Evolution is no more science than Creationism is.

[camanintx]

So the most recent explanation is that a gas cloud formed the planets? Where did this gas cloud come from? A theory that changes its very foundations so often like this would normally be dismissed as unviable. Of course, this is not what is taught in text books. Like Hovind, I adopted the hobby of collecting text books (the evolutionist equivelant of the Bible), and those things are still taught. There is nothing to replace them.

Please quote one modern source that claims planets formed by spinning off from the Sun. The theory that the Sun and planets formed from a gaseous nebula dates back to the French mathematician Laplace in 1796.

 

[Willamena]

You've not pointed out anything. You've pointed out that Creationism doesn't have all the answers: we don't deny it. Our religion, we admit, is a religion: yours is not science at best, and we just try and point out the many flaws.

I have to agree with Angellous, now - you are trolling. Almost every post has indicated to you that your "evidence" is not supportable. Your idea of what constitutes "science" and "religion" is baffling.

 

[Luke_17:2]

This is where we are-

You can't explain how the universe came to be.

You have no definitive proof about the age of the earth-all methods of dating are flawed if you get to a certain time limit. And Carbon Dating is flawed from the beginning.

You can't explain why the planets in the Solar Sysyem, stars, or galaxies violate the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum assuming they were formed according to the Uniformitarian (evolutionist) theory.

You can't refute my evidence that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate that would have put it at tree-top level 80 million years ago. You accused me of using false data, but you couldn't prove it, offer me any new data, nor prove to me that your data was more credible.

You can't disprove the existence of God.

You can't explain the fact that at the rate the Earth is currently slowing down, it would have been going to fast for life if it were as old as you claim.

You can't prove the age of fossils.

These are just some things. But it's fundemental to the uniformitarian belief system, and you can't refute it.

And I'm the troll?

 

[MaddLlama]

This is where we are-

You can't explain how the universe came to be.

You have no definitive proof about the age of the earth-all methods of dating are flawed if you get to a certain time limit. And Carbon Dating is flawed from the beginning.

You can't explain why the planets in the Solar Sysyem, stars, or galaxies violate the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum assuming they were formed according to the Uniformitarian (evolutionist) theory.

You can't refute my evidence that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate that would have put it at tree-top level 80 million years ago. You accused me of using false data, but you couldn't prove it, offer me any new data, nor prove to me that your data was more credible.

You can't disprove the existence of God.

You can't explain the fact that at the rate the Earth is currently slowing down, it would have been going to fast for life if it were as old as you claim.

You can't prove the age of fossils.

These are just some things. But it's fundemental to the uniformitarian belief system, and you can't refute it.

And I'm the troll?

Assuming every statement in this post is true, you neglected to mention one very important thing:

You can't prove or disprove any of these things either. You also have yet to post any scientific evidence for Creationism that would support your assertion that Creationism is science at all, let alone more science than evolution. You also have yet to demonstrate that you actually understand any of the science behind or around evolution.

 

[Papersock]

So the most recent explanation is that a gas cloud formed the planets? Where did this gas cloud come from? A theory that changes its very foundations so often like this would normally be dismissed as unviable. Of course, this is not what is taught in text books. Like Hovind, I adopted the hobby of collecting text books (the evolutionist equivelant of the Bible), and those things are still taught. There is nothing to replace them.

Evolution is not founded on how the universe started or formed. Biological evolution could still have occurd however the planet was originally formed. As Panda said, there is separate evidence for both.

 

[Willamena]

You can't explain how the universe came to be.

No science claims to do that. Cosmology studies only the after-effects of the Big Bang.

You have no definitive proof about the age of the earth-all methods of dating are flawed if you get to a certain time limit. And Carbon Dating is flawed from the beginning.

No science claims definitive proof. It cannot.

You can't explain why the planets in the Solar Sysyem, stars, or galaxies violate the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum assuming they were formed according to the Uniformitarian (evolutionist) theory.

Their motion does not violate any laws --in fact, it is by their motion that such laws are defined.

