Quote# 46268

I heard a very complicated explanation so I hope I don't biff on this, I'm pretty sure I understood it though. Basically, preflood there was water inside and above the earth. It mentions that several times in the bible. When God started the flood, He rushed water out from inside the earth. That would have made cracks and separation in the earth's crust. These "tectonic plates" may still be moving because they haven't stopped moving from the flood.

Just to point this out, the only other theory for tectonic plates would have something to do with pangea right? The whole world started as one continent and drifted away. The problem with pangea is that they shrunk Africa, removed South America and flipped three different bodies of land upside down. There is no way to explain how that pangea turned into the world we have today. There are two reasons behind saying pangea is a theory. one is because somebody was very creative with a pencil and was able to figure out a way to turn the world into a mysterious puzzle, only he had to cut some parts out to make it all fit.

two is that they've found similar fossils in opposite parts of the world. Is this pangea? You can argue that the world used to be one continent and that's why this happens. I think a much much better explanation would be a world wide flood. Everything would be displaced, everything would drown, everything would get buried. End of story. It fits much better, makes more logical sense.

The best evidence I have that disproves evolution is that in history, macro, cosmic, and other forms of evolution (with the only exception of micro-evolution, which proves nothing for the evolution theory) have never been observed. A star has never formed from nothing. a beast or creature of any kind has never been formed from nothing, or even a different kind. All of the elements that exist in the world, the ones that are on a periodic table, cannot be explained through big bang/evolution. It isn't possible to form most of the elements that do exist in this world.

On top of that, all of the dating methods have been proven wrong. They still use them, but they have all been proven wrong. Every single one of them, and that's the biggest evidence that evolution uses. That's a pretty strong disproof in my book.

Watertarg, WoW offtopic 15 Comments [8/31/2008 6:40:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Worldsend

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Evidence. You have none. Proof, I require.

9/1/2008 7:38:07 PM

Dr. Gus

Yeah it's easy to pull your "theories" out of your ass, but since you don't have any proof of all that you said, it doesn't count.

I have a theory that you're a baboon with purple eyes and pink hair... see how much sense you make? (though probably I am right about the baboon part).

9/1/2008 7:48:41 PM



9/1/2008 9:26:38 PM


9/2/2008 1:47:25 AM


Epic fail.

Transdimensional epic fail, dude. Er, Biff. Yeah.

9/2/2008 3:07:13 AM

Happy Heathen

"with the only exception of micro-evolution, which proves nothing for the evolution theory"

The hell it dosn't.

9/2/2008 3:09:13 AM


Geology - Fail / Paleontology - Fail
Micro-Evolution is STILL evolution.
Dating methods have NOT been proven wrong.
There are to date 76 different methods of dating from totally different fields of science, and even with improved instrumentation, give the same results with small % variations.
The Bible is absolute proof that a bunch of ancient semi-literate goat sodomisers can still fool the gullible.

9/2/2008 5:16:54 AM


"A star has never formed from nothing."

The only ounce of Right in the entire post.

9/2/2008 6:45:11 AM


9/2/2008 7:31:03 AM

JB Mason


5/24/2011 12:11:57 PM


There's one huge factor that contradicts the flood; we have written records that predates the flood and goes on through the period that has been sort of pinpointed for the flood, and no mention of any world-wide flood anywhere. People just went on with their lives while the world was allegedly covered in so much water it would have killed off every single land-based plant on Earth.

You must have misunderstood Pangaea. The landmasses change, ya know, and some parts of them are under water. None of them have been turned upside down.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. When enough small changes have occurred, you have speciation.
Evolution doesn't try to explain where life came from, it only describes change. What you are talking about is abiogenesis.

Provide evidence for your claim that ALL the dating methods have been proven wrong. If they were wrong, they couldn't be used, stupid.

Having to fabricate proof for your point, that is a pretty strong disproof in my book.

5/24/2011 12:27:17 PM


> I heard a very complicated explanation so I hope I don't biff on this

You biffed.

Not that I know what 'biff' means. I'm guessing 'really fuck it up'.

5/24/2011 2:55:34 PM


About 10 creationist canards in there.

The one the really bugs me is the regularly used "all of the dating methods have been proven wrong" as it's proof positive that you ONLY research from creationist sites. I looked into it and all dating methods have limitation and all are to be used under specific understanding of which will apply to which materials or depths. Creationist sites continually lie about what types are used or how they are undependable.

You wanna know something about science stop asking priests and right-wing revisionists

5/24/2011 4:11:53 PM


With macro evolution, it takes millions of years to come about, and you wouldn't notice the transition

7/2/2011 10:31:49 PM


"It isn't possible to form most of the elements that do exist in this world. "

This is.. er... wrong. Supernova are known to produce many heavy elements from lighter ones, for instance.

8/8/2011 1:42:28 PM

1 | top: comments page