The "miracle" of evolution is a myth - part 1

[ok doser]

No, apparently you don't.

Bob did not "cobble" anything together.

You just like to ignore the FACTS that he has gathered. Many of them from secular sources that you would otherwise accept.

The GTY ToE is based on baloney and wishful thinking.

It is a fairy tale for ignorant children.

 

[Right Divider]

No, it's based on evidence like anything else that becomes a theory in science.

You, nor anyone else knows what the initial ratios of radioactive elements was on the earth at its creation.

You believe in myths because they suit your preconceived ideas.

If you can't understand that basic detail then you're in no position to talk about 'facts'.

Hilarious.

Here is an very simple article that explains some of the problems with the assumptions: https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

I realize that you will fallaciously reject it due to the source. But it's still just as valid.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You, not anyone else know what the initial ratios of radioactive elements was on the earth at it's creation.

You believe in myths because they suit your preconceived ideas.

Hilarious.

Here is an very simple article that explains some of the problems with the assumptions: https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

I realize that you will fallaciously reject it due to the source. But it's still just as valid.

Well, no. I don't have any preconceived ideas and as I've stated before, if the evidence supported a young earth/universe then I would have no problem with it whatsoever. It doesn't. Simple as.

I've no interest in that particular source so you're right there. It's woeful but I read the article anyway and the bias is self evident.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, no. I don't have any preconceived ideas and as I've stated before, if the evidence supported a young earth/universe then I would have no problem with it whatsoever. It doesn't. Simple as.

The evidence is the same for both of us. It is your faith in one interpretation of that evidence that is your problem.

I've no interest in that particular source so you're right there.

That's because you are Mr. Fallacy. The source is irrelevant with regards to the TRUTH of the information.

It's woeful but I read the article anyway and the bias is self evident.

Hilarious... from Mr. FallacyAndBias

Your bias (the "evolution colored glasses" that you wear) will not allow you to discuss FACTS ... you only want to cling to your INTERPREATION of the evidence that suits your fantasy.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The evidence is the same for both of us. It is your faith in one interpretation of that evidence that is your problem.

That's because you are Mr. Fallacy. The source is irrelevant with regards to the TRUTH of the information.

Hilarious... from Mr. FallacyAndBias

Your bias (the "evolution colored glasses that you wear) will not allow you to discuss FACTS ... you only want to cling to your INTERPREATION of the evidence that suits your fantasy.

No, the evidence is clear and considering that I'm not rooted in a belief system that has a preconceived notion from the outset then I can view it from an objective stance. The constraints of your belief restricts you from even entertaining the possibility that the earth can be a fair bit older than ten thousand years old whereas I wouldn't be fussed whether it's that young, considerably older or even just a few hundred years old. It's not that big a deal. The science doesn't support the former and as outlined previously, theories do not become established on assumptions or whims. There's no fantasy about it.

 

[Right Divider]

No, the evidence is clear and considering that I'm not rooted in a belief system that has a preconceived notion from the outset then I can view it from an objective stance.

You claim to know things that you cannot possibly know.

• You do NOT know what the contents of the earths radioactive elements was at its creation.
• You do NOT know that ONLY the decay of those original elements is what made the current ratios what they are today.
• You do NOT know that there were NO other factors involved in the creation of the current ratios.

You are a buffoon that thinks you know everything.

The constraints of your belief restricts you from even entertaining the possibility that the earth can be a fair bit older than ten thousand years old whereas I wouldn't be fussed whether it's that young, considerably older or even just a few hundred years old. It's not that big a deal. The science doesn't support the former and as outlined previously, theories do not become established on assumptions or whims. There's no fantasy about it.

Again, that is all bluff and bluster on your part.

So, yes, you are Mr. Fantasy.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You claim to know things that you cannot possibly know.

• You do NOT know what the contents of the earths radioactive elements was at it's creation.
• You do NOT know that ONLY the decay of those original elements is what made the current ratios what they are today.
• You do NOT know that there were NO other factors involved in the creation of the current ratios.

You are a buffoon that thinks you know everything.

Again, that is all bluff and bluster on your part.

So, yes, you are Mr. Fantasy.

Well, no, it's not fantasy and I sure don't know everything, never claimed to. It's also pretty funny when people like you call others buffoons but hey, have at it. Again, what does it ultimately matter anyway whether the earth is old or young?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, no, it's not fantasy and I sure don't know everything, never claimed to.

You are the one that is claiming that the earth can be measured to be billions of years old using radiometric dating.
So you are most certainly claiming to know many things that you CANNOT possibly know.
That is your preferred fantasy.

It's also pretty funny when people like you call others buffoons but hey, have at it. Again, what does it ultimately matter anyway whether the earth is old or young?

Because TRUTH matters. Did you so soon forget?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are the one that is claiming that the earth can be measured to be billions of years old using radiometric dating.
So you are most certainly claiming to know many thing that you CANNOT possibly know.
That is your preferred fantasy.

Because TRUTH matters. Did you so soon forget?

The measurement of the age of the earth/universe isn't solely dependent on radiometric dating you realize? I don't have a 'preferred fantasy' as I don't consider it to be anything like the big deal that you and others who are insistent on a young earth consider it to be. Truth matters for sure and the fact of the matter is that science does not support your belief system, simple as that.

 

[Right Divider]

The measurement of the age of the earth/universe isn't solely dependent on radiometric dating you realize?

Please educate me.

I don't have a 'preferred fantasy' as I don't consider it to be anything like the big deal that you and others who are insistent on a young earth consider it to be. Truth matters for sure and the fact of the matter is that science does not support your belief system, simple as that.

You keep making vain claims without support.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Please educate me.

You keep making vain claims without support.

You've been educated more than enough through the years on here. You're just unwilling to accept that which runs contrary to your set belief. Fair enough. You keep hold of that.

 

[Right Divider]

You've been educated more than enough through the years on here. You're just unwilling to accept that which runs contrary to your set belief. Fair enough. You keep hold of that.

I hold to the truth.
You follow fairy tales.

 

[Right Divider]

The measurement of the age of the earth/universe isn't solely dependent on radiometric dating you realize?

So you cannot defend radiometric dating?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I hold to the truth.
You follow fairy tales.

Believe that as you will, it isn't true but hey ho.

 

[Right Divider]

Believe that as you will, it isn't true but hey ho.

You've done such a great job of convincing me. NOT

 

[Arthur Brain]

You've done such a great job of convincing me. NOT

At this stage, nobody would convince you so meh.

 

[Right Divider]

At this stage, nobody would convince you so meh.

Nobody has tried.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nobody has tried.

Completely untrue.

 

[Derf]

What you may be unaware of is that Alate One is a former YEC. When she realized that the evidence was irreconcilable with the constraints of that belief system it caused her a crisis of faith, something she's been candid about on here. Thankfully, she realized that retaining faith and acknowledging the evidence for an old earth weren't mutually exclusive so there were no preconceived notions on her part, the opposite in fact.

OTOH, YEC begins with a preconceived notion, namely that the earth can't be any older than ten thousands years.

Evolution begins with a preconceived notion that God is not involved in creation. That’s where she’s having trouble. She’s trying to insert God into a system that has no place for Him.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Evolution begins with a preconceived notion that God is not involved in creation. That’s where she’s having trouble. She’s trying to insert God into a system that has no place for Him.

Um, no. It doesn't, at all. You're incredibly ignorant on the matter in actual fact if you think that the ToE begins with such a notion...

It's actually mind boggling how you even conceived such.