Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines

You have none. None. You are a shameless liar to say otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.

The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse. They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.

Oh. OK, that makes sense. So... T-Rex and the other dinosaurs grew into adulthood after Noah’s sea cruise? Noah only collected juvenile dinosaurs?

I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?

If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?

Why did they disappear?

Noah didn't collect anything. God sent the creatures to the ark. To fit on the Ark, they were younger dinosaurs.

>>I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?<<

I'm going to skip this as it's not fair to the OP and his topic.

>>If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<

They're not old. Only evos think they are millions of years old.

>>Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<

C'mon, you should know this. Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines (More evidence for them lying and being wrong).

>>Why did they disappear?<<

I don't think the Bible says. They may have died to the asteroid impact.

The gods sent the creatures to the Ark? By magic or telepathy or something?

Younger dinosaurs being sent to the Ark means that the dinosaurs all growd' up into adult dinosaurs. I get it that your conspiracy theory is that evos are fooled by the ages of dinosaurs but I'm curious how evos have managed a worldwide conspiracy that includes all of the relevant science disciplines and the relevant teaching universities to become co-conspirators? Is it realistic to insist that there is a worldwide conspiracy of evos?

How are religios's so certain in ''it says so in the bible'' when the bible says nothing about dinosaurs? How much different were gravity and the oxygen levels I the atmosphere a few thousand years ago to allow Men to live for 900 years?

The dinosaurs died from an asteroid impact? Did the impact kill only dinosaurs and no other forms of life?

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is winning in more ways than one. For example, with falsifiability, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable . It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal. These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified. Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins. I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity. If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world. Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states. Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys. We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth. Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon. What do you think they're going to come up with? A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon? Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?

Actually, James, you've got it backwards. Potential infinities do exist in nature beyond minds! A potential infinity is a finite amount/number of something at any given instant in time or being tending toward infinity as the limit.

Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only. ∞ is a surreal number, denoting a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds at all! God is not an actual infinite. When we say that God is infinite, we mean that he is incomparably great, perfect, the quintessence of being, the greatest possible being in all of his attributes and ways.

Potential and actual infinities pertain to quantities, not qualities.

Further, the hypothesis of evodelusion, in and of itself, is arguably falsifiable, and aspects of the hypothesis have been falsified in the past to the effect that the hypothesis has been revised accordingly over time. But it does not follow from this that evodelusion has been falsified. Hollie is absolutely correct to point that out, yet continues to wrongly understand my observations.

The following is my position:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

​

While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

 

[Hollie]

Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is winning in more ways than one. For example, with falsifiability, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable . It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal. These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified. Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins. I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity. If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world. Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states. Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys. We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth. Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon. What do you think they're going to come up with? A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon? Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?

Actually, James, you've got it backwards. Potential infinities do exist in nature beyond minds! A potential infinity is a finite amount/number of something at any given instant in time or being tending toward infinity as the limit.

Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only. ∞ is a surreal number, denoting a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds at all! God is not an actual infinite. When we say that God is infinite, we mean that he is incomparably great, perfect, the quintessence of being, the greatest possible being in all of his attributes and ways.

Potential and actual infinities pertain to quantities, not qualities.

Further, the hypothesis of evodelusion, in and of itself, is arguably falsifiable, and aspects of the hypothesis have been falsified in the past to the effect that the hypothesis has been revised accordingly over time. But it does not follow from this that evodelusion has been falsified. Hollie is absolutely correct to point that out, yet continues to wrongly understand my observations.

The following is my position:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

​

While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

Gee whiz. All that pompous, AIG inspired blathering is why you still can't get science right.

It is not difficult to understand how the religious extremists / science illiterate could make such a claim about mutations. In part, they're science illiterate, obviously, and in part, they have an agenda to press so they lie and attempt to deceive. Any organism altered by mutations can be ''unaltered'' by mutations. Some mutations add ''information'' to a genome; some remove information. ID'iot Creationers dishonestly and deceptively try and pass off their fraudulent claims by leaving the term "information" as undefined, as a moving goal post or impossibly vague. By any rational definition, increases in ''information'' have been observed to produce evolutionary change. We have observed the evolutionary processes of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, unique genetic material and even unique, genetically-regulated abilities.

Gene duplication is a mechanism that is common for adding ''information'' in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has shown several instances in which this is apparently the origin of some proteins. If the above does not qualify as ''information'', then we see more confirmation that ID'iot creationers have nothing relevant to contribute to matters concerning science. .

 

[Ringtone]

Gee whiz. All that pompous, AIG inspired blathering is why you still can't get science right.

It is not difficult to understand how the religious extremists / science illiterate could make such a claim about mutations. In part, they're science illiterate, obviously, and in part, they have an agenda to press so they lie and attempt to deceive. Any organism altered by mutations can be ''unaltered'' by mutations. Some mutations add ''information'' to a genome; some remove information. ID'iot Creationers dishonestly and deceptively try and pass off their fraudulent claims by leaving the term "information" as undefined, as a moving goal post or impossibly vague. By any rational definition, increases in ''information'' have been observed to produce evolutionary change. We have observed the evolutionary processes of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, unique genetic material and even unique, genetically-regulated abilities.

Gene duplication is a mechanism that is common for adding ''information'' in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has shown several instances in which this is apparently the origin of some proteins. If the above does not qualify as ''information'', then we see more confirmation that ID'iot creationers have nothing relevant to contribute to matters concerning science. .

Gee whiz, all that pompous blathersmack of little knowledge.

Actually, gene duplication and the inherent point mutations are degenerative in terms of information, wherein no new or different function is acquired relative to the original. Rather than resulting in neofunctionalization (new functions), the result of gene duplication is subfunctionalization (the division of the original functions among two or more genes).

Collectively, the point mutations constitute a neutral mechanism by which duplicate genes are sometimes preserved. Accumulatively, this entails a mutational loss of function and information in each, albeit, in such a way that complements the other copy and sometimes adaptively optimizes the function of the original, which is integrated into a more complex genetic pathway. The process is called duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC). Finally, the more complex pathways rarely optimize the function of the singular ancestor in any significant way and tend to be selected out via genetic drift.

Now drop and give me 50, and make it snappy!

Still winning!

 

[Hollie]

Gee whiz. All that pompous, AIG inspired blathering is why you still can't get science right.

It is not difficult to understand how the religious extremists / science illiterate could make such a claim about mutations. In part, they're science illiterate, obviously, and in part, they have an agenda to press so they lie and attempt to deceive. Any organism altered by mutations can be ''unaltered'' by mutations. Some mutations add ''information'' to a genome; some remove information. ID'iot Creationers dishonestly and deceptively try and pass off their fraudulent claims by leaving the term "information" as undefined, as a moving goal post or impossibly vague. By any rational definition, increases in ''information'' have been observed to produce evolutionary change. We have observed the evolutionary processes of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, unique genetic material and even unique, genetically-regulated abilities.

Gene duplication is a mechanism that is common for adding ''information'' in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has shown several instances in which this is apparently the origin of some proteins. If the above does not qualify as ''information'', then we see more confirmation that ID'iot creationers have nothing relevant to contribute to matters concerning science. .

Gee whiz, all that pompous blathersmack of little knowledge.

Actually, gene duplication and the inherent point mutations are degenerative in terms of information, wherein no new or different function is acquired relative to the original. Rather than resulting in neofunctionalization (new functions), the result of gene duplication is subfunctionalization (the division of the original functions among two or more genes).

Collectively, the point mutations constitute a neutral mechanism by which duplicate genes are sometimes preserved. Accumulatively, this entails a mutational loss of function and information in each, albeit, in such a way that complements the other copy and sometimes adaptively optimizes the function of the original, which is integrated into a more complex genetic pathway. The process is called duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC). Finally, the more complex pathways rarely optimize the function of the singular ancestor in any significant way and tend to be selected out via genetic drift.

Now drop and give me 50, and make it snappy!

Still winning!

Gee whiz, just more of that pompous blathering of little knowledge. Once again, you play the "information" weasel stolen from your fundie creation ministries while never being able to define what "information" actually means.


Force, A., M. Lynch, F.B. Pickett, A. Amores, Y.-L. Yan, and J. Postlethwait. The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531-1545. 1999.

Gene duplication is commonly given as the explanation for the increase in complexity via the acquisition of new functions. This paper addresses the standard scenario of duplication followed by either an adaptive mutation leading to the preservation of both genes or followed by degeneration of one of the copies. Since detrimental mutations are more likely than benificial mutations, the classical model predict that one of the duplicated genes will become a psuedogene. Actual data seems to indicate that the number of functional copies is larger than expected from the classical model and the authors present an interesting alternative. The alternative explains duplicate gene preservation by the fixation of a degenerative mutation rather than a more rare benificial mutations. The authors also present data from the Zebrafish consistent with this new model.

