The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[AV1611VET]

So how old do you think the Earth is? No equivocation, please.

Gonna get on the bandwagon too, are you?

 

[VirOptimus]

Gonna get on the bandwagon too, are you?

Tell us, when did god create the world, how many years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did the earth exist say 7000 years ago?

No.

 

[VirOptimus]

No.

See, YEC. Easy.

 

[Astrophile]

Are you all listening to this stuff, where time and time again pitabread has made a similar claim, as well as something like "I/we don't understand science" (science meaning only their interpretations, conclusions of what the study of the natural world tells us). When, just as many times, I've asked him/them to simply prove it in an open discussion right here on the discussion boards, and as I recall I made the offer as simple and reasonable as possible. However, it was always followed by excuses, and links to elsewhere, not here as requested where the link can be discussed in detail as part of that proof, yet he still makes a claim like that.

Now don't get me wrong, false claims are par for the course when it come to dealing with evolutionist here, and that's my main point, these are the kind of absolutely untrue claims the whole of evolution is contrived of. We have that, and claims such as "science proves nothing" as a comeback to the request of prove evolution. IOW, if they can't answer the question, they attack the question itself in a desperate attempt to cover up the fact they cannot come close to proving evolution. Meaning, they themselves actually do know by now what the actual fact mean...they got nothing.

Have you studied the evidence for evolution? Do you even know what the evidence for evolution consists of (hints: genetic similarities and differences, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies, embryology, biogeography, the fossil record)? If you have studied this evidence, what do you think is the strongest evidence for evolution, and what are your alternative explanations for it? Give details of how these alternative explanations account for the evidence.

Now we come to the crucial question. Do you say that scientists can't prove evolution because you think that there is an equally plausible naturalistic non-evolutionary explanation for the facts of biology, or because there is no way of proving that the universe was not created by a god? If the first, then the alternative naturalistic explanation can be tested by experiments and either disproved or shown to be better than the present theory of evolution. If the second, then it is true that one cannot prove that the universe was not created by a god. However, it is for that very reason (the impossibility of disproof) that the creationist explanation is not a scientific theory but a matter of religious belief. Creationism pretends to explain everything and therefore explains nothing; any conceivable observation or experimental result can be explained away by the statement,'That is the way God did it', and that means that creationism is of no practical use.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the difference? What do you specifically mean by age vs history in this context?

Age is a noun: it is a thing.

History is a collection of events over a given period.

Here's what I like to ask YECs:

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

Along the same line:

Does creating a loaf of warm raisin bread constitute deception, since raisins are dried grapes?

If Adam had a belly button, that would be evidence of omphalos; but I don't think he had one.

According to Wikipedia, belly buttons are scars, and God didn't bring the universe into existence with scars.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Age is a noun: it is a thing.

History is a collection of events over a given period.

Here's what I like to ask YECs:

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

Along the same line:

Does creating a loaf of warm raisin bread constitute deception, since raisins are dried grapes?

If Adam had a belly button, that would be evidence of omphalos; but I don't think he had one.

According to Wikipedia, belly buttons are scars, and God didn't bring the universe into existence with scars.

Did Adam have his milk teeth or his adult teeth? Had his fontanelles fused? Could he stand and walk? Could he speak?

When did he go through puberty?

 

[pitabread]

Age is a noun: it is a thing.

That's an incomplete definition. Age refers to the measurement of a length of time of an object's existence.

History is a collection of events over a given period.

In that case, the period would be an age.

So this begs the question: how can something be created with "embedded" age if the age itself is the length of time in which it has existed?

According to Wikipedia, belly buttons are scars, and God didn't bring the universe into existence with scars.

Did God bring the universe into existence with trails of gas from moving galaxies?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's an incomplete definition.

That is correct.

There are some fourteen definitions for the word "age."

Look it up.

Age refers to the measurement of a length of time of an object's existence.

Ya ... ya.

If you can pick and choose your favorite definition, may I do the same?

 

[pitabread]

If you can pick and choose your favorite definition, may I do the same?

I asked you to define what you meant by age and all you did was claim it is a noun (I'll ignore the fact that it's also a verb ).

If you want to define it, then go ahead and define it.

Then you can explain what "embedded age" is supposed to mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you can explain what "embedded age" is supposed to mean.

For the 180th time: maturity without history.

 

[pitabread]

For the 180th time: maturity without history.

And how are you defining "maturity" in this context?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

For the 180th time: maturity without history.

Could you demonstrate how that works by responding to post 781? Thanks

 

[AV1611VET]

And how are you defining "maturity" in this context?

The ability to do what is expected.

In Adam's case: name the animals, tend the Garden, get married, have children.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you demonstrate how that works by responding to post 781? Thanks

Did Adam have his milk teeth or his adult teeth? Had his fontanelles fused? Could he stand and walk? Could he speak?

When did he go through puberty?

1. Adam had his adult teeth.
2. Not a clue / never heard of "fontanelles."
3. Yes, Adam could stand and walk.
4. Yes, Adam could speak.

 

[pitabread]

The ability to do what is expected.

In Adam's case: name the animals, tend the Garden, get married, have children.

So your definition of "embedded age" is:

The ability to do what is expected without a collection of events over a given period.

I think this definition may need some further work.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

1. Adam had his adult teeth.
2. Not a clue / never heard of "fontanelles."
3. Yes, Adam could stand and walk.
4. Yes, Adam could speak.

All of those require history.

How about Adam's journey through puberty? You ignored that question.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of those require history.

Next I suppose you're going to tell me the trees got as high as they did because they grew that high, aren't you?

Did the fruit on the trees require a history as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

All of those require history.

How about Adam's journey through puberty? You ignored that question.

No journey through puberty.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Next I suppose you're going to tell me the trees got as high as they did because they grew that high, aren't you?

Did the fruit on the trees require a history as well?

No, I can accept trees being created fully grown. Adult teeth replace milk teeth and the hole where they formed fills with bone over a number of years, so there is history. Balance & walking and the ability to speak are not just things being older & bigger. They are skills which involve learning, which requires history.