God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

Just now, Godismyloveforever said:

Let me see if I  am following this thread correctly based on the quote of quotes of quotes system being use.

Someone said something about something that someone said and didn't agree with it. But someone else said something about something and someone agreed but someone else didn't agree with what the other guy said,  unless, of course if the other guy is in fact not the other guy I thought it was,  but instead is another guy.

Keep going, you almost got it.

someone said something that someone else said something that someone else disagreed with and therefore used what someone else said to distract from responding to what the someone else (the second someone else above) said because they thought the first someone else was quoting themselves instead of some one else (the second someone else), and then someone else also chimed in (Another someone else) that thought they understood and someone else then reiterated the fact that someone else was wrong. Now the someone else accuses the other someone else of being untruthful.  Got It? 

 

[one.opinion]

Don't forget the part when person #1 makes an outright false statement, telling person #2 what person #2 believes. When person #2 confronts person #1 about the falsehood, person #1 pretends simply ignores it and repeats the same lie. Better tell lies to defend our conservative values!

 

[dad2]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

 

Let's stick to some of the claims you have already made, and narrow it down maybe a tad further than "all of it".

What scientific evidence supports a K-Pg boundary 4000 years old and not 66 million?

 

Science cannot support any dates from imaginary time. Only beliefs form the foundation of the 'dates'

So it would not be dating that could support either side here. In science we do have some facts. Such as that there was a worldwide layer of sediment that contained iridium. That supports a flood. The great change in life about that time (example, no dinos above the KT) also supports my position. Etc. You need to learn to separate science from so called science.

 

Quote

What scientific evidence supports the conjecture that radiometric dating is inaccurate?

The fact that no scientific evidence supports it being accurate!

 

Quote

What scientific evidence suggests that genetics once worked differently than what it does today?

No science supports genetics being any way at all since we have no usable dna for the time, and do not know the forces and laws that existed and acted upon whatever genetics we did have!

 

Quote

 I will provide scientific evidence to support my claims after that.

No. You will not, there is none. That is why we see humming and hawing and stalling.

 

[dad2]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

Don't forget the part when person #1 makes an outright false statement, telling person #2 what person #2 believes. When person #2 confronts person #1 about the falsehood, person #1 pretends simply ignores it and repeats the same lie. Better tell lies to defend our conservative values!

Let's remember that people who can't defend their position blabber.

 

[dad2]

3 hours ago, Godismyloveforever said:

Let me see if I  am following this thread correctly based on the quote of quotes of quotes system being use.

Someone said something about something that someone said and didn't agree with it. But someone else said something about something and someone agreed but someone else didn't agree with what the other guy said,  unless, of course if the other guy is in fact not the other guy I thought it was,  but instead is another guy.

 

Right, and one of the Guys was God.

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Godismyloveforever said:

Personally I do not think it is my place to say how God can and cannot create.

We have a winner.

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

So it would not be dating that could support either side here.

Noted - you know of zero evidence supporting your assumption that the K-Pg layer was laid down 4000 years ago.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

In science we do have some facts. Such as that there was a worldwide layer of sediment that contained iridium.

Alright, we can agree on this.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

That supports a flood.

This is a conjecture for which you have supplied zero evidence.

We know there was an ancient meteor strike because there is a gigantic crater where it hit. If this hit within the last 6,000 years, we would be able to see the result of the recent mass extinction. We don't see any recent evidence of this.

You are aware of the iridium layer that can be found in exposed rock surfaces from points around the world. This is good. You deny that this iridium layer was laid down by a meteoric impact of apocalyptic scale. Ask yourself some questions.

Why would a flood suddenly expose enough iridium to place a fine layer all over the earth?

How is it possible that a fine layer would be undisturbed by the raging torrents of the flood?

Where did all of the iridium come from? Iridium is very rare in the earth, but abundant in many meteors.

Just a few things to consider.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

The great change in life about that time (example, no dinos above the KT) also supports my position.

