criptix
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
|
 |
May 28, 2017, 03:10:12 PM |
|
Badecker doesnt believe in carbon dating and your example doesnt work with looking at tree rings af newbie.
Something of more interest would be ice core analysis.
Check that out and bring it in connection with carbon dating badecker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure you back up your wallet regularly! Unlike a bank account, nobody can help you if you lose access to your BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 28, 2017, 07:06:27 PM |
|
Badecker doesnt believe in carbon dating and your example doesnt work with looking at tree rings af newbie.
Something of more interest would be ice core analysis.
Check that out and bring it in connection with carbon dating badecker.
The carbon dating and tree ring processes work. Why believe in them? They are known. The thing that is unknown is how far into the past these things worked the same as they do in the present. If they happen to have worked a lot differently 5,000 years ago, and we knew how they worked back then, our interpretation of earth age would be different. Since we don't know how they worked back then, we can use them only to present a guesswork picture of the age of the earth. Did you catch that? Guesswork. Same said ice layer depositing, and every other method for measuring past ages. They are all essentially circular references, since they are based on the past acting the same as the present. But we don't know if the past acted the same as the present. Because of this, they can't be used for any more that guesses. We don't know how old the earth is.  |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 28, 2017, 07:19:21 PM |
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 28, 2017, 07:27:08 PM |
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? The Bible is eye witness records that science shows are honest records, even though the science for this isn't pubicly known very well, or accepted, often. Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? Why do you think that I don't believe anything that scientists say? Why might you believe science theories to be true, when the fact that they ARE theories shows that they are not necessarily true? Why should You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now.
My proof is simply the upholding of fundamental proofs that science generally upholds and uses. Why are you against science? God made it, and is using it to show us about Himself. But you are trying to deny it. EDIT: Why are you constantly going off-topic about evolution? Now you are even trying to bring in other threads that are not about evolution. |
|
|
|
criptix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
|
|
May 28, 2017, 07:39:54 PM |
|
Badecker doesnt believe in carbon dating and your example doesnt work with looking at tree rings af newbie.
Something of more interest would be ice core analysis.
Check that out and bring it in connection with carbon dating badecker.
The carbon dating and tree ring processes work. Why believe in them? They are known. The thing that is unknown is how far into the past these things worked the same as they do in the present. If they happen to have worked a lot differently 5,000 years ago, and we knew how they worked back then, our interpretation of earth age would be different. Since we don't know how they worked back then, we can use them only to present a guesswork picture of the age of the earth. Did you catch that? Guesswork. Same said ice layer depositing, and every other method for measuring past ages. They are all essentially circular references, since they are based on the past acting the same as the present. But we don't know if the past acted the same as the present. Because of this, they can't be used for any more that guesses. We don't know how old the earth is. Ice cores include gas and water that are millions and millions of year old. You can get them out and look how they behave (half life of the isotopes). Tree rings dont work because old tjikka "dies" every day 600 (?) years. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 28, 2017, 08:42:17 PM |
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? The Bible is eye witness records that science shows are honest records, even though the science for this isn't pubicly known very well, or accepted, often. Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? Why do you think that I don't believe anything that scientists say? Why might you believe science theories to be true, when the fact that they ARE theories shows that they are not necessarily true? Why should You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now.
My proof is simply the upholding of fundamental proofs that science generally upholds and uses. Why are you against science? God made it, and is using it to show us about Himself. But you are trying to deny it. EDIT: Why are you constantly going off-topic about evolution? Now you are even trying to bring in other threads that are not about evolution. How does science show that the records in the Bible are honest and true? Enlighten us. You keep fucking talking about theories when I already explained to you what a scientific theory means, at this point I don't know if you are stupid or trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 28, 2017, 10:23:30 PM |
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? The Bible is eye witness records that science shows are honest records, even though the science for this isn't pubicly known very well, or accepted, often. Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? Why do you think that I don't believe anything that scientists say? Why might you believe science theories to be true, when the fact that they ARE theories shows that they are not necessarily true? Why should You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now.
My proof is simply the upholding of fundamental proofs that science generally upholds and uses. Why are you against science? God made it, and is using it to show us about Himself. But you are trying to deny it. EDIT: Why are you constantly going off-topic about evolution? Now you are even trying to bring in other threads that are not about evolution. How does science show that the records in the Bible are honest and true? Enlighten us. You keep fucking talking about theories when I already explained to you what a scientific theory means, at this point I don't know if you are stupid or trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryThrough scientific investigation of everything surrounding the coming-into-being of the Bible as it is, we see that the Bible is a miraculous work. In other words, God, Who is scientifically proven to exist, is the One Who "built" the Bible. And God is entirely factual... does not lie. Your explanation of what scientific theory is, destroys itself. If scientific theories were any more than guesstimations... that is, if they were fact... the science community would long ago have stopped calling them theories, and started calling them scientific laws or scientific principles. So, the scientific community destroys your explanation. Anybody who believes as you do, is just as deluded as you are. Now that we know that science theory believers are believing in something not proven, we see that they are religious in their belief. They have made science theory into religion for themselves. This includes all who believe in a faulty Wikipedia article. |
|
|
|
bikihabana
Member
Offline
Activity: 102
Merit: 10
It's Me bikihabana
|
|
May 29, 2017, 05:43:39 AM |
|
Badecker doesnt believe in carbon dating and your example doesnt work with looking at tree rings af newbie.
