Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Idolater]

...30,000 or more years ago...24,000 years old...

What do these terms mean Marke?

 

[Skeeter]

It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like.

It seems that way.

That IS NOT evolution, that is natural selection and adaptation which is NOT the same thing.

It most certainly is. Macroevolution and microevolution have always been evolution no matter how you want to package it.

The problem you evolutionists have is that you've lowered the goal post so far that it's gone. Anything you see happen in nature counts in your minds as evidence for evolution. Literally ANYTHING at all. It's become the most fundamentally unfalsifiable nonsense

A bluejay taking a crap on right divider's windshield is not evidence of evolution, it's just good aim. Evolution is such a revolutionary and fundamental theory, it does have pervasive impact on how we understand biological systems. This is not because we are weakening how we understand it. This is because it provides explanatory power that fuels practical applications in the many field like medicine, for example.

Current evolutionary theory claims that homo-sapiens split off something like 200,000 years ago. If you count generations as the length of time it takes for one generation to reach sexual maturity then that's about 14,000 generations or so if you say that most 14 year-olds can and did reproduce. In other words, 14,000 generations is a generous number but lets be way more generous than that! Neanderthals split from homo erectus somewhere between 800,000 and 300,000 years ago (ridiculously wide error bar on that one, by the way) so we've had at least two speciation events occur, according to evolutionary theory, in the last 800,000 years, so lets just average that and say every 400,000 or 28,500 generations there's a new species OF HUMANS! For ease of discussion I'll even give you an extra 1500 generation and we'll use 30,000 generations.

E. Coli bacteria, a FAR simpler form of life than any form of human, reproduces every 15-20 minutes and so lets use the longer number of 20 minutes. There 1440 minutes in a day and so that's 480 generations a 24 hour day. 30,000 generations / 480 generations per day comes to 62 days and 12 hours.

If we expand that to include the entire 800,000 years since eructus supposedly showed up, then we're talking about 57,142 generations. A number of generations that e coli would achieve in 119 days. So, if you started your experiment on January 1st, you should have some speciation event occur by the 29th of April.

At least one evolutionary study with e coli has been running continuously since 1987 with not one single speciation event happening at all! Every microbe in the experiment is still e coli!

This is simply because e. coli reproduces by asexual reproduction and genus homo reproduces sexually. It will take predictably longer for asexual reproduction to produce speciation.

This is just another area where evolutionists have muddied the water so badly that normal discussion cannot occur without tediously defining terms. As I said before, evolutionists have defined terms in such a way that everything in nature presents as evidence for evolution in their minds. This includes the term "species". The only thing in all of science that is more unfalsifiable is the big bang theory which has somehow survived the rejection of the notion of a singularity being the start of it all!

Operationally defining terms is an essential aspect of empirical method. Goal posts are not moving. Our understanding is becoming more sophisticated.

Look, if you continue down this road then I certainly will not. The fact that watches require, not only watch designers, but also watch makers is not true because I say so. It is true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary, not to mention the law of entropy! Anyone who denies it is a literal idiot. I DO NOT discuss science (or much of anything else) with idiots.

You are going to exit this discussion because it is chaffing on you. I get it. Cognitive dissonance is a pain.

So, here's your test...

Was the Antikythera Mechanism DEFINITELY intelligently designed and made?

ANY answer other than...

"Yes! I, Skeeter, absolutely know for an undeniable, scientific fact that the Antikythera Mechanism was certainly intelligently designed and that is was made on purpose and that it was not, and could not possibly have been, the result of anything remotely close to a mindless process!" (including the underlining and exclamation marks)​

....will prove that you're either an idiot or a liar and will thus end my participation in this already fruitless discussion.

You are not my professor, and there is no final exam. Of course I would conclude this mechanism was man-made. Humans existed when it appeared. Materials to build it existed. Knowledge of astronomy is documented during that period. No evidence of earlier forms exist.

In the absence of evidence of a designer, if Antikythera were found on a distant planet with a fossil record of lesser forms, an indication of former condusive environments, I would conclude it evolved.

I see no evidence of life on other planets, when I see such evidence I will believe it. For now I conclude there is no extraterrestrial life although given the vast amount of time and space I suspect that there was/is such life.

Inference only has meaning when grounded in the convergence of facts. Feel free to bow out now. Maybe I will see you in another thread.

 

[Skeeter]

Nice opinion. Now back it up.

Scientists finally confirm there was life on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago

A decades-old scientific debate about whether how long ago the planet has hosted life has finally been settled using new methods.

qz.com

 

[Right Divider]

It seems that way.

It most certainly is. Macroevolution and microevolution have always been evolution no matter how you want to package it.

Macroevolution has never happened.
Microevoltuion is a term intentionally used to confuse. It's just variations easily explained without the need for GtY.

A bluejay taking a crap on right divider's windshield is not evidence of evolution, it's just good aim.

Evolutionists lack sense of humor. That is why they look so stupid when they try to "be funny".

Evolution is such a revolutionary and fundamental theory, it does have pervasive impact on how we understand biological systems.

It is actually a FALSE theory that has had many damaging effects on society.

