Celtic Heroes

Ok as for geological time clocks:
1, 2, 3, 4

All of your examples are poor, and do not say anything about the age of the Earth or Universe. You first example, in fact, is on the list of arguments creationists should avoid (something I told you to read weeks ago) found here: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think- ... ld-not-use as well as on another site here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... e-dont-use

That same list also advises creationists to drop the thermodynamics chat, and to stop saying the Bible predicts science... two things you seem hell bend on propagating.

This science book that i am getting these from has at least 14 more geologic clocks that i could list, and i am sure that i could get others off the Internet.

Please don't call what you are reading a science book. It is obviously a cluster of creationist propaganda that calls itself science. All geologic "clocks" point to the 4.5 billion year point, and the irrefutable evidence of evolution progressing on after that. It is a beautifully laid out body of work and findings.

Ok lets review the laws of thermodynamics as quoted from unlocking the mysteries of creation:

If this is the book that you are calling a science book, then that is your first problem. Even creationists slaughtered that book for all the problems it has. Here is a scathing critique of that book: http://creation.com/unleashing-the-storm

Have a read through that and see if you still want to use it as a resource. They also wrote the author a letter found at the bottom of that link, which also made mention of other problems with the book (the comet argument, for instance).


The simple reality is that the Earth is not 6000 years old. It is refuted not only by evidence that is found and the science behind it, but also by the fact that reading the Bible literally (and specifically linking time zero to Genesis) is flawed.

I'm not saying anything about the existence of God, here. You can believe in God all you want, and I encourage you to do so. But if you, or anyone else, are to believe in God, I highly encourage you to consider a path based on Theistic Evolution.

Evolution is a fact. There is absolutely no debating that. It is evidenced time and time again. It is in the phylogenetic tree, the fossil record, the existence of transitions (both living and extinct), the existence of branches that have not evolved to the same extent, or on different paths.

To dismiss evolution is to deny the past.

Ok as for geological time clocks:
1, 2, 3, 4

All of your examples are poor, and do not say anything about the age of the Earth or Universe. You first example, in fact, is on the list of arguments creationists should avoid (something I told you to read weeks ago) found here: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think- ... ld-not-use as well as on another site here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... e-dont-use

That same list also advises creationists to drop the thermodynamics chat, and to stop saying the Bible predicts science... two things you seem hell bend on propagating.

This science book that i am getting these from has at least 14 more geologic clocks that i could list, and i am sure that i could get others off the Internet.

Please don't call what you are reading a science book. It is obviously a cluster of creationist propaganda that calls itself science. All geologic "clocks" point to the 4.5 billion year point, and the irrefutable evidence of evolution progressing on after that. It is a beautifully laid out body of work and findings.

Ok lets review the laws of thermodynamics as quoted from unlocking the mysteries of creation:

If this is the book that you are calling a science book, then that is your first problem. Even creationists slaughtered that book for all the problems it has. Here is a scathing critique of that book: http://creation.com/unleashing-the-storm

Have a read through that and see if you still want to use it as a resource. They also wrote the author a letter found at the bottom of that link, which also made mention of other problems with the book (the comet argument, for instance).


The simple reality is that the Earth is not 6000 years old. It is refuted not only by evidence that is found and the science behind it, but also by the fact that reading the Bible literally (and specifically linking time zero to Genesis) is flawed.

I'm not saying anything about the existence of God, here. You can believe in God all you want, and I encourage you to do so. But if you, or anyone else, are to believe in God, I highly encourage you to consider a path based on Theistic Evolution.

Evolution is a fact. There is absolutely no debating that. It is evidenced time and time again. It is in the phylogenetic tree, the fossil record, the existence of transitions (both living and extinct), the existence of branches that have not evolved to the same extent, or on different paths.

To dismiss evolution is to deny the past.

I just want to ask you something. If evolution is so obvious and not worth debating then why is it that usually when a creationist scientist and an evolutionist scientist debates the evolutionist almost always loses? Even if some arguments for creationism have been proven wrong(not saying these are; just making a point) there has probably been new evidence found.

Um... no, I wasn't leading to the second law at all, I was talking about the first. Where did the energy come from? Now, usually this is where people avoid the question and counter with: where did god come from? That is exactly the point of a god: it contradicts the first law. Our universe's existence is a contradiction of its own law.

Well, my apologies. I did not realise the question was so short and simple. :/

However, I still hold that neither of the laws are contradicted for the reason of their domain: this universe. All of the laws in physics apply specifically to this universe (more specifically the known universe). Anything outside of this universe, from before the Big Bang to a point where the universe may end, is not observable or measurable in any way. There are theories of no time, no space, different universal constants, etc; which would immediately mean the laws are simply have a bounds, not that they are contradicted.

Now, I will counter with an idea regarding god, or rather, religion. I can accept that I truly do not know. However, rather than claim it was divine creation, I seek to find out myself. Religion would say " (a) God did it" and that is the end. Even you (only my impression) seem to believe that god is the universal contradiction to everything difficult to explain and then that thinking reaches a standstill. The same standstill known as the Dark Ages.

Now I know you do not follow any specific religion or specific collection of scripture but I would also like to again point out that such scripture is also at at standstill. It does not develop in any way and the only way it continues is through creative interpretation. So my point, whilst opening up a person's mind to the possibility of a different level of existence, does not the belief in a god provide unchanging answers that inhibit humanity's advance?

I am a tad vexed that you would insinuate that I am complacent with merely the realization of the existence of a god.
Belief in a god is only a standstill if you are dumb enough to stand still. I didn't learn that we are made up of cells then say: "oh, I am made up of cells, I guess I never have to bother learning anything else." That would be retarded. So is thinking that because there is a god, you don't have to learn more. If my belief in the existence of a god made me think I didn't have to move forward I wouldn't be trying to dual major in biochemistry and physics.

My apologies if I have offended you. I wrote the first part of the last paragraph, "now I know you do not follow any specific religion or specific collection of scripture [...]," in order to isolate your own personal belief from the general statement following. I am not aware of every variation of belief in a god or godly beings so there may be multiple exceptions, however, the belief in a god is not a way of thinking but an actual belief in specific information.

I am not exactly sure what you believe but if you are willing to pursue or even listen and seriously consider all new ideas, then that is fine. People may say it is weak to not stand on a solid belief but I think it is in fact the opposite; you would be weak-minded for standing so secure that you would deny all other evidence.

I just want to ask you something. If evolution is so obvious and not worth debating then why is it that usually when a creationist scientist and an evolutionist scientist debates the evolutionist almost always loses? Even if some arguments for creationism have been proven wrong(not saying these are; just making a point) there has probably been new evidence found.

Usually the evolutionist vs creationist debate has no winner. Well, I would say the evolutionist, you would say the creationist, and there is no impartial party to really judge so...

I just want to ask you something. If evolution is so obvious and not worth debating then why is it that usually when a creationist scientist and an evolutionist scientist debates the evolutionist almost always loses? Even if some arguments for creationism have been proven wrong(not saying these are; just making a point) there has probably been new evidence found.

Usually the evolutionist vs creationist debate has no winner. Well, I would say the evolutionist, you would say the creationist, and there is no impartial party to really judge so...

On this note; in about a month bill nigh will be debating a big time creationist(hadn't really heard of him but i heard that he is big). This is one debate i cnt wait to see.

I do think you are wrong in saying that those debates have no clear winner. do debates have people moderating them that tell who won? Because i think if they don't they should.

This debate is hard to do because i am taking content from creationists material and you are doing the opposite. Also i don't spend my whole life on the computer so i don't look as much stuff up as some of you. I wish i could talk to you guys face to face and debate our ideas that way. It would be so much easier.

