Important Facts about Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

Had you understood the conversation you would understand the inconsistency of all those things you claim to be lies, were truths not that far back when science was in its prime. So yes they are evolutions lies.

That doesn't make any sense.

I responded to a post in which you made a bunch of factual statement which you knew weren't factual at all. That makes the statements lies.

If you really meant something else, you should have mentioned it.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

According to the facts.

What is the basis of your facts? It's not like it was 1+1=2. Were talking about something that didn't involve any empirical evidence as to how the whale got there. Sure you can name the sediments, do DNA samples, but in the end it's speculation since were not present.

 

[BL2KTN]

When someone burns down your house, I want you to tell the cops "we can investigate this all you'd like, but in the end it's speculation since we were not present."

 

[toolmanjantzi]

That doesn't make any sense. I responded to a post in which you made a bunch of factual statement which you knew weren't factual at all. That makes the statements lies. If you really meant something else, you should have mentioned it.

I made statements regarding the inconsistencies of science and evolution. If you can't follow the conversation maybe you should try harder at being good and not accuse people of lying about questionable inconsistencies. As for Carbon-dating it was recent that the time was adjusted for correctness due to a inconsistency with regards to understanding carbon break down, sorry you missed that conversation. 100,000 years may not be the correct amount once thought to be measured by carbon dating. But you get the picture. Scientist believed the world to be 3 million, then 30 million years old and so on, you get the picture of inconsistency due to better technological advances for better measuring and testing; I get it. We were talking about INCONSISTENCY.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

When someone burns down your house, I want you to tell the cops "we can investigate this all you'd like, but in the end it's speculation since we were not present."

If you'd like. Maybe they might find one pubic hair that you dropped and flew near by and we can speculate you were the naked arsonist that burnt my house down.

 

[lasthero]

I made statements regarding the inconsistencies of science and evolution. If you can't follow the conversation maybe you should try harder at being good and not accuse people of lying about questionable inconsistencies. As for Carbon-dating it was recent that the time was adjusted for correctness due to a inconsistency with regards to understanding carbon break down, sorry you missed that conversation. 100,000 years may not be the correct amount once thought to be measured by carbon dating. But you get the picture. Scientist believed the world to be 3 million, then 30 million years old and so on, you get the picture of inconsistency due to better technological advances for better measuring and testing; I get it. We were talking about INCONSISTENCY.

As we learn more, we become more accurate. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is the basis of your facts?

Facts are facts. I don't require a basis for facts. I might require a basis for interpretation of facts, but the facts themselves are what they are.

It's not like it was 1+1=2. Were talking about something that didn't involve any empirical evidence as to how the whale got there.

The fact is that the strata all around it is consistent. The fact is that the strata itself got uplifted at some point.

Those are the facts. And those facts alone are enough to explain the seemingly odd position of the fossil. As it turns out, there's nothing odd about it.

Sure you can name the sediments, do DNA samples, but in the end it's speculation since were not present.

Ow, great... the "you weren't there" Ken Ham argument.

Don't expect me to address such nonsense.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

When someone burns down your house, I want you to tell the cops "we can investigate this all you'd like, but in the end it's speculation since we were not present."

Just because balls tend to roll down hill, does not mean the ball rolled or that the hill was ever a hill to begin with. Evolution of everything (not the biological adaptation of living things only). Is still a theory because the empirical evidence isn't enough to prove a speculation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I made statements regarding the inconsistencies of science and evolution

And those statements were shown to be silly, wrong, incorrect.

If you can't follow the conversation maybe you should try harder at being good and not accuse people of lying about questionable inconsistencies

If you don't understand the difference between "learning" and "being inconsistent", perhaps you shouldn't be talking about the methodology of science.

As for Carbon-dating it was recent that the time was adjusted for correctness due to a inconsistency with regards to understanding carbon break down, sorry you missed that conversation. 100,000 years may not be the correct amount once thought to be measured by carbon dating. But you get the picture

Yes, I get the picture.
The picture being that science makes progress, corrects old mistakes in the process, and for some strange reason... you are complaining about that.

Scientist believed the world to be 3 million, then 30 million years old and so on,

Again, it's called LEARNING.

you get the picture of inconsistency

No. They seem to be pretty consistent in correcting views when they are shown to be wrong. It's called LEARNING.

What are you complaining about, really? That science doesn't know everything about everything? Progress? Learning?
What is your actual objection here?

due to better technological advances for better measuring and testing; I get it. We were talking about INCONSISTENCY.

I still haven't seen any inconsistency. What you call "inconsistency", I call "progress".

 

[BL2KTN]

If you'd like. Maybe they might find one pubic hair that you dropped and flew near by and we can speculate you were the naked arsonist that burnt my house down.

Glad you saw the video. Yes, you and your ilk are exactly what the video parodies and demonstrates remarkably well how useless your flawed logic is. Congratulations on persevering and peddling it in the face of such terrific exposition as to its error!

 

[toolmanjantzi]

As we learn more, we become more accurate. Why is that a bad thing?

Do you think it's possible Theology works the same as older manuscripts appear; advances in archaeological findings, better understanding of the languages and cultures is learned, while no longer being worried that the Pope will have you killed for translating the bible.

Maybe if any of you atheist were actually good people you would stop the charades and ask real questions. For instance. You say Neanderthal but because the bible says Nephilim it is a mythical creature. You believe evolution through adaptation of species, the bible says there is a species that developed into other kinds. It's not rocket science. How about Gold near the Euphrates River where it splits, is the bible false yet today we mine for gold in that area? Science once counted the stars. The bible says their immeasurable, and so does science now.