This is not because we are weakening how we understand it. This is because it provides explanatory power that fuels practical applications in the many field like medicine, for example.

That is silly and untrue. No doctor, for example, uses any part of "evolution" to do his/her job.

This is simply because e. coli reproduces by asexual reproduction and genus homo reproduces sexually.

Why would sexual reproduction "evolve" in the first place? (HINT: It wouldn't. Like many other things, it proves GtY false).

It will take predictably longer for asexual reproduction to produce speciation.

Again, speciation is meaningless in the supposed upward path from GOO to YOU.

Operationally defining terms is an essential aspect of empirical method. Goal posts are not moving. Our understanding is becoming more sophisticated.

False and misleading definition of terms is the hallmark of "evolution". False and misleading terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

You are going to exit this discussion because it is chaffing on you. I get it. Cognitive dissonance is a pain.

Actually, the problem is babbling fools like yourself.

In the absence of evidence of a designer, if Antikythera were found on a distant planet with a fossil record of lesser forms, an indication of former condusive environments, I would conclude it evolved.

There is no "absence of evidence of a designer", but there is self-induced blindness on the part of atheist evolutionists.

I see no evidence of life on other planets, when I see such evidence I will believe it. For now I conclude there is no extraterrestrial life although given the vast amount of time and space I suspect that there was/is such life.

Of course you "suspect that there was/is such life". If life was just a "lucky accident" on earth, why not elsewhere?

 

[Idolater]

...[Evolution] is actually a FALSE theory that has had many damaging effects on society....

It's actually a worthy contention here. If morals are absolute then evolution is unlikely to be true, at least as commonly understood. Somehow morals must have evolved, but not just the cultural tradition of morality, but the actual absolute nature of particular morals, must have evolved somehow, for evolution and absolute morality to be both true.

I have never heard any answer for this, which means very little, but if anybody does know of any answer or answers to this problem I'm very curious to inspect it or them.

 

[Right Divider]

It's actually a worthy contention here. If morals are absolute then evolution is unlikely to be true, at least as commonly understood. Somehow morals must have evolved, but not just the cultural tradition of morality, but the actual absolute nature of particular morals, must have evolved somehow, for evolution and absolute morality to be both true.

I have never heard any answer for this, which means very little, but if anybody does know of any answer or answers to this problem I'm very curious to inspect it or them.

Atheist materialists had no grounds for any moral principles at all.

 

[marke]

What do these terms mean Marke?

Researchers convinced the earth is older than the Bible suggests studied fossils they were convinced were in the range of 24,000 years old and found no evidence that Neanderthals just a few thousand years older had any sexual relations with modern humans.

 

[marke]

Scientists finally confirm there was life on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago

A decades-old scientific debate about whether how long ago the planet has hosted life has finally been settled using new methods.

qz.com

What is considered "proof" in this report? That scientists debated the age of fossils for years or that scientists have finally accepted that the latest dating techniques produce irrefutable results based upon irrefutable assumptions about aging in the distant past?

For more than two decades, there has been a dispute in the scientific community over the oldest fossils ever found. Paleobiologists have finally laid the debate to rest today (Dec. 18), with a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that uses the latest techniques to date the most aged remains available, confirming the existence of bacteria and microbes nearly 3.5 billion years ago, possibly living on a planet without oxygen.

 

[marke]

It's actually a worthy contention here. If morals are absolute then evolution is unlikely to be true, at least as commonly understood. Somehow morals must have evolved, but not just the cultural tradition of morality, but the actual absolute nature of particular morals, must have evolved somehow, for evolution and absolute morality to be both true.

I have never heard any answer for this, which means very little, but if anybody does know of any answer or answers to this problem I'm very curious to inspect it or them.

If evolutionists inherited their morals and thought processes from monkeys then we should not be surprised by their ungodly animalistic thinking.

 

[Idolater]

Researchers convinced the earth is older than the Bible suggests studied fossils they were convinced were in the range of 24,000 years old and found no evidence that Neanderthals just a few thousand years older had any sexual relations with modern humans.

Nice. And we can just call that "marriage". We are Christians after all.

 

[Idolater]

If evolutionists inherited their morals and thought processes from monkeys then we should not be surprised by their ungodly animalistic thinking.

Basically yeah.

 

[Idolater]

What is considered "proof" in this report? That scientists debated the age of fossils for years or that scientists have finally accepted that the latest dating techniques produce irrefutable results based upon irrefutable assumptions about aging in the distant past?

For more than two decades, there has been a dispute in the scientific community over the oldest fossils ever found. Paleobiologists have finally laid the debate to rest today (Dec. 18), with a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that uses the latest techniques to date the most aged remains available, confirming the existence of bacteria and microbes nearly 3.5 billion years ago, possibly living on a planet without oxygen.

I believe the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had 'rings' in its trunk, it doesn't mean I think the thing is billions of years old. God said "I just made this" so it doesn't matter how many 'rings' are in its trunk to me, He made it with rings is all.

I don't have any problem with that. That's totally His prerogative.

 

[marke]

I believe the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had 'rings' in its trunk, it doesn't mean I think the thing is billions of years old. God said "I just made this" so it doesn't matter how many 'rings' are in its trunk to me, He made it with rings is all.