ABSTRACT The origin of organismal complexity is generally thought to be tightly coupled to the evolution of new gene functions arising subsequent to gene duplication. Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old. However, empirical data suggest that a much greater proportion of gene duplicates is preserved than predicted by the classical model. Here we present a new conceptual framework for understanding the evolution of duplicate genes that may help explain this conundrum. Focusing on the regulatory complexity of eukaryotic genes, we show how complementary degenerative mutations in different regulatory elements of duplicated genes can facilitate the preservation of both duplicates, thereby increasing long-term opportunities for the evolution of new gene functions. The duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model predicts that (1) degenerative mutations in regulatory elements can increase rather than reduce the probability of duplicate gene preservtion and (2) the usual mechanism of duplicate gene preservation is the partitioning of ancestral functions rather than the evolution of new functions. We present several examples (including analysis of a new engrailed gene in zebrafish) that appear to be consistent with the DDC model, and we suggest several analytical and experimental approaches for determining whether the complementary loss of gene subfunctions or the acquisition of novel functions are likely to be the primary mechanisms for the preservation of gene duplicates.




Kindly stick to your silly poetry. All that pompous blathering affords you is the luxury of not having to defend a science position.


You can't help but lose.

Bullfrogs croaking

 

[Hollie]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.

A fraud.

 

[james bond]

Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines

You have none. None. You are a shameless liar to say otherwise.

smh. I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline -- Bible Timeline.

 

[james bond]

Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is winning in more ways than one. For example, with falsifiability, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable . It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal. These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified. Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins. I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity. If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world. Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states. Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys. We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth. Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon. What do you think they're going to come up with? A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon? Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?

Actually, James, you've got it backwards. Potential infinities do exist in nature beyond minds! A potential infinity is a finite amount/number of something at any given instant in time or being tending toward infinity as the limit.

Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only. ∞ is a surreal number, denoting a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds at all! God is not an actual infinite. When we say that God is infinite, we mean that he is incomparably great, perfect, the quintessence of being, the greatest possible being in all of his attributes and ways.

Potential and actual infinities pertain to quantities, not qualities.

Further, the hypothesis of evodelusion, in and of itself, is arguably falsifiable, and aspects of the hypothesis have been falsified in the past to the effect that the hypothesis has been revised accordingly over time. But it does not follow from this that evodelusion has been falsified. Hollie is absolutely correct to point that out, yet continues to wrongly understand my observations.

The following is my position:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

​

While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

I have it right. It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world. They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities. Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world. It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world. For example, we can have a set of counting numbers. Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things. Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

 

[james bond]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.

A fraud.

You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud. While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.

The math proof is explained here.

 

[Hollie]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.

A fraud.

You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud. While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.

The math proof is explained here.

I have disproved the thread claim. Prove I haven’t.

Evolution and common descent are among the best supported theories in science. Your silly conspiracy theories have never been taken seriously.

 

[Hollie]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Surprising no one, now 7 pages into a thread babbling about math and challenges to the Theory of Evolution and... wait for it... here it comes... No Math.

A fraud.

You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud. While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.

The math proof is explained here.

You’re impressed by YouTube videos with some knucklehead making a video in his basement.

 

[james bond]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

 

[Hollie]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.

You need some new Bibles.

 

[ReinyDays]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud. While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.
The math proof is explained here.

The mathematical proof hasn't been submitted, thus the proof becomes a lie of omission ... I agree there's no money being transacted, so technically it's not a fraud, just a lie ...

Where is your disproof of common descent? ...

The video is just a philosophical statement ... and is mistaken ... the claims apply to vector spaces well enough but outside this type of grouping things aren't quite as absolute as the video assumes ... for example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true with our definition of addition, change the definition and we come up with a different answer ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

You haven't done the math ... just how hard is it to add up the numbers in the Bible? ... Budda didn't finish Middle School ...

This video gives the date at around 4185 BC for the creation ... long after the Bronze Age ... or are you saying God is a lair? ...

 

[james bond]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.

You need some new Bibles.

Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question? The evolution timeline is fake.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why don't you answer my question? The evolution timeline is fake.

I did answer ... it's your Biblical timeline that's wrong ... it's simple addition, did you even make it through Grammar School? ...

The evolution timeline starts with carbon-dating ... do you understand how carbon-dating works? ... oh wait, you don't believe in carbon, my mistake ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline.

False. We have remnants of civilizations that predate the creation myth in the Bible's timeline.

Bond, do you ever get tired of running headfirst into brick walls? Literally every time you make a claim, it is false. Every time.