The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely

[Cyberman]

At least s/he's honest about his/her dishonesty.

[Esquilax]

I never said that all science is wrong. Just the false origin science part.

I love science. I just do not like false science.

Right, you just hate all science which disagrees with your religion. Good luck with that.

No, she just hates all science that disagrees with her. Her religion, her god, have nothing to do with it, because "what that may mean is not always obvious."

In other words, she spins the bible just as much as she spins science, and expects the universe to keep up with her childlike, petulant whims.

[Tonus]

In general, I would say yes although what that may mean is not always obvious.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to leave any wiggle room, would we?

[Lemonvariable72]

I'm guessing that all science is wrong, unless it were to show that there was a guy named Jesus who lived some 2000 years ago, then science is infallible.

I never said that all science is wrong. Just the false origin science part.

I love science. I just do not like false science.

Do you know what the difference is between genesis, and the theory of abiogenesis?
Abiogenesis is a theory being eeked out through alot of hard work, because biology has one of the highest standard of evidence in the sciences. The reason for this is that biology is far more easily tested.
now more to my point is that if you wanted you could perform the miller uray experiment at at home, just have to spend a little money and do a lot of reading.
Can you propose e a experiment to test god??

[popeyespappy]

Pray in one hand. Shit in the other. See which one gets full first.

[ThomM]

The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely

When atheistic origin science gives dates, they seem to violate standard scientific practice. Real science gives a number and an error range. But atheistic origin science many times quotes a number without any error range. You will read things like 123 million years ago. Why the lack of an error range? What is the error range? How is that error range determined? This bad scientific practice shows that atheistic origin science is not real science.

To show why the real error range destroys atheistic origin science consider the following cases.

Case 1 – Determination of an intermediate species.

Ancestor 120 million years ago
Intermediate 115 million years ago
Descendant 110 million years ago

Seems straightforward. Now consider these same numbers with error ranges.

Ancestor 120 million years ago +- 10 million years
Intermediate 115 million years ago +- 10 million years
Descendant 110 million years ago +- 10 million years

Based on these numbers, then this could be the case.

Ancestor 113 million years ago
Intermediate 115 million years ago
Descendant 118 million years ago

That is the descendant came first, then the intermediate, then the ancestor. So that is now shown to be false.

Case 2 – determination of the rock layers

Top layer 100 million years
Middle layer 110 million years
Bottom layer 120 million years

Seems straightforward. Now consider these same numbers with error ranges.

Top layer 100 million years +- 10 million years
Middle layer 110 million years +- 10 million years
Bottom layer 120 million years +- 10 million years

Based on these numbers, then this could be the case.

Top layer 108 million years
Middle layer 118 million years
Bottom layer 112 million years

So the middle is the bottom and the bottom is the middle. That would be very hard to explain if these layers exist over a vast area.

Now combine the fossils in the out of order layers and ancestors are more recent than descendants. In fact the dates from case 1 and case 2 may conflict.

So the error ranges may put all the dates of the rock layers and fossil record in jeopardy.

What are the error ranges?

How are they determined?

Sorry - you are wrong

1 - Evolution is not a single theory - but actually quite a number of them.
2 - A number of the theories of evolution have already been proven true
Among them - that traits are passed from one generation to another - in this case the discovery of the Genome proved this to be true. AND - the discover of Dominant and recessive traits has also been proven true.
3 - YOU are proof that evolution exists - since YOU are a human - developed from two other humans - but YOU are not exactly like either of your parents -and likely have traits of BOTH of them - not just one of them. People like you often claim that we do not have the in between examples - but YOU are one of them.

AS far as the rest of your problem - it is WITHOUT DOUBT proven that the earth is far older than 6000 years or so of the timeline of genesis.
WE can prove that with counting of rings of some trees - and counting the annual layers at the polls. SO - we can PROVE that the BIBLE is wrong. At therefore your claim of creation is PROVEN WRONG as well.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely

When atheistic origin science gives dates, they seem to violate standard scientific practice. Real science gives a number and an error range. But atheistic origin science many times quotes a number without any error range. You will read things like 123 million years ago. Why the lack of an error range? What is the error range? How is that error range determined? This bad scientific practice shows that atheistic origin science is not real science.

To show why the real error range destroys atheistic origin science consider the following cases.

Case 1 – Determination of an intermediate species.

Ancestor 120 million years ago
Intermediate 115 million years ago
Descendant 110 million years ago

Seems straightforward. Now consider these same numbers with error ranges.

Ancestor 120 million years ago +- 10 million years
Intermediate 115 million years ago +- 10 million years
Descendant 110 million years ago +- 10 million years

Based on these numbers, then this could be the case.

Ancestor 113 million years ago
Intermediate 115 million years ago
Descendant 118 million years ago

That is the descendant came first, then the intermediate, then the ancestor. So that is now shown to be false.

Case 2 – determination of the rock layers

Top layer 100 million years
Middle layer 110 million years
Bottom layer 120 million years

Seems straightforward. Now consider these same numbers with error ranges.

Top layer 100 million years +- 10 million years
Middle layer 110 million years +- 10 million years
Bottom layer 120 million years +- 10 million years

Based on these numbers, then this could be the case.

Top layer 108 million years
Middle layer 118 million years
Bottom layer 112 million years

So the middle is the bottom and the bottom is the middle. That would be very hard to explain if these layers exist over a vast area.

Now combine the fossils in the out of order layers and ancestors are more recent than descendants. In fact the dates from case 1 and case 2 may conflict.

So the error ranges may put all the dates of the rock layers and fossil record in jeopardy.

What are the error ranges?

How are they determined?

Sorry - you are wrong

1 - Evolution is not a single theory - but actually quite a number of them.
2 - A number of the theories of evolution have already been proven true
Among them - that traits are passed from one generation to another - in this case the discovery of the Genome proved this to be true. AND - the discover of Dominant and recessive traits has also been proven true.
3 - YOU are proof that evolution exists - since YOU are a human - developed from two other humans - but YOU are not exactly like either of your parents -and likely have traits of BOTH of them - not just one of them. People like you often claim that we do not have the in between examples - but YOU are one of them.

AS far as the rest of your problem - it is WITHOUT DOUBT proven that the earth is far older than 6000 years or so of the timeline of genesis.
WE can prove that with counting of rings of some trees - and counting the annual layers at the polls. SO - we can PROVE that the BIBLE is wrong. At therefore your claim of creation is PROVEN WRONG as well.

1. Genetics is true. Atoms to mankind has been disproven entirely.

2. If you think that simple genetics is proof of atoms to mankind theory of evolution, you are blind. The fact that this is being used as the "proof" of the atoms to man theory of evolution, proves beyond all doubt that there is NO proof whatsoever. That is a desperate attempt that has failed.

3. Read 2 above.

4. You have absolutely not a single fact, not based on an assumption, of anything older than 6000 years ago. The "facts" you referred to are based on assumptions.

[Ryantology]

4. You have absolutely not a single fact, not based on an assumption, of anything older than 6000 years ago. The "facts" you referred to are based on assumptions.

What proof have you got that your god exists? This is, I believe, the ninth time I've asked.

[Captain Colostomy]

dendrochronology

This ain't no precocious presuppositionalist god hating wannabe christ killing conspiracy.

It's science.

[Cinjin]

Why is anyone debating this half-wit?


I mean even her own brothers-in-christ haven't sounded off in her behalf. Drich, JohnnyV, Godsdump, Statler ... none of the Brothers grim have shown up in defense of this imbecile. Clearly, shes a primitive. A throwback. The entire OP is ludicrous.

Why am I reading this thread?


Why am I writing in here when I could be ....