[_ Old Earth _] Creation and the myth of Evolution

[jwu]

there is to many thing in this world that point to younger earth 6 to 10 thousands years give or take.

Examples?

Also the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, salt in the oceans, mountain from billions of years of rain and weather they should be almost gone if not gone by now. There is some much more that evolutionist tries to hind under the umbrella of evolution and billions of year theory..

Actually plate tectonics explains this quite nicely. These geological features are not a billion years old in first instance, but they indeed show signs of millions of years of weathering.

What do you call RECENT STRATA, after all the dinosaurs were drowned in the Great Flood, and where covered over quickly.

Then we should find at least some dino bones in the same strata in which human bones are found, right?

Now those fossils are in recent structure that was laid down during the Great Flood.

So which strata were actually laid down by the noachian deluge? Where on the conventional geological timescale does the deluge begin, where does it end?

 

[Dunzo]

Your claim isn't automatically true if I don't refute it.
As a basic example, let's say I claim that 2+2=5. If you don't refute it, does that mean it's true?

If my logic is flawed, then it shouldn't be hard at all to refute it. It s not hard for me to refute the posts of unbelievers so I don't need to personally attack them. I just discuss issues. So sorry, but simply claiming that my ramblings are incoherent and my logic is flawed is nothing but a personal attack and slander if you don't back them up with facts. But that's what unbelievers do to Jesus so it's no surprise. So unless you can refrain from personal attacks and simply discuss issues, then I don't consider it productive to engage in verbal volleyball.

Did you read my post at all? With my exceedingly basic example, I did refute your logic. The logic of "I am automatically right if noone proves me wrong" is faulty!

 

[Heidi]

Your claim isn't automatically true if I don't refute it.
As a basic example, let's say I claim that 2+2=5. If you don't refute it, does that mean it's true?

If my logic is flawed, then it shouldn't be hard at all to refute it. It s not hard for me to refute the posts of unbelievers so I don't need to personally attack them. I just discuss issues. So sorry, but simply claiming that my ramblings are incoherent and my logic is flawed is nothing but a personal attack and slander if you don't back them up with facts. But that's what unbelievers do to Jesus so it's no surprise. So unless you can refrain from personal attacks and simply discuss issues, then I don't consider it productive to engage in verbal volleyball.

Did you read my post at all? With my exceedingly basic example, I did refute your logic. The logic of "I am automatically right if noone proves me wrong" is faulty!

Again, until my logic can be proven wrong, my post stands as true. So it's your logic that's faulty. And since you cannot prove me wrong, again my post stands as true. By your "reasoning" we are right that God exists because we don't have to prove it. : So you contradict yourself. I thus have no desire to continue this conversation unless you can discuss the original post that you claim was illogical. But your avoidance of discussing my post shows that you cannot refute it without being illogical. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

Heidi, reread my posts very carefully. Then reread yours. I cannot stress enough that you need to read my post and understand what it says before you attempt to refute it. You're refuting my refutations of your logic with the same logic again.

Again, until my logic can be proven wrong, my post stands as true.

You need to fully comprehend what I'm saying here. With the basic example I gave, I showed you how this logic is faulty. That's my refutation. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to refute my refutation of your logic (in "If I can't be proven wrong, I'm right"), you used the same logic again. See the problem?

This isn't relevant anyway.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, reread my posts very carefully. Then reread yours. I cannot stress enough that you need to read my post and understand what it says before you attempt to refute it. You're refuting my refutations of your logic with the same logic again.

Again, until my logic can be proven wrong, my post stands as true.

You need to fully comprehend what I'm saying here. With the basic example I gave, I showed you how this logic is faulty. That's my refutation. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to refute my refutation of your logic (in "If I can't be proven wrong, I'm right"), you used the same logic again. See the problem?

This isn't relevant anyway.

