Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

[ElishaElijah]

No, you are not paying attention. The magic rain shower was supposed to kill everyone. That would mean that the civilizations would have died and it would take over a thousand years to build up to that level again.

Remember almost no people. Only eight. And only six if you count those that are having children. Come on, this is your fairy tale. You should understand it better than that.

I’m using the evolutionist diagram so the ape to man took how long? Because the civilizations popping up don’t line up. Not only that but does the diagram show populations? No and after the flood the lifespan was still hundreds of years old. No fairy tale just you not using your critical thinking skills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m using the evolutionist diagram so the ape to man took how long? Because the civilizations popping up don’t line up. Not only that but does the diagram show populations? No and after the flood the lifespan was still hundreds of years old. No fairy tale just you not using your critical thinking skills.

Well then you are wrong. You simply do not understand it since it shows the Noah's Ark story to be a myth. It shows no break in Egyptian history. The flood myth predicts one of thousands of years. Remember, only three breeding pairs. And it appears that you do not understand that it takes a population to have a civilization.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well then you are wrong. You simply do not understand it since it shows the Noah's Ark story to be a myth. It shows no break in Egyptian history. The flood myth predicts one of thousands of years. Remember, only three breeding pairs. And it appears that you do not understand that it takes a population to have a civilization.

And you’re still avoiding the issue of the big problem that human civilization and activity shows up rather quickly not gradually over millions of years like evolutionists believe. Doesn’t line up.
I use the Bible timeline but speaking with monkeys and apes I have to try to speak that language to get through.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you’re still avoiding the issue of the big problem that human civilization and activity shows up rather quickly not gradually over millions of years like evolutionists believe. Doesn’t line up.
I use the Bible timeline but speaking with monkeys and apes I have to try to speak that language to get through.

What supposed problem? You cherry picked a source and it still refuted the one myth that it applies to.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What supposed problem? You cherry picked a source and it still refuted the one myth that it applies to.

It’s one source but other sources show the same data with human civilization and all you can say is what about Noah and the Flood. Well that’s Genesis 6 - 10. Later on though
Have a good 4th

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

a contrary result may disprove a theory

This is incoherent, and immediately disqualifies its source. Theories, which are narratives accounting for facts, aren't disproven. If one is ever overturned (good luck with that), it will be because of a falsifying find, a single fact. If that happens, the evidence will be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find and a new theory will emerge. I've illustrated this with evolution. If it is ever falsified, the theory (narrative) will need to be modified to account for that additional fact. In that case, we would have to assume that long ago, we were visited by a deceptive intelligent designer.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years.

Same old same old from creationists. I've already discussed this with you: "You remind me of somebody who says a car doesn't start, and then somebody starts it and drives off. He calls a car broken that one can observe run well, and continues to say it won't start as it's being driven off. It's an interesting approach to navigating reality."

There is no crisis anywhere in science, but the church doesn't seem to be faring too well of late. Christian Creationism is in crisis, which is why its apologists doing things such as redefining the biblical day and generating disinformation like the piece you quoted. Science doesn't do that because those are not its values, and even if they were, it wouldn't need to.

We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

This is disinformation. There are no known irreducibly complex biological systems. Do you know what the term means and what the statement claims? Copying and pasting a reply won't serve as evidence that you do, but a paraphrased explanation in your own words would.

Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world.

Same answer: this is incorrect, and suspect that you don't know what it means. I'll help you. This is from Dembski, the creationist creator of the concept: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."

There is now specified complexity artificially inserted into the genomes of some microorganisms. From Secret Messages Coded Into DNA Of Venter Synthetic Bacteria

"Researchers at the J Craig Venter Institute recently unveiled their first self-replicating synthetic bacteria (M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0) whose DNA was ‘programmed’ base pair by base pair. To verify that they had synthesized a new organism and not assembled the DNA from another natural bacteria, scientists encoded a series of ‘watermarks’ into the genes of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. There are four of these hidden messages: an explanation of the coding system used, a URL address for those who crack the code to go visit, a list of 46 authors and contributors, and a series of famous quotes."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Nice that he threw in an ad lapidum fallacy at the end of his incredulity fallacy. To paraphrase, the eye is irreducibly complex because (trigger alert: pun coming) I don't see it, and besides, it's absurd to believe what I can't see.

