Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[7djengo7]

Adult houseflies only live for about a month but housefly evolution has been going on for ...at least the past 70 million years.

Notice your weaselly calculation in your having chosen to write, "housefly evolution has been going on for...at least the past 70 million years", rather than, "houseflies have been evolving for...at least the past 70 million years". Still, you failed to conceal your problem.

If no houseflies live any longer than about a month, then no houseflies have been doing anything for a period of more than about a month--for a period of 70 millions of years.

 

[7djengo7]

You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?

Where's your evidence that the claim you're saying he's making is extraordinary?

That's your claim: "You're making an extraordinary claim". Where's your evidence for your claim? C'mon, poser. Where is it?

 

[Right Divider]

Where's your evidence that the claim you're saying he's making is extraordinary?

That's your claim: "You're making an extraordinary claim". Where's your evidence for your claim? C'mon, poser. Where is it?

He's just doing the usual atheist Bible bashing without any evidence to support his claim. What else is new?

 

[7djengo7]

He's just doing the usual atheist Bible bashing without any evidence to support his claim. What else is new?

Yup. The slogans he parrots have been around for at least nearly a decade; I've seen it all, years ago, on YouTube videos and comments. Not only stupidity, but stale stupidity.

 

[7djengo7]

No.

Stuart

By your "No", you've just told me that evidence is not

a reason or justification given for a belief.​

 

[Stuu]

Nothing means nothing. It does NOT mean a balance of positive and negative charges.

I didn't mean a balance of positive and negative charges. I meant a balance of positive and negative energy. Matter is energy, so all the matter in the universe is energy borrowed from the inflation of space-time.

If the expansion of the universe were to go into reverse, then the matter/energy of the universe would be paid back as gravitational energy of the contraction.

See, an actual explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. Or why there is this kind of nothing-on-average instead of another kind of nothing.

Don't take my word for it. Read the book of Mr. Enyart's radio guest Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

The idea of radiometric dating is tied to the idea of "the evolution of the solar system". Both are false.

How are they tied? I don't see why they are at all. Can you explain how? Then can you go back to my earlier question and tell me what kind of radioisotope dating you are criticising, and then specifically what assumptions you feel must be wrong, and how they are wrong?

Stuu: Yes, because people don't live that long today.

So you are basing your claim on something that you cannot prove.

My interest is science. Proving is not science, it is mathematics or logic.

Stuu: You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?

I didn't make the claim. You made the anti-claim.

The burden of proof is not on me. Prima facie, humans do not live for many hundreds of years. You are making the extraordinary claim, based on the fact that you have defended biblical genealogy as a means of estimating historical dates, that humans did live for hundreds of years. So, where is your extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim?

This passage is about people like you:

2Pe 3:2-7 KJV That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: (3) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

[off topic]It's not just about me, though is it. In fact it's mostly aimed at preachers who were not preaching right. And as you will be well aware, it's also about early christians wondering when they would see Jesus again. Paul thought it would be within his lifetime, but that prediction changed as he aged. So, when will Jesus be back. Is it still 'soon'?

Maybe I am one of the scoffers who is here in the last days. But then there have always been scoffers, haven't there. And there will be even more scoffers in the coming centuries. So much for 2 Peter 3:3. But if it is true, you need me to scoff to make the prophecy come true.

I love verses like 2 Peter 3:7. Compulsory love, on pain of being burned in sulfur. But I could be saved from this if I accept a human sacrifice, one that takes away from me the responsibility for my wrongdoing. Three immoral things: compulsory love, human sacrifice, abdication of responsibility. Three of the reasons I am not a christian.[/off topic]

You missed out 2 Peter 3:8. A day is as a thousand years, right? So, if we multiply out 5200 years (time since flood according to impossible genealogy) x 356.25 days/year x 1000 years/day we get 1.9 billion years since the flood.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Then why are you making the assumption?

What assumption was I making, in your opinion?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

What assumption was I making, in your opinion?

Stuart

That something is evidence because you say it is.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?​

​

What evidence do you have for your claim that so-and-so is making an extraordinary claim? So far, you've stonewalled against this question, like you have so many others that I've asked you.​

 

[Right Divider]

I didn't mean a balance of positive and negative charges. I meant a balance of positive and negative energy. Matter is energy, so all the matter in the universe is energy borrowed from the inflation of space-time.

Your world view is just full of wild speculation. Where did space-time-matter come from?

If the expansion of the universe were to go into reverse, then the matter/energy of the universe would be paid back as gravitational energy of the contraction.

More wild speculation.

See, an actual explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

I know why there is something rather than nothing... and it wasn't "nothing did it".

Or why there is this kind of nothing-on-average instead of another kind of nothing.

Your idea that "nothing created everything" is bad science.

Don't take my word for it. Read the book of Mr. Enyart's radio guest Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing.

