Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[gnostic]

I have never said there was evidence of God re the BB,

First, I was replying to leibowde84, and second I was talking about Thief's bad habits.

Third, I wasn't talking about Big Bang, so I don't know where that coming from.

I have to ask, shmogie...did you misquote my reply?

 

[james bond]

I'm talking specifically about biological evolution.

Why wait six days before creating everything when He could have bypassed that and created everything in an instant? Time is meaningless to God. He can take as long as He wants and use whatever method He wants for creating. I could just as easily ask why He would use such a long-lasting and all-consuming process such as an Earth-wide flood to kill all the sinners during Noah's time when He could just as easily have simply willed all the sinners dead in an instant without having to kill all of those animals that did nothing wrong and wait for over a hundred days before the Earth could start repopulating itself. It's basically the same kind of "problem" you are positing for evolution: taking extra time and casualties to achieve a goal that could have been accomplished much more quickly and efficiently if He had wanted to do it.

Not if He wanted to use evolution. Then there is no theistic problem for evolution at all. Just because you might not like the implications of God using evolution that doesn't mean that He didn't. A deistic god especially wouldn't have any issues here.

Given that I'm talking specifically about biological evolution, no, that doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe.

So now you're changing the definition of mutation? Mutations aren't "organisms that don't change", they are changes in the DNA of organisms. Mutations, by definition, are change.

"Creationists" and "theists" are not the same thing. Creationists deny evolution but theists do not necessarily do so. Theistic evolutionists do exist.

Such as?

So? The same could be said of particle accelerator experiments, but I don't see you doubting that subatomic particles are real.

Gonna need a link for that.

That's when they use methods or devices that aren't supposed to be used for items that young or when there is contamination. That's like saying you can't trust a measuring cup to properly measure the volume of liquids because it isn't able to accurately measure the volume of a lumpy rock: you're using the wrong tools.

Radiometric dating is achieved by measuring isotope ratios, which has nothing to do biological evolution at all. The ratios would be the same whether anyone had come up with the idea of evolution or not.

You are straw-manning the definition of a beneficial mutation again. Oh, but since you said this:

I would like to inform you that exactly such a mutation does exist: "Unbreakable" bones prompt a hunt for a hunt for genes. So there you have it, a mutation that fits the definition of beneficial by your own words. If you go back and change your mind, then you will be committing the "moving the goalposts" fallacy and I will have to add that to the fallacy tally at the bottom of my post.

First of all, how are you going to "infect" yourself with the sickle cell allele? It's not a contagion. Plus it's only "good" for gaining a resistance to malaria. In it's absence, being a sickle cell homozygote is harmful. A sickle cell heterozygote, however, has the benefit of malaria resistance, so your claim that it will make you sick or kill you is not true for heterozygotes.

Whether people want mutations or not is irrelevant to whether mutations exist that aid in survival or not. We know that being a sickle cell heterozygote aids in survival in malaria-stricken areas. Do you deny this?

You haven't addressed my question as to whether you agree that gene duplication and nucleotide insertions increase the length of DNA or not.

You did use a straw-man when you tried to redefine what a beneficial mutation is.

Now you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said that creation science is a straw-man. I said that your definition of a beneficial mutation is a straw-man because you think that an organism has to like or want a particular mutation in order for it to be beneficial. It doesn't. All it has to do is help the organism survive and reproduce in a way that more than offsets any negative effects generated by that same mutation. If it can do that, then natural selection will make it more common in the gene pool.

I don't care about the issue of GMO's in this debate. That's not the same thing as natural evolution and it's already well-known that natural evolution isn't all peaches and cream where everything gets perfectly beneficial mutations all the time. Evolution is messy with a lot of death and illnesses.

So let's see what the fallacy tally is:

-Evolution is atheistic (a straw-man)
-Biological evolution is the same as the evolution of the universe or somehow depends on it (a straw-man)
-Radiometric dating depends on evolution (a straw-man)
-A mutation is only beneficial if people want it (a straw-man)
-Mutations are organisms that don't change (a straw-man)
-Reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution (a red herring)

Total: 6

It's getting too confusing. Let's stick to around five topics and what you consider evolution and that is biology. You've already strayed from biology using evolution, so I figure you know, but do not want to admit ToE is more than biology. Despite your contradictory statements, I've already addressed some of your points in my last post.

>>So let's see what the fallacy tally is:

-Evolution is atheistic (a straw-man)
-Biological evolution is the same as the evolution of the universe or somehow depends on it (a straw-man)
-Radiometric dating depends on evolution (a straw-man)
-A mutation is only beneficial if people want it (a straw-man)
-Mutations are organisms that don't change (a straw-man)
-Reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution (a red herring)<<

Ha ha. You have to keep score? Evolution is a worldview (not just biology), but I'm willing to discuss biology since that is what you believe.. Thus, I asked, "How did flowers come about from algae and plants?"

I already pointed out the frauds perpetrated by ToE. ToE has stolen concepts from creation science like God of the Gaps, originally a warning to Christian scientists to not rely on God as a basis of science when getting stuck or not having an answer. Atheists usurped it during the BBT discussion. Then there is catastrophism that was used to explain the extinction of dinosaurs. It started with volcanoes. Creation science theorizes it was a global flood.

ToE depends on radiometric dating. It needed billions of years for evolution. And why do you keep going back and forth from biology to geology and mutations? Are you admitting evolution entails more than biology? It goes to show that I am right about ToE and you're wrong.

With biology, does biological evolution need billions of years, too?

Next, how did the oak tree come to be? Creation meant that someone discovered one one day. If it started with an acorn, then why can't someone create an acorn?

>>A mutation is only beneficial if people want it<<

Does this encompass biology? Your definition does not sound scientific at all. Here is the creation science definition of mutation:

A mutation is any spontaneous heritable change in DNA sequence that contributes to genetic variability. It results from 2 possible mechanisms.

1. Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination, or transposition.
2. Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

If even one of the nucleotides in a gene is changed to another, then a new variation of the allele has been added to the population, and a different amino acid may be assembled into the protein during gene expression.

So, what is your definition and how does it apply to biology? Certainly, the definitions listed above do, but I want to hear in your own words.

>>Mutations are organisms that don't change<<

Huh? I never said that. Look at the definition I provided.

>>Reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution (a red herring)

It sounds as if you're making assumptions and attributing them to me. Instead of using your opinions of seeing strawmen or red herrings, why don't you stick to biology and provide something to further the discussion? Start by answering the highlighted questions above and provide a biological definition of evolutionary mutation.

In other words, sh*t or get off the pot ha ha.

 

[Sapiens]

It's getting too confusing. Let's stick to around five topics and what you consider evolution and that is biology. You've already strayed from biology using evolution, so I figure you know, but do not want to admit ToE is more than biology. Despite your contradictory statements, I've already addressed some of your points in my last post.

>>So let's see what the fallacy tally is:

-Evolution is atheistic (a straw-man)

Your claim was that evolution is atheistic, and that is a straw-man.

-Biological evolution is the same as the evolution of the universe or somehow depends on it (a straw-man)

Your claim was that Biological evolution is the same as the evolution of the universe or somehow depends on it , and that is a straw-man.

-Radiometric dating depends on evolution (a straw-man)

Your claim was that radiometric dating depends on evolution, and that is a straw-man

-A mutation is only beneficial if people want it (a straw-man)

Your claim was that A mutation is only beneficial if people want it, and that is a straw-man.

-Mutations are organisms that don't change (a straw-man)

Your claim was that Mutations are organisms that don't change, and that is a straw-man.

-Reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution (a red herring).

You make reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution, and that is a red herring.

Ha ha. You have to keep score?

Happy to, you're down by a whole bunch, the evolution team is pitching a no-hitter.

Evolution is a worldview (not just biology), but I'm willing to discuss biology since that is what you believe..

No, "evolution" with no modifier is just biology.

Thus, I asked, "How did flowers come about from algae and plants?"

Google is your friend: How did flowers come about

I already pointed out the frauds perpetrated by ToE. ToE has stolen concepts from creation science like God of the Gaps, originally a warning to Christian scientists to not rely on God as a basis of science when getting stuck or not having an answer

Horse pucky. It was an obvious response to the the first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition which was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion.

Atheists usurped it during the BBT discussion. Then there is catastrophism that was used to explain the extinction of dinosaurs. It started with volcanoes. Creation science theorizes it was a global flood.

Current theory rejects catastrophism, demoting the Chicxulub impact to a stressor rather than a cause (the extinctions took too long to occur). "The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point," Paul Renne said. "We have shown that these events are synchronous to within a gnat's eyebrow, and therefore, the impact clearly played a major role in extinctions, but it probably wasn't just the impact." The more we learn the more ridiculous the bible fables are revealed to be.

ToE depends on radiometric dating. It needed billions of years for evolution.

Are you seriously suggesting that the published rates for isotopic decay were fudged by massive conspiracy just to prop up the TOE?

And why do you keep going back and forth from biology to geology and mutations?

Because they all supply evidence to support the TOE.

Are you admitting evolution entails more than biology? It goes to show that I am right about ToE and you're wrong.

No evolution relates to biology but evidence can be found across many fields of science, that is a great strenght.

With biology, does biological evolution need billions of years, too?

Goo to you took billions of years, other demonstrable speciation has occurred in less than 20 years.

Next, how did the oak tree come to be?

If you really must know, just sequence the Oak genome, the answer will be obvious.

Creation meant that someone discovered one one day. If it started with an acorn, then why can't someone create an acorn?

That has nothing to do with evolution, or anything else for that matter.

>>A mutation is only beneficial if people want it<<

No ... a mutation is only beneficial if it contributes to an organism's fitness.

Does this encompass biology? Your definition does not sound scientific at all. Here is the creation science definition of mutation:

A mutation is any spontaneous heritable change in DNA sequence that contributes to genetic variability. It results from 2 possible mechanisms.

1. Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination, or transposition.
2. Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

If even one of the nucleotides in a gene is changed to another, then a new variation of the allele has been added to the population, and a different amino acid may be assembled into the protein during gene expression.

A mutation need not result in a heritable change. Most mutations are repaired:
link: Biochemistry. 5th edition - Section 27.6 Mutations Involve Changes in the Base Sequence of DNA
.

 

[Parsimony]

1. Yes, I figured as much. Do you agree now that the ToE is all-encompassing or else we're relegated to what the tree of life?

“Evolution” in its broadest sense is change over time, but the “Theory of Evolution” is much more specific than that. I don’t see anything on that page you linked that even provides a definition of “Theory of Evolution”, much less one that differs from the common biology definition of the term. "Evolutionary thought" is not the same as the "Theory of Evolution".
I don’t know of any evolutionary biologists that use the term “theory of evolution” to refer to anything other than biological evolution. At any rate, we’re arguing semantics and no matter what way you choose to label things, biological evolution doesn’t depend upon stellar evolution, the evolution of the Solar System or chemical evolution.

That's a good question. The Bible provides the answer. According to Exodus 20.9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one.

Except there was no need for God to do that to serve as a model for us. He could have just as easily said “Set aside one day a week where you will not work because humans need rest” and that would have been reason enough for us to obey Him. Thus taking six days to make the universe was still unnecessary.

I'll check why a global flood? From a disaster standpoint, a flood would be the way to go if you want extinction.

So where in the Bible does it say that He caused a flood because He wanted certain species extinct? Last I checked, He caused the flood to kill sinners. Besides, that would still be unnecessary because He could have just made all the species disappear at will that He wanted extinct. No need to make it rain forty days and forty nights. It’s still a lot of extra time and steps to accomplish something that He could have accomplished much more quickly. Not to mention that such an idea seems contradictory to the command that He gave Noah to save all the animal kinds. Nowhere does it say that he was commanded to leave certain kinds of animals out of the ark because God wanted them extinct.

2. Hm... why do you state God could've created everything in an instant with Genesis in order to contradict the Bible, and then state He could have used evolution and billions of years and not have any issues?

Because He could have actually done that. He is omnipotent. You don’t think He had the ability?

Am I missing something with your definition of a deistic god?

