your evolution bull**** out of my face.!

Anyway, it's 10:30 pm where I live. Good night!

**Tuberski** · July 31, 2003, 23:29

Originally posted by Odin

Shorter, 10 hours.

The creation story is a myth, just like the creation myths of all other cultures. Myths are, by definition, FICTION.

Okay, it must rotate faster, since it is bigger.

But, the DAY as we call it isn't the same as Earth's.

ACK!

Announcement

"Those whacky evolutionists!"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment