[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[felix]

what evidence do you have that plants came before the sun?

Because it was my Father who created it.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Because it was my Father who created it.

The circle begins again. Do you have anything other then the account of Genesis to back this up? If not, then you don't have any evidence that hasn't been repeated over the last 35 pages.

 

[felix]

The circle begins again. Do you have anything other then the account of Genesis to back this up? If not, then you don't have any evidence that hasn't been repeated over the last 35 pages.

The account of Exodus:
Exod 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The account of Isaiah:
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, And created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

The account of Psalmist:
Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created.

There are multiple evidences and the above is just three. The important evidence is from the Person who created it. What evidence do you require if you had a chance to see Him? Have you tried being "holy" which allows you to see Him? Have you tried it? Have you even made an attempt to see if He really exist? If not, how can you expect a result when you are not willing to observe?

 

[Milk-Drops]

The account of Exodus:
Exod 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The account of Isaiah:
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, And created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

The account of Psalmist:
Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created.

So when I ask you for resources other then Genesis, you give me things FROM THE SAME BOOK SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY THE SAME MAN. That is doing nothing more then referencing Genesis. You don't have anything outside the Bible to support your claims. Meaning its not science. End of Story. Do you have anything that isn't in the Bible?

There are multiple evidences and the above is just three.

having passages that repeat other passages aren't independent sources. Give me tested papers showing evidence that Palnts existed before the sun.

The important evidence is from the Person who created it.

We don't have don't have such evidence. We have a collection of writting that are claimed be to written by a man who claims to be writing directly from God. That is all we have.

What evidence do you require if you had a chance to see Him? Have you tried being "holy" which allows you to see Him? Have you tried it? Have you even made an attempt to see if He really exist? If not, how can you expect a result when you are not willing to observe?

Yeah, nice little wriggle dance. Just answer whether you have evidence outside the Bible and stop trying to escape answering a simple question.

 

[felix]

So when I ask you for resources other then Genesis, you give me things FROM THE SAME BOOK SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY THE SAME MAN. That is doing nothing more then referencing Genesis. You don't have anything outside the Bible to support your claims. Meaning its not science. End of Story. Do you have anything that isn't in the Bible?

having passages that repeat other passages aren't independent sources. Give me tested papers showing evidence that Palnts existed before the sun.

We don't have don't have such evidence. We have a collection of writting that are claimed be to written by a man who claims to be writing directly from God. That is all we have. Yeah, nice little wriggle dance. Just answer whether you have evidence outside the Bible and stop trying to escape answering a simple question.

Can you prove that Darwin really did exist?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Can you prove that Darwin really did exist?

Yep, I can get you birth records, photographs, papers signed by his own hand. His possessions, I can bring you living family, we can dig up his remains, read his papers, etc.

I'm not answering anything else from you, since you refuse to show the same respect I afforded you. Thankfully, your protests mean nothing to the advancements of Biology and to the discoveries found daily that will benefit generations to come.

 

[felix]

Yep, I can get you birth records, photographs, papers signed by his own hand. His possessions, I can bring you living family, we can dig up his remains, read his papers, etc.

Nothing actually proves Darwin existed. Those can easily be faked. Those are not scientific evidences. If that is the case, Sumerian tables giving names of list of kings and their god stories can also be true. If photos are evidences, then godly inscription from every Hindu temple are also scientific evidences.

So, technically, you haven't proved anything to confirm that Darwin did really existed.

I'm not answering anything else from you, since you refuse to show the same respect I afforded you. Thankfully, your protests mean nothing to the advancements of Biology and to the discoveries found daily that will benefit generations to come.

So, you don't have evidence then. How is that you are believing in a theory from a non existing guy? I think a kid could be intelligent that you.

 

[Milk-Drops]

There is being skeptical, and then there is being dishonest and childish. I am done for now, because I seriously see no more point in continuing this conversation because I don't think we will be able to learn anything more from each other, and I think it would be fruitless to continue further.

If you seriously want to throw out all evidence of Darwin and can't answer any of my questions, I have to ask what is even the point of arguing with us in the first place..........Then again, you won't answer this question so lets just leave it at that..............unanswered questions.

 

[felix]

There is being skeptical, and then there is being dishonest and childish. I am done for now, because I seriously see no more point in continuing this conversation because I don't think we will be able to learn anything more from each other, and I think it would be fruitless to continue further.

If you seriously want to throw out all evidence of Darwin and can't answer any of my questions, I have to ask what is even the point of arguing with us in the first place..........Then again, you won't answer this question so lets just leave it at that..............unanswered questions.