A deistic god is one which is not revealed by scripture or other form of revelation. In other words, believers determine the existence of such a god only by observation of nature and/or the use of reason and not because that particular god spoke to anyone. I have also seem deism defined in terms of “non-intervention” in that the deistic god started up the universe, Earth or life but was not actively involved in what happened afterwards. So a world where life developed in accordance with evolution would be perfectly consistent with a deist god.

3. ToE covers much more

Just for the sake of argument, even if you wanted to say that the Big Bang and stellar evolution was part of the theory of evolution, it doesn’t mean that all of it is some package deal where all of it has to be right or all of it has to be wrong. If the Big Bang had never happened, biological evolution could still be correct and if biological evolution was not correct, the Big Bang still could be. They don’t depend upon each other.

but since you like biology, how did flowers come from plants? Creation states we found them one day, the same with an oak tree. Thus, creation scientists know the oak tree came first.

Evolution posits trees coming before flowers as well. A discussion about the evolution of flowers can be found here.

4. I gave you the creation definition. That definition does not sound very scientific.

You’re the one who said that mutations are organisms that don’t change, not me. Mutations are changes in DNA.

5. You're still referring to biological evolution right? Creationists have baraminolgy instead of biological evolution. What is the difference between theistic evolution and regular biological evolution?

Theistic evolution is evolution that is driven in some capacity by God (for example, all of the mutations being planned for ahead of time by God). Regular evolution has no such divine planning involved.

Ha ha. You have to keep score?

Presumably, you would modify your arguments if I pointed out your fallacies. If not, then at least those who read this debate would then know which of your arguments are fallacious.

Evolution is a worldview (not just biology)

You must not be talking about the "theory of evolution", as it simply describes certain aspects of the natural world.

Thus, I asked, "How did flowers come about from algae and plants?"

Next, how did the oak tree come to be?Creation meant that someone discovered one one day. If it started with an acorn, then why can't someone create an acorn?

I have a link posted about that above.

I already pointed out the frauds perpetrated by ToE.

Theories don’t perpetrate frauds, individuals do. I personally am not aware of any frauds created by evolutionary biologists themselves. Besides, there would have to be an awful lot of frauds in order for us to doubt the majority of the fossil record, which currently consists of thousands of fossils.

ToE has stolen concepts from creation science like God of the Gaps

How can evolution have the “God of the Gaps” when it says nothing about God at all?

Atheists usurped it during the BBT discussion.

I’m doubtful of this claim, given that evolution doesn’t belong to any one group.

Then there is catastrophism that was used to explain the extinction of dinosaurs. It started with volcanoes. Creation science theorizes it was a global flood.

Would have taken a lot of floods then, because there are a lot of layers in the fossil record with a different species distribution in each layer. A single flood can’t do that.

ToE depends on radiometric dating.

Evolution isn’t dependent upon any dating technique. Radiometric dating wasn’t even used until the 1900’s whereas the theory of evolution was already widely accepted by the scientific community in the 1870’s.

It needed billions of years for evolution.

True, but you can’t change the isotope ratios in rock just because “evolution says so”. They are what they are.

And why do you keep going back and forth from biology to geology and mutations?

Because your statements lead me to them. When I mentioned why there weren’t six literal days of creation, you criticized radiometric dating which is why the discussion went in that direction.

Are you admitting evolution entails more than biology?

Nope.

It goes to show that I am right about ToE and you're wrong.

Not with all the straw-men you’ve been using.

Does this encompass biology? Your definition does not sound scientific at all. Here is the creation science definition of mutation:
A mutation is any spontaneous heritable change in DNA sequence that contributes to genetic variability. It results from 2 possible mechanisms.

1. Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination, or transposition.
2. Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

If even one of the nucleotides in a gene is changed to another, then a new variation of the allele has been added to the population, and a different amino acid may be assembled into the protein during gene expression.
So, what is your definition and how does it apply to biology? Certainly, the definitions listed above do, but I want to hear in your own words.

That wasn’t my definition, it is what you were saying. You said, and I quote:

They're not really "beneficial" since no one will infect themselves with it.

You very clearly implied that a mutation is not beneficial if no one wants to infect themselves with it. Hence, you are saying that a mutation can only be beneficial if people are willing to infect themselves with it.

Huh? I never said that.

Again, to quote you:

Is it a mutation that explains diversification? Creation scientists do not think it's a mutation, but what the settings were originally set at. Mutations would be some organism that doesn't change. Are there any that do not change? Not that I am aware of.

It sounds as if you're making assumptions and attributing them to me.

You did make mention of GMO’s:

Can you show me some scientist who practices what they preach and infect themselves? Then more people would believe in GMO foods and organisms. Are there other fields besides agriculture and biotechnology, where mutations are being developed?
Do you happily eat GMO-foods despite the risks of allergies and cancer? is the rate of cancer going up alarmingly? I think so, and I do not think we can avoid GMO ingestion completely as we do not know what every source is.

Instead of using your opinions of seeing strawmen or red herrings, why don't you stick to biology and provide something to further the discussion?

Stop using fallacies and I'll stop pointing them out.

Start by answering the highlighted questions above and provide a biological definition of evolutionary mutation.

The first definition you supplied for mutation is correct (a change in the genetic code), the second one was not (mutations being organisms that do not change).

Also, I haven’t forgotten about this:

Oh, but since you said this:

Beneficial mutation would be organisms which lead to an increase in bone density.

I would like to inform you that exactly such a mutation does exist: [URL='http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/autumn2002/news/findings/53806/']"Unbreakable" bones prompt a hunt for genes. So there you have it, a mutation that fits the definition of beneficial by your own words. If you go back and change your mind, then you will be committing the "moving the goalposts" fallacy and I will have to add that to the fallacy tally at the bottom of my post.[/URL]

A clear example of a mutation that fits your definition of beneficial.

 

[Zosimus]

Mythological? Hardly, if Jesus was as well documented we'd not be having this discussion.

Encyclopedia Britannica says: Constantin-François de Chasseboeuf, count de Volney, (born Feb. 3, 1757, Craon,France—died April 25, 1820, Paris) historian and philosopher, whose work LesRuines . . . epitomized the rationalist historical and political thought of the 18th century.

