Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
174 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF (2 members, 172 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,412 Year: 7,160/23,288 Month: 1,066/1,214 Week: 78/303 Day: 39/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
candle2
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 1381 of 1390 (875679)
05-03-2020 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1378 by dwise1
05-01-2020 1:31 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
You haven't asked any questions, except maybe how does evolution work. You should know what you have faith in!

However, it is not my responsibility to disprove the evolutionary process; it is the duty of them to prove their claims. They are failing miserably.

Most evolutionists insist that evolution is nothing but change. Species change they say is carried out by one of two processes. These are "slow and gradual," or "isolated episodes of rapid speciation b/w long periods of time (PE). They cannot agree on this.

I have hundreds of question that evolutionists cannot answer with any degree of proof (remember that they claim evolution is a proven fact).

Tell me: how did life originate? Please duplicate the process in order to make me a believer.

How did the DNA code originate? For proof, please duplicate the process.

Who wrote the enormous volume (all the world's data can fit on a DNA hard drive the size of a teaspoon? Who programmed the more than 3 billion letters of the DNA? Since you have proof of how it happened, I would like a step by step analysis.

After you have explained the origin of the DNA and it's lettering code, I would like for you to explain (in full) how an organism's DNA code changes.

Are the changes caused by mutations; accidental copying mistakes; or errors such as deleted/added/exchanged letters? Mutations have very destructive effects; they are responsible for more than a 1000 dangers to humans hemophilic is one.

Please explain (in minute detail) how a simple cell, which if far more complex than a space shuttle, came to be.

I am so excited, much like a kid in a candy shop, waiting for proof that evolutionists have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1378 by dwise1, posted 05-01-2020 1:31 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1385 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2020 2:55 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 1388 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2020 8:58 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 1382 of 1390 (875681)
05-03-2020 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1377 by dwise1
04-30-2020 10:38 PM


Re: Please define what you mean by Evolution
You posted about how certain processes have shaped biological, chemical, and cosmic evolution. But, they are mere guesses and nothing more. They are to be taken with a grain of salt.

You mentioned that the world and universe are more than 10,000 years old. I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years old.

David states (Psalms 104:30) that God renewed (Strongs' #2318 rebuild) the face of the Earth.

The words w/o form (#8414 tohuw--"to lie waste") and void (#922--"an undistinguishable ruin") are not indicative of an original creation.

The angels leapt for joy when Earth was originally created (Job 38:7). It was marvelous!

The creation account is to be viewed from the vantage of one standing on Earth, not viewed from space.

The war b/w Satan & his demons and Michael & his angels destroyed much of the universe. God did not renew the faces of the other planets and moons in Our solar system. They still carry the scars of a Titanic battle.

When God said "let there be light" in verse 3 He simply cleared the debris from the atmosphere. Someone standing on Earth would have then seen light, but it was still filtered by heavy water vapors.

I have much more Biblical evidence for a renewal of Earth, but what I have given should be ample.

Psalms 104:2 states that God "stretched out" the universe like a curtain.

No one knows how old the universe is.

In any event, no life existed before it was created for the first time in Genesis 1 & 2.

Romans 5:12 tells us that both sin and death entered the world through Adam. Before Adam there were no physical life or death.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1377 by dwise1, posted 04-30-2020 10:38 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1383 by vimesey, posted 05-03-2020 12:11 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 1387 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2020 5:43 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 1389 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2020 12:52 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 1390 by dwise1, posted 05-05-2020 2:00 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1094
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1383 of 1390 (875691)
05-03-2020 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1382 by candle2
05-03-2020 11:22 AM


Re: Please define what you mean by Evolution
Good grief.

You really don’t understand what science is, do you ? You seem to think that it’s simply assertion, backed up by a book someone wrote (which is actually what creationism is, but there you go).

We’ve been encouraging you to have a go at understanding evolution, but you seem to need to start further back than that - you need to understand what science is first of all.

Try learning what the scientific method is. This here is the Wikipedia page: Scientific method - Wikipedia

It’s shooting at an educated audience, though, so this may be easier to get into as an opener: Steps of the Scientific Method

You need to understand what we’re saying, in order to try to attack it.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by candle2, posted 05-03-2020 11:22 AM candle2 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1384 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2020 2:45 PM vimesey has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1384 of 1390 (875702)
05-03-2020 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1383 by vimesey
05-03-2020 12:11 PM


troll or too willingly ignorant to make a difference
Good grief.

You really don’t understand what science is, do you ? ...

See Message 9, The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public: from over a year ago, and Message 24 as an example

Try learning ...

Apparently not possible.

troll or too willingly ignorant to make a difference, sad.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1383 by vimesey, posted 05-03-2020 12:11 PM vimesey has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 1385 of 1390 (875703)
05-03-2020 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1381 by candle2
05-03-2020 7:39 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
Species change they say is carried out by one of two processes.

Wow, are you behind. Haven’t kept up on your studies. Speciation has many more than two vectors. First, all speciation, all change, is by modification and natural selection. Your question confuses the type of change, the method of change and the rate of change.

Look up allopatric speciation vs peripatric vs parapatric vs sympatric speciation.

Then look up the methods of natural selection we see in populations like the Wallace Effect, ecological selection, sexual selection, polyploidy speciation, hybrid speciation and gene transposition.

Finally, understand that the rate of change varies all over the map for every population on the planet. The rate of speciation is dependent on the selective pressures the population lives under and the type(s) of selective pressures being applied. Phyletic gradualism and Punctuated equilibrium exist at opposite ends of a sliding spectrum, not as separate binary operations.

Know your subject before coming in here with all your bluster. Learn something first.

They cannot agree on this.

Of course “they” don’t agree. This is complex science not your grade-school simplistic ignorance. Any controversy comes in with how much of what is evident in this complex mess due to lack of details and pretty much within a very narrow set of extremely complex details. As details become known the consensus solidifies. This is the good thing, the fun thing, in science. This is its strength. You need further study here on how and why science is conducted the way it is.

remember that they claim evolution is a proven fact

Bullshit. This is science. We don’t do “proof”. We do the preponderance of the evidence, the weighing of the facts.

The preponderance of the evidence, the great weight of all the known facts, shows that our Theory of Evolution is, by far, the most comprehensive and consistent explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. No “proof” necessary.

how did life originate? Please duplicate the process in order to make me a believer.

We don’t know for certain though we have some good promising hypotheses. As for duplication, hey our chemistry professor, Mother Nature, took ~350 million years to figure that out the first time. We’ve only been at this for 70+-. Give us some time, we’ll figure it out. Patience, candle2, patience.

Besides, this lack of knowledge has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. The ToE starts once abiogenesis has completed doing its thing.

In the meantime, if you want to try and hide your god in this hole of ignorance in our knowledge then please do. Just so he understands he is taking up temporary residence only and will have to move on to hide in some other ignorant hole soon enough.

How did the DNA code originate? For proof, please duplicate the process.

Again, we use those three little words you creationists so hate, “We don’t know, yet.”

And again, this has no bearing on the efficacy, the strength of evidence, for the ToE.

Doesn’t matter if DNA used xanthine in place of adenine or used methyluracil in place of cytosine or if the codon CAG tagged glutamine or tagged histidine instead. Whatever the code turned out to be the processes of the ToE would be the same. While the code is vital to its functioning, the specifics of how the code came to be is of no concern for evolution. Once a code, of whatever chemicals, however devised, was produced then evolution had something to work upon. Decent with modification. Mutation with natural selection.

Who wrote the enormous volume (all the world's data can fit on a DNA hard drive the size of a teaspoon? Who programmed the more than 3 billion letters of the DNA? Since you have proof of how it happened, I would like a step by step analysis.

The human 3 billion base pairs? That’s small. The Amoeba Polychaos dubium has 670 billion base pair in its genome.

The size of a genome is the result of numerous additions, deletions, insertions, duplications, combinations. In addition to things like single-nucleotide polymorphisms, copy errors and frame shift errors, these are all considered “mutations” to a genome.

No one “wrote” a genome. The genome evolves along with the population it inhabits. It’s all out on the web. Take some time and look it up. You can learn all about how genomes grow, contract and change with examples.

Here’s one to help get you started:

Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptation

Mutations have very destructive effects; they are responsible for more than a 1000 dangers to humans hemophilic is one.

Oh, you don’t know the half of it.

