Macroevolution

[bhsmte]

Yes. I've presented soft dino tissue and c14 in coal as two of many examples.

How old do you believe the earth is?

 

[-57]

Yes, but you have given zero evidence that it is too complicated or too sophisticated (nit picky here: complex and complicated practically mean the same thing).
You are basically saying "I don't understand it. Therefore it doesn't work." It's an argument from incredulity, also called 'lack of imagination'.

Then I'm asking you how it was possible. You refuse to answer the question.

 

[-57]

How old do you believe the earth is?

6K-10K years.

 

[bhsmte]

Then I'm asking you how it was possible. You refuse to answer the question.

You are making the claim and have yet to present any concrete barrier, proving evolution is impossible.

 

[bhsmte]

6K-10K years.

What is the evidence you base this on?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then I'm asking you how it was possible. You refuse to answer the question.

No, you were asked the question first. You have to show how evolution is impossible.

 

[-57]

I wonder if the winners of Lotto, don't get to keep the money, because the odds were so much against them winning?

Now your comparing apples and oranges.
The odds say there isn't enough beneficial mutations to create what we see in a cell.

 

[bhsmte]

Now your comparing apples and oranges.
The odds say there isn't enough beneficial mutations to create what we see in a cell.

You have not demonstrated the above, with objective verifiable evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

...I could make the same argument pertaining to rising from the dead on day 3. Science says it's impossible.

No it doesn't. If it did there would be no scientists who were Christians.

 

[-57]

No, you were asked the question first. You have to show how evolution is impossible.

To form the organelle seen in the signature of the cell video...there is an assembly line of other organelle built by previous organelle....coded for in the information present in the DNA. A random mutation process can't evolve this.
...did you watch the video?

 

[bhsmte]

To form the organelle seen in the signature of the cell video...there is an assembly line of other organelle built by previous organelle....coded for in the information present in the DNA. A random mutation process can't evolve this.
...did you watch the video?

You have not demonstrated, with objective verifiable evidence, why the cell could not have evolved by evolution.

You are making claims, that is all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To form the organelle seen in the signature of the cell video...there is an assembly line of other organelle built by previous organelle....coded for in the information present in the DNA. A random mutation process can't evolve this.
...did you watch the video?

We are not talking about the video, we are discussing YOUR claim that evolution is impossible.
Tell is, in your own words, how evolution is impossible.

 

[Cearbhall]

But even with 4.5 billion years is that sort of blind natural selection really sufficient to explain the immense complexity of life and molecular biology in particular?

I don't see why not. I can't even conceive of how long 4.5 billion years is.

 

[-57]

You have not demonstrated, with objective verifiable evidence, why the cell could not have evolved by evolution.

You are making claims, that is all.

You're now doing a Mr. Bojangles tap dance away from the issue. Explained how they evolved....or move on. It's OK if you simply say you don't know.

 

[Cearbhall]

Indeed. Then why has that fact escaped the notice of nearly every biologist on the face of the planet, and why hasn't that amazing discovery won somebody a Nobel Prize?

Gee, I wonder.

 

[bhsmte]

You're now doing a Mr. Bojangles tap dance away from the issue. Explained how they evolved....or move on. It's OK if you simply say you don't know.

You made the claim, you support it.

I understand, you need to shift the burden to me, but that would then be you trying to tap dance away from your own claim.

 

[granpa]

Nobody is on trial here

I'm trying to help you out. But if you don't want my help then that's fine too

 

[bhsmte]

Nobody is on trial here

So I'm trying to help you out. But if you don't want my help then that's fine.

Nobody has to make claims, they refuse to support either.

 

[RickG]

Yes. I've presented soft dino tissue and c14 in coal as two of many examples.

What you have presented there are misrepresentations, not credible science. And that is the reason I mentioned in my initial post to you that I hoped you did not base your dismissal of ToE for the wrong reason. Those reasons being the much misrepresented information presented in creation science literature.

1. Soft tissue was not in the dinosaur fossil as you may think. It was found by dissolving calcification in an acid solution and re-hydrating what was left. The tissue was collagen which is known to be long lasting anyway, nevertheless, finding it in dinosaur fossils was a surprise. It only forces us to reconsider what little we know about the fossilization process. It in no way means it must be of a young age.

2. The radionuclide 14C, which is used in dating organic remains generally of less than 50,000 years is not found in coal. the 14C, which is rarely found in coal is In Situ 14C, not of cosmogenict origin which is formed in the upper atmosphere. It forms from being in close approximation with uranium or thorium. They are easily distinguished through 'Atom Trap Trace Analysis' (ATTA).

 

[-57]

What you have presented there are misrepresentations, not credible science. And that is the reason I mentioned in my initial post to you that I hoped you did not base your dismissal of ToE for the wrong reason. Those reasons being the much misrepresented information presented in creation science literature.

1. Soft tissue was not in the dinosaur fossil as you may think. It was found by dissolving calcification in an acid solution and re-hydrating what was left. The tissue was collagen which is known to be long lasting anyway, nevertheless, finding it in dinosaur fossils was a surprise. It only forces us to reconsider what little we know about the fossilization process. It in no way means it must be of a young age.

2. The radionuclide 14C, which is used in dating organic remains generally of less than 50,000 years is not found in coal. the 14C, which is rarely found in coal is In Situ 14C, not of cosmogenict origin which is formed in the upper atmosphere. It forms from being in close approximation with uranium or thorium. They are easily distinguished through 'Atom Trap Trace Analysis' (ATTA).

1) I've seen video of the soft tissue...it was stretchable.
2)Considering the long decay rate of uranium or thorium...the amount of uranium or thorium would have had to have been HUGE to leave that amount of 14C in the coal.