religion

[Dior]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I copy/paste things that I don't understand.

Quite the opposite of yourself.

Fixed it for you Holy Robot Elvis that came back to the living.

[Dior]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Quote from Kaga: I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced". End quote



The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil; at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850°); at 28 mi., every known substance would melt (2700°). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and the tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of the world

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul04.html

Is where you lifted that post from. Your ctrl+c should have quite the impressive indentation.

[Glenzig]

So copy/paste is a rebuttal now? Who cares if its copy/pasted! Its sound information. Do you have an actual response?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Dior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul04.html

Is where you lifted that post from. Your ctrl+c should have quite the impressive indentation.

Nope try again

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Dior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fixed it for you Holy Robot Elvis that came back to the living.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I post from my phone at work during the afternoon hours. The user interface with this board is gawdawful to say the least, couple that with the fact that fuck swype, I'm sorry if some of that frustration channels its way into my replies at some level.

It's a question I've asked creationists for nearly a decade, often the somewhat open minded ones across various faiths (even a devout Romney supporting Mormon in one case) respond, hmm, maybe. Others on the other hand (Every Jehova's Witness I've ever asked) shake their head nope nope nope like I had just whipped out my dick and asked if they wanted a suck.

Interestingly enough this is something the current pope had suggested roughly a year ago, when he said that science and Christianity need not be mutually exclusive. Though it's worth noting that the current pope has several masters degrees including but not limited to, biological sciences.

Theistic evolution implies that there is teleology involved in the process of evolution.
But that goes against the accepted model of evolution, because if we are to say that the organs of the body evolved for a final cause then there would be apparent design in the evolutionary process.
And design requires intelligence.

[RobotElvis]

During the historical period, the species have remained unchanged. If over 1,000,000 species of animals have arisen in the 60,000,000 years, as is claimed, over 2000 of them must have arisen in the last 6,000 years. As evolutionists can not name a single new species that has arisen within that time, their theory falls to the ground. No species in that time, has passed into another. No species has been divided into two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. History gives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution. Even the horse, whose history has been dubiously traced for 3,000,000 years, has been a horse unchanged for the last 6,000 years. Even if the missing links in the development of the horse _could_ be supplied, it would still be the same species all the while.

But there are no transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size. Many varieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developed and improved, but not a single new species in historic time. There are 5,000 varieties of apples but no new species. But when the evolutionist is hard pressed to answer, he takes to the wilds of eternity where it is hard to pursue him, and to check up on his guesses. He answers that changes are so slow, and take so many millions of years, that they can not tell of a single new species in the last 6,000 years, when over 2,000 are required.

[Dior]

Shitposting and copy/pasting has failed you. Go forth Elvis of the Robotic mind. Learn a new trade, because you aren't good at the forum game.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...

"the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible"

Here is the main problem with this argument:

The Earth isnt a bonfire. We know that radioactive elements that take billions of years to decay have kept Earth's interior hot. Your calculations do not account for it.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Dior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shitposting and copy/pasting has failed you. Go forth Elvis of the Robotic mind. Learn a new trade, because you aren't good at the forum game.

Yeah I mean he should know that providing evidence is not how the internetz works. You have to claim to have proof and then tell everyone they're wrong and stupid without providing any actual proof of your claim. Go away RobotElvis! No one wants you backing up your beliefs with actual facts and data! Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

[Dior]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Theistic evolution implies that there is teleology involved in the process of evolution.
But that goes against the accepted model of evolution, because if we are to say that the organs of the body evolved for a final cause then there would be apparent design in the evolutionary process.
And design requires intelligence.

Actually, evolutionary biology doesn't run contrast to theists ideas of the world. God is simply the catalyst for everything. Theists want to add an extra step.

Evolution is a biological process. It has nothing to do with cosmology or philosophy, which is what the whole god talk is about.

But you knew that already I'm sure.

Now, who created god since design requires intelligence?