I listened to Dr. Krauss on Mr. Enyart's show. He was a raving lunatic. Dr. Krauss said that he "doesn't believe anything".

 

[Right Divider]

How are they tied? I don't see why they are at all. Can you explain how?

If you cannot understand this simple science, how can we have a discussion?

The origin of the materials and how they formed on earth is the starting point for using them to "measure" the age of the earth.

If you don't know the starting conditions, the ratios are meaningless other than that they are ratios.

Then can you go back to my earlier question and tell me what kind of radioisotope dating you are criticising, and then specifically what assumptions you feel must be wrong, and how they are wrong?

Your origin story is wrong, therefore anything that you base on it is also wrong.

Stuu: Yes, because people don't live that long today.

My interest is science. Proving is not science, it is mathematics or logic.

Please demonstrate from mathematics and logic that humans could never have lived to be hundreds of years old.

Stuu: You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?

The burden of proof is not on me. Prima facie, humans do not live for many hundreds of years. You are making the extraordinary claim, based on the fact that you have defended biblical genealogy as a means of estimating historical dates, that humans did live for hundreds of years. So, where is your extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim?

Once again you are completely confused. YOU made the claim that humans could never have lived to be hundreds of years old.

YOU made that CLAIM. YOU, therefore, must provide evidence to support that claim. That humans TODAY do not live that old is NOT evidence that they COULD NEVER HAVE LIVED THAT LONG IN THE PAST.

It's just that simple.

You missed out 2 Peter 3:8. A day is as a thousand years, right? So, if we multiply out 5200 years (time since flood according to impossible genealogy) x 356.25 days/year x 1000 years/day we get 1.9 billion years since the flood.

It's so funny when an unbeliever tries to use scripture.

2Pe 3:8 KJV But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.​

It's so common for someone abusing the scripture to LEAVE IMPORTANT DETAILS out of their OUT OF CONTEXT quotes.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Stuu: Yes, because people don't live that long today.

. . .

Stuu: You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?

...

The burden of proof is not on me. Prima facie, humans do not live for many hundreds of years. You are making the extraordinary claim, based on the fact that you have defended biblical genealogy as a means of estimating historical dates, that humans did live for hundreds of years.

On the contrary, you are making the following claim:

"Because people today do not live hundreds of years, therefore they did not always live for hundreds of years."

So yes, the burden of proof is indeed on you.

So, where is your extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim?

Again, you're the one making the claim here, not us.

Compulsory love, on pain of being burned in sulfur. But I could be saved from this if I accept a human sacrifice, one that takes away from me the responsibility for my wrongdoing. Three immoral things: compulsory love, human sacrifice, abdication of responsibility. Three of the reasons I am not a christian.

This is so far off the mark there's no point in even trying to correct it.

You should take these complaints to the Religion section, and specifically the Exclusively Christian Theology section.

This is the wrong thread for it, and used the way you used it, is logically fallacious in several different ways.

You missed out 2 Peter 3:8. A day is as a thousand years, right? So, if we multiply out 5200 years (time since flood according to impossible genealogy) x 356.25 days/year x 1000 years/day we get 1.9 billion years since the flood.

Sorry, but this passage isn't talking about how God experiences time. Maybe you should read the context first before trying to use it in a science discussion.

 

[Stuu]

Again, you're the one making the claim here, not us.

I'm not sure how you have got yourself involved in this. I have some memory that you denied it was adding up genealogies that got to a few thousands of years ago global flood. It is RD who claimed that, as I recall. So perhaps it is he who should defend his claim that people did live for hundreds of years, given how central it is to the wider claim.

You should take these complaints to the Religion section, and specifically the Exclusively Christian Theology section. This is the wrong thread for it, and used the way you used it, is logically fallacious in several different ways.

I acknowledge this is the wrong thread for me to reply to RD's verses, or for you to tell me that my claims about christianity are logically fallacious.

Sorry, but this passage isn't talking about how God experiences time. Maybe you should read the context first before trying to use it in a science discussion.

Alright then, divine threats noted.

I'm still keen to hear from you the details of how you claim a date for a global flood of a few thousand years ago.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

If you don't know the starting conditions, the ratios are meaningless other than that they are ratios.

You might need to give me much clearer details for me to understand what you mean. For example, what is the relevance of the origin of the material if the rates of change of the ratios of each of the parent and daughter isotopes are being measured relative to a stable isotope of the daughter as in an isochron plot, for example?

Stuu: Then can you go back to my earlier question and tell me what kind of radioisotope dating you are criticising, and then specifically what assumptions you feel must be wrong, and how they are wrong?

Your origin story is wrong, therefore anything that you base on it is also wrong.

Which method of radioisotope dating are you criticising, and what relationship does it have with an 'origin story'?

Please demonstrate from mathematics and logic that humans could never have lived to be hundreds of years old.

How would that work?

