Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, there is not much difference in the ages of the fossils if you pay attention to which ones are human ancestors and which ones are modern humans.Well, take the youngest date 130,000 years ago. A day would still be much less than 20 hours.
I guess you missed the point, there are a big discrepancies in the dates.
If you want and support that as evidence so be it,but you're are just using opinions that are not reliable or proven. It definately don't prove you right and me wrong.
Do you accept that apes existed when days were shorter than 20 hours?
I cannot think of a greater waste of time than arguing with somebody's FAITH.
I don't understand why believers bother with it, and I especially don't understand why non-believers bother with it.
In order to really debate something, the debaters have to have enough COMMON GROUND to even have the debate.
In this case there is no common ground because one is coming at the discussion based on FAITH and the other is not.
Really...what's the point?
When one encounters a believer who is SO CLUELESS about their OWN belief system that they truly imagine that they NEED science to justify it?
Seriously, debating the science with THEM? A total waste of time.
Not only do they not understand science, they don't understand FAITH, either.
The reason YWC hates science, is because many different scientific fields have proven parts of the Bible to be impossible and downright crazy. So he's going to continue his own personal war against science until he's pushing up daisies.
Sounds to me like that is his problem, not yours.
Hey if it amuses you to debate the SCIENCE, then by all means go for it.
But speaking as some kind of believer, these debates have always stuck me as something only the truly deperate dogmatic believers and dogmatic desperate atheists get involved with.
There is NO conflict between FAITH and SCIENCE.
These two thought systems actually live in totally different universes.
I agree it is a waste of time, we're all wasting time on this board when we could be doing something more productive.
I agree there is no conflict in faith in terms of believing in a god and science.
However there is a conflict when you have faith in things that are proven to be wrong and impossible by science, and you try to pass off the things you have faith in as science in order to replace the real science.
Very true. So very true. Completely different thought processes, but some are very adept at compartmentalizing those thought processes. Some clearly cannot.....
There is NO conflict between FAITH and SCIENCE.
These two thought systems actually live in totally different universes.
Frankly I'm amazed YWC is bragging about his degree from Arizona.
Evolution
Some great podcasts on their website on the following subjects;
Biological Evolution
Cosmic Evolution
Social Evolution
Animal Evolution
Human Evolution
and the one I've already addressed that YWC blindly dismissed because he was too lazy to read about it, Disease Evolution
I'm surprised he would brag about getting his education from an institution that teaches so many "crazy" theories that YWC has already totally debunked.
Because i was young at the time, like many here. Then i grew up,And i think a pac-10 school is not exactly a fly by night school. I had people insulting my views on science and making comments and talking to me like i don't understand what they were taught.They didn't understand i was once one of them.
I see, so when i get older and wiser I will then believe that T-Rex was a leaf eater and fitting every dinosaur and animal that's ever lived on to a 450 foot wooden boat is perfectly rational?
Well, maybe I will if Alzheimer's ever kicks in.
It's too bad you take the opinion of philosophy bloggers more seriously than the facts from your own university's scientists.
I think you're a tad bit confused. I'm not making a point, I'm refuting yours.
You said nothing [scientific] explains 'macro-evolution'. Something does - horizontal gene transfer. You posted some random facts about HGT in some sort of effort to say that HGT does not refute 'macro-evolution' because the coding for proteins common across most organisms are transferred less. I tell you that obviously they don't need to be.
So, you've done nothing of the sort.
So you moved the goalposts.
Trust me you can't refute anything i am saying it is subject to opinion.
My question still stands i don't see an answer to it.
So am i correct to assume, that no form of communication could come in to existence without a brain,a thinking, reasoning, process?
It was answered multiple times why a god isn't necessary for DNA, just go back and read through the thread or if you like I can copy and paste posts already made.
Because i was young at the time, like many here. Then i grew up,And i think a pac-10 school is not exactly a fly by night school. I had people insulting my views on science and making comments and talking to me like i don't understand what they were taught.They didn't understand i was once one of them.
I see, so when i get older and wiser I will then believe that T-Rex was a leaf eater and fitting every dinosaur and animal that's ever lived on to a 450 foot wooden boat is perfectly rational?
Well, maybe I will if Alzheimer's ever kicks in.
It's too bad you take the opinion of philosophy bloggers more seriously than the facts from your own university's scientists.
I am not sure what you will believe,but it's called maturing.
I worked in the field all my life since college.
So you moved the goalposts.
Trust me you can't refute anything i am saying it is subject to opinion.
My question still stands i don't see an answer to it.
So am i correct to assume, that no form of communication could come in to existence without a brain,a thinking, reasoning, process?
It was answered multiple times why a god isn't necessary for DNA, just go back and read through the thread or if you like I can copy and paste posts already made.
