Rena H #fundie

Rena H #fundie boards.gamefaqs.com

[IMO, All these scientific theories that scientists come up with are just as founded on faith with no evidence as any religions.]

Wow, someone else agrees with me.. that's a surprise. To say that we all came from rocks (or from Mars, whichever version of evolution you want to take) takes a great deal of faith to believe. If you can look at some science objectively, without the bias (and very few people do) you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world.... and the whole geographical column is nothing but circular reasoning.. you date the bones by the rock, and you date the rocks by the bones... where is any science in that? I have even heard of a scientist use the word MAGIC to describe how something came to earth.. because using the term MAGIC would fit his theory... honestly, how credible is the guy if he resorts to that kind of logic and belief?

41 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Wow, someone else agrees with me.. that's a surprise."

I would imagine it would be when you hold ideas such as this.

"To say that we all came from rocks (or from Mars, whichever version of evolution you want to take) takes a great deal of faith to believe."

Nothing in evolutionary theory says any such thing.

"If you can look at some science objectively, without the bias (and very few people do) you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world...."

Odd then that no geologist has ever found it. Not even the earliest geologists who were Christians and specifically went looking for evidence of your Flood.

"and the whole geographical column is nothing but circular reasoning.. you date the bones by the rock, and you date the rocks by the bones..."

No, you don't. Stop listening to Hovind.

"where is any science in that?"

Well, when you get the rocks back to the lab and date them using atomic theory, science comes into play. When you use knowledge of geology to understand the layering you see which indicates what age the rocks likely are, science comes into play. When the dating of the rocks on an atomic level is consistent with the geological dating, science comes into play.

"I have even heard of a scientist use the word MAGIC to describe how something came to earth.. because using the term MAGIC would fit his theory..."

Name this supposed "scientist" or is he one of the many anonymous "scientists" that are always polled by AiG?

"honestly, how credible is the guy if he resorts to that kind of logic and belief?"

Claiming "magic" is the foundation of religion.

old comment by Osiris

Here's how rock dating works.

Okay so you find a rock layer. You determine how far down that rock layer goes, the further down it is the older it is, this is just simple logic. Then you use a bunch of different isotopes to date the rock, you do this multiple times. Eventually a pattern will emerge with one of the isotopes, it's dates will all be fairly consistent with each other. If other laboratories doing the same thing also come up with similar results you have found the age of the rock. After that you know which isotope to use in that rock layer, and any fossils coming from that layer will be dated with the same isotope. If the date of the rock and the date of the fossil using the same isotope are the same, or at least similar since isotope dating is hardly exact, you have pretty much confirmed the age of the rock and that fossil.

There are no assumptions or circular logic to be found in the actual method, not the creationist straw man method.

old comment by John

Magic will explain anything. That's why it's useless as an explanation.

you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world.

Floods have occurred almost everywhere there is water. No one questions floods. What they question is the idea that there was one big flood as opposed to a lot of local little ones.

you date the bones by the rock, and you date the rocks by the bones

No. Neither can be dated by the other. When the geologic column was worked out by pre-Darwinian creationists they didn't know the dates. They just knew the relative timing: rocks with Ordovician fossils were always below those with Silurian fossils. The dating came later using radioactive isotopes. And the dating agreed with the fossils.

old comment by Snaxx

To say that we all came from rocks (or from Mars, whichever version of evolution you want to take) takes a great deal of faith to believe.

I believe in the Revised Dieudonné Evolutionary Theory, which is the only version of evolution that has been able to stand up to years of scientific scrutiny. According to Dieudonné's magnum opus, How we came to be - Our Evolution from Alien Waste, we all evolved from snack food that was discarded on Earth by the Galactic Cofederacy in an attempt to get the aliens to eat healthier. Evidence for it is much greater than for any of the other versions of evolution, ask any REAL scientist... I mean, look at your hand! Can't you see the obvious similarity between your fingers and the cheese fries they evolved from?

We even have a website if you want to learn THE TRUTH.

www.ievolvedfromsnackfood.com

The site has recently been having some server issues, so you might not be able to access it.

If you can look at some science objectively, without the bias (and very few people do) you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world....

I totally agree with you there. I'll go even further and say that there is evidence for MANY floods.

and the whole geographical column is nothing but circular reasoning.. you date the bones by the rock, and you date the rocks by the bones... where is any science in that?

Radiometric dating?

I have even heard of a scientist use the word MAGIC to describe how something came to earth.. because using the term MAGIC would fit his theory... honestly, how credible is the guy if he resorts to that kind of logic and belief?

Not very credible at all... I probably wouldn't call the person a scientist, though.

old comment by John_in_Oz

Context is important in the 'magic' quote. Was he mocking YOUR stupidity? That's the first thing I'd think of. If you provided the context we could learn that he wasn't. Or was.
Strangely, even though you've utterly missed the point, you're not quite as stupid as your argument makes you sound. There ARE scientific hypotheses that perhaps the origin of life on Earth was influenced by complex molecules brought to Earth via meteorite, or (a la Fred Hoyle) via comet. And likewise there is the suggestion that perhaps clay provided a template for the first self-replicating molecules.
Your mistake is to think that ANYONE claims this is "THE' way life arose, in the absence of evidence. Science actually says 'This seems to be a plausible way.' At the moment, there are several plausible ways.
Religion does claim "We know the way it happened -it was a miracle ('magic' done by God)"*, but has no evidence.
Science has a number of suggestions "This may be the way it happened", and has evidence that all their theories are plausible.

*Did you see what I did there?

Rena H #fundie boards.gamefaqs.com

41 comments

Confused?