Mutations come in three flavors: The good (beneficial), the bad (deleterious) and the … not ugly, just don’t care, yet (neutral)

Neutral mutations are the majority and don’t do anything cept sit there waiting to see what happens next. They may sit there for a long time doing nothing or they may be mutated out of the genome, become beneficial because of some other mutation or environmental change or become deleterious for similar reasons.

Beneficial mutations may seem rare but in a population of billions with an average (human) mutation rate of 100 per child beneficial mutations enter the population quite readily … in droves … by the millions.

Deleterious mutations are the bad ones. These are the killers. There are lots of them. More than you realize.

In the human population deleterious mutations kill more humans than are born. Estimates are that genetic mutation kills upwards of 50% of all conceptuses while the mother never even knew she had conceived. Add to this the number of miscarriages and the number of stillbirths and ... well ...

Evolution is a real bitch.

Look it up. We’re not hiding anything here. It’s all out there waiting for you to learn.

Please explain (in minute detail) how a simple cell, which if far more complex than a space shuttle, came to be.

Again, like the genome, cell complexity evolved through descent with modification and natural selection. And like the evolution of all life, it had more failures, setbacks, false starts and blind alleys than successes. And, yet, here we are.

Here. Read up on it. The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

In conclusion, we don’t have to prove to you that evolution is true. All we need do is show a preponderance of the evidence in favor of the mechanisms and processes of the Theory of Evolution. We’ve done that in spades. Look up all the different facets, all the different processes and mechanisms that are the Theory of Evolution. See the overwhelming body of evidence that supports the theory. Read ‘em and weep.

If you think you can disprove any of the facts in evidence for evolution then have at it.

But, understand, candle2, that lacking sufficient knowledge of some specific topic is not disproof, especially in areas where evolution is not involved like abiogenesis.

Insisting on “proof” and duplication is the creationist displaying his own ignorance of the subjects involved and the creationist’s simplistic childish view of the complexity of reality. It make you look really stupid.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1381 by candle2, posted 05-03-2020 7:39 AM candle2 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1386 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2020 5:06 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 1386 of 1390 (875707)
05-03-2020 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1385 by AZPaul3
05-03-2020 2:55 PM


Realize that the only people learning are the lurkers
But, understand, candle2, that lacking sufficient knowledge of some specific topic is not disproof, especially in areas where evolution is not involved like abiogenesis.

Insisting on “proof” and duplication is the creationist displaying his own ignorance of the subjects involved and the creationist’s simplistic childish view of the complexity of reality. It make you look really stupid.

Realize that the only people learning from these discussions are the lurkers. Not that it is a bad thing to provide educatio.

See The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public:, Message 10 from over a year ago. Same ignorant assertions, no changes.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1385 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2020 2:55 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 1387 of 1390 (875710)
05-03-2020 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1382 by candle2
05-03-2020 11:22 AM


Re: Please define what you mean by Evolution
You posted about how certain processes have shaped biological, chemical, and cosmic evolution. But, they are mere guesses and nothing more.

You have no idea what those processes are do you. You have no idea how they work, how we know how they work, what the facts are, the hard real-world demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable facts, do you.

You wouldn’t know a clade from a nested hierarchy would you. You don’t know your haploid from your diploid do you. Or how we measure the fine structure constant or why it is important to valence electrons do you.

And without knowing the subject, the reasons, the facts of how we know, the deep detailed study of these phenomena, without any reason other than your religious naysaying, your emotional wishful thinking, you have the audacity to come in here and tell us we are wrong?

You have even less authority than a flat earther riding a unicorn through the Elysian Fields or an alien abductee spouting autodynamics at a Tupperware party.

I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years old.

One of the few things your senseless bible got right. In fact the earth is 4.5 billion years old but you have no idea how we know this do you. You haven’t a clue to the facts, the hard in the lab real facts, we use to arrive at this number do you.

David states (Psalms 104:30) that God renewed (Strongs' #2318 rebuild) the face of the Earth.

And Douglas states that Earth will be destroyed to make room for a new hyperspace bypass (HGTTG, pg 22).

The creation account is to be viewed from the vantage of one standing on Earth, not viewed from space.

The creation account is to be view from a rubber room standing in a straight jacket, not viewed from any semblance of sanity.

God did not renew the faces of the other planets and moons in Our solar system.

Your god didn’t even know about any other planets and moons in our solar system. These are man’s discoveries.

