TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes you claimed this already. You didn't show it though.
Probably because all you can do is make claims.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Yes you claimed this already. You didn't show it though.
Probably because all you can do is make claims.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You can't prove there's no undetectable graviton pixies.
You have a no-undetectable-graviton-pixie assumption.
You don't need "no-x" assumptions when there is no evidence of x.
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So you're criticising the 'assumption' that the laws of physics hold? No exactly baseless, is it?
Why are you using the baseless assumption that the universe wasn't created half an hour ago, complete with all your memories of life before?
There was no such assumption.
Where is the circularity you claimed? Was that just more false witness bearing?
Because nobody is making that assumption. A God might exist but it the creation myth in Genesis is obviously falsified by endless amounts of evidence.
I think that is a difference of opinions on what we see and not air-tight.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Sorry but the evidence that the Genesis story is not literally true is one of the most certain conclusions in all of science. It is falsified by evolution, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, and statistics (just off the top of my head).
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I see. So you are claiming that God is a liar again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, of course if one keeps oneself blind it might not seem to be air tight. But some of us cannot willfully blind ourselves.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He always assumes that if God exists that he is not a liar. An omniscient, omnipotent, and evil God could do anything it wanted to. But that raises the question of why trust his promises of salvation.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not me. It is just that evolutionary and billions of years scientists are wrong because they have used false assumptions and circular reasoning.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have never supported either of those claims. Where I have explained to you many times how you keep claiming that God is a liar.z
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yet more baseless, unargued assertions.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I would like some feedback.Yet more baseless, unargued assertions.
What do you think about this?
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene?
Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the first question as previous genes would have had to exist.
And a copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the second question as it is just a copy and not a new gene.
And a gene transferred from another species cannot also be the answer because it is still the same gene.
And a new allele is not a new gene. So that is not the answer.
Also note that mutations are either deadly, disadvantageous, or have no effect. So that will not lead to survival of the fitness.
There are no beneficial mutations. Some say sickle cell anemia, but that is a disease, and they are looking for a cure.
So, a copy of a gene that is slowly mutated cannot be the answer.
Also note that genes come in widely carrying sizes. Those in mankind range from 14 to 2.300,000 base pairs.
So even a copy with a mutation or 2 will not lead to the diversity of gene sizes.
Further the codes of genes are mostly very dissimilar, not just a copy and then a mutation or 2.
The odds against even a single beneficial mutation are very much against that. The odds against a large number are extremely large against that.
Almost all genes are large enough that just randomly happening by chance is a miraculous event.
The median size of a gene is about 25,000 base pairs. The odds against that coming into being is 8^25,000 to 1 or 10^22,500 to 1.
It is estimated that there are 8.7 million species in the world. It is also estimated that 99.9% of all species have become extinct. Thus, there have been about 870 million species that have ever lived. With an average of about 20,000 genes per species that comes to about 17.4 trillion genes that have ever existed. Assuming that 95% is the average duplication rate across all species, that comes to almost 1 trillion unique genes that have ever existed. Thus, that is almost 1 trillion incredible miracles to account for all unique genes that have ever existed. However, sexual reproduction does present a significant obstacle as only the individual receiving the miraculous new gene can only donate one copy, and no one else has that copy. This would probably be detrimental in any offspring. But even if by some miracle that offspring survives it only has one copy to donate, so only ½ of its offspring receives the new gene. And it still must mate with another individual without the new gene. It would take a number of generations before that new gene could take a foothold in the species population. Thus, it would also take a number of miraculous events for this to happen. The odds against this are greater than 10^20,000 trillion to 1.
So, all genes in all living creatures would require about a trillion miracles. And for each of these miracles, there are about maybe 100 mini miracles. This is so preposterous.
Also note that some genes produce a protein that requires a specific enzyme that itself comes from a gene. So, for these 2 simultaneous miracles are needed either for copy and mutate or come from nothing. A copy of a gene with several mutations would require a matching copy of the gene that produces the enzyme, and that gene itself would have miraculously randomly mutated to work with the new protein from the new gene. And both would still be stopped by the requirement of sexual reproduction.
Oldest human-made structure in the Americas is older than the Egyptian pyramids
The grass-covered mounds represent 11,000 years of human history.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Did it have 9000 BC on its cornerstone?Oldest human-made structure in the Americas is older than the Egyptian pyramids
The grass-covered mounds represent 11,000 years of human history.www.livescience.com
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't ignore everything you're given.
Yes.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What then?
Nah, they used unscientific methods like carbon dating to determine its age.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
C-14 proves that long ages are false, as things that are supposedly millions of years old are not C-14 dead.
But C-14 dating beyond about 3500 years are not accurate as the world before the flood a low C-14 to C-12 ratio.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What are you going on about? Only the ignorant would think you can date things millions of years old using carbon dating.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Just because the age is assumed to be old does not mean it is old.
Just C-14 date them.