Freedom of speech?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No it isn't. Don't be stupid. There is no evidence whatsoever for a 6,000 year old planet.

You have witnessed the creation of a planet, and seen how time
has changed it for 6K years or so, or you think you know what one
is suppose to look like?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have witnessed the creation of a planet, and seen how time
has changed it for 6K years or so, or you think you know what one
is suppose to look like?
Kelly

Have you witnessed the experiences of every human being such that you can conclude that
you won't spontaneously change gender overnight, as some claim?

Or do you simply rely on 'faith' to reach this conclusion?

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have witnessed the creation of a planet, and seen how time
has changed it for 6K years or so, or you think you know what one
is suppose to look like?
Kelly

Do I need to?

Do you have to witness ever dog that ever existed to know that a cat isn't a dog?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly

If a large Nazi museum opened and it was clearly promoting the idea that the Nazi ideals were right and it was likely that a lot of youths would be mislead by the museum into thinking that they had a very valid point of view, would you still feel that it would be wrong for anyone to demonstrate against it?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Have you witnessed the experiences of every human being such that you can conclude that
you won't spontaneously change gender overnight, as some claim?

Or do you simply rely on 'faith' to reach this conclusion?

Nemesio

Nope, but I have witnessed quite a few, with some of them from birth
to death in some cases to have knowledge about the whole living
processes. Which was why I asked about the 6K year old planet, to
what is that being compared too, just a few pieces of 'evidence' without
ever knowning what one really looks like. It is one thing to see it and
another to think you know what it is suppose to look like.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
If a large Nazi museum opened and it was clearly promoting the idea that the Nazi ideals were right and it was likely that a lot of youths would be mislead by the museum into thinking that they had a very valid point of view, would you still feel that it would be wrong for anyone to demonstrate against it?

Is that how you feel about creationism?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Do I need to?

Do you have to witness ever dog that ever existed to know that a cat isn't a dog?

You have witnessed a dog, you have witnessed a cat. You want to
talk about Zeziters and Lorperdiks and tell me about them?
Kelly

Through radiometric dating, if the world is 6,000 years old, then domesticated dogs and the invention of glue both came about long before the creation of the world. And seing as it would be God who invented the factors for radiometric dating, that's a pretty deceptive God, or one who REALLY wants us not to be creationists. There are mountains of proof in favour of evolution, and it is this proof that can only be overcome by creationists with a "maybe god wanted it that way" Lower back pain, a 2nd chromosone fusion, 2 unnecessary nostrils, an appendix, the genetic capability for fins. All because of evolution, all can be answered with little more than "Guess God's quirky eh?" from the creationist camp.

Originally posted by doodinthemood
Through radiometric dating, if the world is 6,000 years old, then domesticated dogs and the invention of glue both came about long before the creation of the world. And seing as it would be God who invented the factors for radiometric dating, that's a pretty deceptive God, or one who REALLY wants us not to be creationists. There are mountains of proof ...[text shortened]... can be answered with little more than "Guess God's quirky eh?" from the creationist camp.

That is only because you have a model of what you think the universe
is suppose to look like, and if it doesn't fit you blame God.
Kelly

I come to the universe with no preconceptions. I analyse the facts and realise the truths about the universe. There is nothing in the universe which doesn't fit the way I think about it, because the way I think about it is based on how it is. Likewise, there is no famous post-darwinian scientist who didn't believe in evolution, and no creditable one at all.

Indeed, were I to challenge you with the problem of the 2nd chromosone fusion to make 23 chromosone pairs in humans while apes have no fusion and thus have 24 chromosone pairs, would you say anything more than "that just shows how quirky God is?"

Say I have a theory that God in fact created the universe 5 seconds ago, and when he did that, he created my memory of things before that, he created the universe just as if it had been around for a time incredibly longer than 5 seconds, but I still believe he created 5 seconds ago because I have faith. Not only would that be a strangely deceptive God, but also a very idiotic standpoint to argue from, and I hope you recognise that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have witnessed a dog, you have witnessed a cat. You want to
talk about Zeziters and Lorperdiks and tell me about them?
Kelly

I have witnessed a lot about radioactivity too. Who do you think YOU are to ell the experts about it? Perhaps you think you know better than all experts, perhaps it tells you how to diffuse a bomb in your bible.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly

On the radio they said that a lot of the construction workers gave their lives to Christ when working on the site. Glory to God!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nope, but I have witnessed quite a few, with some of them from birth
to death in some cases to have knowledge about the whole living
processes. Which was why I asked about the 6K year old planet, to
what is that being compared too, just a few pieces of 'evidence' without
ever knowning what one really looks like. It is one thing to see it and
another to think you know what it is suppose to look like.
Kelly

You have witnessed precisely zero creations and I have witnessed precisely
zero evolved planets.

We have, however, witnessed countless short- and medium-term halflife
elements degrade utterly predictably. Having observed them and understanding
the processes that make them deteriorate to more stable elements,
we know that it is impossible for their rates to change (speed up or
slow down) over time, or that at some point that these rates have
varied.

What makes you think that it's reasonable to ignore this body of
observed, provable, testable evidence?

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
Criticizing is one thing wanting to shut down or shut up someone
else is another.
Kelly

Of course people will want to shut other people up/down. The questions is - CAN they?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But even if we take the creation account of genesis literally, it's still woefully inadequate in several places, most notably the light - sun - land plants fiasco. The bible emphatically states that both light and plants were created before the sun. This is incorrect by about 30% the age of the sun if we include plankton and cyanobacteria, and more than 90% out is only land plants are considered.

Here is Dr. Schroeders possible explanation.

"On the third day of Genesis, plant life appeared. This occurred just after the Hebrew term for water took on its present meaning. Here, in Genesis 1:10, it is described as the substance that fills the seas. Prior to this time, the term referred to the primordial substance from which all matter of the universe was to be formed. Because it was only on the fourth day that the luminaries appeared in the firmament of heaven, the presence of plant life on the third Day might seem out of order. Light is one of the prerequisites for photosynthetic growth of plants. Resolution of the seeming conflict is found in the use of the word luminaries rather than light in Genesis 1:14. Prior to the appearance of abundant plant life, the Earth's atmosphere was probably clouded with vapors of the primeval atmosphere. This would be in accord with information releayed from Soviet and US spacecraft investigating the cloudy atmosphere of Venus. There was light on the third day, in the sense that the atmoshere vapors transmitted radiant energy. The atmoshpere, however, was not distinguishable. It was this diffuse light that provided energy for the initial plant life. Nahmanides states that the firmament, formed on the second day, initially intercepted the light that existed from day one. He was not willing to comment concerning the composition of the firmament, because he considered it as one of the deep mysteries of the Bible. The early plant life actually helped clear the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis, which removed CO2 and nitrogen compounds form the atmosphere and incorporated them into cellular material. As these biologically driven reactions proceeded, the sun, moon, and stars, already visible in the firmament, became visible on Earth as individual sources of light. That Genesis 1:14-18 is describing this event from an earthly viewpoint is made clear by the reference to the moon as a great lumanary (Genesis 1:16). The Earth is the only celestial body close enough to the Moon to see the Moon as a great luminary."

He then goes on to describe how this plant life helped transform the atmoshpere into one that is rich in O2.