Logic, Darwin, Dating, and God

[Mikeenders]

which trying to take selective evidence and put 10 pounds of Manure in a 5 pound bag.

If you are going to start out a reasoned respectful discussion with rhetoric of manure then we probably would have extended the criteria to exclude all fundies.

Claims of 66 million or even 100,000 years ago are not realistic when there were not any evidence of organized human societies at these times that would hand down oral nor written records

Thats logically incoherent. What evidence would you expect to have of oral "records"? Please do tell. I guess you could start with an oral "record" of even five thousand years ago we know about that does not rely on written records. Unless you can show humans didn't speak a 100,000 years ago that was just all bluster.

[rogue06]

Even the most ardent supporter of pure naturalism would place any human being at 66 million years ago. How do you see this? I would place the flood at more like 100,000 years ago.

IIRC, around 100,000 years ago the anatomically modern humans or modern Homo sapiens first appeared as did the first signs of jewelry.

As for myself, I've mentioned previously that I don't care all that much for evolution. I was raised an OEC, rejected evolution out of hand and describe my eventual acceptance of evolution as being figuratively dragged kicking and screaming by the evidence. I didn't like it. I didn't want to accept it. But if I wanted to know the truth I had to accept what the evidence kept showing over and over, again and again. Even so, it took several more years before I finally, accepted that it included humanity as well. Until then I studiously avoided the implications.

When Michael Behe released Darwin's Black Box in the mid 90s I had high hopes that finally I would see some legitimate scientific evidence against evolution rather that the same hoary old PRATTS. It was quite a let down, essentially boiling down to little more than a slightly updated version of the God of the gaps argument. Twenty years later, the evidence for evolution has only continued to increase.

[Mikeenders]

Your post is thick with name calling and very questionable comprehension of science. I will respond to these questionable statements individually.

FUNDIE ALERT!!! Where is this thick name calling in my post???? Someone asked me my views and why I believe them and I answered. You come into this thread with lying is a sure sign of your inability to reason coherently on this issue. You get to sign off on no ones qualifications with such ignorance. BE angry...the evidence for particularly any unguided evolution fades with ever year and I specifically noted atheistic darwinism.

If you are so outraged at the idea that atheistic darwinism can be questioned then you are a fraud claiming to be a theist.

P.S. No mention of radiometric dating anywhere in my post. No questionable science either because we have not even gotten into any - you are just outraged that I mentioned any areas of science in my introduction.

[Mikeenders]

When Michael Behe released Darwin's Black Box in the mid 90s I had high hopes that finally I would see some legitimate scientific evidence against evolution rather that the same hoary old PRATTS..

You must have not read him very well. Speed reading doesn't count. Michael Behe does not reject Evolution. The book challenges random or Non ID evolution not Evolution in general.

The whole PRATT thing to me is just ignorance and a psychological ploy I see a lot of in this area. Its just too eaasy to say something was refuted in the past so that you don't have to deal with it.

Atheist use that ploy all the time - that s just the first cause argument - yep - old but never totally refuted even once.

Behe has his good and his not so good points but again if you read Behe for a take down of evolution your disappointment was your own fault.

[shunyadragon]

If you are going to start out a reasoned respectful discussion with rhetoric of manure then we probably would have extended the criteria to exclude all fundies.

Still waiting on your qualifications to make the claims you are making.

That's logically incoherent. What evidence would you expect to have of oral "records"? Please do tell. I guess you could start with an oral "record" of even five thousand years ago we know about that does not rely on written records. Unless you can show humans didn't speak a 100,000 years ago that was just all bluster.

Not incoherent at all the Bible claims a rather advanced Iron Age culture to build anything like the Ark described. The only evidence for human culture 100,000 years ago other than simple primitive Stone tools.

We have counting tokens as early as ~9,000 years ago, and simple sea shell jewelry ~10,000 years old.. This and other evidence of the same period indicates the beginnings of culture.

What possible evidence do you have for anything possible in terms of a culture in the dates you propose thaqt could build something like an Ark?

[shunyadragon]

Among the few scientific reasons why I am dubious in atheistic Darwinism.

How so you distinguish atheistic Darwinism for scientific evolution which makes no claim to any religious belief: Methodological Naturalism.

Time for evolution - time keeps shrinking for almost all species .Two or three times for the year i search for "million years older" and every year ton loads of stories pushing dates back tens even hundred million years. Like it or not Darwinism was sold on changes over tens of millions of years and just this last week we are down to around five mill for dinosaurs.

I know of no claims that significant Dinosaura existed 5 million years ago? The Age of the Dinosaurs is 245 to 66 million years ago, and has not changed. Yes, descendants of reptiles ancestors of dinosaurs such as birds, crocodiles, alligators, and others have persisted until through geologic time up until the present. There is increasing fossil evidence for the earlier small proto dinosaurs that provide more links in the evolution to earlier species. This is no new news, nor is there any significant change in the time frame for the Age of the Dinosaurs. The overall age framework of the time of the first known life forms through the millions of years of evolution has not changed in recent years. Please cite your sources that support your assertions.

[Mikeenders]

Still waiting on your qualifications to make the claims you are making.

Still waiting for your qualifications to claim I am the only one in this thread that should list qualification. Move on to something of substance you are just waxing stupid on that.

