Nice article, but most people have little interest in the truth, or proofs, they are looking for validation.
Your prediction has borne itself out. Our comrades and hosts are an ornery stubborn sort.
So abiogenesis is your conundrum rather than evolution.
Requiring a creator creates its own infinite regress, does it not?
Our friend, Lawson has put up a very nice article for you. Have a little read and see how you go.
As you well know, the origin of the creator then is still always at issue. I know you will just say He is different and not created but cannot say how. One could just say we were never created and always existed and saved a step. Be a chap, and just do that then if you are so inclined.
Aw shucks, I like you too.
Great questions and I do not have answers, but that's never stopped me before.
Evolution can not be infinitely regressed because of the paradox this causes and we know that something can not arise from absolute nothingness. The exactitude of mass and energy, natural laws, the centripetal waltz of galaxies and solar systems in a balance with gravity so that habitable zones might exist, is telling, of what I'm not sure. The alternative is that nothing did everything and I can't fathom any likelyhood of that being our reality.
As @JudgeRightly has already pointed out, that article is nothing but a list of straw-man arguments. It's silly and useless.
Always the vagueness from you. Pick something factual to discuss.
I'll already well studied on the topic, but I don't fall for the propaganda of the anti-truth squad. Like you do.
Just exactly how do we "know" this?
You sure seem to like to do the word waltz.
That is where the atheist has a big problem.
That is insane.
You need to read the Bible without your blinders on. It has all of those answers.
Your definition (or lack of it) of evolution means that you are just punching air.
It's no conundrum for me. It's clearly documented in the Bible.
The derogatory tone comes from you acting like you don't understand clear English. You said, "I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible." I gave you a clear definition of what failed science was that had nothing to do with my understanding of the Bible. I even provided an example that was not from the Bible.
You just learned the evidence for a worldwide flood is overwhelming.
Dude, a continent sized sediment layer is not a regional flood.From your blunder above, you clearly have no concept of how the flood happened. You should listen to science instead of imagining that it rained from clouds until the water was above mt Everest.
I have looked at and appraised everything that has been put in front of me regarding the Flood. Now you may try to emoji me to death, but it simply is not evidence of the Flood of Noah. It's evidence of something, but when you apply a Creation prejudice to the evidence you come up with a wrong conclusion.The derogatory tone comes from you acting like you don't understand clear English. You said, "I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible." I gave you a clear definition of what failed science was that had nothing to do with my understanding of the Bible. I even provided an example that was not from the Bible.
Yet you showed no interest in an honest conversation. If you were honest, even you would have to admit you deserved an answer with a derogatory tone at the very least.
You just learned the evidence for a worldwide flood is overwhelming.
From your blunder above, you clearly have no concept of how the flood happened. You should listen to science instead of imagining that it rained from clouds until the water was above mt Everest.
I know it's no conundrum for you and that's what makes it so sad.
You just continue to show your confusion.
This implies that you have looked at the continent-sized sedimentary layers. But if you had actually investigated those layers you would have found even greater difficulties with the idea that the flood was a local event - their vast sizes are just the beginning of problems for your view. Thus we can conclude that you have not looked at the sedimentary layers.
Talk about a first world problem! "You're emoji-ing me to death!" Get a grip man, emojis enhance the conversation if they aren't overdone.That you can't recognize the evidence was not emojis but the sedimentary layers is telling.
The size of the layers is simply consistent with the worldwide flood as reported in the bible. Part of the process of coming up with right conclusions is this kind of consistency.
The vast sedimentary layers is just the beginning of the evidence for a global flood. Actually there are many beginning evidences for a global flood depending on the discipline, but I chose this one.
Was that flood continent sized? As big as Asia?
I don't think you realize that sedimentary layers are real.
Sure, that's a possible interpretation. But I can go with the physical evidence since it is consistent with my view and not the view you mention here.
These are all worthy challenges that deserve an answer. I'm not sure which to pick since I don't know which one you consider the hardest to answer. I'll go with the genetic one: we couldn't have the diversity of humans we see today branching out of a 4 couple bottleneck from about 4000-5500 years ago.
| Paleogenomic research has shown that modern humans, Neanderthals, and their most recent common ancestor have displayed less genetic diversity than living great apes. The traditional interpretation that low levels of genetic diversity in modern humans resulted from a relatively recent demographic bottleneck cannot account for similarly low levels of genetic diversity in Middle Pleistocene hominins. A more parsimonious hypothesis proposes that the effective population size of the human lineage has been low for more than 500,000 years, but the mechanism responsible for suppressing genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominin populations without similarly affecting that of their hominoid contemporaries remains unknown. |
| The pre-Columbian settlers of the New World, who gave rise to the present-day Native Americans, are commonly believed to have come from Siberia, through the Bering land bridge, in the period 30,000–12,000 years before present (ybp). |
Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon - BioLogoshttps://biologos.org › articles › flood-geology-and-the-...This implies that you have looked at the continent-sized sedimentary layers. But if you had actually investigated those layers you would have found even greater difficulties with the idea that the flood was a local event - their vast sizes are just the beginning of problems for your view. Thus we can conclude that you have not looked at the sedimentary layers.
To paraphrase the evidence discussed so far: you said the flood was a series of local floods. I countered the vast sizes of the sedimentary layers precluded that claim. You reiterated the floods were local without accounting for the size of the layers that makes that impossible.
You are now going to expect me to answer your many challenges. I tell you what, I'll answer one of yours but no more until you answer mine.
That you can't recognize the evidence was not emojis but the sedimentary layers is telling.
The size of the layers is simply consistent with the worldwide flood as reported in the bible. Part of the process of coming up with right conclusions is this kind of consistency.
The vast sedimentary layers is just the beginning of the evidence for a global flood. Actually there are many beginning evidences for a global flood depending on the discipline, but I chose this one.
Was that flood continent sized? As big as Asia?
I don't think you realize that sedimentary layers are real.
Sure, that's a possible interpretation. But I can go with the physical evidence since it is consistent with my view and not the view you mention here.
These are all worthy challenges that deserve an answer. I'm not sure which to pick since I don't know which one you consider the hardest to answer. I'll go with the genetic one: we couldn't have the diversity of humans we see today branching out of a 4 couple bottleneck from about 4000-5500 years ago.
First, realize humans are not very diverse on the DNA level.
Paleogenomic research has shown that modern humans, Neanderthals, and their most recent common ancestor have displayed less genetic diversity than living great apes. The traditional interpretation that low levels of genetic diversity in modern humans resulted from a relatively recent demographic bottleneck cannot account for similarly low levels of genetic diversity in Middle Pleistocene hominins. A more parsimonious hypothesis proposes that the effective population size of the human lineage has been low for more than 500,000 years, but the mechanism responsible for suppressing genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominin populations without similarly affecting that of their hominoid contemporaries remains unknown.
Then realize our dating of human history is not as clear-cut as you are implying:
The pre-Columbian settlers of the New World, who gave rise to the present-day Native Americans, are commonly believed to have come from Siberia, through the Bering land bridge, in the period 30,000–12,000 years before present (ybp).
The above was published in 2009 while more recent and more accurate scientific findings from AIG author Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson shows Native North American Indians arrived about the same time as the Muslim empire was developing. Can you figure out what that means and why it is important?
While Dr John Sanford and Dr Robert Carter et al shows the simple math of genetic diversity consistent with the work of L. S. Premo and Jean-Jacques Hublin listed above, which is a simpler and more logical solution to the problem they raise. The solution being highly heterogeneous couples just a few thousand years ago.
Now, go and be as honest as you claim and find the sediment layer maps. Take note of the adjacent layers, too.