How to choose between creation and evolution.

[r4.h]

Carbon dating? Maybe you’d better define that. Creationists tend to mean radiodating when they say carbon dating and those aren’t the same thing at all.

Either way they are not in the true sense of the word provable, and must remain theory. My proof of this is that science has always had to concede it was mistaken on many things. In electricity they first taught it as FACT that the electrons and protons behaved one way, but later realised they were WRONG.

Im not speaking as an intellectual, but as someone who once was lost (an atheist) but now im found, and I know my redeemer lives.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For practical purposes they are all true.

Maybe for the "practical" purposes of people 3000 years ago.

Today... not so much. If you assume that time is a constant no matter what, then GPS will not work, for example.

I reset my clocks because the batteries run down, not because time isn't 'constant'.

/facepalm

Why can't you just acknowledge the obvious fact that yes, thing are oftenly not as they appear to be. Is it because then you'll also have to admit that "life appears design", doesn't mean anything?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you think I should be doing about what you wrote?

Acknowledging the obvious mistakes you made. That would be a start.
Acknowledging that what things appear to be, are oftenly not what they actually are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but it will look like a watch.

It wouldn't.

so why not call it a watch?

Because it would lack all characteristics of a watch while having a bunch of characteristics of a thing that's not a watch.

"what if a triangle had 4 corners?"

answer: then it would be a square.

Derp-di-derp-derp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

With all of the "evidence" how many people accept the ToE based on understanding, and how many accept it based on faith in science alone (on a percentage basis)?

Science doesn't require "faith".
Science has an impeccable track record of getting things right.

Your entire home is filled with its successes.
The fact that you're even reading this, says enough.

Most of us wouldn't even be alive today, if it wasn't for scientific progress.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

First answer this, If men were so unenlightened as to believe creationism back when Moses recorded the Genesis account on mount Horeb, how then did they know "from dust were you created and from dust shall you return?

They didn't 'know' this. They just made it up. BTW: We weren't made from 'dust' in any reasonable interpretation of the word 'dust'. We weren't even 'made' as that suggests a maker.

It's not exceptional or notable in any way that the authors of the Bible knew what they wrote in the Bible. For it to be of any note, you have to start by showing that what is in the Bible is correct. Can you?

The bible account is 100% accurate when it states God created us from the dust, everything in our makeup can be made from the minerals in the earth, just add water.

So you claim. Do you have any verifiable objective evidence for that claim? I won't be holding my breath.

 

[r4.h]

They didn't 'know' this. They just made it up. BTW: We weren't made from 'dust' in any reasonable interpretation of the word 'dust'. We weren't even 'made' as that suggests a maker.

It's not exceptional or notable in any way that the authors of the Bible knew what they wrote in the Bible. For it to be of any note, you have to start by showing that what is in the Bible is correct. Can you?



So you claim. Do you have any verifiable objective evidence for that claim? I won't be holding my breath.

Really? where do you think a dead body goes to after lying on the ground for enough years?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really? where do you think a dead body goes to after lying on the ground for enough years?

It decomposes and it is consumed.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Really? where do you think a dead body goes to after lying on the ground for enough years?

It will decompose, and parts of it will be incorporated in other living organisms. Parts of it will become part of the earth, after various biological and other processes. Some of the non-water 30% it may end up dissolved in water, becoming part of the water table or eventually make its way to the ocean. Some of it may end up being compressed and turned into rock. Some may be released as gasses due to decomposition. And yes, some of it may end up as 'dust' at some time. But, what has that got to do with the origin of life?

You are using the word 'dust' to mean everything physical. It doesn't have that meaning. Dust is one particular physical state of matter among many. Dust is tiny, dry, particles of solid matter. There are lots of things that aren't dust.

 

[r4.h]

It will decompose, and parts of it will be incorporated in other living organisms. Parts of it will become part of the earth, after various biological and other processes. Some of the non-water 30% it may end up dissolved in water, becoming part of the water table or eventually make its way to the ocean. Some of it may end up being compressed and turned into rock. Some may be released as gasses due to decomposition. And yes, some of it may end up as 'dust' at some time. But, what has that got to do with the origin of life?

You are using the word 'dust' to mean everything physical. It doesn't have that meaning. Dust is one particular physical state of matter among many. Dust is tiny, dry, particles of solid matter. There are lots of things that aren't dust.