You can't refute my evidence that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate that would have put it at tree-top level 80 million years ago. You accused me of using false data, but you couldn't prove it, offer me any new data, nor prove to me that your data was more credible.

See, that's what the webpage links people made were for.

You can't disprove the existence of God.

Science deals only with the natural. The supernatural is outside of its perview.

You can't explain the fact that at the rate the Earth is currently slowing down, it would have been going to fast for life if it were as old as you claim.

If the data you supply leads to an impossible conclusion, then doesn't that indicate that perhaps --just perhaps --the data you supply is incorrect?

You can't prove the age of fossils.

These are just some things. But it's fundemental to the uniformitarian belief system, and you can't refute it.

And I'm the troll?

Your entire post is straw-men so frail they can be knocked down by either side --science or religion --in this debate.

 

[Luke_17:2]

No science claims to do that. Cosmology studies only the after-effects of the Big Bang.

Exactly. That's why the Big Bang theory isn't science-it can't be observed or proven

No science claims definitive proof. It cannot.

Science deals with facts, knowledge-gained by experimentation and observation. That's what every dictionary I've come across says: science is not theories. You may have theories based on science, but they have to be viable: evolution is not.

But again: you don't know. My point exactly.

Their motion does not violate any laws --in fact, it is by their motion that such laws are defined.

Not all galaxies, stars, and planets spin in the same direction. This new idea is unbelievable: a supernova whose gas cloud forms planets-where is the star in this scenario? It's utter crap. A supernova does the exact opposite of form planets.

See, that's what the webpage links people made were for.

I couldn't find any. And as I said; they can't prove that their math is better than mine. That's their dogma, that's what they believe, and what they expect me to believe baselessly-pure religion.

Science deals only with the natural. The supernatural is outside of its perview.

Fair enough. But as long as the existence of God is in question; so is evolution. And this is not what actual atheists believe.

If the data you supply leads to an impossible conclusion, then doesn't that indicate that perhaps --just perhaps --the data you supply is incorrect?

You're presuming that the universe is this old. This method gives evidence showing how it cannot be. Is it possible that the universe is not billions of years old?

Your entire post is straw-men so frail they can be knocked down by either side --science or religion --in this debate.

That's why you knocked it down so easily.

 

[camanintx]

This is where we are-

You can't explain how the universe came to be.
Neither can you. All you can do is parrot a 3,000 year old myth.

You have no definitive proof about the age of the earth-all methods of dating are flawed if you get to a certain time limit. And Carbon Dating is flawed from the beginning.
We have very strong evidence that the Earth is 4 to 5 billion years old. Your evidence that it is only 13,000 years old has been thoroughly discredited.

You can't explain why the planets in the Solar Sysyem, stars, or galaxies violate the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum assuming they were formed according to the Uniformitarian (evolutionist) theory.
As we have said before, there is no violation to explain. Please read the earlier posts.

You can't refute my evidence that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate that would have put it at tree-top level 80 million years ago. You accused me of using false data, but you couldn't prove it, offer me any new data, nor prove to me that your data was more credible.
You haven't provided any evidence to refute. All you have done is parrot a claim based on false assumptions.

You can't disprove the existence of God.
You haven't explained what God is.

You can't explain the fact that at the rate the Earth is currently slowing down, it would have been going to fast for life if it were as old as you claim.
You haven't explained what too fast for life is and how you know it would have been going that fast.

You can't prove the age of fossils.
You cannot disprove them.

These are just some things. But it's fundemental to the uniformitarian belief system, and you can't refute it.
Your concept of a uniformitarian belief system has absolutely no basis in reality.

And I'm the troll?
Your demonstrated inability to understand anyone else's position makes you a troll.

 

[Luke_17:2]

You can't explain how the universe came to be.
Neither can you. All you can do is parrot a 3,000 year old myth.

I don't claim to be able to; I'm pointing out that you're parroting a myth.

