Audie
Veteran Member
To my above I will add dishonest.
It's not me making the extravagant claims.
It's you..
-
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
It's not me making the extravagant claims.
It's you..
OK, so as a fallible mortal do you admit you could be mistaken in your religious beliefs? Maybe Muslims are correct.
Not in any way that you have shown us. Thus far all you have done is show us you assume it's true as you interpret it. What makes your interpretation beyond error since you aren't a God?
If it's no better than what you have provided then why bother? You haven't shown us your assumptions and interpretations are correct. You want us to take your word that your assumptions are beyond error, as if you are a God. But you admit you aren't, so you are obligated to show your facts like anyone else.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The Bible is true and I believe what it says.
Heyo
Veteran Member
There have been multiple posts you just simply ignored. That's not how it functions.
I have reacted to your claims I found worthy of refutation. You still have to explain the existence of the cliffs of Dover in your 6000 year model.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Flood of course. I keep answering the questions correctly.
Here are just some easy ones. Just look up the official answer.
If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why? The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling.
They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
Why are there living fossils?
How does one explain polystrate trees?
How does one explain soft tissue and blood vessels in dinosaur tissue?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue with DNA and other biomolecules still being intact?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue, and diamonds that are not C-14 dead?
Why is there too much C-14 in some samples of coal and fossilized wood?
How do you explain ancient microbes revived?
Heyo
Veteran Member
@SavedByTheLord: Are you going to answer this? Or is that not part of your rules of pigeon chess?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
See post #1 in the other thread.
And your rebuttal is?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
The title of this thread says "NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED."
Heyo
Veteran Member
Until now you didn't answer at all. And this time you try to deflect from the topic. It is not about polystrate (my spellchecker says that isn't a word) trees or dinosaur "soft" tissue, it's about the cliffs of Dover.
Do we agree they exist? Do we agree they are over 100 m high?
Heyo
Veteran Member
In the other thread.
And you are again mixing topics. Your other thread is about abiogenesis, this thread is about a 6000 year old earth.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
They are not "all" missing. We have thousands of examples of transitional fossils. The reason we don't have a complete record is pretty obvious: not every organism ends up becoming a fossil. Regardless, of the thousands we do have, they fit evolutionary predictions exactly.
No, there shouldn't. Evolution does not work on developing "half an organ" then a "full organ". All organs, even in those in a transitional state between an organ that came previously and an organ that developed later, are functional and complete for the purpose they fulfill. At no point was the organ "non-functional" or "half-functional". It's always functional, just more or less adapted or specialised for a particular environment. If it helps, think of evolution not as a step-by-step process of creating an organ or appendage, but of a slow and gradual process of slight improvements to an already existing feature. Do you understand?
I can explain in more elaborate detail if needs be.
You're repeating yourself. Fossilisation is incredibly rare.
The Cambrian explosion was a period over 10 million years. It wasn't a "short time", it was just a relatively rapid expansion compared with the speed of evolutionary development preceding and following it. As for its explanation, the earliest forms of life replicated at much, much higher rates and were subject to much more extreme environmental conditions, resulting in comparatively extremely rapid evolutionary development. I always thought it's a bit odd when people point to the Cambrian explosion as evidence against evolutionary biology, considering the Cambrian explosion describes an evolutionary event.
What do you mean? Do you mean, why do we find living species today who are vaguely similar to fossils that are much older? Simply because evolutionary change is variable. Some species change a great deal over a short amount of time, some species change relatively little over much longer periods of time. This is to be expected by a complex, multi-faceted biological process.
Trees can be buried by significant geological events, or by lots of minor ones.
There are multiple current hypotheses about that, ranging from them being preserved in rare cases by minerals in the bones to a process called "cross linking". Regardless, it's not a significant issue since the tissue is so rare to find. If dinosaurs were around much shorter ago than we think, you'd think finding soft tissue would be commonplace.
See above.
See above.
I would need specific examples to understand this.
Ditto this.
