Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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.
:freak:
toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
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.
:freak:
Right Divider
Body part
Dodge # 101
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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?
:AMR:
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-universe-billion-years-younger.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=the...ounger&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=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...
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-universe-billion-years-younger.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=the...ounger&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=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...
Right Divider
Body part
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.
So the mechanism of mutation plus natural selection... mutations happen to populations? or individuals?
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.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Is a population not individual animals or plants?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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? :jazz:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
In other words, he wants others to follow his example.
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.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That "response" sums your maturity up to a tee, unfortunately. I mean how old are you, really?
lain:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
@ L3457 3.5 billion years old, or so I am told.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What, and you still haven't learned that "LOL" belongs in the realm of teenage diaries yet?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What, and you still haven't learned that "LOL" belongs in the realm of teenage diaries yet?
LOL
You dispute my age claim?
(PS: I see you haven't got your teeth slots patched in yet. And, you've had that mean old self-inflicted shiner for how many days now?)
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, yes, obviously as as a person you are as old as from your date of actual birth. You do have a birthday, right?