Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

[Guyver]

So? This is explained in the HPT.

Here, if you like watching videos better, here is Bryan Nickel's series which goes through the Hydroplate theory.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

Part three is where Bryan describes how liquefaction sorts layers of sediment, even rearranging them, which is one of the reasons for what you have put forth.

I told you, the book (which is online for everyone to read) easily explains what you think is problematic for the creationist side.

I’ll read the book, alright? I have two more weeks vacation. You probably won’t like my analysis, even though it’s not because the guy is an engineer. I respect engineers. When I was in college, at the one I attended, that was one of the strictest disciplines.

 

[Guyver]

Genetic load is agreed upon by all geneticists. They of course have various estimates as to the number of mutations added to our genome every generation. Because it is not consistent with common ancestry beliefs, they brush the data away with hypothetical, and unrealistic 'solutions'.
Geneticist Crow estimated we have a decrease of 1-2% in viability every generation... that we are less genetically fit than 'our stone age ancestors'.

Let’s just say that your source is correct and we are less genetically fit than our ancestors. That point is entirely irrelevant becauese we have thrived here and now. So, what does it matter?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let’s just say that your source is correct and we are less genetically fit than our ancestors. That point is entirely irrelevant becauese we have thrived here and now. So, what does it matter?

Increase in population correlates to an increase in the standard of living.

 

[Guyver]

Increase in population correlates to an increase in the standard of living.

Please elaborate in depth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Please elaborate in depth.

This is more of an economics viewpoint:

http://kgov.com/population

Generally speaking, the more densely populated an area is, the higher the standard of living.

The reason why humanity is thriving is due to the fact that there are around 7.7 billion people on the planet now, as opposed to a thousand years ago when it was no more than 345 million.

 

[Guyver]

This is more of an economics viewpoint:

http://kgov.com/population

Generally speaking, the more densely populated an area is, the higher the standard of living.

The reason why humanity is thriving is due to the fact that there are around 7.7 billion people on the planet now, as opposed to a thousand years ago when it was no more than 345 million.

Great! Let’s give yout facts as 100% accurate. You know what that explains about modern humans and Pleistocene meganafauna coexisting?

Zero.

Hello Lee Iococca.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Great! Let’s give yout facts as 100% accurate. You know what that explains about modern humans and Pleistocene meganafauna coexisting?

Zero.

Hello Lee Iococca.

My post wasn't addressing that at all, nor was it meant to.

 

[6days]

Let’s just say that your source is correct and we are less genetically fit than our ancestors. That point is entirely irrelevant becauese we have thrived here and now. So, what does it matter?

What we see here Guyver, is you arguing for your beliefs... You admit you don't understand the science, but are attempting to argue for your team, anyways.

Geneticists of course don't think the "point is entirely irrelevant" since they are concerned with increasing genetic diseases and disorders.

Genetics helps confirm the biblical account. Our DNA is the most sophisticated 'software' by far known to man and it has evidence of several thousand years of corruption / mutations.

 

[Stripe]

Yep.

That which you present without evidence, we are justified in ignoring without evidence.

I’m about as smart as the guy you linked.

:darwinsm:

:rotfl:

Hold on, this could take a while.

:darwinsm: :rotfl:

*ahem*

OK.

How smart you are is irrelevant. What you need to be is sensible and rational. Present your ideas, give your reasons and, most importantly, be willing to let go when the evidence shows that what you say just can't be so.

There are no dinosaurs there because there were no dinosaurs there. Thousands upon thousands of other animals were shown there but not one dinosaur.

Was there a kangaroo?

 

[Gary K]

See...that is literally crazy. I’m sorry, but there are about 7 billion people on this planet. Hello? When the Bible was written there was like 100 million people on the entire planet?

We have thrived to a maximum.

That is a very iffy statement. The nation of Ethiopia, all by itself, attacked Jerusalem during the reign of Asa with an army of 1,000,000 fighting men. 2Chronicles 14:9 As any army has a support structure the total of those involved was at least 40 to 50 percent higher. The US army has a 1-1 ratio between support troops and fighting men so I'm being pretty conservative in my estimate. Even my conservative estimate means the army had between 1.4 and 1.5 million men. So, what does that mean as to the entire population of Ethiopia? I'd say somewhere between 10 and 20 million as families in those days were very large, polygamy was far more common than monogamy, and the Ethiopians obviously didn't bring their old men and children to fight a war.

 

[Gary K]

Let’s just say that your source is correct and we are less genetically fit than our ancestors. That point is entirely irrelevant becauese we have thrived here and now. So, what does it matter?

