Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

This poor horse is indeed dead. We should show it some justice and consideration and stop beating on it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I have found is that people like you continually put down people like me. But! you have a good night. (Good night.)

You have a good night. Keep looking and reading. Take care. I'm tired.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IF I believed your evidence as I dare not say 'proof' of the theory of evolution, naturally I'd have to say the creation account is wrong. So when I offer information that shows errors or possibilities of contradictions among scientists, then you say I'm just wrong, dumb, uneducated, etc. OK, you don't say I'm dumb, you just use other words. Anyway -- it's ok. Yes, Genesis says man was created from the dust and the breath of life was put into his body. I realize the account sounds mystical, but I don't know how it was done or how the terms were used. And frankly, as I think about the construction of DNA, it seems less likely that the structure evolved by natural selection.

But you have never shown any relevant contradictions. And no one has called you dumb.. Uneducated? Yes. Ignorant? Yes, but both of those conditions can be easily remedied.

We know that they creation account is wrong, but once again to date you have been afraid to even learn what evidence is and why.

And your last argument is merely an argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy. You should also try to learn the basics of logic and what makes an argument valid or invalid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's in the article I linked. You say when it happened? Doesn't say, but mentions the following: "Our identification of the Lehi horse as an early domestic rather than an Ice Age horse suggests that prior misclassifications may have influenced museum collection practices and the interpretation of archaeological and paleontological assemblages, leading to gaps in the faunal record of Native horsemanship. Consequently, the reevaluation of horse skeletons in natural history collections, focusing on both osteological markers of human activity and biomolecular analyses, appears warranted—and such studies may significantly change our understanding of the timing and nature of early Indigenous horse use in the Americas." If I've interpreted this wrongly, let me know please.

The article only talked about refutation of a preliminary date. It had not been checked. How does one poor example that was quickly discovered make any difference? And why would that affect the dating of other horses at all?

You are merely grasping at straws now. You do not support your claim at all.

 

[gnostic]

"...recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago." Really? Scientists have started to uncover EVIDENCE? that the flood account may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place a while back? hmmm. Isn't that interesting...Evidence for a Flood | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

The Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis is still a hypothesis, that doesn’t verify the Genesis flood at all.

It is certainly not the same flood, as the Genesis flood “supposedly” took place around 4300 years ago, that near the end of the Early Bronze Age, during the Akkadian dynasty in Sumer.

While the Black Sea Flood took place over 3000 years earlier.

There are only 292 years between Noah boarding the Ark and the birth of Abraham.

If Noah’s flood took place in 5500 BCE, then everything in the Old Testament and New Testament would be completely out of alignment. For instance, Jesus would be born around around 3200 BCE, when Rome didn’t exist. Which would mean Jesus was born 650 years before the great pyramid of Giza was built.

As I said, there is a gap of over 3000 years between the Black Sea event and Noah’s Flood. So BSD can’t be evidence for Genesis Flood.

Second.

While the Black Sea Deluge was devastating for any Neolithic villages or towns located along the coastline, the water certainly didn’t cover any “high mountains” as narrated in Genesis 7:19.

And the floodwaters certainly did not cover 5137 m high Greater Ararat...not even 3896 m high, the Little Ararat.

 

[cladking]

No.

Very concise, very telling, and couldn't be more wrong.

Of course you believe the same illusions Darwin did.

Who needs experiment when you have Darwin and Consensus Opinion?

You actually believe that word games and gainsaying constitute "truth" so long as it agrees with Peers. In this case even the peers won't agree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very concise, very telling, and couldn't be more wrong.

Of course you believe the same illusions Darwin did.

Who needs experiment when you have Darwin and Consensus Opinion?

You actually believe that word games and gainsaying constitute "truth" so long as it agrees with Peers. In this case even the peers won't agree with you.

No, science is evidence based. That means that either your definition of experiment is wrong or your claim that all science is based upon experiment is wrong. Otherwise as usual, you are wrong.

 

[cladking]

No, science is evidence based. That means that either your definition of experiment is wrong or your claim that all science is based upon experiment is wrong. Otherwise as usual, you are wrong.

Just more words yet again to gainsay it.

Evidence underlies hypothesis and experiment underlies theory. A witchdoctor will show you evidence all day long for his beliefs just as you can point out evidence for yours and I for mine. This is the nature of reason and science. Without experiment we're all just witchdoctors with strange beliefs like "survival of the fittest" and that change in species is gradual DESPITE the simple fact all change in all life at all levels that can be observed is sudden. Darwin was just a 19th century mystic. "Evolution" in a very real way is 21st century mysticism with no foundation in experiment.

