A Bio Genesis

@humy said
No, because they aren't design. But if they were design then, yes, they surely would be bad design. For example, designing a giraffe neck vagus nerve to go from the brain to pointlessly loop around the heart and go back up the neck would be a very stupid thing to do that not even a half-wit of a human would likely do let alone a (hypothetical) all-knowing all-wise god!
[quote] ...[text shortened]... is no upper limit to the complexity evolution can incrementally create over many millions of years.

Even your math about millions of years and incrementally changing through evolution is a fairly tail that has nothing to do with reality. You have the numbers required over time, just for the formation of a cell? Evolutionary claims about small changes of already established lifeforms cannot give you any insight into something new useful and required to be formed. How many incrementally small changes did it take to build a liver for life that didn't have one to life that did and needed? You don't know your fairy tales are underpinned by 'millions of years' as if time is your savior for anything when it actually does nothing for you other than hide the fact you cannot prove your assertions.

You have "I have checked this. There are no advantages." Really, are you sure?

@kellyjay said
Even your math about millions of years and incrementally changing through evolution is a fairly tail that has nothing to do with reality.

Nope. It is scientific fact that the earth is millions of years old and that evolution incrementally creates changes in species.
First for old Earth;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Potassium-argon_dating_method

“.... Potassium-argon dating
This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks.
...”

but, there are several OTHER radiometric dating methods that can and have been used and they give good independent agreement of the approximate age of the oldest rocks:

(on the same link - )

“...The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[13][18] An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks ...”

There is also plenty of evidence for evolution creating incremental changes but not all evolutionary changes are quite so 'incremental' because sometimes it happens relatively fast. Example;

https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

So old Earth and evolution theory is based on evidence and reason (which is just another way of saying its based on science because that's what science is about) while your objection to it isn't but rather is based purely on some religious beliefs. I would say a belief based purely on some religious beliefs rather than on evidence and reason is much more likely to be, as you said, "a fairly tail that has nothing to do with reality".

@humy said
Nope. It is scientific fact that the earth is millions of years old and that evolution incrementally creates changes in species.
First for old Earth;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Potassium-argon_dating_method

“.... Potassium-argon dating
This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 ...[text shortened]... reason is much more likely to be, as you said, "a fairly tail that has nothing to do with reality".

When you say facts are those then something’s that will not change with the addition of new information they will only be confirmed, or are your facts always subject to change?

@kellyjay said
When you say facts are those then something’s that will not change with the addition of new information they will only be confirmed, or are your facts always subject to change?

They are already confirmed. Do you seriously think scientists dating Earth would rely on just one technique? There is a whole range of dating techniques and they overlap so techniques like C14 poops out at 50,000 years or so they use different science to do older stuff.
Your objection is strictly religious so nothing we say will ever convince you of age of Earth or any other subject dealing with Earth that goes against your religion.

@sonhouse said
They are already confirmed. Do you seriously think scientists dating Earth would rely on just one technique? There is a whole range of dating techniques and they overlap so techniques like C14 poops out at 50,000 years or so they use different science to do older stuff.
Your objection is strictly religious so nothing we say will ever convince you of age of Earth or any other subject dealing with Earth that goes against your religion.

I don’t care what method or methods are used that was not my question, so now according to you these facts will never be shown as anything other then what is said now! Nothing can alter what you know is true right now in any degree one way or another?

@kellyjay said
I don’t care what method or methods are used that was not my question, so now according to you these facts will never be shown as anything other then what is said now! Nothing can alter what you know is true right now in any degree one way or another?

So tell me you are not objecting based on your religion.

@kellyjay said
I don’t care what method or methods are used that was not my question, so now according to you these facts will never be shown as anything other then what is said now! Nothing can alter what you know is true right now in any degree one way or another?

Would you call the roundness of the globe a fact?

@sonhouse said
So tell me you are not objecting based on your religion.

I am trying to get you to define your verbiage. If you are going to tell me you have scientific facts I would like to know what you mean by that!

Are your facts unchanging so every new piece of data only validates them, or are they subject to change given new information that can undermined what was once thought to be a factual?

@kellyjay said

Are your facts unchanging so every new piece of data only validates them,

Yes.

or are they subject to change given new information that can undermined what was once thought to be a factual?

