Originally posted by flyUnityOur little toe is getting smaller that the little toes of our ancestors of less than a thousand years ago.
Our little toe is getting smaller? whos are you comparing it to?
And from my experiance, People are wearing less clothes now days then before.
Less hair? you mean less then a monkey?
I wouldnt call anything you said in your post "proof" The Theory of Evolution, Its more of a theory, so is Intelligent design.
Also IMO when the monkey adapts t ...[text shortened]... or it to adapt it would have to, yet we have simple living cells, to very complex human beings
While people are wearing less clothes in warm climates they certainly are not in cold climates where the inhabitants were much hairier than the thier neighbors to the south.
No, I mean less hair than man had less than 1000 years ago in northern climates.
While you can try to deny the things I have pointed out, you cannot point to one thing that gives proof of a creator.
Originally posted by CliffLandinIm not going to argue that man has more or less hair then 1000 years ago, nor that they wear more or less clothes, I dont know, and dont really see what this has got to do with old earth-young earth debate. I keep telling myself that I shouldnt debate this subject, as its a waste of both our time.
Our little toe is getting smaller that the little toes of our ancestors of less than a thousand years ago.
While people are wearing less clothes in warm climates they certainly are not in cold climates where the inhabitants were much hairier than the thier neighbors to the south.
No, I mean less hair than man had less than 1000 years ago in norther ...[text shortened]... deny the things I have pointed out, you cannot point to one thing that gives proof of a creator.
Your right, I can not prove that a creator exist. never said I could, I was merely responding to you who said that there is no scientific evidence of young earth, when IMO there is.
Well Im off for the night, good night, and thanks for the debate 🙂
Originally posted by flyUnityNot exactly. The humans occupy a different niche than the monkeys do. While the monkeys live high up in trees, we humans made our way ont o the ground. This means that we do NOT compete for resources, and therefore, cannot drive on another to extintion. Just because some monkeys evolved (or rather changed a little), not all of them did. If you are going to attack the theory of evolution, make sure that you know what you are talking about.
Also IMO when the monkey adapts to a human, the monkey should die off, in order for it to adapt it would have to, yet we have simple living cells, to very complex human beings
Originally posted by flyUnityI'm not arguing young earth. I am giving you examples of evolution that you can see with your own eyes. I asked you to do the same for ID. I am not surprised that you can't, neither could the attorneys for the ID clowns in PA.
Im not going to argue that man has more or less hair then 1000 years ago, nor that they wear more or less clothes, I dont know, and dont really see what this has got to do with old earth-young earth debate. I keep telling myself that I shouldnt debate this subject, as its a waste of both our time.
Your right, I can not prove that a creator exist. never s ...[text shortened]... earth, when IMO there is.
Well Im off for the night, good night, and thanks for the debate 🙂
Originally posted by CliffLandinOh? I thought you was
I'm not arguing young earth. I am giving you examples of evolution that you can see with your own eyes. I asked you to do the same for ID. I am not surprised that you can't, neither could the attorneys for the ID clowns in PA.
CliffLandin: "And a 10,000 year old earth. Let's see some cold, hard facts for that one."
Your examples of Evolution are lame IMO.
You keep asking for evidence of ID and not young earth, but isnt evidence of young earth evidence of ID? Im not at all saying that the evidence I gave you earlier are credible, Im just saying there is evidence and I believe it is credible.
Originally posted by flyUnityAnd I believe that the idea of flying pigs is credible.
Oh? I thought you was
CliffLandin: "And a 10,000 year old earth. Let's see some cold, hard facts for that one."
Your examples of Evolution are lame IMO.
You keep asking for evidence of ID and not young earth, but isnt evidence of young earth evidence of ID? Im not at all saying that the evidence I gave you earlier are credible, Im just saying there is evidence and I believe it is credible.
It's just never going to happen.
By the way, after the New Year (prob Jan 2) me and Umbrageofsnow are going to get back to your list.
Oh, but here's a teaser.
Newton calculatated the age of the earth by adding up the number of generations that were listing in the bible. Therefore it automatically fails as science, because it rests on an untestable assumption (i.e. the veracity of the bible).
Lord Kelvin worked out the age based upon the cooling of rocks from a molten to solid state and came up with a minimum of 24 million years. He never knew about the radioactive decay occurring in the earths core (radioactivity wasn't discovered and characterised until the late 1800's, by M. Curie).
Earth has subsequently been radiodated by multilple techniques independantly to 4.45 - 4.53 Gya.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNewton? Don't you mean the Bishop James Usher?
And I believe that the idea of flying pigs is credible.
It's just never going to happen.
By the way, after the New Year (prob Jan 2) me and Umbrageofsnow are going to get back to your list.
Oh, but here's a teaser.
Newton calculatated the age of the earth by adding up the number of generations that were listing in the bible. Therefore it au ...[text shortened]... h has subsequently been radiodated by multilple techniques independantly to 4.45 - 4.53 Gya.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat did you think of that clip you was gonna listen to? Do they know what their talking about?
And I believe that the idea of flying pigs is credible.
It's just never going to happen.