As a student in Paris, Volney frequented the salon of Madame Helvétius, widow of the philosopher Claude Helvétius, and knew the Baron d’Holbach and Benjamin Franklin. Following an early interest in history and ancient languages, Volney traveled in Egypt and Syria, after which he wrote Voyage en Syrie et en Égypte . . . ,2 vol. (1787; Travels Through Syria and Egypt . . .). In 1791 his most influential work appeared, Les Ruines, ou méditations sur les révolutions des empires (revolution as a result of the abandoning of the principles of natural law and religion, equality, and liberty.

As a member of the Estates-General in 1789 and the Constituent Assembly in 1790, Volney urged the establishment of the National Guard and the division of France into communes and departments. In 1792 he bought an estate in Corsica, hoping to improve agriculture by the example of intense cultivation. While visiting Paris in 1793 he was, as a Girondist, imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. After his release he served as professor of history at the École Normale (“Normal School”) at Paris (1794), and he also visited the United States from 1795 to 1798. Although he was a senator under Napoleon and was created comte d’empire (1808), he opposed the empire. Louis XVIII created him a peer in 1814.

Fraser's Magazine for Town and Country, Volume 71 says: "Washington even was glad to have Volney as his guest at Mount Vernon."


and Charles-François Dupuis has an entry in: The English cyclopædia: a new dictionary of universal knowledge ..., Volume 2

So ... both are rather well documented, unlike Jesus, each has (besides personally authored works) numerous contemporary references..

As does Jesus of Nazareth. The book of James is commonly believed to have been written by the (half-) brother of Jesus. Once again, I quote:

"The reason for thinking that Jesus existed is because he is abundantly atested in early sources....One independent source that we know about knew Jesus' brother and knew Jesus' disciple Peter. He is an eyewitness to both Jesus' closest disciple and his brother."

So if you want to go where the evidence goes, Jesus of Nazareth surely existed.

So an STD (the highest degree granted in the Catholic educational system) does not qualify you as a scholar? Scholars must void everything they learned as children? Now you're really over-reaching.

I didn't say that. You claimed that he had a Ph.D. He does not have a Ph.D. You're reaching with this one. He admits himself that his theory of no-Jesus occurred before he did any research at all.

Richard Carrier is clearly a scholar, he concludes that Jesus is mathematically unlikely. This is the standard used in science, or are we scientists not also scholars? I am not trying to say you have to agree with him, just that you must recognize that he falsifies your claim.

No, the real question is whether Richard Carrier's math is good. You can go on YouTube right now and see mathematical proofs that 1=0. Most of these "proofs" rely on division by zero.

How good is Richard Carrier's math? http://www.strangenotions.com/bayes-theorem-proves-jesus-existed-and-didnt-exist/

"
Therefore, you may not be surprised to learn there is not one, but two books which argue that a fixed, firm number may be put on the proposition, "God exists." The first, by Stephen Unwin, is called The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth, in which he uses Bayes’s theorem to demonstrate, with probability one minus epsilon, that the Christian God exists.

This is countered by Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier, who uses Bayes’s theorem to prove, with probability one minus epsilon, that the Christian God does not exist because Jesus himself never did."
-------------------------------
At least one of these people must be wrong. Let's get the low down from someone who knows math. I refer you to https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/

"While Carrier devotes a lot of ink to describing the terms of his long-form BT, he nowhere attempts to describe what Bayes’s Theorem is doing. Why are we dividing probabilities? What does his denominator represent? He comes perilously close in chapter six (“Hard Stuff”), when talking about reference classes (which are quite closely related to the meaning of the denominator), but doesn’t try to bring his audience to the level of competency to do anything more than take his word for these mathematical assertions.

"So this unduly complex version of BT serves as a kind a magic black box:

"In this Carrier allows himself to sidestep the question whether these necessarily true conclusions are meaningful in a particular domain. A discussion both awkward for his approach, and one surely that would have been more conspicuously missing if he’d have described why BT is the way it is.

"The addition of background knowledge (b in his formula) in every term (the probability theory equivalent of writing x1 or +0) is highly idiosyncratic, though I’ve seen William Lane Craig use the same trick. Footnote 10 states that he made the choice so as to make explicit that background knowledge is always present. Clearly his audience can’t be expected to remember this basic tenet of probability theory.

"Carrier correctly states that he is allowed to divide content between evidence and background knowledge any way he chooses, provided he is consistent. But then fails to do so throughout the book. For example on page 51 is an explanation of a ‘prior’ probability which explicitly includes the evidence in the prior, and therefore presumably in the background knowledge (emphasis added)...

"Carrier joins that latter debate too, in what he describes as a “cheeky” unification of Bayesian and Frequentist interpretations, but what reads as a misunderstanding of what the differences between Bayesian and Frequentist statistics are. Describing what this means is beyond my scope here, but I raise it because it is illustrative of a tone of arrogance and condescension that I consistently perceived throughout the book. To use the word “cheeky” to describe his “solution” of this important problem in mathematical philosophy, suggests he is aware of his hubris. Perhaps cheeky indicates that his preposterous claim was made in jest. But given the lack of mathematical care demonstrated in the rest of the book, to me it came off as indicative of a Dunning-Kruger effect around mathematics.

"I had many other problems with the mathematics presented in the book, I felt there were severe errors with his arguments a fortiori (i.e. a kind of reasoning from inequalities — the probability is no greater than X); and his set-theoretic treatment of reference classes was likewise muddled (though in the latter case it coincidentally did not seem to result in incorrect conclusions). But in the interest of space, the above discussion gives a flavour of the issues I found throughout.

"Conclusion

"Outside the chapters on the mathematics, I enjoyed the book, and found it entertaining to consider some of the historical content in mathematical terms. I strongly support mathematical literacy in the arts. History and biblical criticism would be better if historians had a better understanding of probability (among other topics: I do not think the lack of such knowledge is an important weakness in the field).

"I am also rather sympathetic to many of Carrier’s opinions, and therefore predisposed towards his conclusions. So while I consistently despaired of his claims to have shown his results mathematically, I agree with some of the conclusions, and I think that gestalts in favour of those conclusions can be supported by probability theory.

