57XX years ago...

F

frogman2x

Guest
There ARE many observations of sequential change. But in order to prove the idea of evolution, they are way way way not enough. It goes the wrong way. Examples can not prove principle, no matter how many are there.

agreed
I am interested to learn a type evidence of evolution which does not involve any kind sequential change. May be this wish is not a possibility.

It is not possible.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why do humans have a tailbone and a dormant gene to produce tails? Why do birds have a gene that could produce teeth? Why have dinosaur fossils, which are millions of years old, been found with traces of feathers in them?

These are examples that give hints. It proves nothing.

In the same way, I can ask: why not ....? why not .... ? why not ....? (for example, why don't we have dense, long body hair? Why don't we have horns on the head? )
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Neither did the bible writers,and at least evolution is supported by evidence.

Then present the evidence and please don't just quote some evolutionist and present what he says as fact.

So you believe in a story that is contrary to science, contrary to reality and that was also never observed by anyone.

The Genesis account is not contray to real science. it is contrary to pseudo-science.


Even if Moses wrote Genesis, which for the sake of this discussion, we say he did, then he never observed anything in either creation tale.[

That's right and no evoluionist has ever witnessed anything they preach. The did not see the matter of the universe come into being. the did not see the first life form and they can ony guess wht it was, come into being. They did not see wht they claim the first life form was evolve into something than a blob from the primordial ooze.

And yes, there are TWO separate creation stories. Which one is right? They both can't be.

There is only one for those who take the time to prayerfully study Genesis instead of accepting without evidence what someone posted on a skeptic website

And yes, germ and viral evolution has been observed in labs.

It is amusing that evolutionist try to prove evolution by germs remaining germs. That is called breeding not evolution. When they become something oher than germs, get back to me.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

Alvis

Harry Potter
Aug 30, 2013
1,438
25
Here
✟1,906.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Why do you assume that everyone who rejects evolution has the same intelligence as an uneducated, backwoods pastor? It seems you feel you need to embelish your comments to try and make all who reject evolution as being uneducated.

There are many more educated than you are who also reject evolution and it is rejected on scientific grounds, not only on wht the Bible teaches.

Since nothing in the ToE can be proven, you accept what the evolutionist, evangelists preach by faith alone.

At least we have a possible answer for how the universe came into being, you do not. You also have no answer as to how life began. You don't know what the first life form was but even if your guess is right, you can't explain, scientifically of course, how some single celled something could ever produce complex life forms from its gene pool.

So I will accept the understanding of the uneducated backwoods preacher over your lack of enough intelligece to explain what I have just mentioned.

kermit

Because polls show that is true.

Well, the fact is, the earth is billions of years old. If you want to dispute this, you might as well argue that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

You might as well argue for Stork theory for human reproduction, to quote a famous biologist.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
God is intentionally deceptive, since he made the world to look billions of years old just to screw with some scientists. I guess he put the oil in the ground for us to use as fuel for our vehicles too.

He did not make it look old. The evolutionists who dislike God pointing to their lack of real scientific knowledge just think it looks old but can't prove it is.

What makes a rock look old?

kermit
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Because polls show that is true.

Talk is cheap. Show me the poll.

Well, the fact is, the earth is billions of years old. If you want to dispute this, you might as well argue that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

Talk is cheap, show me the evidence.


You might as well argue for Stork theory for human reproduction, to quote a famous biologist.

Even that is better than what the evolutionists claim, but can't prove. Tell us all what was the first life form and how did it come into being? Be sure the explanation is scientific, which means it can be proven.

If you can, and you can't, be sure to end your explanation with "and they lived happily ever aftwards. :)

kermit
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
The age of the earth has been established to within 1% accuracy. If you want to quibble over that 1% uncertainty, fine, but it is not going to get you anywhere near 6,000 years in place of 4,700,000,000 years.

I'm from Missouri. Where is the evidence? I will save my quibbling for the method used to determine the age.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I'm from Missouri. Where is the evidence? I will save my quibbling for the method used to determine the age.

kermit


Here is an explanation from NASA.
WMAP- Age of the Universe

I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so if you want to quibble about method, I suggest you contact them directly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
F

frogman2x

Guest
Here is an explanation from NASA.
WMAP- Age of the Universe

I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so if you want to quibble about method, I suggest you contact them directly.