Sorry, but your explanation had nothing to do with my original post which you said was faulty but never explained why. So again, evading explaining why my original post was wrong speaks for itself. Instead, you are engaging in a talk tangle to avoid proving my original post wrong. So this will be my last response to you unless you can prove my original post faulty. If you cannot, then your comments are slanderous.

 

[Dunzo]

I didn't even think it worth my time refuting, but since you're begging for it here we go.

The only actual point you make in the post is this:

And of course there's no one in history who can verify billions of years of history any more than there are accounts of anyone in history talking about our vine-swinging ancestors. :

Of course there isn't. Since when is the limited longevity of humans evidence against evolution? Eyewitness accounts aren't necessary for a process that leaves so much evidence behind anyway.

 

[Heidi]

I didn't even think it worth my time refuting, but since you're begging for it here we go.

The only actual point you make in the post is this:

And of course there's no one in history who can verify billions of years of history any more than there are accounts of anyone in history talking about our vine-swinging ancestors. :

Of course there isn't. Since when is the limited longevity of humans evidence against evolution? Eyewitness accounts aren't necessary for a process that leaves so much evidence behind anyway.

All historical events are based on eye-witnesses. All of them. By your "logic", I can claim that the skulls and bones that have been found were from aliens who invaded planet earth. : And if I had letters after my name, then I would automatically believed by people who can't think for themselves. In fact, the only reason that the theory of evolution has been accepted is because people who can't think for themselves have blind faith in scientists who change their minds with the seasons. Due to the propensity of humans to talk about their ancestors, one would think that the first speaking man would have had great colorful stories about his ape ancestors and their club wars. : But, they are conspicuously absent. There are none. Zero, zip. So again, evolution can't be documented by history any more than it can be documented by the basic principles of reproduction and DNA. Sorry. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

I didn't even think it worth my time refuting, but since you're begging for it here we go.

The only actual point you make in the post is this:

And of course there's no one in history who can verify billions of years of history any more than there are accounts of anyone in history talking about our vine-swinging ancestors. :

Of course there isn't. Since when is the limited longevity of humans evidence against evolution? Eyewitness accounts aren't necessary for a process that leaves so much evidence behind anyway.

All historical events are based on eye-witnesses. All of them. By your "logic", I can claim that the skulls and bones that have been found were from aliens who invaded planet earth. :

Wow that's low. Sure, you could do that... if you had the evidence to back it up. Luckily, evolution has extraordinary amounts of evidence to support it.

And if I had letters after my name, then I would automatically believed by people who can't think for themselves. In fact, the only reason that the theory of evolution has been accepted is because people who can't think for themselves have blind faith in scientists who change their minds with the seasons.

Kent Hovind has letters after his name, and you seem to lap up all the crap he dishes out. I can't believe you don't see the irony here. You also seem to have forgotten the point of the "letters after their name", and peer-reviewed journals which check the claims and research made by scientists independently.

Due to the propensity of humans to talk about their ancestors, one would think that the first speaking man would have had great colorful stories about his ape ancestors and their club wars. : But, they are conspicuously absent. There are none. Zero, zip. So again, evolution can't be documented by history any more than it can be documented by the basic principles of reproduction and DNA. Sorry. ;-)

To be honest, this is the worst argument against evolution I have ever heard. Ever. Can you even recall any of the stories of your parents, grandparents or great-grandparents? No? Then how do you expect stories of great club battles to transcend the barriers of time, language and speciation? I mean really, this is just silly.

 

[John]

To be honest, this is the worst argument against evolution I have ever heard. Ever. Can you even recall any of the stories of your parents, grandparents or great-grandparents? .

I can :P

 

[Heidi]

I didn't even think it worth my time refuting, but since you're begging for it here we go.

To be honest, this is the worst argument against evolution I have ever heard. Ever. Can you even recall any of the stories of your parents, grandparents or great-grandparents? No? Then how do you expect stories of great club battles to transcend the barriers of time, language and speciation? I mean really, this is just silly.