You have no definitive proof about the age of the earth-all methods of dating are flawed if you get to a certain time limit. And Carbon Dating is flawed from the beginning.
We have very strong evidence that the Earth is 4 to 5 billion years old. Your evidence that it is only 13,000 years old has been thoroughly discredited.

It would be impossibe.

You can't explain why the planets in the Solar Sysyem, stars, or galaxies violate the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum assuming they were formed according to the Uniformitarian (evolutionist) theory.
As we have said before, there is no violation to explain. Please read the earlier posts.

You mean the dust cloud? That is supremely stupid. ImagineL a supernova caused the creation of the planets. There is another problem here, though: how did the new sun get here?

You can't refute my evidence that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate that would have put it at tree-top level 80 million years ago. You accused me of using false data, but you couldn't prove it, offer me any new data, nor prove to me that your data was more credible.
You haven't provided any evidence to refute. All you have done is parrot a claim based on false assumptions.

Yes I did. I provided a formula. Read previous posts.

You can't disprove the existence of God.
You haven't explained what God is.

Yes, I have-several times. God is a supernatural, non-physical entity that transcends all natural laws because He created them. But, regardless, you can't disprove His existence no matter the definition.

You can't explain the fact that at the rate the Earth is currently slowing down, it would have been going to fast for life if it were as old as you claim.
You haven't explained what too fast for life is and how you know it would have been going that fast.

To fast for life meaning orbiting the Sun ever few minutes. Because it is slowing down-that would imply that it was going faster just in case your slow.

You can't prove the age of fossils.
You cannot disprove them.

There is nothing to disprove that hasn't already been disproven.

These are just some things. But it's fundemental to the uniformitarian belief system, and you can't refute it.
Your concept of a uniformitarian belief system has absolutely no basis in reality.

You mean the evolution theory (all five forms) that is taught in schools, and all over the world, and that everyone is expected to believe? Look up the definition of the word. Apparently atheists, and evolutionists have their heads so far up their rear ends, that you don't have time to learn English.

And I'm the troll?
Your demonstrated inability to understand anyone else's position makes you a troll.

You're right I don't understand how you could possibly follow this belief-the same applies to you in regard to me. That doesn't make either of us trolls-it makes us religious.

 

[camanintx]

I don't claim to be able to; I'm pointing out that you're parroting a myth.

So you don't believe the Biblical story of creation in Genesis?

It would be impossibe.

Then you need to elaborate and explain why it is impossible. And please don't use the same arguments about the rate of population growth, the distance of the moon, the Earth's rotation or magnetic field strength because we've already shown you why they are wrong.

You mean the dust cloud? That is supremely stupid. ImagineL a supernova caused the creation of the planets. There is another problem here, though: how did the new sun get here?

What do you think happens to the cloud of dust and gas after a star goes supernova? Do you think it just sits there forever? The math supporting our theories of physics tell us that it will eventually coalesce together again and form a new star and planets. If you find this explanation supremely stupid, maybe you could explain where the equations are wrong.

Yes I did. I provided a formula. Read previous posts.

No, you agreed to someones statement in post #60 but never provided any rational supporting the argument. Since the moon is 15.08 billion inches away from the Earth and only moving away at 1.5 inches per year, it would not have been touching the Earth 80 million years ago. Do the math yourself.

Yes, I have-several times. God is a supernatural, non-physical entity that transcends all natural laws because He created them. But, regardless, you can't disprove His existence no matter the definition.

Saying God is supernatural and non-physical tells us only what it is not. I can imagine lots of things that fit this criteria. Try defining God in terms of what it is, not what it is not.

To fast for life meaning orbiting the Sun ever few minutes. Because it is slowing down-that would imply that it was going faster just in case your slow.

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

There is nothing to disprove that hasn't already been disproven.

Every one of your arguments have been refuted so you haven't disproved anything.

You mean the evolution theory (all five forms) that is taught in schools, and all over the world, and that everyone is expected to believe? Look up the definition of the word. Apparently atheists, and evolutionists have their heads so far up their rear ends, that you don't have time to learn English.