"But ultimately I think the book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers."

-------------------------------------
In short, Carrier's "math" is hardly compelling. I'm sorry that you were sucked in by his joke, if we can call it that, but this should teach you to be more skeptical.

I repeat again: There are no scholars teaching Ancient History, Early Christianity, or any related subject at any university in the western world who doubts the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. There isn't even half of one. The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a well-attested historical fact that no one doubts. By claiming otherwise, you are making yourself look stupid. I have no time to go through a laundry list of a hundred people, so I took the first name on the list assuming that it would be the strongest claim that you had.

John Mackinnon Robertson was a journalist. He studied until he was 13, and then he worked as a railroad telegraph clerk!? Am I reading this right? He joined the Edinburgh Secular Society and got elected to parliament. Wow. That's quite a scholar you've got there.

NOT!

So far, Carrier is the most convincing you have, although his math is crap. I recommend that you stick with him and sweep John Mackinnon Robertson under the carpet.

 

[Sapiens]

Whoa, hold

As does Jesus of Nazareth. The book of James is commonly believed to have been written by the (half-) brother of Jesus. Once again, I quote:

"The reason for thinking that Jesus existed is because he is abundantly atested in early sources....One independent source that we know about knew Jesus' brother and knew Jesus' disciple Peter. He is an eyewitness to both Jesus' closest disciple and his brother."

So if you want to go where the evidence goes, Jesus of Nazareth surely existed.


I didn't say that. You claimed that he had a Ph.D. He does not have a Ph.D. You're reaching with this one. He admits himself that his theory of no-Jesus occurred before he did any research at all.


No, the real question is whether Richard Carrier's math is good. You can go on YouTube right now and see mathematical proofs that 1=0. Most of these "proofs" rely on division by zero.

How good is Richard Carrier's math? http://www.strangenotions.com/bayes-theorem-proves-jesus-existed-and-didnt-exist/

"
Therefore, you may not be surprised to learn there is not one, but two books which argue that a fixed, firm number may be put on the proposition, "God exists." The first, by Stephen Unwin, is called The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth, in which he uses Bayes’s theorem to demonstrate, with probability one minus epsilon, that the Christian God exists.

This is countered by Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier, who uses Bayes’s theorem to prove, with probability one minus epsilon, that the Christian God does not exist because Jesus himself never did."
-------------------------------
At least one of these people must be wrong. Let's get the low down from someone who knows math. I refer you to https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/

"While Carrier devotes a lot of ink to describing the terms of his long-form BT, he nowhere attempts to describe what Bayes’s Theorem is doing. Why are we dividing probabilities? What does his denominator represent? He comes perilously close in chapter six (“Hard Stuff”), when talking about reference classes (which are quite closely related to the meaning of the denominator), but doesn’t try to bring his audience to the level of competency to do anything more than take his word for these mathematical assertions.

"So this unduly complex version of BT serves as a kind a magic black box:

"In this Carrier allows himself to sidestep the question whether these necessarily true conclusions are meaningful in a particular domain. A discussion both awkward for his approach, and one surely that would have been more conspicuously missing if he’d have described why BT is the way it is.

"The addition of background knowledge (b in his formula) in every term (the probability theory equivalent of writing x1 or +0) is highly idiosyncratic, though I’ve seen William Lane Craig use the same trick. Footnote 10 states that he made the choice so as to make explicit that background knowledge is always present. Clearly his audience can’t be expected to remember this basic tenet of probability theory.

"Carrier correctly states that he is allowed to divide content between evidence and background knowledge any way he chooses, provided he is consistent. But then fails to do so throughout the book. For example on page 51 is an explanation of a ‘prior’ probability which explicitly includes the evidence in the prior, and therefore presumably in the background knowledge (emphasis added)...

"Carrier joins that latter debate too, in what he describes as a “cheeky” unification of Bayesian and Frequentist interpretations, but what reads as a misunderstanding of what the differences between Bayesian and Frequentist statistics are. Describing what this means is beyond my scope here, but I raise it because it is illustrative of a tone of arrogance and condescension that I consistently perceived throughout the book. To use the word “cheeky” to describe his “solution” of this important problem in mathematical philosophy, suggests he is aware of his hubris. Perhaps cheeky indicates that his preposterous claim was made in jest. But given the lack of mathematical care demonstrated in the rest of the book, to me it came off as indicative of a Dunning-Kruger effect around mathematics.

"I had many other problems with the mathematics presented in the book, I felt there were severe errors with his arguments a fortiori (i.e. a kind of reasoning from inequalities — the probability is no greater than X); and his set-theoretic treatment of reference classes was likewise muddled (though in the latter case it coincidentally did not seem to result in incorrect conclusions). But in the interest of space, the above discussion gives a flavour of the issues I found throughout.

"Conclusion

"Outside the chapters on the mathematics, I enjoyed the book, and found it entertaining to consider some of the historical content in mathematical terms. I strongly support mathematical literacy in the arts. History and biblical criticism would be better if historians had a better understanding of probability (among other topics: I do not think the lack of such knowledge is an important weakness in the field).

"I am also rather sympathetic to many of Carrier’s opinions, and therefore predisposed towards his conclusions. So while I consistently despaired of his claims to have shown his results mathematically, I agree with some of the conclusions, and I think that gestalts in favour of those conclusions can be supported by probability theory.

"But ultimately I think the book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers."

-------------------------------------
In short, Carrier's "math" is hardly compelling. I'm sorry that you were sucked in by his joke, if we can call it that, but this should teach you to be more skeptical.

I repeat again: There are no scholars teaching Ancient History, Early Christianity, or any related subject at any university in the western world who doubts the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. There isn't even half of one. The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a well-attested historical fact that no one doubts. By claiming otherwise, you are making yourself look stupid. I have no time to go through a laundry list of a hundred people, so I took the first name on the list assuming that it would be the strongest claim that you had.

John Mackinnon Robertson was a journalist. He studied until he was 13, and then he worked as a railroad telegraph clerk!? Am I reading this right? He joined the Edinburgh Secular Society and got elected to parliament. Wow. That's quite a scholar you've got there.