Psalms 104:2 states that God "stretched out" the universe like a curtain.

That was the inflaton field. That's a hypothetical scalar field that is theorized to drive cosmic inflation in the very early universe.

As hypothetical as the inflation field is there is way more evidence for its existence than there is for the existence of your god.

I have much more Biblical evidence for a renewal of Earth, but what I have given should be ample.

Even as crazy as they are already, you realize that no one else in creationism believes in any of the rest of your crap, right?

And BTW, your bible, that long embellished re-telling of local fairy tales from a 3000 year-old tribe of goat herders, is not evidence of anything … ever. Even the most mundane statements in your crazy book, like the existence of sand, needs independent corroboration before it can be considered evidence. And frankly, it is the independent resources that will be considered as evidence not your useless supposititious bible.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by candle2, posted 05-03-2020 11:22 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 1388 of 1390 (875716)
05-03-2020 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1381 by candle2
05-03-2020 7:39 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
You haven't asked any questions, except maybe how does evolution work.

That is a damned lie! Which makes you a damned liar!

I very specifically asked what you based your utterly stupid claims of "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." on. And you dare to lie to our faces about that? You damned liar!

Here it is yet again, this time from the message that you just avoided responding to:

DWise1 writes:

You claimed that "evolutionists" believe in such things as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." We have all explained to you that that is a utter false accusation. The only people who believe such a stupid thing are creationists, including you yourself.

My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would make such a stupid and utterly false accusation! In particular, I want to know what kind of reasoning went into creating such a stupid claim (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work).

Answer the question!

You also claim that evolution requires such events as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." That is not only completely and utterly false, but it is the exact opposite of what evolution would have us expect -- as we have explained to you repeatedly!

My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would have such a stupid and utterly false expectation of evolution! In particular, I want to know exactly what your misunderstanding of evolution is that would lead you to such a stupid idea (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work).

So cut the crap already and answer the damned question!

So cut your stupid lying crap! Answer the question, you damned liar!

{ blathering nonsensical creationist crap, none of which candle2 understands.

This is an attempt at a Gish Gallop, bombarding the opponent with such a large number of specious claims as to overwhelm him.
That works well in creationist debate formats where the opponent is given only 10 or 20 minutes where he would need hours to respond effectively.

Gish Gallops work less well in written formats like this, so creationists in their infinite dishonesty resort to overloading opponents with "impossible questions", questions which we are still researching and for which one needs extensive specialized advanced education to be able to respond to. Furthermore, the creationist demands absolutely complete knowledge or other impossible demands, such as we witness candle2 doing here. And even then after the opponent has spent considerable time and effort in responding, the creationist won't even read it but rather will either dismiss it outright or else throw even more "impossible questions" at his opponent.
In contrast, the questions that the creationist's opponent will ask are quite reasonable and very answerable. Questions such as, "What do you mean by that?" or "Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion." Faced with such reasonable and easy-to-answer questions, the hypocritical creationist flees in terror, either by disappearing altogether or by throwing yet another ton of "unanswerable questions" at his opponent.

So by using that thoroughly dishonest trickery, candle2 demonstrates yet again what a dishonest hypocritical POS he is. And since his religion must be supported by nothing but lies and deception, he demonstates yet again how completely and utter false his religion is. And since his god must be served with lies and deception, he has demonstrated yet again that his god is the Lord of Lies.

The irony here is that he is also so ignorant of Christian doctrine that he very likely does not even realize who the Lord of Lies is.

}

I am so excited, much like a kid in a candy shop, waiting for proof that evolutionists have.

No, you're not. You're just lying yet again, you lying POS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1381 by candle2, posted 05-03-2020 7:39 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1389 of 1390 (875730)
05-04-2020 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1382 by candle2
05-03-2020 11:22 AM


bogus claim on the age of the earth being in the bible
I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years

It does nothing of the sort. The age of the earth is not mentioned, to say nothing of providing a number.

Prove me wrong or accept my comment as valid: Cite verse that gives a number.

