Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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?

    Comment


    • 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.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      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.

      Comment


      • 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=

        Comment


        • 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?

          Comment


          • 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...

            Comment


            • 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.
              Originally posted by Squeaky
              That explains why your an idiot.
              Originally posted by God's Truth
              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.

              Comment


              • 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

                Comment


                • 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

                  Comment


                  • 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?
                    What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                    MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                      MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                      Comment


                      • 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?
                        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                        MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                        Comment


                        • 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 9, 2019, 05:36 PM.
                          Well this is fun isn't it?

                          Comment


                          • 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?

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              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.
                              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                              MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                              Comment


                              • 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
                                What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                                MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X