Can you creationist try to re-rebuttal these arguments?

1. There are many radiometric dating methods that accurately date fossils, rocks, etc.

-----The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created" & the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). There are many cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented).

2. Well, you can't really prove what says in the Bible is true ethier. DNA proves that humans and all other living things share DNA. It is very obserable and testable.

-----Really, when was the last time you observed the changes in an creature which gave it the adaptability to society? As for the Bible, it can be proven as a historical document, using the same methods that we proved the Iliad to be a valid historical document.

3. Probably the dumbest one, it's like asking if America was colonized by the English, why is there still England? If you can't figure this one out on your own, well you need professional help.

-----No answer huh? Poor analogy provided. Colonizing and evolving are two different things my friend.

4.The human eye is not as complex as that of an octopus or owl. Does God care more about the design of the octpous than his own children?

-----Ok then, if you don't like the eye... then let's look at the brain. Humans have the most advanced brain... explain that using your octopus.

5.Atheism is actually a religion. Yea the same way bald is a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

-----To collectively believe that GOD does not exist, means that you are prescribing to the same arguments as other people who follow their beliefs religiously. Hence, in a sense, it is a religion... on which is void of faith.

6.Yea, and it doesn't intfer with evolution, alot of famous ones they mention lived in the 16th century and had no concept of modern science or medicine. 93% of the scientific community rejects the idea of God

-----Do you know realize that it was the Church that gave way to medicine and science? Without the Church, we would have NOTHING today...

7.NO, natural selection is NONRANDOM change

-----So if it was non-random change, that means that every thing happened according to a plan? Who's plan...? Obviously, it was GOD's plan.

8. No where in the constitution is God mentioned, the only reference is Article 6 which created seperation of church and state. Many founding fathers were ambivalent about the christian god, including Washington

-----No where does it mention that it wasn't. The fact that more than 1/2 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians... and that those who first came to the US were Christians should be good enough.

9. This law only works in a closed system

-----You are wrong on this. DO your research first...

10.No, he was raised a Catholic and writes about the Creator of the univerise in Mein Kampf. Also this just a red herring.

-----Being raised Catholic and not subscribing to the full teachings does not make you Catholic. Just like many on Y/A... they say they were raised Catholic, but are actually atheists... Booyah! Must suck getting schooled on Y/A...!!!

OK - even though I am not a Young Earth Creationist, there are points here that I can answer on their behalf. BTW - I *am* a creationist, as are probably all Christians. However, less than half of all Christians - even in the U.S. - are Young Earth Creationists. YEC = Young Earth Creationist

1) YEC response: radiometric dating in general is unreliable and is based on several scientific assumptions.

2) Scientific response: DNA does not prove that humans and other living things "share" DNA in the sense that there is an ancestral link. We "share" DNA in the sense that all living things *have* DNA. It's like saying that all Americans share a common history.

3) I can't think of a good rebuttal. When a YEC asks such a question, he or she should be answered.

4) General response: complexity by itself is not necessarily an advantageous thing - and, of course, you failed to address the issue presented. You dodged the question. YEC wins that one (at least, until you answer the point mentioned).

5) General response: it's understandable that some view atheism as a religion, since by definition atheism includes religious belief(s). However, it is, in fact, not a religion. Someone who uses this argument should be given a definition of religion.

6) Based on personal experience, I challenge your statistic. Nearly all of the accredited scientists I have ever known believe in God. Now - true, I live in the U.S., so that should be expected. Still, I doubt very sincerely that 93% - or even 50% - of accredited scientists are atheists or agnostics. I would *expect* the percentage to be below 20%.

7) Scientific response: natural selection is non-random, but species evolution most definitely has random factors influencing it. For example: a genetic mutation that produces a trait that is successful as a consequence of natural selection might produce several secondary traits that are either not relevant to natural selection or actually detrimental to survival. Randomness most definitely plays a part in species evolution by natural selection. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, many scientists consider natural selection to no longer be the primary mechanism by which species evolution occurs.

8) Irrelevant to the topic - and you should have said so.

