40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

[Jose Fly]

Seriously do you need to take a course in debating? Every time something is brought up, you refuse to address it and bring up something unrelated, and compeletly imbicilic, liek the above.

He's made it quite clear that he's here to tell us what he thinks, not to listen to anyone else or engage in any sort of discussion.

So just expect it; otherwise you'll just be disappointed and/or frustrated.

 

[AxisMundi]

Yes and the kind of people that would label someone with a college degree in science a "pseudoscientist" are trying to control want the general public understands to be authoritative.

Let's simply things for you and use a specific example, shall we?

Michael J. Behe has a legtimate degree in biochemistry. He is a stauch supporter of the Irreducable Complexity (IC) portion of Intelligent Design (ID). However, IC does not follow the Scientific Method whatsoever, and has been dismantled by every legitimate scientist that comes along. IC attempts to arrive at a conclusion, and then justify that conclusion, in this case "Goddunit".

That is pseudoscience.

Behe was the star witness for the school district of Dover, Penn in the Kitzmiller v Dover case. ID, IC, and all of Behe's books were completely dismantled by Christian scientists, and a conservative Christian judge found against ID/IC, and Behe's work in general, as anything approaching science, belonging thoroughly within the realm of religion.

ID/IC is an example of pseudoscience, ie something that skips most of the Scientific Method and does not stand up to simple Peer Review, and Behe is an example of a pseudoscientist.

I

guess this is the very same thing that people are doing who are against homosexual marriages. Why don't you use the term "pseudomarriage?" No, you don't see beyond your own critiques...

Religion has never held title to the term or practice of marriage. Indeed, clergy were not required for Christian marriages until the 1500's.

It is a government institution that some Americans prefer to enact under the auspices of a religious wedding cerimony. Your religion doesn't own marriage, sorry.

We nor YOU have an actual count of how many people were living on this planet in 2,200 BEFORE CHRIST. Do you find this answer unrelated also?:thud:

We do not actually count the global population today. It is an estimate. And using the same criteria for estimation, we can certainly tell that there is no evidence of a global die off of human beings, or plants/animals in general, 2,200 BCE.

We also have writtings thousands of years older. None mention any WWF, none pause while some civilization rebuilds itself, none are even damp.

 

[LittleNipper]

Radiometric dating? Miracle!
Non-radiometric dating methods? Miracle!
The establishment of evolution as scientific fact? Miracle!
Absolute lack of evidence for a global flood? Miracle!
Boatload (pun intended) of evidence against a global flood? Miracle!

See how easy it is?

Radiometric dating --- ruined by water infiltration.
Non-radiometric dating methods ----- suspect to the moment of creation values.
The establishment of evolution as scientific fact ---- Not a fact of cross species development only variety. No experiment has ever shown nor encouraged a "new" species that isn't simply a variation of a species already existing.
Absolute lack of evidence for a global flood ---- The mirade of fossils whose only reason for existing is drowning and quick encasement to prevent oblivion.
Boatload of evidence against a global flood ---- Only in the eyes of the scripturally challenged.

 

[Jose Fly]

Behe was the star witness for the school district of Dover, Penn in the Kitzmiller v Dover case.

Actually, as it turned out Behe was a star witness for the plaintiffs. Astrology is as scientific as ID, alleged arguments for ID are really just arguments against evolution, the whole piling of books and papers on the evolution of the immune system, etc. Behe's testimony did more for the side of science than anyone ever dreamed.

 

[AxisMundi]

Actually, as it turned out Behe was a star witness for the plaintiffs. Astrology is as scientific as ID, alleged arguments for ID are really just arguments against evolution, the whole piling of books and papers on the evolution of the immune system, etc. Behe's testimony did more for the side of science than anyone ever dreamed.

Quite.

I've Prof Miller's lecture on the matter in my favorites.

 

[AxisMundi]

Radiometric dating --- ruined by water infiltration.
Non-radiometric dating methods ----- suspect to the moment of creation values.
The establishment of evolution as scientific fact ---- Not a fact of cross species development only variety. No experiment has ever shown nor encouraged a "new" species that isn't simply a variation of a species already existing.
Absolute lack of evidence for a global flood ---- The mirade of fossils whose only reason for existing is drowning and quick encasement to prevent oblivion.
Boatload of evidence against a global flood ---- Only in the eyes of the scripturally challenged.

Radiometric Dating - One of many techniques of dating and absolutely accurate when used where it is supposed to be used.

Non-radiometric dating - Again, absolutely accurate where applied correctly. Sorry they don't support your 6,000 year old world or WWF, that doesn't change facts.

The establishment... - We have plenty of transitory species fossils.

Absolute lack of evidence for a WWF - There are no thick fossil layers showing a world wide instantanious die off from drowning. Fossils occur under several conditions, not just "under water".

Boatload of evidence against a WWF - Well, I will give you some credit. You never fail to amaze me with your ignorance.

 

[Jose Fly]

No experiment has ever shown nor encouraged a "new" species that isn't simply a variation of a species already existing.

That statement right there should tell you all you need to know about LittleNipper and his understanding of evolutionary biology.

 

[LittleNipper]

He's made it quite clear that he's here to tell us what he thinks, not to listen to anyone else or engage in any sort of discussion.

So just expect it; otherwise you'll just be disappointed and/or frustrated.

You seem to be making it very clear that the only reason you are here is to disagree with believers, and not listen to them or engage in a discussion that doesn't lead towards embracing agnosticism at best.

 

[LittleNipper]

That statement right there should tell you all you need to know about LittleNipper and his understanding of evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary biology proposes that all life forms have a common ancestor. I will never accept this. and in over 6000 years of human records, nothing of the sort has ever been hinted at. Might I also add that plants in general have a much more complex generic code than do animals. When do you believe this originated --- before or after plants supposedly branched off into animals?

