Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

It's been a minute since i had an actually good debate on Creationism.

Are there any creationists out there who want to share their BEST evidence for Creationism or their BEST counter evidence against evolution?
You can talk about life, the flood, fossils, radio carbon dating, whatever!

I promise that all comers will be treated with earnest respect as long as they offer me the same courtesy.

I just want to have a good, intellectual debate.
Anyone up for that?
Here's my standard 'clocks' post. It doesn't argue against all forms of creation; it argues against 6000 years ago or similar recent creation. But if someone wants to rename the 'Big Bang' as 'God's creation' and leave out all the heaven and prayer and walking on water stuff, I could maybe allow that.



CLOCKS


Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating.

Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
Originally developed for climate science, the method is now an invaluable tool for archaeologists, who can track up to 13,000 years of history using tree ring chronologies for over 4,000 sites on six continents.
The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).

Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating.

Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.

Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here:
https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/

Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.

Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.

No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well, and they ALL give life FAR MORE than 6000 years to evolve.

If you argue "God hid those dinosaur bones (and all the isotopes used for dating) in the rocks" I can't disprove it. If you argue "God built all those layers into the glaciers and into stalactites, made the nova remnants appear millions of years old, etc." I can't disprove it. But you've got to ask yourself, why would God put all these inter-corroborating clocks all over the Earth and all thru the galaxy if they were all false???
@ElwoodBlues

Yeah i think that's something not many creationists know about. They hear "dating'" and they automatically think of carbon dating which is it's own problem. But they don't tend to know that there are not only other forms of radiometric dating but that these other radio isotopes are corroborated not only by eachother but by tree rings and ice varves and as you say, limestone.

We call that a synthesis of data and a synthesis of data not only proves the earth is old but shows that evolution has occurred.
Adrift · 61-69, F
What if while doing an excavation of the planet Mars, they uncover an I phone, an old junk car and a landfill full of plastic bags from Walmart.
Uh oh.....
SW-User
@Adrift I prefer reality🙄
Adrift · 61-69, F
@SW-User you sound boring
SW-User
Hardly@Adrift
Carla · 61-69, F
✌️
Hey pikachu.
Just dropping by to listen.
@Carla

Hope there's something to listen to! lol
Carla · 61-69, F
@Pikachu been quiet awhile now.
Hard to argue with just faith and a very flawed book.
@Carla
Definitely not the position i'd feel confident arguing from, anyway
easterniowegin · 51-55, M
You could ask the exact opposite, but you'd still come up empty...there is zero hard evidence for either "theory." That's why the debate continues...
The difference is that creationists are satisfied believing, on faith. The evolutionists seem to want to convince others. 🤷‍♂️

Good luck in your future debates. 👍
@easterniowegin

The difference is that creationists are satisfied believing, on faith. The evolutionists seem to want to convince others.

lol yeah, you always see those evolutionists preaching in the streets about evolution or going door to door trying to convince people that evolution is true or trying to make legislation based on their belief in evolution.

..there is zero hard evidence for either "theory."

Couldn't disagree more.
First, only evolution is a Theory. That is to say that it comprehensively, consistently and most importantly predicatively accounts for the evidence.
It's a theory like the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravitation.
Creationism on the other hand is a series of post hoc rationalizations which are made to accommodate evidence, not explain or predict it.

There is ever so much hard evidence for evolution and if you're not a creationist then i think i could pretty easily demonstrate a few such examples to you if you're open to learning.

Let me know.
SW-User
Thanks for clarifying the “theory “ language..@Pikachu
@SW-User

No problem👍
Theres a trex skellyton in my room that dates back to yesterday since it was dinner. The lord created me that so i can nourish myself
@Pikachu mmmmyes astrononomers... they get to see space and stuff and walk on fake moons why.. why can't i do that too?
@Mistakesmakeus

big pharma
@Pikachu god damn you big farma... that is why the flat earthers hate you
Bushranger · 70-79, M
Good, intellectual debate with creationists? Good luck with that.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@jshm2

Hey, just because you don't feel equipped to intelligently debate the subject doesn't mean that nobody can😜
SatanBurger · 36-40, FVIP
I'm not trying to be impolite but maybe you've argued with all the creationists and had every debate there is to be had lol.
@SatanBurger

Could be! At least the ones on this site. But there's new folks joining SW every day so who knows
justanothername · 51-55, M
I’ve got my pop corn.
@justanothername
lol probably gonna get cold
justanothername · 51-55, M
@Pikachu Yup, wrong titles will do that.
@justanothername
Wrong titles?
SW-User

 
Post Comment