Not incoherent

Totally incoherent. You cited no evidence of an oral record when we have no evidence of any oral record thousands of years ago that are not written records. Thats what I said was incoherent. Think next time

What possible evidence do you have for anything possible in terms of a culture in the dates you propose thaqt could build something like an Ark?

Read next time. I have proposed no such dates. Jedidiah did. I am pointing out that when you come in calling people's idea manure in what was trying to be a respectful discussion you should at least use coherent logic and not appeal to such nonsense as lack of evidence of an oral record.

I would go for less than that myself (but not goign to call someone's idea manure because of it) but rather than your claims - signs of the beginning of culture appear much sooner

http://www.livescience.com/21961-old...ge-humans.html

they also disappear and reappear indicating that it is an archaeological lack - absence of evidence is not an evidence of abscence

[shunyadragon]

Still waiting for your qualifications to claim I am the only one in this thread that should list qualification. Move on to something of substance you are just waxing stupid on that.




Totally incoherent. You cited no evidence of an oral record when we have no evidence of any oral record thousands of years ago that are not written records. Thats what I said was incoherent. Think next time



Read next time. I have proposed no such dates. Jedidiah did. I am pointing out that when you come in calling people's idea manure in what was trying to be a respectful discussion you should at least use coherent logic and not appeal to such nonsense as lack of evidence of an oral record.

I would go for less than that myself (but not goign to call someone's idea manure because of it) but rather than your claims - signs of the beginning of culture appear much sooner

http://www.livescience.com/21961-old...ge-humans.html

they also disappear and reappear indicating that it is an archaeological lack - absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence

Than there is no evidence for a culture that could produce a Iron Age ship like the Arc for the early ages proposed.

I am not making the claims challenging science. You need some basic scientific knowledge to understand the Genetics, Biology and Geologic evidence. Apparently you have none.

[Mikeenders]

I know of no claims that significant Dinosaura existed 5 million years ago? The Age of the Dinosaurs is 245 to 66 million years ago, and has not change

You are only showing yourself to be a rankly ignorant soul . I said nothing about Dinosaurs existing 5 million years ago. I said the time for them to evolve (from their predecessors) was now down to five million years and its right there in the link I provided which you did not even bother to read before making your bombastic VASTLY stupid rant.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-short-time/

IF English is your second language leave and return later when you are more advanced. You are just coming in swinging like a fool.

Than there is no evidence for a culture that could produce a Iron Age ship like the Arc for the early ages proposed.

No you are just making rants that show you are a blithering fool that can't read English destroying a thread that could have been meaningful, respectful and more coherent than you are capable of.

[Mikeenders]

Tao when you log in

this comedy is not worth my time. Sorry it didn't work out but if you want to contact me as I offered before then feel free. Unfortunately my view is becoming that Tweb is about a third to half of rejects from other boards. When you are dealing with people that cannot even tell the difference between how long a species takes to evolve from its predecessors and how long ago the species lived its time to pull the plug in wasting your time.

[shunyadragon]

You are only showing yourself to be a rankly ignorant soul . I said nothing about Dinosaurs existing 5 million years ago. I said the time for them to evolve (from their predecessors) was now down to five million years and its right there in the link I provided which you did not even bother to read before making your bombastic VASTLY stupid rant.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-short-time/

IF English is your second language leave and return later when you are more advanced. You are just coming in swinging like a fool.

No you are just making rants that show you are a blithering fool that can't read English destroying a thread that could have been meaningful, respectful and more coherent than you are capable of.

Sorry for the miscue, but your posts are kind of rambling without citing references. What is wrong with adjusting the time of evolution based on the evidence?

[Mikeenders]

Sorry for the miscue, but your posts are kind of rambling without citing references.

one thing consistent with a large number of you guys on this forum is that when you come in swinging in with your supreme ignorant vacant arrogance and fall splat on your face demonstrating your lack of comprehension and your own incredible incompetence you always try and pass it off to someone else as their fault. No manly character to take responsibility for your own failures

This is no exception and is laughably clear to see in this example. You are trying to slither off into me not citing references (in just a simple intro in a thread where no one but me has linked to a reference) as your excuse when you chose the very point which had a link and a reference right below it.


SMH with embarrassment for you....you have no shame.

Just once again showing how foolish infantile arrogance can get and why you are just constantly filled with rhetoric even when it makes no sense whatsoever.

You are not even worth responding or reading further.


toodles

[JimL]

Mike its very simple. If you want the discussion to include only certain individuals, the Non-fundies, then ignore those who you deem by their posts to be fundies. There is no good reason to suspend your discussion with Lao, or any other poster you deem to be worthy, just because you don't wish to interact with certain others here. Ignore them!

[Adam]

Mike,
Yes it is true that Shunya is frustrating to argue with, but even with that said, you intemperate replies only discredit you, not him.
He certainly has a valid point to question your credentials. I don't insist on such myself, but if your posts are going to be dogmatically your views then you must either support them with citations or list your credentials as an authority on what you say.

[rogue06]

Mike its very simple. If you want the discussion to include only certain individuals, the Non-fundies, then ignore those who you deem by their posts to be fundies. There is no good reason to suspend your discussion with Lao, or any other poster you deem to be worthy, just because you don't wish to interact with certain others here. Ignore them!

One could also request a one on one debate. There is even an area for this -- the arena.