Absolutely I can recall stories of my grandparents! Who in the world doesn't know his mother and father? :o Yet the parents of the first speaking man had to be apelike and wouldn't have been able to speak! So of course the first-speaking man would know his ape parents! So it's your argument that's not only terrible but not thought through at all any more than the ridiculous fairy tale that apes can breed human descendants. :roll: So the theory of evolution relies on a lack of historical evidence, not on evidence itself. Again, it's no different than making up half-man-half beasts that walked the earth. Anyone child can do that. :

 

[Jayls5]

Absolutely I can recall stories of my grandparents! Who in the world doesn't know his mother and father? :o Yet the parents of the first speaking man had to be apelike and wouldn't have been able to speak! So of course the first-speaking man would know his ape parents! So it's your argument that's not only terrible but not thought through at all any more than the ridiculous fairy tale that apes can breed human descendants. :roll: So the theory of evolution relies on a lack of historical evidence, not on evidence itself. Again, it's no different than making up half-man-half beasts that walked the earth. Anyone child can do that. :

For the love of GOD, please stop this strawman argument ad nauseum crap.

You presuppose that the first speaking man is the first one genetically capable of speaking. While we don't know for sure (we weren't there), it probably transitioned from a level of communication that we see other animals doing. Many animals have a complex system of warning each other about danger, notifying about food, etc. There is pretty much no way of knowing which point the noises being uttered from our descendants deserved the label of "language," that is, communication more complex than other animal species. The idea that some apes suddenly shoot out a humanoid then says, "Hey mom! You're an ape and I am a human" - now that's a fairy tale, one you ANNOYINGLY repeat on this forum.... mistakingly thinking that it has anything to do with evolution.

Now, we have told you time and time again that an OBVIOUS human did not shoot out of an OBVIOUS ape. THIS IS A DISTORTED VIEW OF THE THEORY.

For the last time, it is not a clear cut case of apes giving birth to humans. The transition is subtle to the point where the differences are not obvious from one parent to the next. When you keep asserting something that people have explained is a misinterpretation, it just makes you look stubborn and stupid. We have explained to you that your argument has nothing to do with evolution multiple times. You then ignore it then keep posting it in other threads, or continue to assert this "fairy tale" nonsense. It's really old. REALLY old. Just stop.

 

[John]

at what point did the human race use verbal language ?

 

[Heidi]

at what point did the human race use verbal language ?

No one knows who the first speaking man was, what he said to his non-speaking ape parents who couldn't understand him, or what language he used. So his parents couldn't teach him anything. :o That must have been quite a generation gap. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

at what point did the human race use verbal language ?

No one knows who the first speaking man was, what he said to his non-speaking ape parents who couldn't understand him, or what language he used. So his parents couldn't teach him anything. :o That must have been quite a generation gap. ;-)

Holy hell! Did you read Jay's post?

I've got a phrase you can use: "Tl;dr".
It means "Too long; didn't read". I think you'll be able to get some good use out of that one!

 

[Heidi]

at what point did the human race use verbal language ?

No one knows who the first speaking man was, what he said to his non-speaking ape parents who couldn't understand him, or what language he used. So his parents couldn't teach him anything. :o That must have been quite a generation gap. ;-)

Holy hell! Did you read Jay's post?

I've got a phrase you can use: "Tl;dr".
It means "Too long; didn't read". I think you'll be able to get some good use out of that one!

My comment wasn't a rebuttal or agreement. It was showing the absurdity of the theory of evolution which isn't hard to do at all. Good night.

 

[John]

So we have the evolution of languages now, were are your transitional forms of language, lol
does it go grunt,sniff ugg, then grunt, hello, arrg, then finally hello there buddy. nice assumptions. but it carries no evidential weight.

 

[Dunzo]

I bet Jay must be feeling pretty pissed off right now.

 

[Jayls5]

I bet Jay must be feeling pretty pissed off right now.

Not really. It was my last ditch effort at being remotely civil with her. All she did was prove my point.