Yes, there was a great change in life, but you have provided zero evidence suggesting that it was due to a flood. Recall that there should have been a great many dinos on the ark that would have survived. Are you not puzzled about why there are numerous examples of large mammal fossils after the K-Pg border, but no large dinos? Weird, huh...

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

The fact that no scientific evidence supports it being accurate!

This is not true, and Christian geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth wrote an article to explain exactly how we know that statement is not true.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf

The title of their article is "Testing and Verifying Old Age Evidence: Lake Suigetsu Varves, Tree Rings, and Carbon-14". This article explains how three separate dating methods show the same dating results.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

No science supports genetics being any way at all since we have no usable dna for the time

We can analyze genes and genomes today and get a pretty good idea of how genetics works. We can look at DNA samples that are dated to over 100,000 years old and see that genetics worked the same at that time. There is zero evidence supporting the idea that genetics worked differently at some unknown point in the past, particularly within the last 6000 years. You seem pretty upset that I've pointed this out to you, but it might be time to honestly consider your assumptions.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Let's remember that people who can't defend their position blabber.

I wanted you to first examine the fact that you have zero scientific evidence supporting your scientific claims.

If you want to decide what to believe based entirely on the Bible, I can respect that. Just don't pretend that there is scientific justification for your assumptions.

[dad2]

15 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

Noted - you know of zero evidence supporting your assumption that the K-Pg layer was laid down 4000 years ago.

Since you have zero science support either way you are in no position to overrule bible claims.

Quote

Alright, we can agree on this.

This is a conjecture for which you have supplied zero evidence.

All evidence from science is best viewed from my beliefs. No evidence in science opposes my beliefs. None supports yours!

 

 

Quote

We know there was an ancient meteor strike because there is a gigantic crater where it hit.

Could be. I do not care either way. However, can you prove that the impact was not from below that made the crater?

 

 

Quote

If this hit within the last 6,000 years, we would be able to see the result of the recent mass extinction.

 That depends if you mean imaginary belief based so called science time or actual time. It also depends on whether the impact was from up or down!

 

Quote

You are aware of the iridium layer that can be found in exposed rock surfaces from points around the world. This is good. You deny that this iridium layer was laid down by a meteoric impact of apocalyptic scale. Ask yourself some questions.

Why would a flood suddenly expose enough iridium to place a fine layer all over the earth?

Easy. If science was correct iriddium comes from 2 sources. Space and the inner earth. That is where flood waters came from!

 

 

Quote

How is it possible that a fine layer would be undisturbed by the raging torrents of the flood?

Being laid down in the former nature we would not look to normal rules for deposition. Now would I expect all the year of the flood to be wildly turbulent!

 

 

Quote

Where did all of the iridium come from? Iridium is very rare in the earth, but abundant in many meteors.

Space and deep under the earth. After all the waters above the firmament (where the stars are and were made) came down to earth through a portal. (windows of heaven)

Quote

Yes, there was a great change in life, but you have provided zero evidence suggesting that it was due to a flood.

 

The change itself tells us it was something. The evidence itself does not tell us what so we must chose what to believe.

Quote

Recall that there should have been a great many dinos on the ark that would have survived.

 

no. I do not recall that at all! Even if all dinos had not already died before the start of the flood it does not mean they would be invited onto tha ark. ONLY the kinds (created kinds) were invited! If dinos evolved from birds or reptiles or whatever original kinds there were, they would not BE original kinds!

 

Quote

Are you not puzzled about why there are numerous examples of large mammal fossils after the K-Pg border, but no large dinos?

Not in the least! Most animals that lived as well as man likely could not leave remains/fossil remains in the former different nature!

Quote

This is not true, and Christian geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth wrote an article to explain exactly how we know that statement is not true.

Feel free to have them debate here if you can't then. Or lift out a few relevant quotes from their material and try to defend them. They would be easy to defeat.

 

Quote

The title of their article is "Testing and Verifying Old Age Evidence: Lake Suigetsu Varves, Tree Rings, and Carbon-14". This article explains how three separate dating methods show the same dating results.

One belief applied three ways! A belief that nature was the same.