You seem unable to reason. When fitness of genetic structure and information is declining it says the human race is not moving on an upward path. It is declining and moving on a downward path. That is the opposite of the thesis of evolution.

 

[Guyver]

That is a very iffy statement. The nation of Ethiopia, all by itself, attacked Jerusalem during the reign of Asa with an army of 1,000,000 fighting men. 2Chronicles 14:9 As any army has a support structure the total of those involved was at least 40 to 50 percent higher. The US army has a 1-1 ratio between support troops and fighting men so I'm being pretty conservative in my estimate. Even my conservative estimate means the army had between 1.4 and 1.5 million men. So, what does that mean as to the entire population of Ethiopia? I'd say somewhere between 10 and 20 million as families in those days were very large, polygamy was far more common than monogamy, and the Ethiopians obviously didn't bring their old men and children to fight a war.

What sources have you used to confirm your assertion that the Ethiopian army contained a million men?

I have not researched it yet, but I would definitely call that number questionable.

 

[Guyver]

You seem unable to reason. When fitness of genetic structure and information is declining it says the human race is not moving on an upward path. It is declining and moving on a downward path. That is the opposite of the thesis of evolution.

Evolution is not linear. Why do you folks assume it is? Genetic fitness is the ability to survive and reproduce. The fact that human beings are experiencing exponential population growth demonstrates that we are genetically fit and thriving in our environment. We have been able to adapt to changing environmental pressures and continue to survive and reproduce.

How anyone cannot see this as an example of genetic fitness is beyond me.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution is not linear. Why do you folks assume it is? Genetic fitness is the ability to survive and reproduce. The fact that human beings are experiencing exponential population growth demonstrates that we are genetically fit and thriving in our environment. We have been able to adapt to changing environmental pressures and continue to survive and reproduce.

How anyone cannot see this as an example of genetic fitness is beyond me.

World historical and projected crude birth rates.

UN, 2009

Years, rate
1950–1955, 37.2
1955–1960, 35.3
1960–1965, 34.9
1965–1970, 33.4
1970–1975, 30.8
1975–1980, 28.4
1980–1985, 27.9
1985–1990, 27.3
1990–1995, 24.7
1995–2000, 22.5
2000–2005, 21.2
2005–2010, 20.3
2010–2015, 19.4
2015–2020, 18.2
2020–2025, 16.9
2025–2030, 15.8
2030–2035, 15.0
2035–2040, 14.5
2040–2045, 14.0
2045–2050, 13.4

 

[Gary K]

What sources have you used to confirm your assertion that the Ethiopian army contained a million men?

I have not researched it yet, but I would definitely call that number questionable.

I used the most reliable source there is on planet earth.

 

[Guyver]

Was there a kangaroo?

Funny you should mention the kangaroo....I’m guessing you’d like to offer an explanation for them?

There were no kangaroos discovered anywhere except for Australia and New Guinea as far as I know, and no record of them in the Bible, by Europeans or Asians exist that I am aware.

So, this is a problem with the Creation model as I see it. When the kangaroo got off Noah’s Ark, it should have left traces of populations in Europe and Asia. Along with other species of animals that only exist in specific places, like the species of Madagascar.

But there is zero record of them anywhere except Australia. So yeah, kangaroos being on Noah’s ark does t seem very plausible does it?

 

[Guyver]

I used the most reliable source there is on planet earth.

I see. You got it from the Bible so it had to be a million man army. Couldn’t have been a typo or anything. Let’s see....I’m checking my memory banks....and no....I don’t think I can recall a historical source recording a standing army that large. I guess it’s possible, but wow....what a logistical nightmare that would be!

Alexander the Great conquered the entire known world with like 40 some thousand men. So, yeah...a million man army doesn’t seem realistic.

 

[Stripe]

Funny you should mention the kangaroo....I’m guessing you’d like to offer an explanation for them?

You're not very smart, are you?

There were no kangaroos discovered anywhere except for Australia and New Guinea.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sc...ry-has-archaeologists-hopping-with-excitement

The point was: You introduced another logical fallacy, this one the argument from silence.

We prefer a rational discussion, but you Darwinists always struggle to deliver.

 

[Guyver]

You're not very smart, are you?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sc...ry-has-archaeologists-hopping-with-excitement

The point was: You introduced another logical fallacy, this one the argument from silence.

We prefer a rational discussion, but you Darwinists always struggle to deliver.

I’m surprised you posted that link. It says those strange drawings that look nothing like kangaroos are 12,000 years old. But you said the earth is only six thousand years old. So, that’s contradictory isn’t it?

 

[Stripe]

I’m surprised you posted that link.

I'm surprised that you've made it this far without walking into a lamppost. :idunno: