-
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!
Evidence For And Against Evolution
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Astrophile
Active Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
The beliefs posed as science are what need defending here. Work on that.
dad
Undefeated
To be clear you have posted zero evidence and refuse to post one piece of so called evidence you think is evidence. 0 for 0.
dad
Undefeated
No you did not. It was all belief based. Cite any one bit in your spam that you claim is evidence and we will see.
dad
Undefeated
None you can post though. Convenient. Post one little single piece of said evidence. Until you do, we all have our own beliefs, thanks.
dad
Undefeated
So it requires something that you cannot provide. Post one single piece of evidence, don't worry about 'concept'.
Astrophile
Active Member
1. The varved sediments of the Green River Formation in the Western USA present a continuous record of 5 or 6 million annual layers.
2. The cumulative thickness of sedimentary rocks. Some of the geological systems (e.g. the Ordovician, the Devonian and the Cretaceous systems) have maximum known thicknesses of more than 10 km, and the Proterozoic Dalradian and Belt Supergroups have thicknesses of 23 km and 18 km respectively. At measured rates of deposition of sediments, these systems and supergroups must have taken tens of millions of years to deposit. Even in about 1860, geologists had concluded from measured deposition rates and sedimentary thicknesses that the Phanerozoic aeon had lasted about 100 million years.
3. Because blueschist facies rocks form at relatively low temperatures (T = 450°C±50°C) and very high pressures (P = 8±1 kbar), the chemical reactions that produce the metamorphic minerals of this facies (glaucophane, jadeite, etc.) are sluggish, and therefore the mineral crystals grow very slowly; they cannot have formed on a time-scale of less than 10,000 years. See Jonathan Sarfati .
4. Some rocks and minerals, e.g. obsidian, opal, tridymite and aragonite, are unstable and change into other substances over long periods of time. If the Earth was <10,000 years old, these minerals would not have had time to decay and would be found in rocks of all ages, but this is not the case. Obsidian is rarely found in rocks older than the Lower Miocene; the oldest known opal is Lower Cretaceous; and the oldest known aragonites are Lower Carboniferous. This is strong evidence that rocks that are known, on other grounds, to be old have had enough time for these unstable minerals to change into other substances, whereas rocks that are known to be younger have not had time to undergo these transformations.
That is four pieces of evidence, both that the Earth and its rocks are very old, and that the rocks were not all deposited at the same time. I could post at least ten more pieces of evidence, but I think that four should be enough.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I can provide evidence. The problem is that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and so far you have refused to learn.
I promise that if you demonstrate that you understand the concept of evidence or if failing that let me help you to learn what is and what is not evidence, I will provide endless evidence for you.
dad
Undefeated
Sure you can. Yet we see you fail to provide one solitary piece. That is actually the thing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is because you do not know what is and what is not evidence. The only thing that keeps you from being a liar when it comes to the concept of evidence is your inability to understand what is and what is not evidence.
Once again, when you are willing to demonstrate that you understand what is and what is not evidence, or failing that learn what is and what is not evidence, I will give you endless sources of evidence. Refusing to do so will be a tacit admission that you are wrong.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Can you please explain what a flat-earther believes?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
Still can't provide for us one single piece of evidence. No need to say more.
dad
Undefeated
When you were asked and failed to produce a SINGLE piece of evidence that was not faith based, we get this. Time you accepted defeat graciously.
McBell
Unbound
You have not presented a single thing other than your jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears yelling "la la la"....
So if that is all it takes for you to claim victory, you make the Pigeon Chess crowd look like experts in their field.
And you are overly proud of it to boot.....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please do not make false statements and use them as personal attacks. That is against the rules here. So is trolling. I gave you a reasonable condition.
Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence? You seem to know that learning this would mean that you would know that your claims were false. It would mean that to make your claims you would have to openly lie. The excuse of ignorance would no longer work.