- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How do Creationists reconcile discoveries that date back hundreds of millions of years
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:39 am to CoyoteSong
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:39 am to CoyoteSong
No one believes that.
0
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:40 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
You believe this fish
Turned into this
No, I don't. You think that's what I believe cause you still don't understand evolution.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:40 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
Show the me the observable evidence for this?
Are you stating that you do not believe domesticated dogs evolved from Wolves?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:41 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
CoyoteSong
strawman much literally no one is saying what you are arguing against. You made it up you have yet to provide any proof of anyone claiming anything you are saying
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:50 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
An aquatic ancestor of primates isn't by definition a fish.
Then what are they? Are you saying there were land based animals before there were fish in your evolution world view?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:51 am to Shepherd88
quote:
Well for one the fella who invented carbon 14 dating said it was only reliable up to 6k years of dating
It's reliable up to 50k years and even if it wasn't there are multiple different radiometric dating methods which have longer timelines besides C-14.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:51 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Are you stating that you do not believe domesticated dogs evolved from Wolves?
I am asking for observable evidence which is equal to the scientific method.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:00 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
Then what are they? Are you saying there were land based animals before there were fish in your evolution world view?
It's not a worldview. There are also extant aquatic mammals, as well as extant land mammals that spend plenty of time in water. You are overly concerned with the classification of things and oddly enough, not their origin.
The evidence suggests that the shared common ancestor operated in an environment rich both in water and sodium, but low in potassium. Obviously none of that would be meaningful if I explained it though.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:03 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
Show the me the observable evidence for this?
Are you retarded?
Do you really think evolution is this singular process where magically you can set a camera on a bird and tomorrow it becomes a lizard?
Lets play an educational game, with evidence you can find, what got us from this:
to these?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:08 am to Redbone
quote:He might have. We don't know.
Ya can't quote Christ dummy. He didn't write anything
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:09 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
I am asking for observable evidence which is equal to the scientific method.
Would morphological, genetic, phenotypic suffice for you, or is that not observable? I think you have a stilted notion of both the scientific method and of observable evidence.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:10 am to CoyoteSong
quote:Even asking this makes no sense.
I am asking for observable evidence which is equal to the scientific method.
Evidence cannot equal a method.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:15 am to Turf Taint
Imagine teleporting a brand new car to the year 500 BC. You show the locals how it drives, play a few cds for them, show the AC/heater, massage seats etc….
This is how the people respond about the car.
Evolution people: This car evolved from a single piece of dirt billions and billions of years ago. It kept evolving to it’s present car state as we see it here in 500 BC.
Creationists: yeah guys, intelligent design made the car. Not sure who, what, or when they made it but the car definitely had a creator.
Evolution people: You idiot!!! This car evolved from dirt!!! We are the enlighten ones. Get out of here with your sky fairy talk.
Creationist: walks away smiling and shaking his head.
Fast forward to 2022. This is now.
This is how the people respond about the car.
Evolution people: This car evolved from a single piece of dirt billions and billions of years ago. It kept evolving to it’s present car state as we see it here in 500 BC.
Creationists: yeah guys, intelligent design made the car. Not sure who, what, or when they made it but the car definitely had a creator.
Evolution people: You idiot!!! This car evolved from dirt!!! We are the enlighten ones. Get out of here with your sky fairy talk.
Creationist: walks away smiling and shaking his head.
Fast forward to 2022. This is now.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 11:27 am
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:19 am to CoyoteSong
That might be one of the stupidest illustrations of a debate I've ever seen on any internet forum. My god.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:22 am to Gravitiger
quote:
I am asking for observable evidence
quote:
Even asking this makes no sense.
Sounds like you believe what you are told to believe.
I like to think for myself.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:23 am to CoyoteSong
A car is not a living organism.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:24 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Walks away smiling
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:24 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
Imagine teleporting a brand new car to the year 500 BC. You show the locals how it drives, play a few cds for them, show the AC/heater, massage seats etc….
This is how the people respond about the car.
Evolution people: This car evolved from a single piece of dirt billions and billions of years ago. It kept evolving to it’s present car state as we see it here in 500 BC.
Creationists: yeah guys, intelligent design made the car.
Evolution people: You idiot!!! This car evolved from dirt!!! We are the enlighten ones. Get out of here with your sky fairy talk.
Creationist: walks away smiling and shaking his head.
Holy. fricking. shite. My only regret is this thread is anchored so the masses can’t see how fricking stupid this is
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:28 am to CaptainsWafer
Your DNA is way more complex than a car. Your DNA stretches from the ground on the earth and goes to the sun and back three times.
Do you even like science?
Do you even like science?
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 11:31 am
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:32 am to CoyoteSong
quote:
Sounds like you believe what you are told to believe.
I haven't been told anything though. Looking at the preponderance of evidence, evidence which you would deny as you have throughout this thread even when that evidence answered your questions directly, is what I'm doing. The evidence isn't limited to phenotypic and morphological characteristics, which is the definition that you are clinging to.
quote:
I like to think for myself.
While that's admirable, I don't think you have actually looked at the evidence with any honesty. Here, 'thinking for yourself' is just a proxy for your own laziness. Here's a challenge, can you accurately describe the state of evidence for evolution currently with no reference to Darwin at all? Just describe it using peer-reviewed sources as plainly and dryly as possible.
Page 18 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News