NOT!

So far, Carrier is the most convincing you have, although his math is crap. I recommend that you stick with him and sweep John Mackinnon Robertson under the carpet.

Whoa, hold your horses there pardner. The question on the table is whether there exists a single scholar who is a Jesus denier. I think I have aptly demonstrated that my claim is correct. So correct, in fact, that you are now scurring to move the goalposts and change the test to "teaching Ancient History, Early Christianity, or any related subject at any university in the western world." We can move on to that one as well as the actual subject of Jesus denial, but only after we have established a firm base in the truth that there are one, or more, scholars who are also Jesus deniers and that to maintain otherwise is lying through your teeth.

 

[Zosimus]

Whoa, hold
Whoa, hold your horses there pardner. The question on the table is whether there exists a single scholar who is a Jesus denier. I think I have aptly demonstrated that my claim is correct. So correct, in fact, that you are now scurring to move the goalposts and change the test to "teaching Ancient History, Early Christianity, or any related subject at any university in the western world." We can move on to that one as well as the actual subject of Jesus denial, but only after we have established a firm base in the truth that there are one, or more, scholars who are also Jesus deniers and that to maintain otherwise is lying through your teeth.

No, I think you need to go back and re-read the thread. Start right here.

There are no serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence. Your rebuttal to this is to show that two mythical dead people supposedly doubted, that a high-school dropout turned Parliament member may have doubted, and that a faulty-mathematical proof exists that supposedly proves that Jesus never existed?

 

[james bond]

“Evolution” in its broadest sense is change over time, but the “Theory of Evolution” is much more specific than that. I don’t see anything on that page you linked that even provides a definition of “Theory of Evolution”, much less one that differs from the common biology definition of the term. "Evolutionary thought" is not the same as the "Theory of Evolution".
I don’t know of any evolutionary biologists that use the term “theory of evolution” to refer to anything other than biological evolution. At any rate, we’re arguing semantics and no matter what way you choose to label things, biological evolution doesn’t depend upon stellar evolution, the evolution of the Solar System or chemical evolution.

Except there was no need for God to do that to serve as a model for us. He could have just as easily said “Set aside one day a week where you will not work because humans need rest” and that would have been reason enough for us to obey Him. Thus taking six days to make the universe was still unnecessary.

So where in the Bible does it say that He caused a flood because He wanted certain species extinct? Last I checked, He caused the flood to kill sinners. Besides, that would still be unnecessary because He could have just made all the species disappear at will that He wanted extinct. No need to make it rain forty days and forty nights. It’s still a lot of extra time and steps to accomplish something that He could have accomplished much more quickly. Not to mention that such an idea seems contradictory to the command that He gave Noah to save all the animal kinds. Nowhere does it say that he was commanded to leave certain kinds of animals out of the ark because God wanted them extinct.

Because He could have actually done that. He is omnipotent. You don’t think He had the ability?

A deistic god is one which is not revealed by scripture or other form of revelation. In other words, believers determine the existence of such a god only by observation of nature and/or the use of reason and not because that particular god spoke to anyone. I have also seem deism defined in terms of “non-intervention” in that the deistic god started up the universe, Earth or life but was not actively involved in what happened afterwards. So a world where life developed in accordance with evolution would be perfectly consistent with a deist god.

Just for the sake of argument, even if you wanted to say that the Big Bang and stellar evolution was part of the theory of evolution, it doesn’t mean that all of it is some package deal where all of it has to be right or all of it has to be wrong. If the Big Bang had never happened, biological evolution could still be correct and if biological evolution was not correct, the Big Bang still could be. They don’t depend upon each other.

Evolution posits trees coming before flowers as well. A discussion about the evolution of flowers can be found here.

You’re the one who said that mutations are organisms that don’t change, not me. Mutations are changes in DNA.

Theistic evolution is evolution that is driven in some capacity by God (for example, all of the mutations being planned for ahead of time by God). Regular evolution has no such divine planning involved.

Presumably, you would modify your arguments if I pointed out your fallacies. If not, then at least those who read this debate would then know which of your arguments are fallacious.

You must not be talking about the "theory of evolution", as it simply describes certain aspects of the natural world.

I have a link posted about that above.

Theories don’t perpetrate frauds, individuals do. I personally am not aware of any frauds created by evolutionary biologists themselves. Besides, there would have to be an awful lot of frauds in order for us to doubt the majority of the fossil record, which currently consists of thousands of fossils.

How can evolution have the “God of the Gaps” when it says nothing about God at all?

I’m doubtful of this claim, given that evolution doesn’t belong to any one group.

Would have taken a lot of floods then, because there are a lot of layers in the fossil record with a different species distribution in each layer. A single flood can’t do that.

Evolution isn’t dependent upon any dating technique. Radiometric dating wasn’t even used until the 1900’s whereas the theory of evolution was already widely accepted by the scientific community in the 1870’s.

True, but you can’t change the isotope ratios in rock just because “evolution says so”. They are what they are.

Because your statements lead me to them. When I mentioned why there weren’t six literal days of creation, you criticized radiometric dating which is why the discussion went in that direction.

Nope.

Not with all the straw-men you’ve been using.

That wasn’t my definition, it is what you were saying. You said, and I quote:

You very clearly implied that a mutation is not beneficial if no one wants to infect themselves with it. Hence, you are saying that a mutation can only be beneficial if people are willing to infect themselves with it.

Again, to quote you:


You did make mention of GMO’s:


Stop using fallacies and I'll stop pointing them out.

The first definition you supplied for mutation is correct (a change in the genetic code), the second one was not (mutations being organisms that do not change).

Also, I haven’t forgotten about this:

A clear example of a mutation that fits your definition of beneficial.

Clearly, you have expanded this discussion to the point it's a mess. Do you have diarrea of the fingers typing away like this? My little joke.

I'll start from the bottom and work up since it's more opinion and links which you've failed to explain. Most of us would've got a lot more from you if you had done this. If you have a background in biology, then let it out. Just stick to one point or a few points that are important to you and you can explain. Identifying a benefit does not mean looking for the cause which atheist scientists are wont to do. Creation scientists understand that at one point we had unbreakable bones. Else why did I mention the benefits and what we are trying to achieve. It just goes to show that we long to get back what we had and that was perfection. People in ancient times had this over us today. Today, we still admire perfection such as a perfect test score, a perfect game or a perfect achievement in sports. This is evidence of creation.