They only said they can measure certain things but they did not say how those things related to time.

For one thing they certainly do not know if the expansion of the universe has been constant for billions of years. It might have even contracted off and on over the years.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
They only said they can measure certain things but they did not say how those things related to time.

For one thing they certainly do not know if the expansion of the universe has been constant for billions of years. It might have even contracted off and on over the years.

kermit

How do you know they don't know? Perhaps you need to ask them to explain to you how they relate to time. To me the speed of light information seems self evident. If we are currently seeing light emitted from an object 10+billion light years away, it must have taken that long to reach our telescopes and so must have been there that long ago. (Maybe it is not there now, but we won't know that for another 10+billion years when we stop seeing it.)

And as far as I know, they have not claimed the expansion of the universe has been at a constant rate. In fact IIRC, part of the theory is that there was an initial inflationary period in which the expansion was very rapid. And recent research indicates that the rate of expansion is currently accelerating. So the conclusions relative to time do not depend on a constant rate of expansion.

I would strongly suggest that you direct your questions directly to physicists who have been working on this project.

Just ask them: how does this data show us how old the universe is.
 
Upvote 0

Alvis

Harry Potter
Aug 30, 2013
1,438
25
Here
✟1,906.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
He did not make it look old. The evolutionists who dislike God pointing to their lack of real scientific knowledge just think it looks old but can't prove it is.

What makes a rock look old?

kermit

Proof for this outlandish claim?

Dating proves the earth is very old. God, this is ridiculous. :doh:
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Try this: evolution is not real science. ^_^

kermit

It easier to laugh then to show the evidence for one thing in the ToE that as been scientifically proven. I always challange the evos to give me one, just one thing evolution has ever proven. So far not one has answered the challange. Would like to be the first and I promse not to laugh at your example.

kermit
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
F

frogman2x

Guest
How do you know they don't know? Perhaps you need to ask them to explain to you how they relate to time.

They don't know because they never produce the evidence. Now the article was not written to give great details so from it, how do you know they know.

One thing I do know is that they do not know if the rate of expansion has been constant and they do not know if it contratred from time to time over al those years.


To me the speed of light information seems self evident. If we are currently seeing light emitted from an object 10+billion light years away, it must have taken that long to reach our telescopes and so must have been there that long ago. (Maybe it is not there now, but we won't know that for another 10+billion years when we stop seeing it.)

Her is anothe thing I know. God could hve cratged the unvierse with all of the light we h ve now in place, and you don' know if he didn't.

And as far as I know, they have not claimed the expansion of the universe has been at a constant rate.

If they do not know that, they acnnot say their calculations are relaible.

In fact IIRC, part of the theory is that there was an initial inflationary period in which the expansion was very rapid. And recent research indicates that the rate of expansion is currently accelerating. So the conclusions relative to time do not depend on a constant rate of expansion.

The have no evidence for that either. That is a necessay theorey to ry and make the rest of theier gusses look more reliable.

I would strongly suggest that you direct your questions directly to physicists who have been working on this project.

I would stsrongly suggest that you question those working on the project to provide more than we said it happened. That way you will not have to accept by faith alone.

Just ask them: how does this data show us how old the universe is.

They said how they did it in the article. If you want to accept it, be my guest.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Her is anothe thing I know. God could hve cratged the unvierse with all of the light we h ve now in place, and you don' know if he didn't.

Of course that is possible, if you like the idea that God created a fake universe. I have no idea why anyone would want to believe that.



If they do not know that, they acnnot say their calculations are relaible.

Actually, when you read the article, it shows how they tested the reliability of their calculations. They know that the date they estimated using the WMAP data is accurate within 59 million years or 0.4% of 13.77 billion years. IOW the actual age of the universe, taking into account all the variables they mentioned, is somewhere between 13.18 and 14.36 billion years.


I would stsrongly suggest that you question those working on the project to provide more than we said it happened. That way you will not have to accept by faith alone.

I expect that if I learned enough math and astronomy to check it out I would get the same answers. I that if you learned enough math and astronomy to check it out yourself, you would get the same answers. Why would we not get the same answers using the same data?

Seems to me the only way to not get the same answers is your option above: the universe is a fake and God made it that way. So we can't trust the data. As I see it, not trusting the data is the same as not trusting God.


