The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. But where does it come from? The sources I have seen, claim volcanic and solar activity are the 2 biggest sources of carbon-14 within our solar system, but that supernova explosions produce more carbon-14 in a few seconds than either of the other sources. If that is true, we have a problem, which manifests itself, as you say...

Supernovae are rare, and do not effect the natural level. Background cosmic radiation is the main source of C-14 creation... I don't think volcanic activity has much of an effect.

Its the same as river levels in a way... We know the average river level of the Thames despite the occasional spikes caused by flooding.

You are assuming:
a) the Vela supernova did indeed explode 13,000 years ago, and

That's not an assumption

b) God created the universe less than 13,000 years ago (which the Bible doesn't say)

Ok

So a few milligrams or atoms of carbon means the sample is reported as a maximum of 60,000 years. My point is, why are even a few milligrams of carbon found in fossils that are 630,000,000 years old (pre-Cambrian on the geologic time scale)- much much older than the half-life of carbon-14? There shouldn't even be any carbon-14 in those samples!

There are a few milligrams detected in everything due to background radiation. The amount found in 60000 year old material is more than this which is why we can distinguish it from background radiation and still date it.
 
Stolen from here: Someone found a transitional form between creationism and intelligent design.

Creationist document:
1987_Pandas_creo_p3-40_clip.png

"creationists"



Transitional form:
1987_Pandas_ID_p3-41_clip.png

"cdesign proponentsists"
 
Wasn't one of the pieces of evidence in the Dover case an earlier version of a document distributed by the Discovery Institute that described 'Intelligent Design' where the words 'Intelligent Design' were still 'Creationism'.
 
Wasn't one of the pieces of evidence in the Dover case an earlier version of a document distributed by the Discovery Institute that described 'Intelligent Design' where the words 'Intelligent Design' were still 'Creationism'.

Kinda.
An older version of the book had 'creator' and then was updated with 'designer'
 
Perfection said:
Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
Then this is officially the most stupid debate ever. Well, probably not the most stupid, but right stupid as compared to most arguments.

I'll answer the challenge, such as it is. Evolution is science and Creationism is not. Perfection wins :roll eyes:
So what will be your next victory, Perfection? Proving the Earth is round?

I think people tend to assume a great many things that just aren't true. Towards the top of that list is the notion that there is a vast gulf between the experience of theists and non-theists in a general sense. I doubt that is true.

Even in the limited scope of these forums that is easy enough to demonstrate. When Perfection became frustrated at people criticizing her political favorite, she ran right for the familiar special pleading that so many theists seems to favor.

"But Bush is a good dude!" She kept blurting out. Turns out "Bush is a good dude" was merely a faith belief, at least it was for her.

My point is simple: We all believe in things we don't know to be true. In the sense of religious belief, or the various non-religious metaphysical beliefs of certain atheists, most people probably have the same experience. We just choose to believe in different fantastic things.
 
Then this is officially the most stupid debate ever. Well, probably not the most stupid, but right stupid as compared to most arguments.

I'll answer the challenge, such as it is. Evolution is science and Creationism is not. Perfection wins :roll eyes:
So what will be your next victory, Perfection? Proving the Earth is round?
The thread series was started when there was a significant debate in the forums on the topic. I reframed the debate so it was within the parameters of science so that people would see the scientific merits of evolution and the lack of Creationist rigor. I wouldn't characterize that as a stupid.

Even in the limited scope of these forums that is easy enough to demonstrate. When Perfection became frustrated at people criticizing her political favorite, she ran right for the familiar special pleading that so many theists seems to favor.

"But Bush is a good dude!" She kept blurting out. Turns out "Bush is a good dude" was merely a faith belief, at least it was for her.
:lol: You're still ramblin' on about my offhand remark as if it's some central viewpoint I care deeply about or believe with 100% certainty!

Are you seriously equating my opinion of Bush being a "good dude" to a belief in Creationism?

My point is simple: We all believe in things we don't know to be true. In the sense of religious belief, or the various non-religious metaphysical beliefs of certain atheists, most people probably have the same experience. We just choose to believe in different fantastic things.
So you're saying that because I probably believe in some thing that I shouldn't or is based too much on emotional attachment or whatever I can't criticize other people's beliefs?
 
We just choose to believe in different fantastic things.
Yeah, like if given enough time pigs can grow wings and fly as the big multi-ton dinosaur did. What some call science other call miracles.
 
You don't seriously believe evolution supports that statement do you?
Like a politician (free health care!?! yeah right!) evolutionist try to talk around the fact that what they are describing would take a miracle.
 
Like a politician (free health care!?! yeah right!) evolutionist try to talk around the fact that what they are describing would take a miracle.

some people just cant accept that they are the result of randomness...
when dna first started to process information it was in no way determined that there would be humans at one time, it doesnt matter if you call it a miracle or randomness that it happened...
 
And the dinosaurs that could fly weren't multi-ton, they were (as a lot of dinosaurs were) the size of birds. Surely you acknowledge that something the size of a bird can fly?

You know, I don't use the word "strawman" very often. maybe I should.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom