I'm the one who's willing to change my view. Creationists see the facts as they are. We don't dogmatically think every organism descend from the same ancestor. We do research about it. You just assume all organisms have a common descent. You adapt your view of the age of the earth so that evolution might be possible. I and many creationists adapt the age of the earth by researches.
26 comments
Then please explain why the earliest known human remains and tools in America are over 13,000 years old. That already blows your numbers out of the water. And then there is evidence in China dating back further, evidence in south Asia still further back, and I'm not even touching on Africa, yet. I'm sorry, but your research is very, very shallow, indeed.
So reading a book of fairy tales that has been debunked a million times over is "research"? Yes, we can't trust fossils, kids, 'cus if physical evidence contradict the Bibble, then that means that the Devildidit.
Yar, but, no, but, yar, but... WTF?
It's not even like you have to have this "research" published under the scientific peer system. You can just publish it, Hell, you can just post it on the internetwebby thing.
Why all the claims and NOTHING to ever back it?
>>You just assume all organisms have a common descent. <<
No. I talk to the biologists and they show me the 5.8S rRNA-coding sequences of the geonomes of humans and yeast and bacteria and a bunch of other things, and explain how they were all derived from some common ancestor, as evidence by the large amount of material held in common.
>>You adapt your view of the age of the earth so that evolution might be possible. <<
No. I walk down the hall and watch as the mass spectrometer acquires a set of uranium-lead measurements and allows us to say that these little bits of zircon are between 4.25 and 4.35 billion years old.
Your Argument Is Invalid.
Scientist don't "think"; they explore and test and ask others to explore and test. When ALL evidence points towards the same conclusion, they publish their work in a scientific journal and then it might become a theory.
They see that evolution is happening and that all evidence points to an ongoing process that has been happening for a few billion years, and they base their educated guess about the age of the Earth on the evidence, and on the evidence of geologists and cosmologists, who know more about the formation of Earth, than Biologists.
"We do research about it"
When the fuck has your camp ever researched ANYTHING? You have no concept of the word "research". Adding up arbitrary ages of a Biblical geneolgy is not research, it's total bullshit, generated without one established fact.
He reminds me of those kids from grade school who used to lack vocabulary or an imagination, and would just listen to the other kid's argument/insult and repeat it back to him verbatim, often not even paying attention to what the other kid is saying.
"Ha ha, you failed math."
I always sort of felt sorry for those little buggers.
I know this is an ancient posting but I'm getting all cought up.
Just want to mention that I got a good laugh at the use of the word "dogmatic" from a creationist. So thanks, I guess.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