The eye is one of the best known examples of an allegedly irreducibly complex system that has been refuted. All such claims to date have been refuted (eye, flagellum, immune system, clotting cascade). This video will define irreducible complexity for you and explain why the human (or any other) eye is not irreducibly complex:

Are you a monkey?

Like you, I'm a simiform, which is the infraorder comprising moneys and apes, but not a monkey. Monkeys have tails, are generally smaller, and walk along the upper surface of tree limbs, and leap from tree to tree, whereas apes tend to brachiate (swing from under branches). Also, when on the ground, monkeys tend to run on all fours, whereas apes are generally upright or knuckle dragging. You don't leave the simiform or the hominoid club (apes separate from monkeys) by denying that you are one.

All this shows is common design in that there are similarities in physical traits

As was foretold by Darwin. The theory predicts and explains that commonality.

in no way does this prove humans evolved from apes, that’s not a fact

Settled science. All that remains is to identify which extinct apes are ancestral and which are cousins.

science gets caught with the fraud, ex. Piltdown man

That fraud was not perpetrated by science. It was debunked by science. Science is the study of what is true and real. It's looking at that shroud to identify possible fraud there.

ape to man took how long?

Do you assimilate anything you read here? I don't mean agree with it, I mean learn what it says and what others believe. It seems not. I would bet the farm that everybody in conversation with you here knows what you believe, because it is reflected in their words to you. They understand that you do not consider human beings apes. Why doesn't that happen with you? Why does your writing not reflect that you understand that the people you are writing to consider man a type of ape?

human civilization and activity shows up rather quickly not gradually over millions of years like evolutionists believe.

I guess you don't what the theory of biological evolution is or what it professes, either. Neither humanity nor civilization existed millions of years ago, and what we know about that comes from archeology, not biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s one source but other sources show the same data with human civilization and all you can say is what about Noah and the Flood. Well that’s Genesis 6 - 10. Later on though
Have a good 4th

That does not answer the question, why is that a problem?

And as to your flood fairy tale your source still refutes it. To bad that you cannot understand that. I think that your thought process short circuits due to your fears.

Perhaps if you described your version of the Flood fairy tale we can explain to you how we know that it never happened.

When did this myth occur. Describe this myth, where did the water come from? Where did it go to? And when exactly did the God magic end?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like you, I'm a simiform, which is the infraorder comprising moneys and apes, but not a monkey. Monkeys have tails, are generally smaller, and walk along the upper surface of tree limbs, and leap from tree to tree, whereas apes tend to brachiate (swing from under branches). Also, when on the ground, monkeys tend to run on all fours, whereas apes are generally upright or knuckle dragging. You don't leave the simiform or the hominoid club (apes separate from monkeys) by denying that you are one.

I would disagree with you on this. By cladistics, which is how biologists are classifying species today we are monkeys. That is because the traditional English monkeys are not monophyletic. And I used the term "English" on purpose. For example this confusion does not exist in Spanish. They do not have a different term for monkeys and apes.

By cladistics we are "monkeys" because the split between New World monkeys and Old World monkeys happened before the split between Old World monkeys and apes did. In other words if both Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys are one monophyletic group of "monkeys" then we are in that group too. And your description of monkeys was incorrect. Even if one does not go by cladistics not all monkeys have tails. The Barbary Macaque is a monkey even though it is sometimes called a Barbary Ape. If I remember correctly only the tails of some New World monkeys are prehensile. And though baboons have tails and climb trees I am fairly sure at their size that leaping from tree to tree is a forte of theirs.

