Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 212. (Read 108173 times)

Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. What we see is the bible having tons of mistakes as shown here:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html


The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;

Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;

Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;

Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
Links:

Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Isaak, Mark. 1995. Five major misconceptions about evolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

There is a thing that is known how far into the past certain things about how things came to be, started to not work the same any more. This is a known fact. We know how belief worked back then, and also the date that changed how it was to work from there on. It is factually known that belief in God has changed, since it's known to be a fact that there are no guesswork in this regard. Factually, people have started to not only think, but also behave differently in what they believe about the ancient cultish religion book (bible) and "God" for the same reason. No guesswork here. We know for a fact that people, including religious persons, acted differently from this particular date, up until today in ever increasing manner.

You die to know what date I'm talking about don't you?

Ok then here it is for your pleasure: 24 November 1859.

Through scientific investigation of everything surrounding the coming-into-being of the Bible as it is, we see that the Bible is a miraculous work. In other words, God, Who is scientifically proven to exist, is the One Who "built" the Bible. And God is entirely factual... does not lie.

Your explanation of what scientific theory is, destroys itself. If scientific theories were any more than guesstimations... that is, if they were fact... the science community would long ago have stopped calling them theories, and started calling them scientific laws or scientific principles. So, the scientific community destroys your explanation. Anybody who believes as you do, is just as deluded as you are.

Now that we know that science theory believers are believing in something not proven, we see that they are religious in their belief. They have made science theory into religion for themselves. This includes all who believe in a faulty Wikipedia article.

How does science show that the records in the Bible are honest and true? Enlighten us.

You keep fucking talking about theories when I already explained to you what a scientific theory means, at this point I don't know if you are stupid or trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Ice cores include gas and water that are millions and millions of year old.
You can get them out and look how they behave (half life of the isotopes).

Tree rings dont work because old tjikka "dies" every day 600 (?) years.

The Bible is eye witness records that science shows are honest records, even though the science for this isn't pubicly known very well, or accepted, often.


Why do you think that I don't believe anything that scientists say? Why might you believe science theories to be true, when the fact that they ARE theories shows that they are not necessarily true?



My proof is simply the upholding of fundamental proofs that science generally upholds and uses.

Why are you against science? God made it, and is using it to show us about Himself. But you are trying to deny it.



EDIT: Why are you constantly going off-topic about evolution? Now you are even trying to bring in other threads that are not about evolution.

And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now.

The carbon dating and tree ring processes work. Why believe in them? They are known.

The thing that is unknown is how far into the past these things worked the same as they do in the present. If they happen to have worked a lot differently 5,000 years ago, and we knew how they worked back then, our interpretation of earth age would be different.

Since we don't know how they worked back then, we can use them only to present a guesswork picture of the age of the earth. Did you catch that? Guesswork.

Same said ice layer depositing, and every other method for measuring past ages. They are all essentially circular references, since they are based on the past acting the same as the present. But we don't know if the past acted the same as the present. Because of this, they can't be used for any more that guesses. We don't know how old the earth is.

Badecker doesnt believe in carbon dating and your example doesnt work with looking at tree rings af newbie.

Something of more interest would be ice core analysis.
Check that out and bring it in connection with carbon dating badecker.

Wow! You are starting to catch on a little.

As Stalin said words to the effect of, "It's not he who votes that counts, but he who counts the votes," even so, the victors in the battles are the ones who write the histories. Historical writings need to be compared over many areas, and against traditions of the people, to get somewhat of an accurate picture of what happened in the past.

Tree ring accuracy may be able to be shown for the last few hundred years. But it isn't known to have always acted that way.

If you start giving money to God, you might never have enough money to travel the world. But God might be grateful enough that He will allow you to find faith in Him so that you are saved.

The evidence with Wikipedia is that, the articles that are re-updated by those who have an agenda, when anybody updates it with things that make sense. So, updating wouldn't make iny difference. It would simply be changed back.

The source is the fact that nobody knows what happened in the distant past. Using the make-believe ideas about the distant past to prove something, only proves that such a user is being deceptive. It is circular reasoning.

As I said in my previous post, above, nobody knows the true age of this tree, because nature may have operated differently in the past than it does now.

Anyway, Wikipedia is a place that anybody can put himself into the position of posting something. It's a good place to start... to get a basic idea. But it can't be relied on for absolute factual truth.

All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork.

Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these.

However, big bang is make-believe. Science theory is incomplete science.

Show us a tree older than 7,000 years and the proof that it is that old.

Religion very well explained the beginning of the universe and life, long before science could explained it.
All process of creation is very well explained in Genesis.
God first created universe or sky.
After that, water, land, animals and on the end man.
How people could know it 6000 years ago?
No way!
Science can just explain universe after big bang, creation.
Before it, beyond time and space and before creation, there is no natural laws to explore, nothing, only God.
So, if time and space didn't exist, natural laws to, it's obvious that science can't explain or prove it.
Only creator can.

Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years.

Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time.
Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. 
Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods.
Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate.
Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time.  Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA.

And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual.


Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are.

How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months?
How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days?

Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down.

Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion.

Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes.

If evolution means the conversion, over time, of inorganic to today's human and other life, evolution is a complete lie. The truth is that, because of detrimental mutations (a beneficial mutation has never been seen), we are devolving.

The term "natural selection" indicates free will in nature. Has science been saying that nature is alive all along? That would indicate God.

Changes are due to cause and effect. They are programmed in. Nothing random ever happens. Every happening has at least one cause that makes it happen. There is no proof of even one random happenstance, but there are easily provable cause and effect operations acting all around us all the time.

I'm talking about lifespan, to show you two things:
1. How greatly complex the universe is, and;
2. How feeble our greatest efforts are.

What do you think I am trying to refute? Medicine in general has found out a lot of information. Outside of a few corrections in disease, what has medicine really given us? Very little. Why? Because the complexity of the universe is way beyond what we are able to accomplish. We barely have been able to figure out much of anything compared with what there is to know.

Mostly the things of nature in general are so complex, that if used like they could be, they would far surpass the greatest accomplishments in current modern medicine. Surpass in what way? In benefits for the people, rather than amassing wealth for Big Pharma.

If evolution means the conversion, over time, of inorganic to today's human and other life, evolution is a complete lie. Perpetrating this lie on people makes the lie a hoax. How do we know it is a lie? Check out all the websites that show the various reasons why evolution is impossible. I have listed a few, basic reasons in this and other threads.

Nobody knows that there was any C-4 in the atmosphere, say, beyond 5,000 years ago. If there wasn't, that would throw all of our carbon dating dates off by millions or billions of years. Similar unknowns exist in all the fields of scientific time measurement except one. Can you guess which one that is? It shows that the earth is for sure 4,500 to 5,000 years old. Science is flawed in determining the age of the universe. True Earth age is completely unknown by current scientific methods. They are all guesses.