We all believe it because it is the most rational explanation. Maybe you need to reevaluate who's head is up their rear end.

You're right I don't understand how you could possibly follow this belief-the same applies to you in regard to me. That doesn't make either of us trolls-it makes us religious.

My belief in evolution may be "religious" in the same sense that I follow baseball "religiously", but that doesn't prevent me from understanding your position.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. That's why the Big Bang theory isn't science-it can't be observed or proven.

I don't think "prove" means what you think it means. It means that something has been tested enough that there is certainty that it is correct. Science doesn't prove things --we do. We are the ones who own certainty. Science just provides the data and a method of formulating explanations.

There are lots of things we are certain of that are not "observed or proven" in the sense you mean --gravity, for instance, and electrons. We observe electricity, and lightning, and particle trails in physics; we have modelled electrons; we know how much mass they have, and how they will react in certain situations. So certain are we of their existence that we have build most modern machines to utilize this marvelous, invisible thing. But we've never observed one.

Science doesn't require that a thing be obseved, only that its effects be observed. By studying the universe, on both subatomic and cosmic levels, we study the "effect" of the proposed Big Bang.

Science deals with facts, knowledge-gained by experimentation and observation. That's what every dictionary I've come across says: science is not theories. You may have theories based on science, but they have to be viable: evolution is not.

Science is not guesses --that's hypotheses, a small part of the beginning of the sicentific method. Then comes data gathering, testing and conclusions, and more hypotheses and data and tests based on those conclusions, again and again, and finally a theory. And peer review. Scientific theories are not guesses, they come after the acquisition of facts. They are an accumulation of related facts and conclusions into a comprehensive document of "how a bit of the world works."

Theories are the end result, not the start, of good science. My dictionary says science is, "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Yes, knowledge is gained by observation, but not always of the thing being examined. For instance, our knowledge of subatomic particles is garnered by the signatures they leave behind.

But again: you don't know. My point exactly.

If you are the only one making that claim, then striking it down is not really a point for you.

Not all galaxies, stars, and planets spin in the same direction. This new idea is unbelievable: a supernova whose gas cloud forms planets-where is the star in this scenario? It's utter crap. A supernova does the exact opposite of form planets.

I've heard stranger things. (*mutter*people that have never taken a class in science*mutter*)

I couldn't find any. And as I said; they can't prove that their math is better than mine. That's their dogma, that's what they believe, and what they expect me to believe baselessly-pure religion.

Fair enough. But as long as the existence of God is in question; so is evolution. And this is not what actual atheists believe.

Evolution and God have nothing to do with each other. No offense, but you seem to hold science to an unrealistically lofty ideal, and religion to a very poor one ("baseless belief").

You're presuming that the universe is this old. This method gives evidence showing how it cannot be. Is it possible that the universe is not billions of years old?

Well, I actually believe that the universe is that old --a baseless belief, so it must be religion. You, on the other hand, are taking the side of "science" against my "religion". Is this really your intent?

That's why you knocked it down so easily.

The point was that there is nothing to knock down if what is presented isn't properly science.

 

[painted wolf]

You can't explain how the universe came to be.

Irrelivent to evolution

You have no definitive proof about the age of the earth-all methods of dating are flawed if you get to a certain time limit. And Carbon Dating is flawed from the beginning.

the time limit for some radiometric dating is in the billions of years. Its good.
Again you show little genuine understanding of radiometric dating.

You can't explain why the planets in the Solar Sysyem, stars, or galaxies violate the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum assuming they were formed according to the Uniformitarian (evolutionist) theory.

There is no violation. You seem to keep forgeting that we are not in a closed system.
the law:
In a closed system angular momentum is constant. This conservation law mathematically follows from continuous directional symmetry of space (no direction in space is any different from any other direction). See Noether's theorem.
*borrowed from Wikipedia*

You can't refute my evidence that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate that would have put it at tree-top level 80 million years ago. You accused me of using false data, but you couldn't prove it, offer me any new data, nor prove to me that your data was more credible.