Pedantic`s .

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Pedantic`s .

You asked the question. You seem to be annoyed that I actually answered it. If you don't want a question answered, then don't ask it.

 

[r4.h]

It decomposes and it is consumed.

I think it was obvious we assuming it went untouched.

The answer is, it becomes dust and is blown away. Its just disingenuous to say it isnt dust.

 

[r4.h]

You asked the question. You seem to be annoyed that I actually answered it. If you don't want a question answered, then don't ask it.

Im not annoyed, you just didnt answer it and just used pedantics to muddy the waters.

Im only interested in honest discussion, if you cant admit a small truth such as that, i dont see any point going further, good night.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I think it was obvious we assuming it went untouched.

The answer is, it becomes dust and is blown away. Its just disingenuous to say it isnt dust.

So, you're proposing a completely unrealistic scenario where a body is left completely untouched, even by microorganisms. What is the point of that?

Even if it magically was left in an untouched state, there's no reason to believe that it will become dust and blow away. Some of it may become incorporated in the earth on which it lies. But, what is the point of discussing utterly unrealistic scenarios?

And finally, you've given no explanation about what the fate of a dead body has to do with the origin of life. It appears you are tap dancing away from the discussion in hand. Do you have anything more to say about the origin of life, e.g. some evidence for your own position, or have you conceded that point?

Im not annoyed, you just didnt answer it and just used pedantics to muddy the waters.

Im only interested in honest discussion, if you cant admit a small truth such as that, i dont see any point going further, good night.

I did answer. And what you described isn't a 'small truth', it's just plain wrong. On top of being irrelevant. If you feel that I have missed the point, you could start by describing what your point is. As the only thing I can see is that you're talking about God creating man from dust, but seemingly trying to define all physical matter, except and oddly water, as dust.

I don't see how accepting falsehoods, which is what it seems you expected me to do, contributes to 'honest discussion'.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think it was obvious we assuming it went untouched.

No corpse remains untouched. Insects, bacteria,....

The answer is, it becomes dust and is blown away.

That is demonstrably false.

Its just disingenuous to say it isnt dust.

It is not. The only reason you say otherwise, is because you need that to be true for your religion. Not because you have actually a valid reason to say so. Because you don't.

As AnotherAtheist already explained to you very clearly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Im not annoyed, you just didnt answer it and just used pedantics to muddy the waters.

He explained in reasonable detail what happens to a dead organism. Which is what you asked for...

Im only interested in honest discussion

Then why aren't you being honest about what the word "dust" means?

, if you cant admit a small truth such as that, i dont see any point going further, good night.

There is no truth there.

 

[bhsmte]

Im not annoyed, you just didnt answer it and just used pedantics to muddy the waters.

Im only interested in honest discussion, if you cant admit a small truth such as that, i dont see any point going further, good night.

Irony

 

[Brightmoon]

R4h you see to be thinking that scientific illiteracy equates to faith. It actually equates to ignorance. Radiodating dates are given as a range . This rock is about this age but given the limitations of our technology, it could be as young as date 1 or as old as date 2 . What creationists do is that they give a sample to a legit lab and ask that it be dated with an inappropriate technique. For example using a technique for billion year old rocks on recently cooled lava that’s about 50 years old. It’s like measuring an inch with a stick that’s a mile long. Or asking someone what time it is, expecting your answer to be in hours and minutes,and being told it’s February. The most you can get is an approximate date that’s more than the unit you want measured . . The lab told the creationist that the rock was less than 2.5 million years old and that date is in the error bar for this technique. The creationist then went and told everyone that the 50 years old rock was was dated exactly to 2.5 million years old according to the lab. There were other fishy aspects to the story - like the creationist prepared the sample not the lab . Which means it could have been contaminated

 

[Brightmoon]

living organisms can’t be made of dust. there’s too much silica in it

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe for the "practical" purposes of people 3000 years ago.

Today... not so much. If you assume that time is a constant no matter what, then GPS will not work, for example.



/facepalm

Why can't you just acknowledge the obvious fact that yes, thing are oftenly not as they appear to be. Is it because then you'll also have to admit that "life appears design", doesn't mean anything?

Studying anatomy confirms design. Studying evolution is confusing. I need order.