User Tag List

Page 29 of 41 FirstFirst ... 192627282930313239 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 612

Thread: toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

  1. #421
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,298
    Thanks
    10,149
    Thanked 7,914 Times in 5,336 Posts

    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    I'm not asserting anything. I've given facts for you ignore.
    Yes, you are. You claim it's been debunked but I'm not seeing that when I check it out and your personal opinion in itself means absolutely nothing.

    Well this is fun isn't it?


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    mtwilcox (October 9th, 2019)

  3. #422
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,439
    Thanks
    15,053
    Thanked 22,521 Times in 12,828 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147721

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Yes, you are. You claim it's been debunked but I'm not seeing that when I check it out and your personal opinion in itself means absolutely nothing.

    Dodge # 101
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (October 9th, 2019),mtwilcox (October 9th, 2019)

  5. #423
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4297
    We should come up with a more accurate dating method, right here, right now on TOL: given the said method is obviously inaccurate at figuring out the age of fossils, and rocks...

    Any ideas?

    =M=

  6. #424
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,298
    Thanks
    10,149
    Thanked 7,914 Times in 5,336 Posts

    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    Dodge # 101
    Oh please stop projecting. If I was attempting to dodge anything I wouldn't have put up links describing how the process (among others) works in relation to how the age of the universe is calculated. You claimed it was debunked and you've brought zero to the discussion apart from your own personal opinions. That is not evidence that debunks science. Is that all you had after making your initial claim? Your own objections?

    Well this is fun isn't it?


  7. #425
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4297
    Did you know that Astro-physicists just found out that the Universe is at least 2 billion years younger than previously thought?

    This means that the earth is also 2 billion years younger, unless they change their theories on how long they believe it takes for stars and planets to form...

    Taking billions of years off of supposed 13.5 billion year age all the time, will eventually get us to around 6-10 thousand years...

    =M=

    https://phys.org/news/2019-09-univer...s-younger.html

    https://www.google.com/search?q=the%...=firefox-b-1-m

    But who really knows, right?
    I mean, YECs debate about it being 6-10,000; and now there is a debate between 13.5 to 11.5 by astrophysicists...

    The point is, we don’t know.

    What’s interesting is there are fossils of modern living animals!!!!
    Bam!!! Proof of creation, debate over; we can all discus other important things now; like, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood...

  8. #426
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,439
    Thanks
    15,053
    Thanked 22,521 Times in 12,828 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147721

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Oh please stop projecting. If I was attempting to dodge anything I wouldn't have put up links describing how the process (among others) works in relation to how the age of the universe is calculated. You claimed it was debunked and you've brought zero to the discussion apart from your own personal opinions. That is not evidence that debunks science. Is that all you had after making your initial claim? Your own objections?

    The THREE assumptions that are the basis of radiometric dating are unverifiable.

    Radiometric dating is NOT a scientific method for determining the age of the earth or anything else.

    But instead of addressing the problem you will:
    • Appeal to popularity
    • Appeal to authority
    • Elephant hurl (off to the "abundance" of evidence, etc. etc)
    • Or... just plain ignore the problem.

    Just take a couple of minutes and explain how a method that relies on THREE (at minimum) assumptions can be considered a scientific method. We'll wait....
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 9th, 2019),mtwilcox (October 9th, 2019)

  10. #427
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,069
    Thanks
    421
    Thanked 469 Times in 319 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    411119
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.
    So the mechanism of mutation plus natural selection... mutations happen to populations? or individuals?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Yorzhik For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (October 9th, 2019),JudgeRightly (October 9th, 2019),mtwilcox (October 9th, 2019),Right Divider (October 9th, 2019)

  12. #428
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,425
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 789 Times in 531 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    179459
    Quote Originally Posted by mtwilcox View Post
    Did you know that Astro-physicists just found out that the Universe is at least 2 billion years younger than previously thought?

    This means that the earth is also 2 billion years younger, unless they change their theories on how long they believe it takes for stars and planets to form...

    Taking billions of years off of supposed 13.5 billion year age all the time, will eventually get us to around 6-10 thousand years...

    =M=

    https://phys.org/news/2019-09-univer...s-younger.html

    https://www.google.com/search?q=the%...=firefox-b-1-m

    But who really knows, right?
    I mean, YECs debate about it being 6-10,000; and now there is a debate between 13.5 to 11.5 by astrophysicists...

    The point is, we don’t know.

    What’s interesting is there are fossils of modern living animals!!!!
    Bam!!! Proof of creation, debate over; we can all discus other important things now; like, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
    ..
    There is already enough evidence to throw extreme doubt on evolution and support creation. Even if there was absolute proof of creation, which I don't think will ever happen because God has declared faith is what it takes to please Him, evolutionists would do the same thing with it that they do with all the evidence that exists now. Ignore it. Dismiss it with extreme prejudice. When it comes to the war between God and the devil his side will never admit to the love, goodness, and power of God.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to ffreeloader For Your Post:

    mtwilcox (October 9th, 2019)

  14. #429
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,135
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 855 Times in 545 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.
    Is a population not individual animals or plants?

