Right Divider
Body part
Provide evidence for your claims.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
Provide evidence for your claims.
1. The oldest known human on record is Jeanne Calment of France, who died in 1997 at age 122. This is verified by reference to official documents. No older person has had the equivalent independent verification of age.
2. A 2008 study by Hershkowitz and Gopher on skeletal remains of two neolithic populations of 15,000 to 12,000 years before present, and 12,000 to 8,000 years before present showed life expectancy at birth to be 25 years, with a mean adult age at death of 32 years.
Stuart
What are you claiming to mean by space-time-matter?
Didn't I just tell you that?
Perhaps it would be honest for you to quote exactly what he said about this, and what claims he makes about what he can conclude about many universes from what he observes. For a start, can you quote him 'claiming that there are an infinite number of universes'?
Stuart
The fact that it is obvious to anyone that it is rare for humans to live to the age of 100, let alone many hundreds of years old.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
I hate to have to tell you AGAIN that this does NOT prove that nobody could have ever lived longer than that.
You really are very clueless when it comes to logic and reason. Perhaps you're not highly evolved enough.
Again, this does NOT prove anything. Those dates are fantasy, therefore results based on those dates is as well.
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
No, you didn't.
The recording is available on the RSR website. Go find it yourself.
It's an open forum. Anyone can join in on the discussion.
Correct.
Post number?
Quote the post?
Again, Post number or Quote.
Huh?
You were given a link earlier. (Perhaps in another thread?)
Here it is again:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ210.html#wp19593608
Read through the next few pages.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
This is a(n attempted) veiled argument from silence.
You cannot use lack of data as evidence for a claim.
By the way, have you never heard of Methuselah? He died just a year shy of 970 years old...
Oh wait, you ignore the Bible as evidence. (That's special pleading, by the way...)
And?
Alleged ages of those remains aside, no one is claiming that life span lengths have been decreasing at a steady rate.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
That some humans have not lived to the age of 100 does not entail that no human has ever lived for a many-hundred-years period. So, you've not based your claim that no human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years on the truth that some humans' lifespans have been less than 100 years. That is, you've not inferred your claim from that truth, because that truth does not entail your claim--what you are claiming does not follow that truth. What you've handed us is a non sequitur, rather than a deduction, or a conclusion.
Right Divider
Body part
He will likely not understand a bit of that.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Well, he definitely fails, in his posts, to rationally deal with the truth and logic with which we confront his irrational thinking. I suppose it's (perhaps?) slightly better for him if he really doesn't understand it--doesn't see the logical necessity of it--than if he does see it, but is so hardened in his hatred of God, truth, and logic, that he is actually willing to play stupid, letting on like he does not understand it.
No, but it establishes a standard of probity. Where are the independent records that confirm the claims that humans lived hundreds of years? Your claim does not meet that standard.
You are now making a new claim, that the dates in a peer-reviewed scientific paper are fantasy. That is a pretty serious accusation against professional scientists. Can you support it, or should they subpoena you to appear on a libel claim?
I stand by that as a disproof of the general claim that humans lived for hundreds of years in the past.
I look forward to your turn, where you defend your claim of 'accurate history'.
Stuart
Last edited:
If you aren't prepared to do the work to defend your claim, then I guess you didn't really mean it. I accept your implicit retraction, as I'm sure would Lawrence Krauss.
Stuart
Right, yes I have read that before. Is that it? Is that the great dating of this global flood?
What a joke. It goes like this:
1. Let's all ASSUME there was a global flood within the past few thousand years
2. Let's all ASSUME that basically all the small bodies of the solar system flew off the surface of earth during that event
3. Even though several Halley-like comets go through perihelion each year, let's find the coincidence of the orbits of TWO of them within the past few thousand years and call that ALL of them.
4. Therefore there was a global flood in 3290 give or take 100 years.
5. A bishop added some impossible human lifespans together and agreed somewhat, but not reliably.
Seriously, is that the extent of it??
Stuart
Why? So you can find something to argue against?
Right Divider
Body part
No, it doesn't. Today does not tell you about the distance past.
Listen AGAIN... YOU made a CLAIM that "humans could never have lived that long". YOU must THEREFORE provide EVIDENCE for THAT CLAIM (to which you have NOT come close).
You are ONCE AGAIN using "peer review" as a way of "proving" that something is true. It is just the same old fallacy of the appeal to authority.
I'm not worried... I am expressing an honest opinion, which is my God given right.
All hot air on your part.
FIRST, you need to support YOUR CLAIM (which BTW, started this).
Last edited:
Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. You should refrain from using such to argue against a position.
Yes, when testing to see if a theory is valid, it is normal to assume the conditions of the theory to be true.
Doing so, allows predictions to be made, such as you you are herein trying to discredit, that there is a way to determine WHEN the Flood happened.
You don't seem to have read the qualifications portion for selecting which comets to use.
Well, no, that's an estimate based on the evidence for when the flood would have likely happened.
Which is called corroborating evidence.
Two or three witnesses (the two comets + a geneology that corroborates the date) shall establish a matter.
More evidence: Remember how I said I had used Universe Sandbox 2 to model the universe back to the supposed date? I forget which comet it was, but I do know that the result was that the comet came within a few hundred billion kilometers.
More corroborating evidence.
That's three witnesses. More than enough evidence to support the theory.
Hypocrite.