I just want to ask you something. If evolution is so obvious and not worth debating then why is it that usually when a creationist scientist and an evolutionist scientist debates the evolutionist almost always loses? Even if some arguments for creationism have been proven wrong(not saying these are; just making a point) there has probably been new evidence found.

Usually the evolutionist vs creationist debate has no winner. Well, I would say the evolutionist, you would say the creationist, and there is no impartial party to really judge so...

On this note; in about a month bill nigh will be debating a big time creationist(hadn't really heard of him but i heard that he is big). This is one debate i cnt wait to see.

I do think you are wrong in saying that those debates have no clear winner. do debates have people moderating them that tell who won? Because i think if they don't they should.

This debate is hard to do because i am taking content from creationists material and you are doing the opposite. Also i don't spend my whole life on the computer so i don't look as much stuff up as some of you. I wish i could talk to you guys face to face and debate our ideas that way. It would be so much easier.

Ahh, yes, I heard about that debate. It will be interesting though I am not sure who will be moderating.

There is no one that I know of who would be impartial enough to pass judgement on a winner. Religion vs ... Atheism? tends to have people lean one way or the other. The debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be interesting but unless one of them yields or starts crying, which are highly unlikely, there will be no winner. Just a repeat of the same argument that has been going on for centuries.

I believe debates are actually better off in writing. You can properly structure your thoughts and ideas, include various sources, and most importantly, you can not go back and change what you say. A face to face discussion would just remove hard evidence and simplify everything to a back and forth argument with stale and meaningless ideas.

I said it would be easier. The problem with ongoing debates like this is that it takes time that some people don't really have. I agree that it can be easier to structure your thoughts but it can take a lot of time and this can be annoying.

Well there is one way to tell. If a bunch of evolutionists became creationists or vise versa then i think we would know lol. Every debate has a "winner". That is most of the time decided either by the media or the public. And if evolution is so stable that it cnt be proven wrong, then why do many evolutionists refuse to debate?

Side note: wow i totally butchered Bill Nyes name. Something that is funny(in my opinion) is that as soon as i heard about this debate i was like "i would love to see bill nye get creamed(maybe not exact words but close enough)".

I just want to ask you something. If evolution is so obvious and not worth debating then why is it that usually when a creationist scientist and an evolutionist scientist debates the evolutionist almost always loses?

The first thing to point out is a misconception you are making above. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your words, but I never said it was not worth debating. I said evolution is a fact, which it is. The theory of evolution is entirely worthy of debate, as it is a theory in semi-flux. As new information is gained, our understanding of it changes slightly. That is science. Science corrects itself and grows as it learns.

You also need to remember that this whole issue is a predominantly American problem due to the voting power of the fundamental Christians there. The tops of those groups make a lot of money from selling the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, and by trying to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2. We don't have these issues in other countries, or at least not to the extent that the U.S. does.

Now, as for your actual question, I have yet to see a debate that I would consider a win for creationists. There was one I saw of Hovind and a high school science teacher where the teacher said he would add creation into his class, but I can't verify if that was real or staged, nor what credentials the teacher had.

A poster in this thread some time ago posted this: http://www.celtic-heroes.com/forum/view ... 30#p366447 And this is the main reason why one would think a creationist won. Oddly enough, that picture is based on a real quote by someone speaking about our very question... but from the evolutionary side of things.

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

From the interactions I have seen, there seems to be a tendency for creationists to dismiss or ignore evidence, and pollute the debate with unfounded claims or mined quotes (such as your earlier claims of the inaccuracies of C14 dating and the inaccurate representation of the studies quoted).

Mined quotes are the backbone of their debates. They take something out of context, or out of date and use it as a straw man. I talked about one specific instance here: http://www.celtic-heroes.com/forum/view ... t=#p339873

And this isn't only in the creation vs. evolution debate. More telling, is the way in which we see YEC vs. OEC. I'm not sure if this will link correctly, as YouTube is blocked on this computer, but... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUjdQTNRbfU

Again, Hovind makes his usual non-scientific claims, and the OEC debater needs to correct the information before moving on to the content at hand. So in many instances, it isn't a debate at all. If one has to correct the statements of the opponent because they are wildly inaccurate before moving on to something worthwhile, it is highly ineffective.