They said how they did it in the article. If you want to accept it, be my guest.

kermit

So, you contradict yourself. Your first response is that they did not show the relationship of the data to time. Now you say they do explain how they got their answers in the article.

Since, indeed, they do explain not only how they got their answers, but even how they checked for reliability, for what reason other than stubbornness would one not accept it?
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Of course that is possible, if you like the idea that God created a fake universe. I have no idea why anyone would want to believe that.

What is fake about it?

Actually, when you read the article, it shows how they tested the reliability of their calculations. They know that the date they estimated using the WMAP data is accurate within 59 million years or 0.4% of 13.77 billion years. IOW the actual age of the universe, taking into account all the variables they mentioned, is somewhere between 13.18 and 14.36 billion years.

They don't know all of the variables. In fact they don't know any of the variables. They don't know is the degree of expansion has been constant and they don't know if at sometime the universe contractred for a time.

I expect that if I learned enough math and astronomy to check it out I would get the same answers. I that if you learned enough math and astronomy to check it out yourself, you would get the same answers. Why would we not get the same answers using the same data?

It doesn't matter how much math you know. You can't sove for X if you do not know values of a and b .

Seems to me the only way to not get the same answers is your option above: the universe is a fake and God made it that way. So we can't trust the data. As I see it, not trusting the data is the same as not trusting God. <<

If God made it that way, it certaily isnt a fake. What makes you think it is a fake is becauae you think it looks old.

So, you contradict yourself. Your first response is that they did not show the relationship of the data to time. Now you say they do explain how they got their answers in the article.

Of clure the explained it but their data was not provable.

Since, indeed, they do explain not only how they got their answers, but even how they checked for reliability, for what reason other than stubbornness would one not accept it?

I admit I am a bit stuborn but IMO, that is better than being gullible.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
What is fake about it?

The evidence and the reality don't match up. That's fake.



They don't know all of the variables. In fact they don't know any of the variables. They don't know is the degree of expansion has been constant and they don't know if at sometime the universe contractred for a time.

You are repeating an argument already shown to be wrong. Scientists do know the expansion was not constant. But the galaxies are still billions of light-years away. The globular clusters still show signs of immense age. That evidence is independent of the rate of expansion. So they do know variables too.



It doesn't matter how much math you know. You can't sove for X if you do not know values of a and b .

You may not know a and b. The astronomers apparently do.



If God made it that way, it certaily isnt a fake. What makes you think it is a fake is becauae you think it looks old.

If there is a contradiction between how God made it and how it looks like God made it, that is fakery. I don't know about you, but I don't think God engages in fakery. So I take it that God made it the way it looks like it was made and as long ago as it looks it was made.



Of clure the explained it but their data was not provable.

Data is. It is observed, not proved. You don't have to prove data.



I admit I am a bit stuborn but IMO, that is better than being gullible.

kermit

It is also possible to be wilfully ignorant.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
F

frogman2x

Guest
The evidence and the reality don't match up. That's fake.

What evidence.


You are repeating an argument already shown to be wrong. Scientists do know the expansion was not constant. But the galaxies are still billions of light-years away.

The do not know if the rate of increase or decrease has been constant for billions of years. Has the rate decreased since it has been being measured?

The globular clusters still show signs of immense age. That evidence is independent of the rate of expansion. So they do know variables too.

How have they measured the age of these clusters? Do thy have material in hand that they can test? They may know there are variables, but they do not know if they have been constant for that many years. They have no idea if they were constant for thousands or millions or billions of years. They do not know for how long the unverse expanded or remaind the same or contracted.

You may not know a and b. The astronomers apparently do.
What maks you think they do. Have you seen the formula and the values they use for a and b?



If there is a contradiction between how God made it and how it looks like God made it, that is fakery.

Right.

I don't know about you, but I don't think God engages in fakery. So I take it that God made it the way it looks like it was made and as long ago as it looks it was made.

I dont know about you but I think God is perfetly capable of using "billions" instead of "day" if that is what He waanted us to know.

Data is. It is observed, not proved. You don't have to prove data.

If it is not prooved, it is not reliable. You do have to prove data if you are going to use it for your opinions.

It is also possible to be wilfully ignorant.

Of course but wih a little study and common sense you can over come it.

I have found that when somone has to result to insults it is because they cannot defend what they have said.

kermit
 
Upvote 0