 

Quote

We can analyze genes and genomes today and get a pretty good idea of how genetics works. We can look at DNA samples that are dated to over 100,000 years old and see that genetics worked the same at that time.

False. You date DNA by assuming a same nature always existed. The real dates are nothing remotely similar to your belief based 'dates'. In any case you have no DNA that is usable from the time in question here..pre KT!

 

Quote

There is zero evidence supporting the idea that genetics worked differently at some unknown point in the past

There is zero evidence supporting the idea that genetics worked the same at some unknown point in the past.

 

Quote

, particularly within the last 6000 years.

 

Real time or so called science imaginary time?

 

Quote

You seem pretty upset that I've pointed this out to you, but it might be time to honestly consider your assumptions.

Not at all. Your points are destroyed and I never worked up a sweat, or missed a stride.

 

Quote

If you want to decide what to believe based entirely on the Bible, I can respect that. Just don't pretend that there is scientific justification for your assumptions.

 

If you want to decide what to believe based entirely rejecting God and the Bible for no reason, I can respect that. Just don't pretend that there is scientific justification for your assumptions. Capice?

[one.opinion]

40 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Since you have zero science support either way you are in no position to overrule bible claims.

Radiometric dating is very reliable evidence. You just reject it for reasons that you cannot articulate.

42 minutes ago, dad2 said:

All evidence from science is best viewed from my beliefs. No evidence in science opposes my beliefs. None supports yours!

Look at the record here. I have shown a bit of evidence. You have shown zero. You are sticking your head in the sand and hoping no one notices.

43 minutes ago, dad2 said:

However, can you prove that the impact was not from below that made the crater?

Yes. You can look at the shape of the crater. It caves inward. That means that the impact was from above. Come on, this is not a difficult concept. It is very easy for forensic scientists to look a bullet impact on a body and determine the bullet flight. Looking at a meteor impact is similar.

45 minutes ago, dad2 said:

 That depends if you mean imaginary belief based so called science time or actual time.

There is no evidence of an apocalyptic meteor strike in the last 6000 actual years.

52 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Easy. If science was correct iriddium comes from 2 sources. Space and the inner earth. That is where flood waters came from!

What evidence tells us that the flood water came from the planet core, which is where iridium would be located on the planet?

53 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Now would I expect all the year of the flood to be wildly turbulent!

So your conjecture is that the iridium was all floating on top of the flood water, and settled into a nice layer across the planet?

55 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Even if all dinos had not already died before the start of the flood it does not mean they would be invited onto tha ark. ONLY the kinds (created kinds) were invited!

So thousands of birds species were all different kinds (and received their own, separate invitation), but dinos were a single bird-kind? Explain the reasoning here.

57 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Feel free to have them debate here if you can't then. Or lift out a few relevant quotes from their material and try to defend them. They would be easy to defeat.

Try reading the article. They clearly show how three independent dating methods all verify one another.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

There is zero evidence supporting the idea that genetics worked the same at some unknown point in the past.

You are bordering on last-Thursdayism again. If there is no evidence that the natural world operated completely differently in the past, then the logical conclusion is that what we see now is consistent with the past. It makes no sense to assume that things must have worked completely differently without any evidence to do so.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Not at all. Your points are destroyed and I never worked up a sweat, or missed a stride.

Ok good, glad you aren't upset. You are just claiming destruction and sweat-less victory as though there was some sort of competition going on.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

If you want to decide what to believe based entirely rejecting God and the Bible for no reason

You are venturing from bizarre, evidence-free claims into complete falsehood. I do not reject God, I am His child through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. I also do not reject the Bible. There is a difference between rejecting a particular interpretation of the Bible and rejecting the actual Bible.

 

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Just don't pretend that there is scientific justification for your assumptions.

You obviously don't believe the conclusions that scientists believe. That's fine. Pretending evidence doesn't exist is silly, though.

Look at what YEC scientist Todd Wood says about evolution:

Quote

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

The PhD Creationist admits "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it."

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Better tell lies to defend our conservative values!

The troll exposing his true political agenda!