Is asking evidence "dishonest and childish"? Honestly, I have no idea who Darwin is. Neither I had seen him nor have heard from him. Certainly he is not from my neighborhood.

If you are saying about 'Darwin's theory" of "Evolution", which has no experiment, hence no result but miraculously "conclusions" pop up. I had to first have evidence for Darwin himself to look into what he said.

 

[lordkalvan]

Every radiometric dating assumes that the isotope to stable ratio is constant. However, it is not the case if that ratio is disturbed when isotopes are generated at a higher or lower rate in atmosphere.

Well, until you can demontrate that any variations are both ignred and significant enough to lead to variations greater than the standard deviation error bars already published with RM data, all you are doing is speculating hopefully.

I also had already proved that 10% variation for C14 for 5000 years will give you 30000 years difference which you seem to conveniently ignore.

You proved nothing. You simply speculated that if X, then Y, without offering any evidence at all to support that speculation. In other words, you have no grounds to assert any such persistent variatiin, especially in the light of the fact that we have data for atmospheric C14 concentratiins dating back tens of thousands of years. I believe I have pointed this out already.

 

[lordkalvan]

Sorry, I am not teaching this stuff. It is your scientists who teach this stuff and you are not aware of it.

How is Carbon-14 formed?

Carbon-14 is created from nitrogen-14 in the upper atmosphere of the earth. Radiation from the sun collides with atoms in the atmosphere. These collisions create secondary cosmic rays in the form of energentic neutrons. When these neutrons collide with nitrogen-14 in the atmosphere carbon-14 can be created. Nitrogen normally occurs in a seven proton, seven nuetron, nitrogen-14 state. When it collides with an energetic neutron it becomes carbon-14, with six protons and eight neutrons and gives off a hydrogen atom with one proton and zero neutrons.

How do we know Carbon-14 dating is accurate?
:
When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been constant over the last 10,000 years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has changed. Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparision with other dating methods.

Ref: http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/pages/carbondatingback.html

First of all, did you notice the reference to calibration? What do you think it is talking about.

Secondly, did you notice that your reference only casts some doubt on C14 dates from the early period of C14 dating? What do you conclude from this?

 

[lordkalvan]

Can you prove that Darwin really did exist?

What evidence would satisfy you? Birth and death certificates? Personal papers? Letters and references from contemporaries? Photographs? His tomb? Contemporary newspaper reports? Proceedings of the Royal Society? Let us know.

 

[lordkalvan]

Nothing actually proves Darwin existed. Those can easily be faked.

In this case, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that the vast range of independent, consilient evidence was faked.

Those are not scientific evidences.

Nope, they're historical, documentary evidence that is extensive and consilient. Feel free to provide your evidence that they have been faked.

If that is the case, Sumerian tables giving names of list of kings and their god stories can also be true.

I think we would look for independent, corroborating evidence to support any such conclusion. Rather like we have for Darwin's existence, in fact. Do you have any?

If photos are evidences, then godly inscription from every Hindu temple are also scientific evidences.

They are evidence as to the existence of those inscriptions, but not that what state is fact. You see to be confused as o what conclusions can be drawn from particular types of evidence.

So, technically, you haven't proved anything to confirm that Darwin did really existed.

This is a huge red herring. If you want to discuss the reality or otherwise of Darwin's existence, I suggest you start another thread.

So, you don't have evidence then. How is that you are believing in a theory from a non existing guy? I think a kid could be intelligent that you.

Well, the theory exists, has been extensively tested and verified, and so whether Darwin existed or not is in this case immaterial.

 

[lordkalvan]

Is asking evidence "dishonest and childish"? Honestly, I have no idea who Darwin is. Neither I had seen him nor have heard from him. Certainly he is not from my neighborhood.

Do you feel the same about Capt James Cook? What about Don Bradman?

If you are saying about 'Darwin's theory" of "Evolution", which has no experiment, hence no result but miraculously "conclusions" pop up. I had to first have evidence for Darwin himself to look into what he said.

No miracle required, just science.

 

[felix]

Well, until you can demontrate that any variations are both ignred and significant enough to lead to variations greater than the standard deviation error bars already published with RM data, all you are doing is speculating hopefully.

You proved nothing. You simply speculated that if X, then Y, without offering any evidence at all to support that speculation. In other words, you have no grounds to assert any such persistent variatiin, especially in the light of the fact that we have data for atmospheric C14 concentratiins dating back tens of thousands of years. I believe I have pointed this out already.

Well, the hopeful speculation is actually done by radiometric dating methods, hoping that the cosmic radiation is constant throughout ages, even though there is no evidence.

 

[felix]

What evidence would satisfy you? Birth and death certificates? Personal papers? Letters and references from contemporaries? Photographs? His tomb? Contemporary newspaper reports? Proceedings of the Royal Society? Let us know.

Those are not evidence for Darwin's existence.

His birth certificate? Those are just papers written down by someone. That does not prove that he existed.
Personal papers? What is the proof that he wrote them and how much truth is in them?
Letters and references from contemporaries? There is no evidence that the letters were true.
Photographs? There is no proof that the photo is him
Contemporary newspaper reports? There is no evidence that the newspaper reports were true.
Proceedings of the Royal Society? There is no evidence that the proceedings were true.

Please go ahead and prove that his birth certificate is indeed his's, his personal letters are infact written by him, and the letters were indeed true and the photograph is indeed him and the contemporary newspaper and the proceedings were indeed true.

If some paper having some information about a person whom you had never seen is a convincing evidence, how is that more than 20000+ Bible Manuscripts and 40+ prophets declaring God's creation in 66 books, dating back several thousand years not a convincing evidence?

 

[felix]

In this case, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that the vast range of independent, consilient evidence was faked.

In this case, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that the vast range of independent, consilient evidence was faked, esp., on creation of God.

Well, the theory exists, has been extensively tested and verified, and so whether Darwin existed or not is in this case immaterial.

If it is verified, why is there no new species observed?

 

[felix]

Do you feel the same about Capt James Cook? What about Don Bradman?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Capt James Cook - I have heard that name. Don Bradman - who is he?

No miracle required, just science.

An experiment-less conclusion is not science. It is not even a theory but speculation.

 

[Arch Angle]

Because it was my Father who created it.

That really is not evidence. It is a statement.

"How" were they put there?
I understand you use your belief and the bible as the first piece of evidence.
My stance (first piece of evidence) is that god used the laws of the universe he created to place the things (here plants) where they are. That is always my first piece.

You say god went "poof" there it is. And I say he used laws that anybody anywhere could "see" for themselves. I say god shows everybody, through observations, that they can understand how he did it weather they believe in him or not.

Now we have to see which stance is more reasonable.

What is your evidence that plants where in place before thesun? You used the bible. What is your second piece of data?

 

[lordkalvan]

Those are not evidence for Darwin's existence.

Er, yes, they are. They would certainly be admissible in a court of law seeking to establish identity.

His birth certificate? Those are just papers written down by someone. That does not prove that he existed.

Then you postulate fraud on the part of local government officials tasked with recording such information. Do you are any evidence to support this accusation of fraud? No? Let's move on then.

Personal papers? What is the proof that he wrote them and how much truth is in them?

Whether personal papers contain 'truth' or not is irrelevant to determining whether they were written by the person in question or not. Also, those personal après were in the possession of members of Darwin's family who seem to have believed that ther husband/father wrote them and, according to their individual experiences, believed that he existed, cared fr and lived them. Do you have any evidence that any of these observations are false, that his family manufactured his existence and wrote his papers? No? Let's move on then.

Letters and references from contemporaries? There is no evidence that the letters were true.

Well, they are consilient with an array of other evidence that indicates they are. Do you have any evidence that that indicates otherwise? No? Let's move on then.

Photographs? There is no proof that the photo is him

Well, lots of them have been identified by role who ostensibly knew him or met him as being of Darwin. Do you have any evidence that these many people were mistaken or liars? No? Let's move on then.

Contemporary newspaper reports? There is no evidence that the newspaper reports were true.

Although newspaper editors and journalists may indeed be mistaken in things they write or even just make stuff up from time-to-time, your postulate requires systematic, prolonged and widespread fraud. Do you have any evidence of such massive fraud? No? Let's move on then.

Proceedings of the Royal Society? There is no evidence that the proceedings were true.

In which case you postulate extensive fraud on the part, not just of scientists and teachers, but of clergymen as well. Do you have evidence of such fraud? No? Let's move on then.

Please go ahead and prove that his birth certificate is indeed his's, his personal letters are infact written by him, and the letters were indeed true and the photograph is indeed him and the contemporary newspaper and the proceedings were indeed true.

Absent evidence of the widespread fraud required to invalidate this evidence for Darwin's existence, the parsimonious expanation is that he did, indeed, exist. Should you wish to contest this understanding, you would need to present he extraordinary evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.

If some paper having some information about a person whom you had never seen is a convincing evidence, how is that more than 20000+ Bible Manuscripts and 40+ prophets declaring God's creation in 66 books, dating back several thousand years not a convincing evidence?

Well, ask yourself whether or not you find similar 'evidence' for the existence of Odin, Zeus or Lord Brahma persuasive and why this is or isn't the case and you will have your answer.