The moon is moving away at 3.8 centemeters a year... so what?
The earth is slowing down at a rate of .00018 seconds (about 2 milliseconds) per century... so what?

You can't disprove the existence of God.

so what? Science does not exist to prove or disprove a deity.

You can't explain the fact that at the rate the Earth is currently slowing down, it would have been going to fast for life if it were as old as you claim.

you are grossly exagerating the effect... 2 milliseconds a centry is not incimental to life.

You can't prove the age of fossils.

again you don't have a good understanding of dating methods.

wa:do

 

[d.]

Science deals with facts, knowledge-gained by experimentation and observation. That's what every dictionary I've come across says: science is not theories.

if only we could get one of these scientists to read a dictionary, we wouldn't have this problem of false religious theories pretending to be science! i'll get on it straight away.

Fair enough. But as long as the existence of God is in question; so is evolution. And this is not what actual atheists believe.

actual atheists! what do they believe then?

:goldfish:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Luke -

The misrepresentations and downright falsehoods in your replies are far too numerous for me to go through them exhaustively, so let's just address one point of contention at a time:

I said:

If you believe "God did it" is the explanation for biodiversity, then there is no reason to expect, for example . . . that during emryonic development, modern whales develop hair, nostrils in the usual place, and the precursors to hind limbs, only to have this all changed around before birth . . . However, if evolutionary theory is correct, then there IS good reason to expect all these things, and in fact all these things are born out in reality.

To which you replied:

These things aren't born out in reality.

Thus, you are claiming that during embryonic development, modern whales DO NOT

1. develop hair
2. develop nostrils in the usual place, which then migrate to the top of the head
3. develop the precursors to hind limbs

You are simply wrong. Here are some studies that show whale embryos do develop hind limb precursors:

Amasaki, H., Ishikawa, H., and Daigo, M. (1989) "Developmental changes of the fore- and hind-limbs in the fetuses of the southern minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata." Anat Anz 169: 145-148.

Andrews, R. C. (1921) "A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale." Amer. Mus. Novitates. No. 9.

Bejder, L. and Hall, B.K. (2002) "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss." Evol Dev 4: 445-458. [PubMed]

Gingerich, P., Smith, B. H., and Simons, E. L. (1990) "Hind limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales." Science 249: 154-157.

Nemoto, T. (1963) "New records of sperm whales with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. No. 17.

Above is a hind limb bud in a whale embryo ( found at http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rdmp1c/teaching/L1/Evolution/l1/unity.html )

Above is a photo of a dolphin embryo (admittedly not a whale, but I couldn't find as clear a pic of a whale embryo). Notice the hind-limb bud at h, and note that this will disappear later in development (adult dolphins do not have hind limbs). Compare this to the hind-limb buds of human and cat embryos, which you can find here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

References found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/refs.html

Whale embryos do develop hair. From wikipedia, search "whale":"Like all mammals, whales breathe air into lungs, are warm-blooded, feed their young milk from mammary glands, and have some (although very little) hair."

Whale embryos do have nostrils in the usual place. From Developmental Biology, 6th ed, by Scott F. Gilbert: "In the very young (4- to 5-mm) whale embryo, the nose is in the usual mammalian position. However, the enormous growth of the maxilla and premaxilla (upper jaw) pushes over the frontal bone and forces the nose to the top of the skull (Figure 22.18)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.section.5447

I hope you have the courage and integrity to admit you were wrong when you suggested that "these things aren't born out in reality".

 

[Halcyon]

Spinks makes a good argument above, but i'd just like to add something that, for me personally, is remarkable evidence for the evolution of totally new species (as opposed to the creationist changes within "kinds").

http://www.livescience.com/animals/060222_chicken_teeth.html

It's about chickens, with teeth.