God took seven days as a model for us humans. It also shows His progression, His science, how things came to be and give us clues to help find the truth. Evolution contradicts that and gets us further from the truth. Again, the evidence is science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

The rest can be discarded as you do not provide answers in your own words, but links. The only things you provide is opinion. It's laughable. None of us know how you think or get any glimmer of the type of human being you are unless you like to express boring.

 

[james bond]

Your claim was that evolution is atheistic, and that is a straw-man.
Your claim was that Biological evolution is the same as the evolution of the universe or somehow depends on it , and that is a straw-man.
Your claim was that radiometric dating depends on evolution, and that is a straw-man
Your claim was that A mutation is only beneficial if people want it, and that is a straw-man.
Your claim was that Mutations are organisms that don't change, and that is a straw-man.
You make reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution, and that is a red herring.
Happy to, you're down by a whole bunch, the evolution team is pitching a no-hitter.
No, "evolution" with no modifier is just biology.
Google is your friend: How did flowers come about
Horse pucky. It was an obvious response to the the first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition which was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion.
Current theory rejects catastrophism, demoting the Chicxulub impact to a stressor rather than a cause (the extinctions took too long to occur). "The impact was clearly the final straw that pushed Earth past the tipping point," Paul Renne said. "We have shown that these events are synchronous to within a gnat's eyebrow, and therefore, the impact clearly played a major role in extinctions, but it probably wasn't just the impact." The more we learn the more ridiculous the bible fables are revealed to be.
Are you seriously suggesting that the published rates for isotopic decay were fudged by massive conspiracy just to prop up the TOE?
Because they all supply evidence to support the TOE.
No evolution relates to biology but evidence can be found across many fields of science, that is a great strenght.
Goo to you took billions of years, other demonstrable speciation has occurred in less than 20 years.
If you really must know, just sequence the Oak genome, the answer will be obvious.
That has nothing to do with evolution, or anything else for that matter.
No ... a mutation is only beneficial if it contributes to an organism's fitness.
A mutation need not result in a heritable change. Most mutations are repaired:
link: Biochemistry. 5th edition - Section 27.6 Mutations Involve Changes in the Base Sequence of DNA
.

Couldn't stick to five points. Tsk. And more claims of strawmen and red herrings. Hm... Can ToE be built on strawmen and red herrings?

I'm trying to stick to biology. AFAIK no one has been able to breed two plants to make a flower. It would be on youtube if they did. Many people like and want flowers. Yet, there they are and some are weeds. Probably a mutation. I mentioned the guy who cross bred marijuana to make a more potent plant. Would you rather smoke his or the GMO? If you rather smoke his, then give up the hypocrisy of GMO. Practice what you preach. Oh yeah, the oak tree or the acorn? Or the chicken or the egg? The original tree of life BS. If any were true, you'd be jumping up and down and tossing evidence in front of my face. I've already shown how complex the egg is with my gif. Same with the acorn.

So, is there any progress from drilling Chicxulub? Did the atheist scientists find the evidence that they're looking for? What is that anyway? Aliens? Ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Sticking to biology. Who still think humans came from apes? Do you still believe in the Cromagnon Man and the Neanderthal Man? The length that atheist scientists would go to prove their theories. All of it has been exposed as fakes or questionable as to its assumptions.

I've explained the creation in six days and a day of rest. Yet, just strawmen and red herrings from the atheists crowd even if we're discussing biology.

 

[McBell]

Couldn't stick to five points. Tsk. And more claims of strawmen and red herrings. Hm... Can ToE be built on strawmen and red herrings?

The truth of the matter is that he is waiting for you to START discussing the ToE.
But you absolutely refuse to.
Instead, you play with strawmen and red herrings.
So now the question that has to be asked:

Are you honestly that ignorant of the ToE or are you just being dishonest?​

 

[jonathan180iq]

Sticking to biology. Who still think humans came from apes? Do you still believe in the Cromagnon Man and the Neanderthal Man? The length that atheist scientists would go to prove their theories. All of it has been exposed as fakes or questionable as to its assumptions.

I've explained the creation in six days and a day of rest. Yet, just strawmen and red herrings from the atheists crowd even if we're discussing biology.

These all existed. They are real. They were discovered in a combination of research and chance. They were discovered in layers, and dated to ranges, that are chronologically expected.

How do you explain their incredibly close relationship to one another if not through hereditary processes?

These ears are related in the same way that your skin color is related to that of your great great grandparents. They are realted just as your eye color is related to the eye color of your mom and dad...To deny any of this, Called the Theory of Heredity, is akin to denying the fact that the Earth is a sphere suspended in orbit around the Sun, the latter of which is more fully explained by the Theory of Gravity.

https://www.brightstorm.com/science/biology/mendelian-genetics/heredity-theory/
http://www.ck12.org/biology/Theory-of-Heredity/lesson/Theory-of-Heredity-Advanced-BIO-ADV/

https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

(See how stupid the last one seems when it deals with a topic you know a little bit about?)

 

[Zosimus]

These all existed. They are real. They were discovered in a combination of research and chance. They were discovered in layers, and dated to ranges, that are chronologically expected.

How do you explain their incredibly close relationship to one another if not through hereditary processes?

These ears are related in the same way that your skin color is related to that of your great great grandparents. They are realted just as your eye color is related to the eye color of your mom and dad...To deny any of this, Called the Theory of Heredity, is akin to denying the fact that the Earth is a sphere suspended in orbit around the Sun, the latter of which is more fully explained by the Theory of Gravity.

https://www.brightstorm.com/science/biology/mendelian-genetics/heredity-theory/
http://www.ck12.org/biology/Theory-of-Heredity/lesson/Theory-of-Heredity-Advanced-BIO-ADV/

https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

(See how stupid the last one seems when it deals with a topic you know a little bit about?)

How do you explain their incredibly close relationship to each other if not through hereditary processes?

