toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Arthur Brain]

More elephant hurling. Don't your arms get tired?

You made the claim so there was no hurling necessary on my part, of a gnat let alone an elephant. How did you come to know better? Is that such a difficult question to answer?

Yes, if you keep calling it a "scientific method", I will continue to laugh.

And until you come up with a reasonable explanation as to why such a method (among others) is to be dismissed then there's no need to take you seriously on the point.

Once again, instead of begging the question, discuss the method of radiometric dating and the MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS that it REQUIRES.

You've had an in depth link as to how the age of the universe has been determined and instead of addressing it with any solid rebuttal you simply go on about assumptions as if it's all based on little other than fancy guesswork. Not the case.

:rotfl:

Do you need some help finding information on radiometric dating?

No, not at all, the same as with plenty other methods. However, the question to you was as to whether you had anything to bring to the table that could rebut the established age of the universe, so have you?

 

[7djengo7]

Calling people "evolutionists" is just a silly mantra as it is.

Why do you say it is silly to call you an evolutionist?
Why do you not call yourself an evolutionist?
Would it embarrass you to call yourself an evolutionist? Why?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You will continue to refuse to answer any of the questions I've asked you, and you will continue to lie and say that you have answered them, and you will do the same regarding all further questions I may ask you. Why are you so proud of yourself for your dismal failure at dealing with my questions?

And there you have lied once again.

Also, what's with the two conjunctions in a row: "and nor"? Did you really need to conjoin "have I lied on this thread" with "and"?

Djengo, you know as well as I do that I haven't lied on this thread of yours. You've been schooled on your mistake and I'm sorry that your ego gets in the way of you holding your hands up to a basic error that many have made before you. The likelihood is that plenty will make the same mistake in future but you really should just concede it if you actually value honesty on such a topic. Entirely up to you of course.

 

[7djengo7]

Djengo, you know as well as I do that I haven't lied on this thread of yours. You've been schooled on your mistake and I'm sorry that your ego gets in the way of you holding your hands up to a basic error that many have made before you. The likelihood is that plenty will make the same mistake in future but you really should just concede it if you actually value honesty on such a topic. Entirely up to you of course.

You're lying, yet again.

How long did it take you to carve that trite non-response onto the sole of your boot? 'Cause all you are doing, and all you've been doing in this thread, is stamping your foot, over and over and over, and repeating the same shtick, with only the slightest verbal variation from repetition to repetition. All the while, stonewalling against filling in the blanks with answers to the questions I've been asking you:

Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

 

[Right Divider]

Ah, so anyone who claims to be an atheist or perhaps anyone who doesn't have what you consider faith would also fit into this group?

Quite the smear campaign you're running there.

Also, isn't someone that "claims to be an atheist" an atheist? Do you have some "scientific" method for determining who really is an atheist?

There's humanists who don't believe in Christianity but they're hardly "materialists" and show more concern and empathy than plenty who profess faith.

AGAIN, I wasn't talking about HUMANISTS. I clearly said ATHEISTS.

Accepting science doesn't automatically confine anyone to a group.

I accept science. I don't accept pseudo science.

Calling people "evolutionists" is just a silly mantra as it is.

You're so far off... like radiometric dating.

 

[7djengo7]

You're lying, yet again.

How long did it take you to carve that trite non-response onto the sole of your boot? 'Cause all you are doing, and all you've been doing in this thread, is stamping your foot, over and over and over, and repeating the same shtick, with only the slightest verbal variation from repetition to repetition. All the while, stonewalling against filling in the blanks with answers to the questions I've been asking you:

Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Oh, man! That's some hilarious irony right there! I somehow posted the same, exact post twice. Sorry about that. This computer is really, really old, and very, very slow, and sometimes I click something more than once, impatiently, thinking my first click didn't register, when the system seems to be half-frozen.

But, of all the posts for me to have accidentally repeated, that it happened to be this one, where I pointed out Arthur Brain's constant repetition!

Hahahahahahahaha......

 

[Right Divider]

You made the claim so there was no hurling necessary on my part, of a gnat let alone an elephant. How did you come to know better? Is that such a difficult question to answer?

Please demonstrate how I've "dismissed the vast majority of scientific understanding?"

And until you come up with a reasonable explanation as to why such a method (among others) is to be dismissed then there's no need to take you seriously on the point.

You sure are deaf. I've told you many times (and you should already know) that radiometric dating is based on MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS. This is well known, so why don't you know it?

If you refuse to discuss the actual method and YET continue to claim that is a valid scientific method, they is no hope that you can understand anything scientific.

 

[7djengo7]

You're so far off... like radiometric dating.

Hehehehehe!!!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quite the smear campaign you're running there.

Hardly. I'm not the one trying to pigeonhole people into a group.

Also, isn't someone that "claims to be an atheist" an atheist? Do you have some "scientific" method for determining who really is an atheist?

Sure, but they aren't necessarily a "materialist" any more than a professed Christian is an altruist.

AGAIN, I wasn't talking about HUMANISTS. I clearly said ATHEISTS.

There's plenty of people who don't profess to having faith in God who ascribe to humanism. I thought you might have known that?

I accept science. I don't accept pseudo science.

Hmm, what's your definition of "science" exactly?

You're so far off... like radiometric dating.

