The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[The Last Conformist]

Because reptiles keep growing all of their lives, some grew as big as, well...dinosaurs! Yes, the dinosaurs never died off; they were just old (and therefore big) reptiles.

This is possibly the most stupid argument in this thread yet. I can only attribute it to a nigh-total ignorance of not only dinosaurs, but also modern reptiles and birds.

Some problems:

* The ages at death of various dinos have been determined from bone growth patterns; they weren't very old.

* Dinosaur eggs are known.

* Unlike many modern reptiles, dinosaurs did reach a fully-grown size and stopped growing there.

* Many dinosaurs were quite small.

* Dinsosaurs differ from modern reptiles in many anatomical details that do not change over the course of life of an individual.

Do you have equally stupid explanations for the lack of Recent mosasaurs, ichthyostegids, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, rauisuchians, ichtyosaurs, aïstopods, temnospondyls, ammonities, belemnites, trilobites, titanotheres, placoderms, placodonts, heterostracans, anomalocarids, rudists, trithelodonts, enantiornithes, sphenacodonts, tapinocephalians, and aëtiosaurs?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Could you get me some numbers for that? And how does the raising of new land work with this?

There was a t.o thread on this a while ago. Basically, the numbers add up if he assumes the eroded material all immediately ends up in the oceans, and no uplifting takes place. Unfortunately for him, untold cubic kilometers of the stuff cover the continents and shields older rocks from erosions, while uplifting is measurably occuring. Mt Everest get's a couple cm higher per year, despite erosion, frex.

1) Without oxygen, there isn't any ozone and chemicals necessary for life break down. With oxygen, those essential chemicals oxidize and break down. Either way, abiogenesis loses.

I believe I already pointed out that this ignores the little fact that early life lived in water.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Is the abundance of oxygen a consecuense of the barometric pressure, or are these two separate statements?

If the atmosphere was somehow compressed from above, the amount of oxygen available at the surface would indeed increase. If it doubled, it would be seriously bad news for any terrestrial life-form not adapted to survive while being on fire.

Exactly 8 times?

He did say "about" eight times.

But how does cooled oceans lead to enormous amounts of snow which killed most large mammals?

Cooler oceans -> less evaporation -> less snow.

I don't know much about this part, and I'm to tired to learn about it.

He's full of it. To just mention the two ways most important in helium-burning stars, there's the triple alpha process and the carbon cycle.

I don't get what you are saying here.

He's apparently trying to make the fine-tuning argument.

No, it is what we would expect from a Universe made from the Big Bang.

It bears mentioning that the radiation temperature of the cosmic background is 2.7K. SamE must believe there's alot of very very cold stars out there.

Not that I have thought much through this, but all organisms die sometime, why would one expect a tree to grow to a million years. By the way, a tree that seems close to 5000 years old don't agree with you agrument that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and that a flood wiping out all life (except the Ark) happened after 1500 years. That leaves the Earth at an ago of 6500 years.

By correlating the year rings of living trees with those of fossil ones, we've got a continuous record of winters and summers reaching over ten thousand years back.

 

[The Last Conformist]

there is a lot of evidence that my model explains much better than existing evolutionary models, such as the millions of frozen mammoths in Siberia... what are mammoths doing in Siberia during an ice age?

Chilling out.

Honestly, please explain what's the problem with cold-adapted critters living in a cold place during a cold time.

 

[Cheetah]

Snowball-fight perhaps?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Oh, before this collapses into a flamefest*, could I please see a little evidence for the 14-foot giants I heard about earlier?

And Dude Fastpace, would you mind posting some of the strong opinions you seem to have? I suppose you can start the next thread, but that's 200 posts from now, and we need some filler until then.

*(flamewar is the wrong word for this thread.)

 

[Japher]

Oh, before this collapses into a flamefest

I haven't laughed that hard in a long time...

 

[Harbringer]

It would be pointless to start another thread for pro-creationism, how many people do you think have read this thread and now except evolution, how many people do youthink will become Chritians if i start a pro-Christianity thread?Were all arguing for nothing. Nobodies opinions will be changed, nobodies beleifs will be changed.

If you want a strong view then hears one, how can you evolutionists expect to convert us creationists if you argue amongst your selves?As the good book says, "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

 

[The Last Conformist]

If you want a strong view then hears one, how can you evolutionists expect to convert us creationists if you argue amongst your selves?As the good book says, "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

The good book is wrong.

Debate is an integral part of the scientific practice.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

DuDe, would you please either make a little less or a little more sense next time you post? Less and I can point you at some nice insane webcomics that you will surely enjoy. More and the arguments directed at you will have less laughing scorn.

It would be pointless to start another thread for pro-creationism,

I don't see why. Would it be pointless to pro-evolutionism? Was this thread pointless?

how many people do you think have read this thread

It displays 12000 views, 800 posts and 76 unique posters, so I'd guess about 600.

and now except evolution,

I don't. I except creationism. I except it from the group of things that are sane, for instance.

how many people do youthink will become Chritians if i start a pro-Christianity thread?

Straw man, because religion is generally harder to change than opinions on scientific data, and certain Christians tend to polarize discussions very very quickly.
Oh, and what distinguishes a thread from missionary work? How many people do you think will become Christians if I become a missionary?