 

[jonathan180iq]

How do you explain their incredibly close relationship to each other if not through hereditary processes?

Image doesn't work?

 

[Zosimus]

Image doesn't work?

It's Brad Pitt and his stunt double. They look alike, so... they must be related.

Right?

Your logic, not mine.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's Brad Pitt and his stunt double. They look alike, so... they must be related.

Right?

Your logic, not mine.

Same species. Perfect point.

EDIT: Both white males - both of European descent. They probably have similar genetic histories and follow similar genetic haplo group paths... So, again, yes. Tell me the stunt double's name and I can come pretty close to nailing that down even more.

 

[McBell]

It's Brad Pitt and his stunt double. They look alike, so... they must be related.

Right?

Your logic, not mine.

Here you show either a fundamental ignorance of the ToE or are revealing your dishonesty.

 

[gnostic]

God took seven days as a model for us humans. It also shows His progression, His science, how things came to be and give us clues to help find the truth. Evolution contradicts that and gets us further from the truth. Again, the evidence is science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

You are right, James Bond, the bible isn't a science book. That's the only part of your reply that I agree with.

That's because nothing in the bible is science. Nothing in Genesis creation is remotely scientific, it is just superstitious and ignorant nonsense.

Do you even know science is?

Science is investigative method of acquiring knowledge about nature, as in EXPLAINING (A) WHAT IS IT, and (B) HOW IT WORK.

Genesis explain nothing, surrounding it with myth borrowed from myths of much older civilisations (Egyptian, Babylonian and Syrian-Canaanite).

The myth about the creation and flood, mostly come the Babylonian literature, but the Babylonian myths (2nd and 1st millennia BCE) come from the older Sumerian-Akkadian civilisation-culture of the late 3rd millennium BCE.

The myth of creating the world with the word, originally came from early 3rd millennium BCE, with the Egyptian god, Ptah. The Egyptians were great believers in magic and miracles, especially ones that can be incanted in words, like spells, for the words have power, not only for creation, but also like resurrection.

When was the Genesis and other books of Old Testament compiled? Around mid-1st millennium BCE.

And speaking of resurrection, the gospels also contain not so original belief (myth). The Egyptians believe in resurrection and afterlife, as far back as Old Kingdom period (when they began building pyramids in the 3rd dynasty), perhaps even earlier. Evidences for such belief can be found in the hieroglyphs written within the pyramids of 5th and 6th dynasty (late 3rd millennium BCE.

The soul (known in Egyptian as "ba") being judged, far back as old kingdom, but most famously depicted in the Book of the Dead of the New Kingdom period (between mid to late 2nd millennium BCE).

Jesus wasn't the first messianic or saviour-type figure (Re, Osiris, Horus, the Greek Dionysus and Orpheus). He wasn't even the first to claim to be "son of God" (Gilgamesh, Heracles, Perseus, Achilles), or the first god to die (Geshtu, Ba'al).

Nothing in Hebrew and Christian belief were original. They were influenced by religions of the cultures and civilisations of their neighbors.

 

[gnostic]

I've explained the creation in six days and a day of rest. Yet, just strawmen and red herrings from the atheists crowd even if we're discussing biology.

Atheist crowd is just you demonstrating your own red herrings and straw man, especially when you completely ignored the fact that there are many Christians, here and elsewhere, who accept evolution as accepted biological theory on changes.

Charles Darwin himself, was also a Christian. Are you going to ignore that too?

Go back and stick your head in the sand if you want. Not all Christians agreed with your straw man of "atheistic" science.

 

[james bond]

The truth of the matter is that he is waiting for you to START discussing the ToE.
But you absolutely refuse to.
Instead, you play with strawmen and red herrings.
So now the question that has to be asked:

Are you honestly that ignorant of the ToE or are you just being dishonest?​

How do you figure that I start the discussion ToE when I'm in the creation camp? If you want me to start, then I'll say there is no explanation for how the single-cell, algae, bacteria, universe, or anything started. Evolution is dead. Case closed ha ha.

Some people here do not want to admit ToE is more than biology. Thus, I started discussing biology, but there is no explanation for how life started except it started with a seed such as the acorn. Or an egg for living creatures. I can't imagine how a live bearing animal started. If a single-cell is asexual, then how did sex come into it. Isn't asexual better than sexual if increasing the population was important? Most of the evos start with their hypothesis and they try to fit the facts with their hypotheses. One can say the same for creationists since they have the Bible, but science ends up backing the Bible. Remember, the creation scientists early on stated not to use the God of the Gaps argument and follow science wherever it may lead. It has led to science backing up the Bible and intelligence behind the designs of beauty and complexity. Thus, it strengthens our faith instead of trusting something like evolution.

If evolution was right, then we would see a contradiction in the above. Creation would create more question than it answers. Instead, evolution creates more questions that it answers. Most scientists give lip service to evolution in order to keep the money rolling in. They keep coming up with ways of how the facts can fit the theses.

Atheists want to believe in aliens when there is no proof whatsover. SETI hasn't found any signs. It's all based on the vastness of the universe. However, the facts seem to fit the Fine-tuning Theory. I read the FTT before i discovered the Bible states that God made Earth as His centerpiece and that He focused on life on the planet Earth. Atheists want to believe plants evolved into flowers when there is no evidence. Atheists want to believe all these transitional events and creatures took place, but there is no evidence. Atheists want to believe that an universe started from nothing or invisible particles. The whole idea contradicts thermodynamic's laws. Atheists want to believe that unbreakable bones evolved from a cell structure and try to find the secret, so it can be replicated. Atheists want to believe in positive mutations when all mutations are negative or neutral. There may be a positive benefit, but one can't remove the negative.

Birds didn't come from dinosaurs. There were birds during the time dinosaurs existed. Just because fossils are found in a higher stratification layer than other fossils below, it does not mean that it took millions of years or that the fossil found is a higher layer came later.

I could keep going, but this is sufficient. Evolution is destroyed. It can't get off the ground.

Instead, evos shoudl read the Bible more and keep an open mind and listen to creation scientists.

Any you, Mestemia, you haven't said anything except to complain or criticize creation. So I figure you haven't got much to say.