If you want to be a wise Atheist then ask the right questions; don't speculate based on words? The word Earth can mean many different things in both the Hebrew, Greek and English.

Ground, land, people, planet, etc;

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is still a theory because the empirical evidence isn't enough to prove a speculation.

Your credibility took a further plunge with that statement.

Also "still" theories:
Germs
Atoms
Gravity
Relativity
Plate tectonics
....


Newsflash for the scientific illiterate: theory is the end-stage of an explanation. Theories don't turn into laws or facts. Theories are successfully tested hypothesis that explain laws and facts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you think it's possible Theology works the same as older manuscripts appear; advances in archaeological findings, better understanding of the languages and cultures is learned, while no longer being worried that the Pope will have you killed for translating the bible.

No. Theology does not have an embedded self-correcting mechanism.

In fact, today the purpose of theology seems to be the exact opposite: to find ways to reconcile the progress of science with ancient nonsense, just so theists can hold on to the beliefs that make no sense in light of modern scientific knowledge.

So in a very real sense, the purpose of theology is the exact opposite of the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to CORRECT previously held views and replace them with more accurate knowledge.
The purpose of theology does the opposite: it looks for ways to hold on to previously held beliefs.

Maybe if any of you atheist were actually good people

"Have sex with yourself" too. Sorry, can't say the "f" word here. But I'm sure you get it.

You say Neanderthal but because the bible says Nephilim it is a mythical creature

The difference is that we actually have the skeletons and the DNA of neanderthals. While you theists can't even agree on a proper definition of what a Nephilim is.

You believe evolution through adaptation of species

"believe" is a misleading word here. I don't "believe" that any more then I "believe" that I will plummeth to my death if I jump out of a flying plane without a parachute.

the bible says there is a species that developed into other kinds

No, it does not.

How about Gold near the Euphrates River where it splits, is the bible false yet today we mine for gold in that area? Science once counted the stars. The bible says their immeasurable, and so does science now.

Therefor, magical angels and talking snakes?

If you want to be a wise Atheist then ask the right questions; don't speculate based on words? The word Earth can mean many different things in both the Hebrew, Greek and English.

Ground, land, people, planet, etc;

Sure. So?

 

[lasthero]

Do you think it's possible Theology works the same as older manuscripts appear; advances in archaeological findings, better understanding of the languages and cultures is learned, while no longer being worried that the Pope will have you killed for translating the bible.

I don't think that's possible, because that's not how it works. If it did, the Bible would have been updated to reflect the facts that there was no global flood and that the Earth was older than 6,000 years. To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened. But then, that's what makes its dogma.

You say Neanderthal but because the bible says Nephilim it is a mythical creature.

I don't care what you call Neanderthals. That doesn't change any of the facts about them. If you want to pretend their Nephilim or whatever, be my guest.

the bible says there is a species that developed into other kinds.

What is a 'kind'?

How about Gold near the Euphrates River where it splits, is the bible false yet today we mine for gold in that area?

No one is saying everything in the Bible is false. It's the supernatural claims that people typically take issue with. To compare, there might be very well have been some guy named John Henry who was really strong and good at steel-driving. That doesn't mean I have to accept that John Henry drove a hole through a mountain single-handed.

Science once counted the stars. The bible says their immeasurable, and so does science now.

When did 'science' try counting stars? Back up that claim.

The word Earth can mean many different things in both the Hebrew, Greek and English.

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

 

[Split Rock]

What is the basis of your facts? It's not like it was 1+1=2. Were talking about something that didn't involve any empirical evidence as to how the whale got there. Sure you can name the sediments, do DNA samples, but in the end it's speculation since were not present.

Just because balls tend to roll down hill, does not mean the ball rolled or that the hill was ever a hill to begin with. Evolution of everything (not the biological adaptation of living things only). Is still a theory because the empirical evidence isn't enough to prove a speculation.

It is an inference, not a speculation.

 

[BL2KTN]

While you theists can't even agree on a proper definition of what a Nephilim is.

For the love of God, don't lump me in with him.

 

[lasthero]

For the love of God, don't lump me in with him.

Well, he's not, really. You're a deist, right?

 

[RickG]

As for Carbon-dating it was recent that the time was adjusted for correctness due to a inconsistency with regards to understanding carbon break down, sorry you missed that conversation. 100,000 years may not be the correct amount once thought to be measured by carbon dating.

Carbon dating utilizes a calibration curve due to slightly varying amounts of 14C in the atmosphere over time. This curve (scale) is constantly updated as more accurate data becomes available. There is also a marine reservoir effect that is taken into account for marine samples. The important thing to understand is that as one goes deeper in time the margin of error increases.

Scientist believed the world to be 3 million, then 30 million years old and so on, you get the picture of inconsistency due to better technological advances for better measuring and testing; I get it. We were talking about INCONSISTENCY.

Yes, and all of those estimates were well before any dating methods were ever developed. It is not inconsistency as you assert, it is improvement of methods and development of new and more accurate instruments that is seen, not inconsistency.

 

[BL2KTN]

Well, he's not, really. You're a deist, right?

Deists are theists...

 

[RickG]

Is still a theory because the empirical evidence isn't enough to prove a speculation.

Just a question, what in science do you think is better than a theory?