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So no real answers. Transitional in the fossil record would be just an assumption and rely on hopeful monsters, aka, jumps
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
You didn't respond to my post bringing up clone colonies. Not only are they so large that it would take, sometimes, tends of thousands of years to amass to that size, but some have even been carbon dated as well and have been shown that they are older than 6000 years
Here's another example - Old Tjikko
en.m.wikipedia.org
"The age of the tree was determined by carbon dating of genetically matched plant material collected from under the tree, as dendrochronology does not work for clonal trees. The trunk itself is estimated to be only a few centuries old, but the plant has survived for much longer due to a process known as layering (when a branch comes in contact with the ground, it sprouts a new root), or vegetative cloning (when the trunk dies but the root system is still alive, it may sprout a new trunk)."
en.m.wikipedia.org
Here's another example - Old Tjikko
- Old Tjikko, a Norway spruce tree in the county of Dalarna, Sweden, is living on top of roots that have been radiocarbon-dated to 9,550 years old. The tree is part of a clonal colony that was established at the end of the last ice age. Discovered by Professor Leif Kullman of Umeå University, Old Tjikko is small, only 5 m (16 ft) in height.[39][40][41][42]
List of longest-living organisms - Wikipedia
"The age of the tree was determined by carbon dating of genetically matched plant material collected from under the tree, as dendrochronology does not work for clonal trees. The trunk itself is estimated to be only a few centuries old, but the plant has survived for much longer due to a process known as layering (when a branch comes in contact with the ground, it sprouts a new root), or vegetative cloning (when the trunk dies but the root system is still alive, it may sprout a new trunk)."
Old Tjikko - Wikipedia
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Here's the problem: You're throwing "assumptions" to anything offered as if it were a shield, then state that the Bible gives the correct answer.
It is literally verifiable "assumptions" (in the form of tested and testable axioms) vs unverified assumption (based on faith in the Bible's literal veracity).
Your attempt to use "assumptions" as a way to render people's examples as invalid is unsound.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So you assume the rate of growth to have been the same in the past as today.You didn't respond to my post bringing up clone colonies. Not only are they so large that it would take, sometimes, tends of thousands of years to amass to that size, but some have even been carbon dated as well and have been shown that they are older than 6000 years
Here's another example - Old Tjikko
- Old Tjikko, a Norway spruce tree in the county of Dalarna, Sweden, is living on top of roots that have been radiocarbon-dated to 9,550 years old. The tree is part of a clonal colony that was established at the end of the last ice age. Discovered by Professor Leif Kullman of Umeå University, Old Tjikko is small, only 5 m (16 ft) in height.[39][40][41][42]
List of longest-living organisms - Wikipedia
"The age of the tree was determined by carbon dating of genetically matched plant material collected from under the tree, as dendrochronology does not work for clonal trees. The trunk itself is estimated to be only a few centuries old, but the plant has survived for much longer due to a process known as layering (when a branch comes in contact with the ground, it sprouts a new root), or vegetative cloning (when the trunk dies but the root system is still alive, it may sprout a new trunk)."
Old Tjikko - Wikipedia
That is an assumption.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I literally just answered your questions.
Okay, so what's your explanation for what we see in the fossil record? That all of these species came into existence from nothing, spontaneously, then all died out suddenly - leaving behind not a single living example - before another species - that is entirely unrelated to the first - popped spontaneously into existence right afterwards that all - completely coincidentally and for no reason whatsoever - bore striking similarities to the previous species and then also then all died out - leaving behind not a single living example - and then this process repeated, over and over and over again, coincidentally happening to match up perfectly with a scientific theory that wouldn't exist for millions of years, all of this happening by sheer coincidence and for no reason whatsoever?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
"Can you explain X?"
"Yes. [provides explanation for X]"
"Oh, so you're ASSUMING your explanation for X actually explains X?"
Why ask a question when all you're going to do is literally reject any answer?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? You did not show any "fudge factors". You did not show that it was ever refuted. Do you think that just because it was not perfect from the start that you think that it was refuted? Sorry, science does not work that way. They had a rough original idea. That rough original idea is still correct. It only had to be adjusted a bit.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
You mean deductive reasoning? Without deductive reasoning, crime scene investigations would be null. What about the fact that Old Tjikko has been carbon dated and we can show that it is 9,550 years old?
We don't care what you believe since you are a fallible mortal. What we do care about is what evidence you have that your beliefs are likely true. Thus far all you expect us to do is take your word for what you believe. That's not good enough. Would you take the word that a Muslim has the truth?
So show us that the Bible is absolutely true via facts and data. Show us a God exists outside of human imagination. Then you have a winning position. Thus far all you offer is what you believe, just like Muslims, just like Hindus, just like pagans, just like anyone else.