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 9th, 2019),mtwilcox (October 9th, 2019),Right Divider (October 9th, 2019)

  16. #430
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,135
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 855 Times in 545 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Oh please stop projecting. If I was attempting to dodge anything I wouldn't have put up links describing how the process (among others) works in relation to how the age of the universe is calculated.
    That is you attempting to dodge questions: your putting up links instead of answering the questions that you've been asked is you stonewalling against those questions. If you could have answered the questions, you'd have done so.

    That you have no self-respect is showcased by your continued loitering in this thread despite your continual, manifest incompetence to answer any of the questions that you've been asked, herein. You're here solely to beg for attention.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 9th, 2019),Right Divider (October 9th, 2019)

  18. #431
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,135
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 855 Times in 545 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    So the mechanism of mutation plus natural selection... mutations happen to populations? or individuals?
    Ah, I see you're here to "play semantics games", too. How dare you ask him a question against which he will be compelled to stonewall?

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 9th, 2019),Yorzhik (October 9th, 2019)

  20. #432
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,298
    Thanks
    10,149
    Thanked 7,914 Times in 5,336 Posts

    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    The THREE assumptions that are the basis of radiometric dating are unverifiable.

    Radiometric dating is NOT a scientific method for determining the age of the earth or anything else.

    But instead of addressing the problem you will:
    • Appeal to popularity
    • Appeal to authority
    • Elephant hurl (off to the "abundance" of evidence, etc. etc)
    • Or... just plain ignore the problem.

    Just take a couple of minutes and explain how a method that relies on THREE (at minimum) assumptions can be considered a scientific method. We'll wait....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

    Debunk it, or don't. Don't make simplistic claims about a process that you clearly haven't read much about and equally, don't make claims as to its being "destroyed".

    Your opinion in itself means absolutely nothing and so far you've debunked nothing either.
    Last edited by Arthur Brain; October 9th, 2019 at 06:36 PM.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  21. #433
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,298
    Thanks
    10,149
    Thanked 7,914 Times in 5,336 Posts

    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    That is you attempting to dodge questions: your putting up links instead of answering the questions that you've been asked is you stonewalling against those questions. If you could have answered the questions, you'd have done so.

    That you have no self-respect is showcased by your continued loitering in this thread despite your continual, manifest incompetence to answer any of the questions that you've been asked, herein. You're here solely to beg for attention.
    Dude, if you had any self respect as you put it, you'd have held your hands up to your basic error on this thread (like post 1) as soon as it had been pointed out. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life itself came about. Do a search on the topic. Find some accredited source that says otherwise. Ain't gonna happen but it's pretty clear now that you're either very young and precocious or immature as to not acknowledge the basic mistake of conflating the theory with that of how life first came into being. You are wrong. Accept it because we are all wrong at times, it's part of being human. Part of life also involves growing up and accepting those mistakes.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  22. #434
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,135
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 855 Times in 545 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    He's insinuating that the things he accepts as true should not be questioned.
    In other words, he wants others to follow his example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Otherwise, there's simply no reason to say belief has no place describing a response to a fact, quotes or no quotes.
    It's a quaint, ill-conceived little ploy I've seen, here and there, over the years, used by several anti-Christians--the "I don't believe anything" shtick. It's always funny to me, because, invariably, you see such performers (in futile hope of saving face) awkwardly having to try to come up with alternatives to saying "I believe..."; and yet, whatever they come up with, all they've achieved is to have now invited inquiry into their imaginary distinction between "I believe X" and "I _____ X." In kiwimacahau's case, he decided, willy-nilly, on "I accept X". And, of course, they're never going to get out from under such inquiry. So far, he hasn't gotten back to me with an answer as to how accepting the proposition, P, is different from believing the proposition, P.

    In my book, accepting the proposition, P, is one and the same with believing the proposition, P. No difference. That being the case, even kiwimacahau, in fact, does not accept what he would call "the theory of evolution", because what he would call "the theory of evolution" is not a proposition at all--not even a false one: it is pure nonsense.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 9th, 2019)

  24. #435
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,135
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 855 Times in 545 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Dude, if you had any self respect as you put it, you'd have held your hands up to your basic error on this thread (like post 1) as soon as it had been pointed out. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life itself came about. Do a search on the topic. Find some accredited source that says otherwise. Ain't gonna happen but it's pretty clear now that you're either very young and precocious or immature as to not acknowledge the basic mistake of conflating the theory with that of how life first came into being. You are wrong. Accept it because we are all wrong at times, it's part of being human. Part of life also involves growing up and accepting those mistakes.
    LOL

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)

  1. Silent Hunter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us