Nope, that is not how information is created absent of a brain.
Do you people understand Horizontal gene transfer ?
Define it would you.
The FLoT is not a theory, it is a PROVEN law, PROVEN by a REPEATABLE experiment.No, it shows time had a beginning. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed according to the proven First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Another theory.
It was answered multiple times why a god isn't necessary for DNA, just go back and read through the thread or if you like I can copy and paste posts already made.
Nope, that is not how information is created absent of a brain.
Do you people understand Horizontal gene transfer ?
Define it would you.
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g., its parent or a species from which it has evolved.
Yes I know what it is, it's a part of evolution so it's something you need to deny to keep your charade going.
Yes, a scientific theory and, by definition, a falsifiable theory.No, it shows time had a beginning. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed according to the proven First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Another theory.
Your theory, that God created life/the universe/whatever, is not falsifiable, thus it is a theory that is non-scientific, by definition.
You really should read Popper. Your foolishness in science is now showing like a cheap slip.
Yes, it does. Simply because you don't understand does not mean it doesn't.Nope, that is not how information is created absent of a brain.
Do you people understand Horizontal gene transfer ?
Define it would you.
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g., its parent or a species from which it has evolved.
Yes I know what it is, it's a part of evolution so it's something you need to deny to keep your charade going.
Here comes wiki anyone who believes as you do can put their two cents on that site. I don't deny it but it does not do what you say it does. You're the one that has believe it does something that it doesn't.
What charade?Yes, a scientific theory and, by definition, a falsifiable theory.Another theory.
Your theory, that God created life/the universe/whatever, is not falsifiable, thus it is a theory that is non-scientific, by definition.
You really should read Popper. Your foolishness in science is now showing like a cheap slip.
I will no longer carry on this charade,please prove your points.
Answer my question.
That is untrue.I think you're a tad bit confused. I'm not making a point, I'm refuting yours.
You said nothing [scientific] explains 'macro-evolution'. Something does - horizontal gene transfer. You posted some random facts about HGT in some sort of effort to say that HGT does not refute 'macro-evolution' because the coding for proteins common across most organisms are transferred less. I tell you that obviously they don't need to be.
So, you've done nothing of the sort.
So you moved the goalposts.
....
I don't trust anyone's word for anything. I trust objective evidence and you've produced none that can support your claim that macro-evolution is unexplained by science.
I, and others, on the other hand, have produced plenty of objective evidence.
I am pretty sure most of us here understand why you don't see..... My question still stands i don't see an answer to it.
....
No..... So am i correct to assume, that no form of communication could come in to existence without a brain,a thinking, reasoning, process?
What charade?Yes, a scientific theory and, by definition, a falsifiable theory.
Your theory, that God created life/the universe/whatever, is not falsifiable, thus it is a theory that is non-scientific, by definition.
You really should read Popper. Your foolishness in science is now showing like a cheap slip.
I will no longer carry on this charade,please prove your points.
Answer my question.
Your theory is non-falsifiable and is, by definition, not scientific.
The Newtonian laws are falsifiable, thus scientific, by definition.
Observed? Sure they have. So have you.That is untrue.So you moved the goalposts.
....
I don't trust anyone's word for anything. I trust objective evidence and you've produced none that can support your claim that macro-evolution is unexplained by science.
I, and others, on the other hand, have produced plenty of objective evidence.
I am pretty sure most of us here understand why you don't see.
No..... So am i correct to assume, that no form of communication could come in to existence without a brain,a thinking, reasoning, process?
Really,no one has ever observed Macro-evolution but you believe what they say ?
Yes, it does. Simply because you don't understand does not mean it doesn't.Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g., its parent or a species from which it has evolved.
Yes I know what it is, it's a part of evolution so it's something you need to deny to keep your charade going.
Here comes wiki anyone who believes as you do can put their two cents on that site. I don't deny it but it does not do what you say it does. You're the one that has believe it does something that it doesn't.
HGT 'created' nothing. HGT exists and takes place. HGT explains macro-evolution.What charade?I will no longer carry on this charade,please prove your points.
Answer my question.
Your theory is non-falsifiable and is, by definition, not scientific.
The Newtonian laws are falsifiable, thus scientific, by definition.
The charade that horizontal gene transfer created communication.
It is not a matter of "belief." It is a matter of proof. All you need do is repeat James Prescott Jule's experiment YOURSELF and CONFIRM it for yourself.The FLoT is not a theory, it is a PROVEN law, PROVEN by a REPEATABLE experiment.Another theory.
So you believe matter has no beginning and no end.
How can they put an age on the universe if matter don't have a beginning ? Their discovery showed the beginning of time,you can't have time without motion.