Hopefully most people are aware that birds don't have teeth, if God had made birds "as is" then we would expect there to be nothing within the chicken genome that would generate teeth in a developing fetus.
Yet, when we switch certain genes off, and others on, we get crocodilian style teeth developing in the embro's mouth.
It's important to note that no trans-genetic engineering is taking place here, no new genes are being added - instead old genes that sit in the "junk DNA" are being switched back on.

Why would God include non-functioning genes for reptilian teeth in a group of animals that don't have teeth?

 

[Luke_17:2]

So you don't believe the Biblical story of creation in Genesis?

I merely said I can't prove it. Where do get these ideas anyway? Is it delusion? You're always putting words in my mouth.

Then you need to elaborate and explain why it is impossible. And please don't use the same arguments about the rate of population growth, the distance of the moon, the Earth's rotation or magnetic field strength because we've already shown you why they are wrong.

*sigh* My point about population was valid, and the person who answerd it can't tell me why his formula is better than mine.

Someone gave me a link about a new book that supposedly disproved the knowledge about the magnetic field, but never actually refuted it. And the theory was that the magnetic field inceases, and decreases in strength over time-basically a theory trying to disprove what we know about the magneic field: it's weakening, and has always been doing so. You've given me no sensible argument other than provide me with a link that talks about a book that talks about a theory to counter this one.

The moon could not have been here as long as you say at the rate it's receding-80 million years regardless.

What do you think happens to the cloud of dust and gas after a star goes supernova? Do you think it just sits there forever? The math supporting our theories of physics tell us that it will eventually coalesce together again and form a new star and planets. If you find this explanation supremely stupid, maybe you could explain where the equations are wrong.

This is exactly my point. A theory to prove a theory-that makes it so it's no longer a theory. So, if supernovae create stars, then how did the first star get formed? And I continue to find this idea supremely stupid because everyone knows that this is not what evolution teaches (I don't know where you dug this up), and because the earth's soil would have to be gas-based, and not mineral based. And you didn't give me one shred of evidence to support this-that means that my first assertion hasn't been disproven.

No, you agreed to someones statement in post #60 but never provided any rational supporting the argument. Since the moon is 15.08 billion inches away from the Earth and only moving away at 1.5 inches per year, it would not have been touching the Earth 80 million years ago. Do the math yourself.

How about 160 million years ago? How about 240 million years ago? How about 320 million years ago? How about 1 billion or more?

Saying God is supernatural and non-physical tells us only what it is not. I can imagine lots of things that fit this criteria. Try defining God in terms of what it is, not what it is not.

I told you He is supernatural. That tells you all you need to know. And you can't tell someone "to define someone/something without using any negative terms"-it is quite idiotic for a discussion about God, and proves ignorance on your part. By saying that God is not bound by physical laws, and that He's non-physical is pretty definitive. Would you rather me say that he's spiritual? Can you only understand things in the positive?

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

Furnish a formula

Every one of your arguments have been refuted so you haven't disproved anything.

Not refuted. Countered, but not refuted. And they've been countered with theories-not decisive.

We all believe it because it is the most rational explanation. Maybe you need to reevaluate who's head is up their rear end.

I don't think it needs reevaluation because I wasn't talking about evolution-I was talking about the word uniformitarian, but you went off on this tangent about how you believe it's the most rational explanation ( ).

My belief in evolution may be "religious" in the same sense that I follow baseball "religiously", but that doesn't prevent me from understanding your position.

By your own admission your belief in evolution is adamant. Adamant enough to make up ideas, and accept idiotic theories (such as the dust cloud idea) without thinking?

 

[Luke_17:2]

Irrelivent to evolution

Are you crazy? It is most definitely relevant to atheistic evolution-how did the universe com to be if there's no God.

the time limit for some radiometric dating is in the billions of years. Its good.
Again you show little genuine understanding of radiometric dating.

Not quite. Radiometric dating has been shown to be flawed.