It's as if there is a debate in which the one opponent retorts entirely with "I know you are, but what am I?" ... or in Hovind's case, "Were you there?" Is that actually a debate? Can one reply with anything other than "No, I wasn't."?

Even if some arguments for creationism have been proven wrong(not saying these are; just making a point) there has probably been new evidence found.

This is what I don't understand about creationists... each and every time something is proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, they simply insert some new baseless theory.

It is entirely linked to the concept that Genesis is literally accurate, and that the earth is 6000 years old. Then they try to go forward forcing ideas to fit that mold. Science, on the other hand, starts from the verifiable present, and works backward searching for answers as to how we got here.

This debate is hard to do because i am taking content from creationists material and you are doing the opposite. Also i don't spend my whole life on the computer so i don't look as much stuff up as some of you. I wish i could talk to you guys face to face and debate our ideas that way. It would be so much easier.

You are doing fine, and you are learning very valuable skills that will help you through your entire life. Don't worry about time. Get things done as you can. I was off forums (and pretty much away from the Internet as a whole) for the past three weeks as I was busy with family.

It is hard, yes, because you are trying to argue against a mountain of evidence with not much more than conjecture. You also have a tendency to ask massively open ended questions that don't necessarily have answers yet (no offense, but that is another trick of creationist debaters and why they may appear to "win") rather than specific questions of evolution. When specifics are asked, there are often answers. I can provide transitionals; I can provide living fossils; I can provide slow branches or dead ends. Furthermore, I can provide evidence against literal translation of the Bible as well as why, if we were "created," then that creator was a buffoon. I've no way yet to tell you what was before the Big Bang, or where the atom came from, as science isn't there yet.

But as I said, regardless of where you find yourself, the debating skills you gain will be invaluable.

U have really never seen a debate were the creationist won? Ill have to post one. It was a good debate and both guys knew what they were talking about. It might take a while since it was a while ago that i saw it so ill have to find it again. What you have to understand is that creationism is just as scientific as evolution. You cnt say science and just assume people know that u are talking about evolution.

I just want to make something clear. You can believe in God and evolution(as long as you follow the salvation process) and still be saved. You will be wrong but you can still believe that and go to heaven. I believe that the earth is 6000-10000 years old.

U have really never seen a debate were the creationist won? Ill have to post one. It was a good debate and both guys knew what they were talking about. It might take a while since it was a while ago that i saw it so ill have to find it again.

Yes, well bear in mind that I don't spend my free time hunched over YouTube watching creationists If you find it I will certainly give it a watch.

What you have to understand is that creationism is just as scientific as evolution. You cnt say science and just assume people know that u are talking about evolution.

No, it isn't. The closest it gets is in the science of Old Earth Creationists. Their geology is sound. That they ignore the evidence for evolution is unfortunate.

I just want to make something clear. You can believe in God and evolution(as long as you follow the salvation process) and still be saved. You will be wrong but you can still believe that and go to heaven. I believe that the earth is 6000-10000 years old.

Of course it is compatible. That is why I mentioned you look into Theistic Evolution.

6000-10000... you can believe that all you wish.


Now just to ask a question in return, as I've never really heard the creationist side... You have said that you accept that there are changes that can occur within a species. You were speaking of dogs, if I recall. I assume, then, that you accept that this happens within humans as well, correct?

I mean, let's assume you are correct, for a moment, and that everything came from Adam and Eve, or more importantly, from Noah and his brood. I assume that you accept that there are many races on the planet, who not only differ by physical appearance, but also on a genetic level due to environment.

This is your view, correct? That there were 8 people who were on the Ark some 4000 years ago, and that all the people of the world today are their descendants, and that all the differences between the people of the world are small adaptations that have taken place over the last 4000 years?

Is that a correct rundown of the creationist view of the races?