11 Mar 12
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsEstimates of how old the Earth is are not dependent on how long it takes wood to petrify.
In general it takes less than 100 years for wood to petrify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood
There some people on here that think I am a troll so i will humor them and
leave. See on the Sprituality Forum.
There is overwelming physical evidence that the Earth is millions of years old.
you should also look as this:
http://www.answersincreation.org/poop.htm
11 Mar 12
Originally posted by humyMake a thread on the Spirituality Forum if you want to discuss this. I got
Estimates of how old the Earth is are not dependent on how long it takes wood to petrify.
There is overwelming physical evidence that the Earth is millions of years old.
the hint I am not want on this forum by some that think I am ignorant of
science. They don't realize how ignorant they are. I'm leaving this forum.
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsyou're ignorant of spirituality as well, please leave all the forums.
Make a thread on the Spirituality Forum if you want to discuss this. I got
the hint I am not want on this forum by some that think I am ignorant of
science. They don't realize how ignorant they are. I'm leaving this forum.
12 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsEvolution requires by its definiton, unless you changed the definition again, that there be at least some benefit. This error in the reproduction process causes harm with no benefit. Clearly this is not what I understand to represent anything close to an evolutionary process
What causes Down syndrome?
Down syndrome occurs because of an abnormality characterized by an extra copy of genetic material on all or part of the 21st chromosome. Every cell in the body contains genes that are grouped along chromosomes in the cell's nucleus or center. There are normally 46 chromosomes in each cell, 23 inherited from your mother and 23 fr learly this is
not what I understand to represent anything close to an evolutionary process.
Just worth reminding you that evolution "requires" benefit only in this sense - that there is an advantage for purposes of reproduction. Phrased without spurious notions of intention or design or purpose, what it says is that mutations may survive in the genes of future generations if they improve the chances of successful reproduction, or if they have no impact on reproduction, but will not survive in the long run if they reduce the chances of reproduction.
Nothing in this says that all mutations must be beneficial in any other sense whatever. Nothing at all. Most mutations are not helpful and do not survive. Some types of mutation may recur many times but they are not (or not often) transmitted genetically and need not have any impact whatever in terms of evolution.
As discussed in another thread, this is an example where failure to define a term (in this case - what is meant by "benefit" ) leads to confusion. Sadly, that confusion is not random and not accidental, but is intended and has a purpose, which is to make wildly irrational arguments appear strangely sensible. You can confuse all of the people some of the time...
This error in the reproduction process causes harm with no benefit.
By the way I am not interested in making negative remarks about people with Downs Syndrome, who are often very attractive and loving, well worth having around. I have to worry about the notion that they represent an example of "harm with no benefit" but I have never known zealots to be noted for their instinctive charity. Other social values would produce a very diffferent and less nasty judgement. We do not live on the much referenced Savannah, where the weak perish brutishly, but in many societies the weak are protected and cherished and it is particularly in modern, capitalist society that life is reduced to its economic potential and the economically useless are disposable.
Doesn't this make it clear to you that there is no new information and that it is only duplication of the same information that was already there.
Try this argument with your bank. Reorganise the numbers a little and tell them you are a very promising prospect instead of deep trouble. I have tried variations on this theme so many times and not always without some success. Usually I fail, but always worth trying.
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat would'nt be because the theory of relativity does not directly contradict your infantile literal interpretation of the bible would it.😏
The theory of relativity is much closer to fact than the theory of evolution will
ever be. That is because the theory of evolution is false. Something that is
false can not be proven true by true scientific methods.
12 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by kevcvs57You think?
That would'nt be because the theory of relativity does not directly contradict your infantile literal interpretation of the bible would it.😏
I've made the exact same charge several times before, he would have no grip with say, nuclear fusion science, or geology, unless of course, it would provide evidence, god forbid, that the earth was more than 10 thousand years old. If it is just digging up mineral samples for a mine or something, no problem. Or mathematics, unless it would be that part of math that refutes the idea of creation, etc.
How can one logically accept some sciences but others that refute the bible are always false? I'm sure he has no gripe with the science of medicine or DNA treatment for diseases or aerodynamics or atmospheric sciences. They are not false sciences. Funny how they use exactly the same scientific method that the dreaded evolutionary biologists use yet they are not false science, only that which refutes the bible, they are part of a vast hidden atheistic conspiracy to kill christianity.