There is no violation. You seem to keep forgeting that we are not in a closed system.
the law:
In a closed system angular momentum is constant. This conservation law mathematically follows from continuous directional symmetry of space (no direction in space is any different from any other direction). See Noether's theorem.
*borrowed from Wikipedia*

The moon is moving away at 3.8 centemeters a year... so what?
The earth is slowing down at a rate of .00018 seconds (about 2 milliseconds) per century... so what?

It's enough to show that the moon whould have been within the Roche limit (11,500 miles) at one time if it was as old as you say.

so what? Science does not exist to prove or disprove a deity.

If you don't understand, then you're beyond hope.

you are grossly exagerating the effect... 2 milliseconds a centry is not incimental to life.

Not only life, but it would be too close after a while to survive itself-even your math (no better than mine) doesn't provide for it.

again you don't have a good understanding of dating methods.

I understand that they're flawed.

wa:do

 

[MaddLlama]

Are you crazy? It is most definitely relevant to atheistic evolution-how did the universe com to be if there's no God.

Abiogenesis is a separate and independent theory from evolution. Evolutionary theory doesn't depend on it, and it isn't actually a part of evolutionary theory.

Science also makes no claim to prove or disprove the existance of god. Since god can't be tested, they couldn't even try. It's only your paranoid interpretation that has science out to get your faith. Science has never claimed to be wble to prove whether or not there is a higher being of any kind.

 

[McBell]

Not refuted. Countered, but not refuted. And they've been countered with theories-not decisive.

Nice.
So basically, you have this set up as your 'out.'
Anything you do not like, cannot handle, etc. you merely dismiss as a 'theory' and then claim you win.

 

[camanintx]

*sigh* My point about population was valid, and the person who answerd it can't tell me why his formula is better than mine.

Back in post #147, I explained that your formula is invalid because it doesn't account for varying growth rates or events which kill off large portions of the population. There is no formula that can calculate this because there are too many variables.

Someone gave me a link about a new book that supposedly disproved the knowledge about the magnetic field, but never actually refuted it. And the theory was that the magnetic field inceases, and decreases in strength over time-basically a theory trying to disprove what we know about the magneic field: it's weakening, and has always been doing so. You've given me no sensible argument other than provide me with a link that talks about a book that talks about a theory to counter this one.

Your half-life equation is based only on 150 years of measurements. Evidence shows that Earth's magnetic field has never been constant so, again, your formula is invalid. You cannot extrapolate an equation from the data you like and ignore the data you don't.

The moon could not have been here as long as you say at the rate it's receding-80 million years regardless.

Divide 15.8 billion, the distance from Earth to Moon in inches, by 1.5, the rate the Moon is receding in inches per year, and you get 10 Billion years. If the Earth and Moon are only 4.5 Billion years old, when would they have been touching? Even you should understand this math.

This is exactly my point. A theory to prove a theory-that makes it so it's no longer a theory. So, if supernovae create stars, then how did the first star get formed? And I continue to find this idea supremely stupid because everyone knows that this is not what evolution teaches (I don't know where you dug this up), and because the earth's soil would have to be gas-based, and not mineral based. And you didn't give me one shred of evidence to support this-that means that my first assertion hasn't been disproven.

Your ignorance of what you are arguing against doesn't help your case. If you are going to claim that theories of stellar evolution are wrong, you first have to know what they are.

I told you He is supernatural. That tells you all you need to know. And you can't tell someone "to define someone/something without using any negative terms"-it is quite idiotic for a discussion about God, and proves ignorance on your part. By saying that God is not bound by physical laws, and that He's non-physical is pretty definitive. Would you rather me say that he's spiritual? Can you only understand things in the positive?

If I claimed that the universe was created by something that was not round, not blue and not hard, could you disprove me? Define something in terms of what it is not and you have defined nothing. But then again, maybe that's all your God is.

Furnish a formula

((0.005 sec/yr) x (4.5 billion yr))/Year = (22,500,000 sec)/Year = 260 extra days per year. The total days then per year were: (365 + 260)days/Year = 625 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(625 days/Year) = 14 hrs/day
Is this math simple enough for you?