Barbary macaque - Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

It should show civilization right across the Flood because Noah and his family were saved with his sons and their wives. Notice all of the sudden, not slowly over millions of years civilization pops up.
This is the glaring fallacy of that part of evolution.
Genesis 10

The geological record proves unequivocally no global flood has ever occurred.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course organisms can change that’s a fact of evolution, then the theory of how humans evolved from apes is the fallacy and theory part that you can’t prove and insist you’re actually a monkey, well that’s if you agree with @Subduction Zone, are you saying you are a monkey as well?

Humans are apes, and like the other great apes we are most closely related to, we evolved from an ape like ancestor, this is a scientifically verifiable fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The geological record proves unequivocally no global flood has ever occurred.

Just about every science does.

One of my favorite "proofs" is the fact that we know the story of someone waking up in a seedy motel on the wrong side of the town in a bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney (whew!) is an urban myth disproves the Flood.

 

[Sheldon]

All this shows is common design in that there are similarities in physical traits, in no way does this prove humans evolved from apes,

Design in nature is an archaic and unevidenced fantasy, from an epoch of ignorance and superstition, and just as Darwin suggested from the facts of other similarities, our DNA more closely matches other great apes, who are our closest evolutionary relatives. We share DNA with all living things of course, but share a much higher percentage with the other great apes. Our closest evolutionary ancestors are chimpanzees, and we share the highest percentage of our DNA with them, it would take an hilarious level of idiocy to claim this was a coincidence, or worse, to ignore it and claim archaic superstitious and unevidenced magic, trumps all those facts.

Then again, creationism is idiotic, the nonsense they espouse proves this time and time again. Hilariously funny though, but tragic that children have their education blighted by ignorant indoctrination of this kind.

 

[Sheldon]

when science gets caught with the fraud, ex. Piltdown man

That wasn't science, science is what exposed it as a fraud.

 

[Sheldon]

I’m using the evolutionist diagram so the ape to man took how long? Because the civilizations popping up don’t line up. Not only that but does the diagram show populations?

This an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Timeline of human evolution

"The timeline of human evolution outlines the major events in the evolutionary lineage of the modern human species, Homo sapiens, throughout the history of life, beginning some 4 billion years ago down to recent evolution within H. sapiens during and since the Last Glacial Period."

 

[Sheldon]

And you’re still avoiding the issue of the big problem that human civilization and activity shows up rather quickly not gradually over millions of years like evolutionists believe.

Straw man fallacy.

I use the Bible timeline

The biblical timeline is peppered with superstitious fantasy, that like science explaining why magic can't happen and you citing the Harry Potter novels in response, very poor reasoning.

 

[Sheldon]

It’s one source but other sources show the same data with human civilization and all you can say is what about Noah and the Flood. Well that’s Genesis 6 - 10. Later on though
Have a good 4th

The Noah myth is a superstitious fantasy, without a shred of objective evidence to support it, but more importantly the geological record proves irrefutably no global flood has ever occurred.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Sheldon]

This part you mean?
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

No citation? Quelle surprise... This is odd I have checked every major global news network and none of them seem aware that the scientific theory of evolution has been falsified? Even the Catholic Herald and Al Jazeera seem to have missed to have missed it?

That's because the claims is bs, in case you are still struggling to grasp those facts.

Science falsifies science, not bat s*** crazy creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you’re still avoiding the issue of the big problem that human civilization and activity shows up rather quickly not gradually over millions of years like evolutionists believe. Doesn’t line up.
I use the Bible timeline but speaking with monkeys and apes I have to try to speak that language to get through.

Evolution says nothing about when civilization would appear. It does not predict a gradual appearance of civilization. It says nothing about the appearance of civilization at all.

Evolution deals with biological changes. The appearance of civilization was a social one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No citation? Quelle surprise... This is odd I have checked every major global news network and none of them seem aware that the scientific theory of evolution has been falsified? Even the Catholic Herald and Al Jazeera seem to have missed to have missed it?

That's because the claims is bs, in case you are still struggling to grasp those facts.

Science falsifies science, not bat s*** crazy creationism.

The source was a dishonest book written by a creationist from the "Discovery Institute". A creationist organization that is based to my shame in my state. But not to worry, they are all but bankrupt.


Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - Wikipedia.