At BL, how old do you think the universe is?

(February 16, 2012 at 11:27 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: At BL, how old do you think the universe is?

I believe it is young. I used to believe in an old age of the Earth/Universe but after investigating the evidence I changed my mind.

(February 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: If you had lived at that time, you would have believed it too. Amazing how science can be completely wrong about something, isn't it?

The really good thing about science is that it has the means to eventually get it right. With your crap shoot approach of picking the holy book your family handed you, you either get lucky or stay wrong forever.

---

(February 16, 2012 at 10:19 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: So without the fossil evidence, and evidence actually contradicting the predictions of the theory, macro evolution is dead in the water.

If only saying a thing actually carried any power to make it so. Alas for you it doesn't.

(February 17, 2012 at 1:05 am)whateverist Wrote:

(February 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: If you had lived at that time, you would have believed it too. Amazing how science can be completely wrong about something, isn't it?

The really good thing about science is that it has the means to eventually get it right. With your crap shoot approach of picking the holy book your family handed you, you either get lucky or stay wrong forever.

---

(February 16, 2012 at 10:19 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: So without the fossil evidence, and evidence actually contradicting the predictions of the theory, macro evolution is dead in the water.

If only saying a thing actually carried any power to make it so. Alas for you it doesn't.

Apparently you didn't read my introduction. I grew up in a secular home. I am actually the only Christian in my immediate family, and I used to believe all the same things you do (in a general sense). I changed my mind because of evidence, not because of well wishing. I have found out that God is more than willing to provide evidence, and will, but not to stubborn and obstinate people who refuse to even consider the idea. I knew, as an agnostic, that our finite minds could not possibily comprehend the absolute truth about reality, and so I was open to that truth, and I didn't put myself in a box as to what it might be. How can you expect to see over that threshhold if you've closed the door and locked it? Answer, you will see nothing at all until you leave the key under the mat.

(February 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm)Phil Wrote:

(February 16, 2012 at 9:49 pm)Justtristo Wrote: There was a time when the complexity of lifeforms was a quite plausible argument for the existence of a creator. However after the publication of the Origin of the Species it ceased to be a legitimate argument for the existence of a creator. Since the Origin of the Species outlined a plausible and scientifically supported explanation for the complexity of lifeforms.

Those who still use this argument are either ignorant of evolution by natural selection or they understand it, thereby are being dishonest and hypocritical.

Just a nitpick....MISUNDERSTAND not understand.

I tend to put the misunderstanding into the ignorance bit myself.

---

(February 17, 2012 at 12:53 am)brotherlylove Wrote:

(February 16, 2012 at 11:27 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: At BL, how old do you think the universe is?

I believe it is young. I used to believe in an old age of the Earth/Universe but after investigating the evidence I changed my mind.

I am interested how after investigating the evidence you came to believe the Universe is relatively quite young?

(February 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm)Phil Wrote: Just a nitpick....MISUNDERSTAND not understand.

Just a nitpick, Justtristo is actually saying those WHO UNDERSTAND evolution, yet still use the intelligent designer argument, are being dishonest and hypocritical.

(February 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: If you had lived at that time, you would have believed it too.

How do you know? There have logically been atheists around for as long as there have been theists.

Quote:Amazing how science can be completely wrong about something, isn't it?

Providing the means for you to brain fart your pious evidence-free dogma all over the global system of interconnected computer networks [the Internet] isn't an example of one of those mistakes, its simply you misusing the application and technology available to you.

(February 16, 2012 at 10:13 pm)Godschild Wrote: I'm not ignorant

Yes you are.

(February 16, 2012 at 10:19 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: The situation hasn't changed. In fact, we have less examples of a transitional series than we did in Darwins time, due to most of them being debunked.

NONSENSE. First of all its amazing that we have any of them to start with. While the fossil record is incomplete, we've found many more transitional fossils after Darwins time. You only have to read a science journal every so often to find out what has been discovered.

Quote:So, according to darwin himself, without the fossil evidence his theory about common descent has a valid objection.

You know why? Because that's called intellectual honesty. He published his work and identified areas where people may raise objections to it and in spite of this justifies the available evidence points to life evolving from a common ancestor. Many creationists have tried and failed at quote mining Darwin so do yourself a massive favour and quit this pointless exercise while you're ahead.

Quote:We have less diversity today than we did then.

Because lifeforms can and do go extinct. Evolutionary 'dead-ends' and the various species that died out from natural selection, competition, changing environment and other factors both internal and external to our planet, are not evidence against the theory of evolution.

Quote:The tree of life simply does not reflect reality.

Its describing the relationships of all life on Earth in an evolutionary context. Its not a cosmological or cosmogonical theory attempting to understand the nature, and origin, of the Universe as a whole respectively.

(February 17, 2012 at 12:53 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I believe it is young. I used to believe in an old age of the Earth/Universe but after investigating the evidence I changed my mind.

Oh fuck me, you really are a YE creationist.

*ignores*

(February 17, 2012 at 12:53 am)brotherlylove Wrote:

(February 16, 2012 at 11:27 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: At BL, how old do you think the universe is?

I believe it is young. I used to believe in an old age of the Earth/Universe but after investigating the evidence I changed my mind.

I am aghast, what evidence would that be?

I ask @brotherlylove to actually pick up a book on evolution written by a biologist (it can be any), understand what evolution really is and then start arguing against it. The purpose of this exercise is not to make you believe in it, just asking you to fully understand the subject you are arguing against.

Evolution is much more than transition within or between species; which is the only thing you creationist "know" about evolution. Arguing against something which you have absolutely no knowledge about makes you nothing more than a silly, puny human being.

He needs to understand that the real issue is not evolution but the age of the universe. That is what really fucks his fairytale.