9) Scientific response: Regarding life, to the best of our knowledge the Earth *is* a closed system (at least, it was until relatively recently). Earth life does not extend beyond Earth, nor does extraterrestrial life affect Earth. Given that Earth is essentially a closed system (you can use the Solar System as your "closed system" if you prefer), your answer is a pretty poor one.

10) Irrelevant to the topic.

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

Edward, I think the main trouble you're going to come across here is that you are trying to debunk a spiritual line of thought using a scientific one. Both draw off of different logics. Neither side will convince the other. However, I will try to help you with this in a later edit. Joe, human evolution does not negate the existence of a soul. You're creating a false dichotomy.

1.All forms of dating require assumptions based on the proportions of ions in the material.

2. Sharing DNA and saying evolution must be true is not a logical sequence of events.

3. That one is foolish and I offer no support for it.

4. Your statement does not make sense, so what if the eye of an octopus is more complex than a person's that would not change the idea that God created both.

5. Bald might not be a hair color, but it could be a hair style. Atheism, particularly the brand that is known a secular humanism is a world view that colors your opinions and has its own set of accepted biases just like a religion.

6. I would be interested to see your sources for that number.

7. Change is based on chance, the actual selection part might not be random but everything leading up to it is.

8. America is founded upon a Christian worldview, is it explicitly Christian, no, but its ideas and systems are based on scripture.

9. Is the universe not the ultimate closed system.

10. Hitler's private documents display his attitude toward Christianity and it was not a nice one.

"2. You can't prove evolution.

Well, you can't really prove what says in the Bible is true ethier. DNA proves that humans and all other living things share DNA. It is very obserable and testable."

Your wording shows you agree that you can't prove evolution. Evolution is proven every day on many many levels. I can find so much evidence for evolution it would takes you years to read ....literally.

1. http://www.earthage.org/radio/carbon14.htm

2. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i8e.htm

3. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm

4. http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm

5. http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm

6. http://www.godandscience.org/#SRoV7bqq0Nle

7. http://www.naturalselectionanddarwinism.com/confes...

8. http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/ezra...

9. http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/ezra...

10. The Occult Roots of Nazism

"Hitler not only inherited an organization founded by Aryan occultists, but he was influenced by policies that had their origin among Ariosophists... it is possible that the idea of the Final Solution was first planted in Hitler's mind by occultist who believed the Germans were the Chosen People and Jesus was an Aryan

The Nazi leader who made himself a patron of occult mysticism was the head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, who retained a self-proclaimed Aryan mystic as part of his personal staff... Karl Maria Wiligut (1866-1946) began his career as an officer in the Austrian Army and saw action during World War I. After the war Wiligut began to claim that he was the last decedent of an Aryan priesthood that could trace its origins back to god-like creatures who inhabited Germany over 200,000 years... he corroborated most of List's description of ancient German history, but he also endorsed Lanz's belief in an Aryan Jesus.

In 1933 Wiligut was brought to the attention of Himmler by an SS officer who had been a member of the ONT. Himmler appointed Wiligut to the SS Race and Settlement Main Office and eventually gave him the rank of SS Brigadier.

According to Goodrick-Clark, Wiligut suggested to Himmler that the SS expropriate a castle in the German province of Westphalia. Wiligut prophesied that the castle would become a Nazi stronghold against invading barbarians from the East. Himmler put the castle to use as an SS indoctrination center, museum and temple where wedding ceremonies and solstice festivals devised by Wiligut were held."

from: William Main's review of the book:

"The Occult Roots of Nazism, Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology" by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (New York University Press, 1992, 293 pages)

Back to Paganism

The Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists

William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

All you're doing is dignifying those arguments.

don't.

They're all fundamentally dishonest. The people emitting them don't care.

The fundamental thing to understand about creationism is that they treat their preferred view as a default theory. They figure they don't need to demonstrate anything. That's why it doesn't qualify as science by any stretch of the imagination.

the defintion of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

so Atheism is a religion, its the Belief in no god.

Love those videos. Funny and graphical but make a lot of good points throughout.

2.hardly testable otherwise people would have kept breeding monkeys with one another in order to prove that you get a human at the end of it

5 made me laugh :D