 

[LittleNipper]

Radiometric Dating - One of many techniques of dating and absolutely accurate when used where it is supposed to be used.
quote]


Yes, and how on earth does one assume to know where such is to be used, by realizing that they are absolutely correct about the unknown history of a specific place in advance? And how does one presume to know such --- they don't believe a FLOOD happened....................

 

[LittleNipper]

Absolute lack of evidence for a WWF - There are no thick fossil layers showing a world wide instantanious die off from drowning. Fossils occur under several conditions, not just "under water".

There obviously would not be one thick fossil layer. All the layering together represent the FLOOD deposits during its various stages. The FLOOD lasted a year and the trama to the earth's crust continues to this very day. Comet strikes, asteroid collisions, volcanic convulsions, and land unindations. Nearly every fossil found has been buried in mud.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evolutionary biology proposes that all life forms have a common ancestor. I will never accept this.

Then you aren't approaching the issue in good faith.

Personally, if I were confronted with sufficient evidence for your version, I'd change my position... the poor quality of your arguments and evidence so far notwithstanding.

 

[LittleNipper]

Then you aren't approaching the issue in good faith.

Personally, if I were confronted with sufficient evidence for your version, I'd change my position... the poor quality of your arguments and evidence so far notwithstanding.

And you do not approach GOD in good faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And you do not approach GOD in good faith.

I disagree. I considered Christianity with an open mind. I've seen no reason to accept it, but if I were confronted with new evidence or reasoning, I'd be open to reconsidering my position (though this isn't an invitation for you to break the forum rules on proselytizing).

However, this is all irrelevant to our immediate conversation. We're talking about evolution here, not God. You've made it clear that you won't let your mind be changed, apparently regardless of the quality of any evidence you're presented with. If this is really the case, why do you participate in threads like this?

 

[Moonstone]

What hope for the world when 40% of Australians will believe any statistics that they hear?

:yes:

 

[johnhanks]

Evolutionary biology proposes that all life forms have a common ancestor. I will never accept this. and in over 6000 years of human records, nothing of the sort has ever been hinted at.

Now, let's pause to think about this. When I first started studying biology my teachers had no clue about DNA or biochemical pathways. All the evidence they had pointed to an evolutionary explanation for the origin of species, but that was based on homologies and inferences drawn from them. The status of ATP as universal energy currency, the universality of the genetic code, the molecular history of cytochrome C - all this was yet to come. Hinted at? Common ancestry is written in bold caps all over biology.

Might I also add that plants in general have a much more complex generic code than do animals.

Well, yes, you might, if you can explain what a generic code is. If by chance you mean a genetic code, then you have a huge amount of explaining to do. What exactly are 'plants in general'? How is their genetic (generic?) code more complex than ours? Your explanations eagerly awaited.

 

[Jose Fly]

You seem to be making it very clear that the only reason you are here is to disagree with believers, and not listen to them or engage in a discussion that doesn't lead towards embracing agnosticism at best.

Actually, recently on this site I've had some very fruitful and engaging conversations with people of opposing or different views. From them, I gained a much better understanding and appreciation of their beliefs.

Evolutionary biology proposes that all life forms have a common ancestor. I will never accept this.

Obviously. Even if all the evidence pointed to that one conclusion, you were aware of it, and understood it...you would still deny it. That's pretty consistent with just about all YEC's I've ever encountered.

and in over 6000 years of human records, nothing of the sort has ever been hinted at.

How would you know? When was the last time you were in a library perusing the scientific journals? When was the last time you attended a conference or symposium on evolutionary biology?

Might I also add that plants in general have a much more complex generic code than do animals. When do you believe this originated --- before or after plants supposedly branched off into animals?

Again, your say so isn't good enough. You need to provide a citation that says what you're claiming.

All the layering together represent the FLOOD deposits during its various stages.

So how is it that we have "trace fossils" throughout the geologic record? Didn't these creatures, and the sediments they were walking on, realize they were under thousands of feet of turbulent water?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There obviously would not be one thick fossil layer. All the layering together represent the FLOOD deposits during its various stages. The FLOOD lasted a year and the trama to the earth's crust continues to this very day. Comet strikes, asteroid collisions, volcanic convulsions, and land unindations. Nearly every fossil found has been buried in mud.

Guess what! You just took one step into the scientific method: you made a hypothesis. And not just any hypothesis, but one that makes testable predictions.

One thing that it predicts is that we should not be able to find any location where fossil-bearing layers are overlaid with other layers of soil or rock that pre-date the date of the flood.

If we can find such a location, will you agree that your hypothesis is incorrect, at least in part?

 

[JustWondering2]

I have one question for LittleNipper. Where did all that water runoff to after the flood?

 

[AxisMundi]

There obviously would not be one thick fossil layer. All the layering together represent the FLOOD deposits during its various stages. The FLOOD lasted a year and the trama to the earth's crust continues to this very day. Comet strikes, asteroid collisions, volcanic convulsions, and land unindations. Nearly every fossil found has been buried in mud.

Horsepuckey. There would certainly be a very thick layer of fossils. In your mythical WWF story, everything dies, fish, bird, plants, babies and kittens. Everything dies at the same time.

BTW, any elevation map showing the sea floors proves you quite wrong.

Yes, and how on earth does one assume to know where such is to be used, by realizing that they are absolutely correct about the unknown history of a specific place in advance? And how does one presume to know such --- they don't believe a FLOOD happened....................

Please Provide Proof of your Flood.

Dating techniques are proven, sorry they don't support your WWF myth, but reality sometimes does that.