Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[dad]

Who else could it have been, in your opinion? Have you been watching too much Ancient Aliens?

Who else besides some monkey creature? We could ask the same thing of the world trade center building in NY. Who else could have built it but chimps? How can one address such fantasy?

 

[Cearbhall]

Who else besides some monkey creature?

Ape, not monkey.

We could ask the same thing of the world trade center building in NY. Who else could have built it but chimps? How can one address such fantasy?

Are you claiming that homo sapiens existed 3.3 million years ago?

 

[nonbeliever314]

They seem to forget to add the ability to think for oneself to the propaganda brainwashing so called science education.

Is there any science you THINK to be true, as in, describing the world around us? Say, physics for example.

 

[morse86]

Is there any science you THINK to be true, as in, describing the world around us? Say, physics for example.

Most of physics is true. For an example, we can measure gravity. However, do we know where gravity comes from or what it is? NO, that is religion pretending to be science.

 

[dad]

Ape, not monkey.

Are you claiming that homo sapiens existed 3.3 million years ago?

No. I am pointing out that your silly imaginary dates are completely bogus.

 

[dad]

Is there any science you THINK to be true, as in, describing the world around us? Say, physics for example.

Sure, just look for practical actual knowledge that works and is tested and applies to the real world.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Most of physics is true. For an example, we can measure gravity. However, do we know where gravity comes from or what it is? NO, that is religion pretending to be science.

Quantum physics?

 

[nonbeliever314]

However, do we know where gravity comes from or what it is?

General Relativity.

 

[morse86]

Quantum physics?

Is that even real? What did it ever produce?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Sure, just look for practical actual knowledge that works and is tested and applies to the real world.

Well, it's physics that is used to determine that something is 3.3 million years old.

 

[morse86]

General Relativity.

Huh? What did general relativity ever produce? It's just religion.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Is that even real? What did it ever produce?

You are using a computer right?

 

[morse86]

You are using a computer right?

Please explain how quantum physics produced a computer.

Computers came BEFORE quantum physics was even discovered. The modern transistor or integrated circuit doesn't need quantum physics.

 

[dad]

Huh? What did general relativity ever produce? It's just religion.

No. It has been tested. The only part that could be religion is trying to apply it to creation era happenings.

 

[morse86]

No. It has been tested. The only part that could be religion is trying to apply it to creation era happenings.

No, those tests can be explained away by alternative theories easily. There is no concrete evidence of general relativity.

 

[dad]

No, those tests can be explained away by alternative theories easily. There is no concrete evidence of general relativity.

It is solid enough, it seems to me, to be considered a valid explanation of how a lot of things work.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Please explain how quantum physics produced a computer.

Computers came BEFORE quantum physics was even discovered. The modern transistor or integrated circuit doesn't need quantum physics.

Uhh. Solid state physics is based on quantum mechanics. Same applies to the old huge vacuum tube based computers. Essentially quantum mechanics was discovered because of light bulb, which is also a vacuum tube.

 

[nonbeliever314]

And quant

No, those tests can be explained away by alternative theories easily. There is no concrete evidence of general relativity.

General Relativity is rock solid. I'm not going to give a lecture on relativity or quantum physics in here. But I would read up on both.

 

[nonbeliever314]

No. It has been tested. The only part that could be religion is trying to apply it to creation era happenings.

Yeah, it has been tested, and it's dead on. But on the other hand it actually shows that the universe isn't around 6000 years old.

 

[Kylie]

Easy. The daughter to parent ratios are not any way to date anything old. You just try to assign an old age to a lot of certain ratios. That is just a statement of faith that the ratios came to exist soely because of the present nature.

The question becomes 'why did daughter material already exist before our nature started, at which time the daughter material fell into a decay relationship with what are not parent isotopes'? It would not be coincidence that stuff already existed when this state started, it would simple be a reality of that day.

But it would be an amazing coincidence that they happened to be there in exactly the right ratios.

So you are still appealing to coincidence. Try again?