People believe what they want to believe and people want to believe in Darwin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just more words yet again to gainsay it.

Evidence underlies hypothesis and experiment underlies theory. A witchdoctor will show you evidence all day long for his beliefs just as you can point out evidence for yours and I for mine. This is the nature of reason and science. Without experiment we're all just witchdoctors with strange beliefs like "survival of the fittest" and that change in species is gradual DESPITE the simple fact all change in all life at all levels that can be observed is sudden. Darwin was just a 19th century mystic. "Evolution" in a very real way is 21st century mysticism with no foundation in experiment.

People believe what they want to believe and people want to believe in Darwin.

Then your definition of 'experiment' is wrong. For example every new fossil find is a new "experiment" since it could possibly change or even in some cases refute evolution.

Either way you are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis is still a hypothesis, that doesn’t verify the Genesis flood at all.

It is certainly not the same flood, as the Genesis flood “supposedly” took place around 4300 years ago, that near the end of the Early Bronze Age, during the Akkadian dynasty in Sumer.

While the Black Sea Flood took place over 3000 years earlier.

There are only 292 years between Noah boarding the Ark and the birth of Abraham.

If Noah’s flood took place in 5500 BCE, then everything in the Old Testament and New Testament would be completely out of alignment. For instance, Jesus would be born around around 3200 BCE, when Rome didn’t exist. Which would mean Jesus was born 650 years before the great pyramid of Giza was built.

As I said, there is a gap of over 3000 years between the Black Sea event and Noah’s Flood. So BSD can’t be evidence for Genesis Flood.

Second.

While the Black Sea Deluge was devastating for any Neolithic villages or towns located along the coastline, the water certainly didn’t cover any “high mountains” as narrated in Genesis 7:19.

And the floodwaters certainly did not cover 5137 m high Greater Ararat...not even 3896 m high, the Little Ararat.

Other accounts talk about a flood happening a long time ago -- not only the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Very concise, very telling, and couldn't be more wrong.

Of course you believe the same illusions Darwin did.

Who needs experiment when you have Darwin and Consensus Opinion?

That's right.

 

[YoursTrue]

The article only talked about refutation of a preliminary date. It had not been checked. How does one poor example that was quickly discovered make any difference? And why would that affect the dating of other horses at all?

You are merely grasping at straws now. You do not support your claim at all.

The article was concise in discussing only the Lehi horse and mistaken idea of date at first. It went on to talk about how museums may have mistaken dates. (No kidding...)

 

[YoursTrue]

This poor horse is indeed dead. We should show it some justice and consideration and stop beating on it.

Since it's dead, it doesn't feel anything. But the mystery of possible mistaken dates in museums lingers on. The justice is that the researchers told the truth about possibilities of mistaken dates given by museums.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Other accounts talk about a flood happening a long time ago -- not only the Bible.

That was already explained to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's right.

He does not know what science is or even what an experiment is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article was concise in discussing only the Lehi horse and mistaken idea of date at first. It went on to talk about how museums may have mistaken dates. (No kidding...)

Okay. So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since it's dead, it doesn't feel anything. But the mystery of possible mistaken dates in museums lingers on. The justice is that the researchers told the truth about possibilities of mistaken dates given by museums.

What makes you think that is possible? Did you go and see what dating methods were used?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very concise, very telling, and couldn't be more wrong.

Of course you believe the same illusions Darwin did.

Who needs experiment when you have Darwin and Consensus Opinion?

You actually believe that word games and gainsaying constitute "truth" so long as it agrees with Peers. In this case even the peers won't agree with you.

Not my fault that you have no idea how science works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Other accounts talk about a flood happening a long time ago -- not only the Bible.

You could have a billion "accounts" making a claim.
If the evidence predicted by said claim isn't there, then a billion "accounts" are incorrect.

No amount of claims is a valid substitute for actual testable evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

That was already explained to you.

No, you only made allegations that do not make sense. Because, as it has been said by scholars, gigantic flood accounts were spoken of. Now why Moses recorded the account about Noah is explainable because that's what God wanted him to write. Since you don't believe in God or the Bible or His holy spirit as His communication in written word, there is not going to be a meeting of the minds right now. In the meantime, the Encyclopedia Britannica has a rather interesting explanation of the event. Noah | biblical figure | Britannica This does not say, of course, that it happened, but the idea is that there was at least one mention of a flood in the Gilgamesh account., although different from the biblical account. Therefore, I conclude there was a flood of enormous proportions. And while it seems astounding, I will not take a stand against it.