Agreed that is older (much older) the point is you claiming an actual number in the bible.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by candle2, posted 05-03-2020 11:22 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 1390 of 1390 (875745)
05-05-2020 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1382 by candle2
05-03-2020 11:22 AM


Re: Please define what you mean by Evolution
You posted about how certain processes have shaped biological, chemical, and cosmic evolution. But, they are mere guesses and nothing more. They are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Funny thing about knowledge. When you study something, you can actually learn a lot about it. But you personally (and your fellow creationists) don't bother to study anything in order to carefully guard your own precious pig ignorance and laugh derisively at those who actually study (and so actually know what they are talking about), then you are nothing more than ignorance fools whose foolish utterances only deserve contempt and embarrassed pity.

Yes, the New Testament does teach that Christians (I'm sure you've heard something about those guys) will be called fools because of their beliefs -- part of the Jesus Freak Movement (1970) was a clown ministry called "Fools for Christ". But what that was not talking about misguided idiots like you who make fools of themselves for no good reason and in doing so bring disrepute upon Christianity and the Christ. To quote St. Augustine on that very matter (De Genese ad litteram):

quote:
It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.


And to quote an evangelical Christian and a creationist, then also a Ph.D. candidate in geology (now a PhD Geology), who believes that the earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old, and has taught evolution in historical geology courses (and is thoroughly disgusted by YEC nonsense and their having usurped the title of "creationist" from proper creationists):

quote:
In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?

 
Bottom Line: If you have taken the time and trouble to actually study a subject and learn something about it, then what you have to say should have some merit.

If you have not bothered to even look into a subject and still blather and pontificate about it in complete pig ignorance, then what you say has no merit at all.

candle2, caster of Darkness, what you say not only has no merit at all, but it has even less than no merit.

You mentioned that the world and universe are more than 10,000 years old. I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years old.

For context, here is what I had said in Message 1377 to which candle2 is "replying" here:

DWise1 writes:

Guess who is able to disprove God. Creationists! Not because they are such dishonest liars and deceivers, but because of what they teach their followers. Think about it. What are you taught are the consequences of the earth actually being billions of years old? Here's John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- the creators of "creation science"):

quote:
"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
(John Morris at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism)

Having received my fundamentalist training from the Jesus Freak Movement in 1970, I have eyes to see and ears to hear (if your knowledge of the Gospels is as non-existent as your knowledge of science and of creationism, let us know so that we can try in vain to explain it to you). If Scripture is found to have no meaning (eg, if even one single error were to be found in it) then you are taught that your Bible would be absolutely worthless and should be thrown in the trash followed by you becoming a hedonistic atheist -- sadly, I've had far too many creationists vehemently insist on exactly that.

And sure enough, the earth really is much older that 10,000 years, more like 3.5 billion (109) years old. So John Morris taught his followers that an old earth would invalidate Scripture and, by logical extension, Christianity and God, his followers believed him, the earth does actually turn out to be very old, therefore that disproves God. QED.

Leading creationists also teach you the falsehood that if evolution is true then Christianity is false and God does not exist (or at least is a false god unworthy of worship). Well, evolution is true -- by which I mean actual biological evolution and other actual sciences, not the strawman misrepresentative lies that creationists have deceived you with. Therefore, as you were taught, you conclude that God does not exist. QED.

Interesting. While I was talking about how it is the creationists who succeed in disproving God, candle2 completely avoids that inconvenient truth.

He also commits a direct and deliberate lie about the Bible! Saying:

candle2 writes:

... the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years old.

It does not do any such thing. RAZD has already challenged that demonstrably false claim in Message 1389, to which I am quite certain candle2 will never reply.

Instead, many people have tried to use the Bible to figure out the age of the earth. The chronology of Bishop James Ussher (1581 – 1656) is the best known example which placed Creation at around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, so about 6,000 years old. The Hebrew calendar comes up with a very similar year count.

YECs believe in that 6000-year age. For example, in Wendell Bird's article in the December 1978 issue of the Institute for Creation Research's (ICR) newsletter, Acts & Facts, Bird presented the Creation Model, which creationists are infamous for refusing to present to the public (especially during a creationist debate). In it he writes:

quote:
Approximately six thousand year time span since creation of the earth, life, and Adam, on the basis of Genesis.

I present that information on my The Creation Model page.

So YEC requires an age of 6,000 years. However, using that value would expose their fundamental deception that their opposition to evolution has nothing to do with religion (complete and utter lie!), so they routinely round it up to 10,000 years instead. In the quote that I provided, John Morris of the ICR used that 10,000 year value.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by candle2, posted 05-03-2020 11:22 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020