Well, you've yet to rebut even that but do explain how I'm "so far off". Should be interesting.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Please demonstrate how I've "dismissed the vast majority of scientific understanding?"

Well, there's no real dispute among the scientific community that the universe is over thirteen billion years old for one. You seem to have a problem with that. Why?

You sure are deaf. I've told you many times (and you should already know) that radiometric dating is based on MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS. This is well known, so why don't you know it?

If you refuse to discuss the actual method and YET continue to claim that is a valid scientific method, they is no hope that you can understand anything scientific.

Perhaps you can clear things up and specify as to why science has the age of the universe wrong? The floor is yours.

 

[Arthur Brain]

*****ACCIDENTAL REPEAT POST. SORRY.*****​

You're lying, yet again.

How long did it take you to carve that trite non-response onto the sole of your boot? 'Cause all you are doing, and all you've been doing in this thread, is stamping your foot, over and over and over, and repeating the same shtick, with only the slightest verbal variation from repetition to repetition. All the while, stonewalling against filling in the blanks with answers to the questions I've been asking you:

Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Yes, Djengo, I'm just stamping my foot in a petulant display of something or other. Otherwise, the theory of evolution still doesn't have anything to do with how life itself originated and you still need to pick your proverbial ball up and go home with it. Seriously, everyone drops such on occasion. Most know when to pick the thing up. It's about time you did just that. Otherwise, carry on as you will but it's embarrassing to watch.

 

[chair]

Would you say that in the death of, say, a horse named Fancy Free--that is, in Fancy Free's change from being alive to being no longer alive--Fancy Free has undergone evolution, evolved? If not, why not? Would you say that, in Fancy Free's death, Fancy Free has evolved from an alive horse into a dead horse? If not, why not? Also, would you not say that Fancy Free's change from being an alive horse to being a dead horse is the origin of a dead horse--the origin of a horse carcass? Why not?

Which (if any) change would you say evolution is?

In the case of, say, the evolution of Joe's pet bulldog, Vinnie, what change would you say Vinnie's evolution is, since you say that evolution is change?

When a surfer's right leg gets bitten off by a shark, the surfer changes from being a man with a right leg to being a man without a right leg. Would you say that the man has evolved from a man with a right leg into a man without a right leg? If not, why not?

I've given clear answers to your questions. I've pointed out that you've been playing semantic games. So here you go ahead and play more games. We do not refer to birth or death as "evolution". You know that full well, yet play these games.

Do you really have so little real support for your YEC ideas that you have to resort to these dishonest games? If YEC is true, why play games? Why lie? Why waste waste people's time? Do you have no respect for God's creatures?

 

[Right Divider]

Hardly. I'm not the one trying to pigeonhole people into a group.

Oh boy... another smear.... I didn't "pigeonhole" anyone.

Sure, but they aren't necessarily a "materialist" any more than a professed Christian is an altruist.

Please describe a "non-materialist atheist".

There's plenty of people who don't profess to having faith in God who ascribe to humanism. I thought you might have known that?

So what? Irrelevant. Once again, we are not talking about humanists.

Hmm, what's your definition of "science" exactly?

The kind of science that we are dealing with requires: verifiable and repeatable observations ... and not MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS.

Well, you've yet to rebut even that but do explain how I'm "so far off". Should be interesting.

You, apparently, do not know how radiometric dating works or you'd already know that it has been rebutted (and I didn't need to be the one to do it).

 

[Right Divider]

Well, there's no real dispute among the scientific community that the universe is over thirteen billion years old for one. You seem to have a problem with that. Why?

Evolutionists always talk about consensus instead of facts. Why?

Perhaps you can clear things up and specify as to why science has the age of the universe wrong? The floor is yours.

Because radiometric dating is invalid and generally produces long ages. Learn something about radiometric dating so that we can discuss the method.

 

[way 2 go]

Of course I am aware of these things! The challenge for you is to explain, scientifically, how there was light and darkness, day and night, without the sun. That should be easy for you. After all, Genesis is a science textbook!

Challenge accepted?

over here we have the earth and some safe distance away
all the matter and energy that makes up the universe which
God formed on day 4

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth. And it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

[User Name]

over here we have the earth and some safe distance away
all the matter and energy that makes up the universe which
God formed on day 4

God hadn't created any of that yet. Until day 4, there was just the earth and space.

 

[Right Divider]

God hadn't created any of that yet. Until day 4, there was just the earth.

The Bible says that God had also created light.

 

[User Name]

The Bible says that God had also created light.

It says God created light, but no light sources until day 4.

 

[Right Divider]

It says God created light, but no light source until day 4.

How do you know that there was "no light source until day 4"?

Where do you read that in the Bible?

 

[User Name]

How do you know that there was "no light source until day 4"?

Where do you read that in the Bible?

Day 1 - God created the earth, space, day and night (Gen 1:1-5).
Day 2 - God created the "firmament" (Gen 1:6-8).
Day 3 - God created dry land and flora (Gen 1:9-13).
Day 4 - God created the sun and the stars (Gen 1:14-19).

According to the Genesis account, God created light (photons) on Day 1, before he created any light sources (e.g., stars) on Day 4. From the scientific perspective, this is physically impossible. There cannot be light without light sources.