Something of more interest would be ice core analysis.
Check that out and bring it in connection with carbon dating badecker.
The carbon dating and tree ring processes work. Why believe in them? They are known. The thing that is unknown is how far into the past these things worked the same as they do in the present. If they happen to have worked a lot differently 5,000 years ago, and we knew how they worked back then, our interpretation of earth age would be different. Since we don't know how they worked back then, we can use them only to present a guesswork picture of the age of the earth. Did you catch that? Guesswork. Same said ice layer depositing, and every other method for measuring past ages. They are all essentially circular references, since they are based on the past acting the same as the present. But we don't know if the past acted the same as the present. Because of this, they can't be used for any more that guesses. We don't know how old the earth is. There is a thing that is known how far into the past certain things about how things came to be, started to not work the same any more. This is a known fact. We know how belief worked back then, and also the date that changed how it was to work from there on. It is factually known that belief in God has changed, since it's known to be a fact that there are no guesswork in this regard. Factually, people have started to not only think, but also behave differently in what they believe about the ancient cultish religion book (bible) and "God" for the same reason. No guesswork here. We know for a fact that people, including religious persons, acted differently from this particular date, up until today in ever increasing manner. You die to know what date I'm talking about don't you? Ok then here it is for your pleasure: 24 November 1859. |
Solaris - of the Sun
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 29, 2017, 09:27:50 AM |
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? The Bible is eye witness records that science shows are honest records, even though the science for this isn't pubicly known very well, or accepted, often. Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? Why do you think that I don't believe anything that scientists say? Why might you believe science theories to be true, when the fact that they ARE theories shows that they are not necessarily true? Why should You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now.
My proof is simply the upholding of fundamental proofs that science generally upholds and uses. Why are you against science? God made it, and is using it to show us about Himself. But you are trying to deny it. EDIT: Why are you constantly going off-topic about evolution? Now you are even trying to bring in other threads that are not about evolution. How does science show that the records in the Bible are honest and true? Enlighten us. You keep fucking talking about theories when I already explained to you what a scientific theory means, at this point I don't know if you are stupid or trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryThrough scientific investigation of everything surrounding the coming-into-being of the Bible as it is, we see that the Bible is a miraculous work. In other words, God, Who is scientifically proven to exist, is the One Who "built" the Bible. And God is entirely factual... does not lie. Your explanation of what scientific theory is, destroys itself. If scientific theories were any more than guesstimations... that is, if they were fact... the science community would long ago have stopped calling them theories, and started calling them scientific laws or scientific principles. So, the scientific community destroys your explanation. Anybody who believes as you do, is just as deluded as you are. Now that we know that science theory believers are believing in something not proven, we see that they are religious in their belief. They have made science theory into religion for themselves. This includes all who believe in a faulty Wikipedia article. Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. What we see is the bible having tons of mistakes as shown here: http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.htmlhttps://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.htmlThe word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts: Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless. Links: Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html Isaak, Mark. 1995. Five major misconceptions about evolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 29, 2017, 02:52:49 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 29, 2017, 04:36:37 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. |
|
|
|
|
mostkey
|
|
May 29, 2017, 09:21:24 PM |
|
evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection,That means monkeys are a species that can survive to this day
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 29, 2017, 09:40:30 PM |
|
evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection,That means monkeys are a species that can survive to this day
Because of the complexity involved in the change, if it is natural selection, it means that nature is intelligent enough to select the right thing. I mean, it is attributing free will to nature to suggest that nature is selecting at all! More than likely, there is a God controlling the change. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 29, 2017, 09:45:01 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 29, 2017, 09:50:26 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 29, 2017, 09:55:26 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 30, 2017, 08:33:52 AM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter: In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself. And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this. |
|
|
|
Ali Jean Macen
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
|
|
May 30, 2017, 11:05:07 AM |
|
I don't think evolution is real. It's not in the bible. But on the other hand evolution is real on little things, culture and other little things just maybe not on what Darwin thinks. |
|
|
|
|
laiducnam
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
May 30, 2017, 01:12:45 PM |
|
If even creationists are getting involved with Bitcoins, this is a good sign of the growing interest of crypto currencies. When even dumb people are using BTC, it means everyone can (and will) do it.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1367
|
|
May 30, 2017, 01:35:36 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. |
|
|
|
|