[you?] Were all arguing for nothing.

Who was all arguing for nothing? Certainly not the posters here, or they wouldn't be posting.
Of course, you might be in possession of some divine wisdom that I am not privy to...

Nobodies opinions will be changed, nobodies beleifs will be changed.

Only true when people decide to sit on their opinions (usually, because they fear death) rather than listen to facts.

If you want a strong view then hears one,

I spent several minutes staring at that sentence until I realized you meant "here is" rather than "hear". I can accept spelling errors, but would you mind checking to see if you've even used the right word?

how can you evolutionists expect to convert us creationists if you argue amongst your selves?

Oh, and Christians never argue? Please define the words "schism" and "denomination" for me.

As the good book says, "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Since when does that apply here? We're not a house, disagreement is the source of all that is new and inventive, and if you read it literally, the good book also describes God has having an anus, and commands us both to covet and not to covet.

 

[OrpheusPrime]

I've really got to whole heartedly agree with the last sentence above. I'm a staunch evolutionist as well as a man of faith. I don't see the two as opposites. There are things in religious texts that are obviously born out of ancient ignorance of nature and its processes. Not that we have all the answers today, we do not, but we are much more thourough in our understanding.

 

[tR1cKy]

I second that, Orpheus.

As i posted a few pages ago, a "normal" Christian (as me) doesn't oppose science. Our view on the Holy Bible is that it's not to be taken literaly, but as a moral teaching to people. Please note that if we have to take the Bible literaly we should claim, just to say once, that it's the Sun orbiting around Earth, or that Noah actually was able to put a fertile couple of any species in the world into a boat and then sail it through the seas until the flood ended... it's not necessary to be a scientist to see the clear absurdity of such a thing.

Let's not turn this debate into "Christians vs. Illuminati". It's more a thing like "Distorted and fanatic Christians vs. normal people, Christians included". The Church of Rome doesn't endorse in any way those "Creationists". In fact, they could be charged of heresy and burned at the stake

EDIT: or, in case of people like SamE (Fearless Leader?!?), put into murus arctus until they regain some mental sanity

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Big
Ugly
Mega
Pimple

I've really got to whole heartedly agree with the last sentence above. <snip>

Which one?

Oh, and what's murus arctus? AFAIK, it means imprisonment or restricted something.

*this thread must live*

 

[Masquerouge]

If you want a strong view then hears one, how can you evolutionists expect to convert us creationists if you argue amongst your selves?

You've got a deal. I'll convert to Christianity as soon as all the Christians agree on their beliefs, and on the Bible.
Okay, so we've got Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Orthodoxes, Jehova's witnesses, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Anglicans, born-again Christians, non-denominational Christians, am I missing someone ?
The Bible, let's see, we've got the Protestant and Catholic Bible, we've got the Eastern Orthodox Bible, the Samaritan Bible, we've got the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, the Syrian Bible, and of course the Jewish Torah, which for a funny reason has the OT books not in the same order as the Protestant Bible. Who's right ?
Oh, and don't forget, I want a translation that every Christian can agree on. So just for the English one, we have KJV, the New International Version, the New Revised Standard version, the New Century version, the New America Standard version, the Revised Standard version, the Living Bible version, and that's just the most common.

So, what did you say about a divided house again ?

 

[Chairman Meow]

You've got a deal. I'll convert to Christianity as soon as all the Christians agree on their beliefs, and on the Bible.
Okay, so we've got Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Orthodoxes, Jehova's witnesses, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Anglicans, born-again Christians, non-denominational Christians, am I missing someone ?

Coptic Christians, Ethiopian Christians, and so on, but the point is already pretty clear.

 

[JoeM]

You've got a deal. I'll convert to Christianity as soon as all the Christians agree on their beliefs....

So, what did you say about a divided house again ?

Don't bring us Christians into this! (irony intended)

Evolution is perfectly compatable with Christianity.Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[tR1cKy]

Oh, and what's murus arctus? AFAIK, it means imprisonment or restricted something.

Yes, it's imprisonment in harsh contidions. And i mean harsh. Cells are cold and humid and you're left almost naked. You must poop and piss in the cell and no one clears your excrements, you are hardly given something to eat or drink. But the company isn't lacking. Rats and cockroaches, you have plenty of them.

 

[Masquerouge]

Evolution is perfectly compatable with Christianity.Move along, nothing to see here.

Apparently that view is not shared among all Christians. But I wish all Christians shared your point of view

 

[carlosMM]

funny, only the people who use their brains remain (and btw, Erik, I like the link in your sig ), and the radical intolerants never see the discussion through....


OP, tr1cky: It is great to see people like you speak out in critizism of your self-proclaimed 'brethren'! That gives the majority a voice and does a LOT to calm people like me (especially after meeting my first RL young-earth creationist last week )

Moderator Action: Petty insults do nothing for the discussion

 

[CurtSibling]

Apparently that view is not shared among all Christians. But I wish all Christians shared your point of view

Indeed - Let them who are irrational have their views, and the logical will have theirs.

I see no conflict...

Except the religious want a conflict because they cannot ignore dissent.

...