That is a contradiction if that is a 'true' fact you are talking about here. If it is a 'true' fact we are talking about, how can it be proven wrong? If it is proven wrong then it was never a fact to start with.
A scientific fact, as opposed to a strictly 'true' fact I just spoke of above, is defined as a theory that has so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that its just not credible that any future evidence would prove it wrong although we can never completely exclude the possibility. To date and unsurprisingly given its immense improbablity, I am so far unaware of any such scientific theory that was apparently shown to be scientific fact by what I would see as overwhelming evidence/sound-reasoning supporting it which later was proven false via later new evidence. Can you give any example of such a proven scientific theory along with later new evidence that proved it false?

@humy said
Yes.

So you can tell the earth is X years old and that means it is not X .5 or -.5 whatever X is?

@kellyjay said
So you can tell the earth is X years old and that means it is not X .5 or -.5 whatever X is?

If you looked up the history of dating the age of Earth you will see first the 6000 odd year of religion, but then geologists started realizing Earth was a LOT older, but the first estimates were in the millions of years, but as the actual dating techniques came online, it went to billions and now some 4 odd billion years old but not 2 billion, not 6 billion not 5 billion but four and change. It is only the 'and change' part that changes, a few million years here and there plus or minus but FOUR BILLION years, so a change of say 4 million years in the estimate means a change of one part in a THOUSAND.
You DESPERATELY want ALL that data to be totally wrong so you can continue your believe in the 6000 year date given NOT IN THE BIBLE BUT BY LATER ANALYSIS, Joe Begat Robert who begat, who begat, as if all those begats are 100% accurate which is impossible but that doesn't phase you one whit. Let me remind you that analysis came from HUMANS not from your god.

You seem to figure scientists are still haggling over the age of the Earth and therefore you can throw doubt here but the 'doubt' is one or 2 parts in a THOUSAND as far as differences between techniques and different sciences involved. THEY ALL SAY 4 BILLION years plus/minus a small number compared to that huge age.
But you will not accept that argument either will you?
Humy beat me to it the accepted age, 4.543 billion years old, notice the 4 digit accuracy. Whether the age turns out to be 4 billion or 5 billion that is a LOT older than that pathetic 6000 year figure of those tilting at windshields.

@kellyjay said
So you can tell the earth is X years old and that means it is not X .5 or -.5 whatever X is?

The Earth is approximately 4.543 billion years old give or take up to 0.5 billion years old if we are extremely generous with the maximum assumed margin of error in the scientific estimations.
What is absolutely certain even given the most ridiculously WILDLY allowed assumed margin of error is that the Earth is over, say, 1 billion years old. The evidence in the layers of rock etc overwhelmingly prove it to such a degree that if you saw and understood all the evidence for it and still deny it then that's like you being a member of the flat-Earth society.

@sonhouse said
If you looked up the history of dating the age of Earth you will see first the 6000 odd year of religion, but then geologists started realizing Earth was a LOT older, but the first estimates were in the millions of years, but as the actual dating techniques came online, it went to billions and now some 4 odd billion years old but not 2 billion, not 6 billion not 5 billion bu ...[text shortened]... r 5 billion that is a LOT older than that pathetic 6000 year figure of those tilting at windshields.

It doesn’t matter what people think about the age if it’s a factual statement, points of view are irrelevant no matter what they thought, why they thought, or when.

@kellyjay said
It doesn’t matter what people think about the age if it’s a factual statement, points of view are irrelevant no matter what they thought, why they thought, or when.

In other word, screw all of you, Earth is 6000 years old. Period. No discussion allowed. What about the part where it was not your god saying that, it was HUMANS?
Just how can you look at a rock formation that is twisted 180 degrees like taffy and think that could have come about in a few thousand years?

@sonhouse said
In other word, screw all of you, Earth is 6000 years old. Period. No discussion allowed. What about the part where it was not your god saying that, it was HUMANS?
Just how can you look at a rock formation that is twisted 180 degrees like taffy and think that could have come about in a few thousand years?

You are the only here bringing up 6000 years old. I'm just trying to find out what you mean by facts. If you want to start a conversation about God I'd be happy too, and if you want to take to proper forum for that we can. I don't think you can carry on a conversation without bringing up God in some way here with me.