By the way, after the New Year (prob Jan 2) me and Umbrageofsnow are going to get back to your list.
Oh, but here's a teaser.
Newton calculatated the age of the earth by adding up the number of generations that were listing in the bible. Therefore it au ...[text shortened]... h has subsequently been radiodated by multilple techniques independantly to 4.45 - 4.53 Gya.
Originally posted by rwingettMy bad, I accept that I wrote it from memory.... I'll check it out. The point is that many other investigators have shown, using independant dating techniques, that the planet was not created in 4004 BC, despite it being a nice palindrome.
Newton? Don't you mean the Bishop James Usher?
Originally posted by flyUnityFor a more complete list of loonies....
I think Newton and Bishop James Usher, used Bible genalogy to estimate the earths age. I agree, their method isnt scientific
Dating the Creation
There have been many attempts to establish the age of the Earth using historical methods. Among those of interest to us here (and these are just a sampling) are:
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340):
3184 BC, based on biblical chronology
Kepler:
3993 BC, combining biblical and other sources
Hevelius:
October 24, 3963 BC at 6 pm, by means similar to Kepler's.
Newton:
3998 BC, using biblical and classical texts, but also including the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts as an historical event(!).
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually, this entire page is good. And it gives a plausible explanation for the 4000BC figure too...
For a more complete list of loonies....
Dating the Creation
There have been many attempts to establish the age of the Earth using historical methods. Among those of interest to us here (and these are just a sampling) are:
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340):
3184 BC, based on biblical chronology
Kepler:
3993 BC, combining biblical an ical texts, but also including the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts as an historical event(!).
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/deeptime.html
Originally posted by flyUnityOk, so my examples are lame. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Can you give me an example of ID that is shown in our every day world. I gave you some that are obvious examples of humans evolving. Evolution is not a dramatic thing. It is little things that happen over thousands of years. And trying to date the earth using the bible is not only not scientific, but it is moronic. I don't care who did it. "Okay I have this book written 2000 years ago that chronicles the Isrealites. The first story in it is about creation so if we count the generations from this book then we can figure out how old the earth is." Are you serious. That is about a stupid as teaching this crap as science.
Oh? I thought you was
CliffLandin: "And a 10,000 year old earth. Let's see some cold, hard facts for that one."
Your examples of Evolution are lame IMO.
You keep asking for evidence of ID and not young earth, but isnt evidence of young earth evidence of ID? Im not at all saying that the evidence I gave you earlier are credible, Im just saying there is evidence and I believe it is credible.
So I ask you once again, give me an example of Intelligent Design that we can see and evaluate for ourselves. If you can't do that then just go home.
Okay, as promised my half of the refure to fly's list.
1) Kepler / Newton refutation, already covered. (Non-science, and nonsense)
2) Evolutionary biologists (of the 1800's) USED to have a chronosequence of fossils, but no hard and fast dates. These have subsequently been dated by radioisotope dating. Guess what? Older than 4004 BC. (very old stuff, some of it pre-Darwin, only part of the story - cherrypicked)
3) fossil dating. Fossils dated by radioisotope dating. This is done by looking at the isotope signature and working out how long the rock has been around based upon the rate of conversion of one element to another during radioactive decay. Nothing to do with the fossils inside the rock at all. (this is just a plain outright LIE)
4) This makes an untestable and unrealistic assumption. Firstly, it's not as easy as the straight extrapolation your source implies. Things like the plague and other pandemics have not been taken into account for frequent de-populations of the world (the plague of the 14thC killed 1/3 of europes population). Secondly, population growth would not have taken off until agriculture was invented 12,000 or so years ago. At this point humans were still geographically restricted to northern africa, and their progress into northern latitudes has hampered by retreating ice sheets. Three using a 0.5% p/a population growth model is a gross simplification on many levels. First, that model gives an exponential rate of population growth, which it is not. See this link
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
Second assumption is that both birth and death rates have not changed. The single biggest reason for our current population is a reduced death rate due to antibiotics etc. Old people don't reproduce very readily! (playing with numbers without a firm grasp of reality).
5) River pour tonnes of sediment into the oceans. Geological processes lift ocean basins up! How else do you account for ancient fossils in the rocks of the high himalyan mountains (which are being pushed up and north by 2cm every year)? Subduction of tectonic plates returns rock material to the core where it is recycled and thrown up in volcanic activity. Australia is a great example of where this isn't happening. The flattest, driest continent on earth. Continents DO wear down over time, especially if they're not continually being forced up by tectonic action! (poor quality 1950's 'science'😉
6) Polystratic fossils. All this shows is that some fossils are produced quickly, for instance burial of a still standing tree by a land slide. The tree is very much harder than the waterlogged (and hence anaerobic) soil it is encased in. Whilst the soil will be squeezed into one fossil layer, the tree being harder can become polystratic. Another possibility is that the tree was in a situation where it would not decay over long periods of time (such as a volcanic hot pool, or an acidic peat bog), sediment layers piled up around it, whilst it did not decay itself. (arguing incredulity, instead of facts)
More soon!