I don't have any problem with that. That's totally His prerogative.

I believe God identified the six days of creation as a time period of less than a week (as judged by our time.) I believe this because God went to the trouble of defining each day as having only one morning and one evening.

 

[Idolater]

I believe God identified the six days of creation as a time period of less than a week (as judged by our time.) I believe this because God went to the trouble of defining each day as having only one morning and one evening.

There isn't any necessary reason to not believe in six days.

 

[Skeeter]

There isn't any necessary reason to not believe in six days.

Exactly. Why quibble? It was a period of time and on this we all agree. No need to bridge the gap between 6 days and 3.5 billion years. Same difference.

 

[Idolater]

Exactly. Why quibble? It was a period of time and on this we all agree. No need to bridge the gap between 6 days and 3.5 billion years. Same difference.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

 

[Eric h]

God is a first cause is a thought devoid of evidence. It is not even an extrapolation because there is no evidence for it what-so-ever. You believe it because in your mind because it must be.

Prove the universe came into being purely by natural causes.
Prove abiogenesis happened purely by natural causes.

You seem to believe because you want to believe.

There is about a one third chance that Jesus was even a historic person (Richard Carrier, PhD.) Most Bible Scholars currently believe he existed, but they believe Moses or Noah were entirely fictional. There is growing evidence that Jesus will be next. They know this by hypothesizing about Bible inconsistencies and comparing stories and evidence among nearby cultures.

At the time of Christ the Roman Empire was in control and they had their own calendar, yet it was changed to mark BC and AD. Why would Rome change their calendar after they had crucified Christ?

 

[Clete]

No, I disagree. If atheists want to claim scientific intelligence proves God does not exist then let them offer their proof or stop basing science speculations on the assumption that God does not exist.

You don't get to disagree and maintain a leg to stand on, Marke! Sound reason is not a matter of opinion.

We theists are the ones making the claim that God exists. A God whom we claim that "no one can see and live" (Exodus 33:20) and who "hides himself" (Isaiah 45:15). It is therefore OUR burden to show evidence of His existence.

To state that it is the atheists burden to prove that an invisible God does not exist is as textbook an example of a shift of burden fallacy as it is possible to commit and if you think that they are unaware of this, you're sadly mistaken. All you do is cement their unbelief in their minds by presenting yourself as just one more Christian that hasn't any idea how to think properly.

Be better!


Now, to be fair here, you aren't entirely wrong but not for the reason you think. The burden of proof definitely does lie with the party making an affirmative truth claim, there is no doubt about that. However, the burden does shift to the opposition once evidence has been presented in support of that claim. We Christians know that this evidence has been presented for all to see (Romans 1:20) but that only works in house because basing an argument about the existence of God on Romans 1:20, or any other passage of the Bible for that matter, would be to commit another fallacy known as begging the question because our implied claim that the bible is true is based on the claim that God exists, which is what is being debated.

So, in principle, yes, the evidence, we know as Christians, is there for them to see and it isn't our fault that they close their eyes to it but that does not give us the right to throw our own minds down the toilet and start making irrational arguments. Doing so only strengthen them and hardens them against God.

Clete

 

[marke]

You don't get to disagree and maintain a leg to stand on, Marke! Sound reason is not a matter of opinion.

We theists are the ones making the claim that God exists. A God whom we claim that "no one can see and live" (Exodus 33:20) and who "hides himself" (Isaiah 45:15). It is therefore OUR burden to show evidence of His existence.

To state that it is the atheists burden to prove that an invisible God does not exist is as textbook an example of a shift of burden fallacy as it is possible to commit and if you think that they are unaware of this, you're sadly mistaken. All you do is cement their unbelief in their minds by presenting yourself as just one more Christian that hasn't any idea how to think properly.

Be better!


Now, to be fair here, you aren't entirely wrong but not for the reason you think. The burden of proof definitely does lie with the party making an affirmative truth claim, there is no doubt about that. However, the burden does shift to the opposition once evidence has been presented in support of that claim. We Christians know that this evidence has been presented for all to see (Romans 1:20) but that only works in house because basing an argument about the existence of God on Romans 1:20, or any other passage of the Bible for that matter, would be to commit another fallacy known as begging the question because our implied claim that the bible is true is based on the claim that God exists, which is what is being debated.

So, in principle, yes, the evidence, we know as Christians, is there for them to see and it isn't our fault that they close their eyes to it but that does not give us the right to throw our own minds down the toilet and start making irrational arguments. Doing so only strengthen them and hardens them against God.

Clete

Atheist evolutionists claim evolution, not God, is responsible for the development of individual life forms on earth. That is a false claim and I refuse to allow such claims to go unchallenged. They cannot prove evolution and not God is responsible for the different species.

 

[Clete]

I thought Neanderthals supposedly married Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Are they saying that the offspring from these marriages suffered from infertility, like donkeys and horses and mules?

"Supposedly" being the key word there!

Evolutionists would never use the term "married" but who knows what they claim? It seems to change on an annual basis.

There isn't any such real thing as Neanderthals, by the way. (You probably already knew that.)