YOU made that CLAIM. YOU, therefore, must provide evidence to support that claim. That humans TODAY do not live that old is NOT evidence that they COULD NEVER HAVE LIVED THAT LONG IN THE PAST. It's just that simple.

I refer you to your post in this thread #649, which included this:

Stuu: How would you describe assuming they're not long periods of time because of sums done on a book of genealogies in which people supposedly lived for hundreds of years? That's not silly, I guess.

Right Divider: No, it's not silly. It's called accurate history.

That was the claim you made, and I am asking you how you defend it.

It's so funny when an unbeliever tries to use scripture.

Glad to amuse. It's an endless source of absurdity.

2Pe 3:8 KJV But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. It's so common for someone abusing the scripture to LEAVE IMPORTANT DETAILS out of their OUT OF CONTEXT quotes.

Well that part of the verse was not important to all those christians in history who used the first six days of creation to mean 6000 years of history of the earth, and it's not relevant to my calculation either, obviously!

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

My interest is science.

Your interest is your empty word, "science", and the nonsense, falsehood, and irrationality to which you apply it. But, prior to that interest is your interest in reviling and blaspheming God, you sinner.

Proving is not science, it is mathematics or logic.

Obviously your interest is not logic. Your interest is your perpetual war against logic and truth.

The burden of proof is not on me. Prima facie, humans do not live for many hundreds of years.

By "humans do not live for many hundreds of years", which one of the following, two propositions do you mean?

1. Some humans do not live for many hundreds of years.
2. No humans live for many hundreds of years. (All humans are things that do not live for many hundreds of years.)

Which one do you mean?

Was it due mere carelessness that you neglected to specify whether you were affirming an universal proposition, or, instead, a partial proposition? Surely it wasn't deliberate, right? Surely you weren't intending obfuscation, right?

 

[Stuu]

Your world view is just full of wild speculation. Where did space-time-matter come from?

What is space-time-matter?

More wild speculation.

Let's hope it doesn't happen so we find out the hard way.

I know why there is something rather than nothing... and it wasn't "nothing did it".

I don't think you have an explanation. You haven't said how it happened.

Your idea that "nothing created everything" is bad science.

That's not my idea. The inflation of space-time is what generated 'eveything', in the sense of the matter/energy we observe.

I listened to Dr. Krauss on Mr. Enyart's show. He was a raving lunatic. Dr. Krauss said that he "doesn't believe anything".

Did you listen to his explanation of that? Or did you hear what a religious fundamentalist would want to hear?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Which one do you mean?

No human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

No human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years.

Stuart

False.

Notice that you've left yourself with merely asserting that no human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years. That's all you can do. In fact, your "prima facie" and "the burden of proof is on you" shtick is nothing more than an admission from you that all you can do is merely assert that no human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years--it's an admission that you've got absolutely nothing behind your assertion--no proof, no evidence, no science. The falsehood you are asserting--that is one of your starting principles. You start by supposing that no human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years, and from that presupposition of yours, you pretend to argue that the Bible is false. But, just because you presuppose that no human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years does not entail that you are not motivated to presuppose it. You're, in fact, motivated to presuppose it by your hatred of God, you sinner--you're motivated to presuppose it by your wish that the Bible were false.

That is the ultimate spring of your behaving as the fool you are--of your asserting that no human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years: your hatred of God.

But, I should give recognition, here, that you actually did answer the question I asked you. Rare thing from you. But thanks, nevertheless.

Oh, also, when you say, "Prima facie, [no human's life span has ever been many hundreds of years]", I am prompted to look up the phrase, "define prima facie". The first thing that came up when I searched bing.com for "prima facie" is:

based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise

Is what bing.com says regarding "prima facie" disagreeable to you? If not, then I would ask you: When you say, "[based on the first impression....] no human's lifespan has ever been many hundreds of years", of WHAT is this "first impression" of which you speak? Based on your "first impression" of WHAT? Your "first impression" of every human who has ever lived? What (if anything) would you mean were you to say that you had a "first impression"--or, for that matter, an "impression", period--of a man of whom you've never heard, and whom you've never seen, and who lived and died thousands of years prior to your lifetime--let alone, of millions of such persons? Perhaps the "first impression" on which your claim about human lifespans is "based" is your understanding that your claim is contrary to the Bible, and that's the "first impression" you're going to run with, because it comports with your hatred of God?​

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not sure how you have got yourself involved in this.

Anyone can reply to any post. That's "how he got himself involved".

 

[Right Divider]

What is space-time-matter?

And you want to have a discussion about science? :french:

That's not my idea. The inflation of space-time is what generated 'eveything', in the sense of the matter/energy we observe.

Where did "everything" come from?

Did you listen to his explanation of that? Or did you hear what a religious fundamentalist would want to hear?

Atheist insults don't help your hopeless case.

Dr. Krauss claims that there are an infinite number of universes (and... of course, we're in the one that works for us). And he claims to stick to what he can observe. :rotfl:

You guys are a hoot!