You, Creationist CANNOT provide superior explanations for the evidence over those which Evolution theory can provide. That's a challenge. Come at me.
If you think you've got the chops to debate the evidence then enter. If you just have a vague, faith-based misunderstanding of evolution then you are going to have a bad time.
Aggressive hook aside, if you are a creationist with genuine questions and legitimately held criticisms then i will be just so happy to discuss those with you😇✌️
You will never change their minds, and the more you poke their entrenched beliefs, the more angry they become.
What might be more useful is to find out from them why they are so determined that everyone else has to share their belief, to the extent that they establish so-called "museums" to promulgate it; and at one time at least, even made it illegal to teach anyone anything about evolution, in some American states.
A policy they tried to bring into British schools, exploiting a governmental decision I think wrong anyway, to hand schools over to so called "Academy Trusts" - commercial organisations. Fortunately the "Commercial Creationists" as I call them, failed because British school syllabi and curricula are not controlled by self-serving local politicians and parents. Instead the education and welfare have to at least meet national contents and quality standards; and the education leads to nationally coherent school-leaving examinations. Your results in those influence your ensuing employment or higher education: the point of school is to prepare you for your own life as an adult.
Most scriptural literalists are so individually, safe from learning or thinking - including whether they are unwittingly denigrating their own god. That is entirely their own choice. They do not have to follow it. They are free to keep to it or to change their minds; free to change to a different sect, or faith, or to abandon religion altogether. They should Thank their God for these basic freedoms that theocracies refuse!
However, I accuse the literalist organisations of dark motives beyond silly anti-science preaching (over the Internet???), and it is very hard to pin them down on that. Ask one, and he or she will dodge the question; either by genuinely not knowing personally, or perhaps wanting to hide something.
Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for evolution to occur.
Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life’s origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory.
Darwin's monumental thesis, with natural selection at its core, was just the beginning of a long process of refinement and elaboration, which has continued unabated to the present day.
Precisely the same process will need to operate with respect to the Origin of Life problem.
Just as Darwin, in the very simplest of terms, pointed out how natural selection enabled simple life to evolve into complex life, so the recently proposed general theory of evolution [1,7] points out in simplest terms how simple, but fragile, replicating systems could have complexified into the intricate chemical systems of life.
Evolutionary geologist and astrobiologist, Robert Hazen, assumes abiogenesis occurred. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, he says, “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with natural laws of chemistry and physics” (2005, emp. added). Evolution is an attempt to explain life through natural means, and abiogenesis must go hand-in-hand with such a theory.
Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005).
@newjaninev2 Let's not. If you want to do a self-examination of your beliefs then I think you should focus that internally so to speak. My point was to show you don't know everything. Your materialism will always have a boundary it can not exceed. Where there are only more questions and few answers. You have no footing. In other words, no ground to stand on. Where do you think you might find the metaphysical?
There are no "evidence" for Evolution. At the most that which they call "facts" are grossly misinterpreted observation, horribly unscientific theories and deliberate fake. REAL evidence and observation FOR a young earth creation is deliberately ignored, brushed aside and discarded as "unscientific" For instance, population growth curves are ignored, geological sedimentary deposits are not taken into account, even the Doppler effect resonates a young universe and young earth. Evolutionists are just rebellious spoiled children trying to make others believe horse shit are doughnuts.
Request to Janine: can you post each of your fact bombs as new threads? Just so they don't get buried under 100 silly comments.
I have heard them all.
Gosh, you haven't heard much geology, have you?? You still haven't addressed my question about the radioisotope ratios (potassium-argon, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, etc) in the Grand Canyon layers - they give ages of hundreds of millions of years. did God hide all those isotopes there in just the right ratios? Why? https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/
did God hide all those isotopes there in just the right ratios?
Of course.
Why?
Just for the hell of it!
Anyone who can stomach the Old Testament God can easily swallow any amount of god just mucking about with the historical record for fun.
Kin shook her head. ‘It’s not a trial. If you don’t like my decision you can always quit – unless of course I fire you.’ She let that sink in. Behind every Company trainee was a parsec-long queue of disappointed applicants. Nobody quit.
‘Right, it’s on record. Just for the record, then, you two were on strata machine BVN67 on Julius 4th last, working a line on Y-continent? You’ve got the detailed charge on the notice of censure you were given at the time.’
‘Tis all correct,’ said Hendry. Kin thumbed a switch.
One wall of the office became a screen. They got an aerial view of grey datum rock, broken off sharply by a kilometre-high wall of strata like God’s own mad sandwich. The strata machine had been severed from its cliff and moved to one side. Unless a really skilled jockey lined it up next time, this world’s geologists were going to find an unexplained fault.
The camera zoomed in to an area halfway up the cliff, where some rock had been melted out. There was a gantry and a few yellow-hatted workmen who shuffled out of camera field, except for one who stood holding a measuring rod against Exhibit A and grinning. Hi there, all you folks out there in Company Censure Tribunal Land.
‘A plesiosaur,’ said Kin. ‘All wrong for this stratum, but what the hell.’ The camera floated over the half-excavated skeleton, focusing now on the distorted rectangles by its side. Kin nodded. Now it was quite clear. The beast had been holding a placard. She could just make out the wording.
‘“End Nuclear Testing Now”,’ she said levelly.
It must have taken a lot of work. Weeks, probably, and then a very complicated program to be fed into the machine’s main brain.
‘How did you find out?’ asked the girl.
Because there was a telltale built into every machine, but that was an official secret. It was welded into the ten-kilometre output slot to detect little unofficial personal touches, like pacifist dinosaurs and mammoths with hearing aids – and it stayed there until it found one. Because sooner or later everyone did it. Because every novice planetary designer with an ounce of talent felt like a king atop the dream-device that was a strata machine, and sooner or later yielded to the delicious temptation to pop the skulls of future palaeontologists. Sometimes the Company fired them, sometimes the Company promoted them.
‘I’m a witch,’ she said. ‘Now, I take it you admit this?’
‘Yarss,’ said Hendry. ‘But may I make, uh, a plea in mitigation?’
STRATA - Terry Pratchett
Those gods I can believe in, just us if we survive long enough.
Well, let's see some of that evidence and see if he can offer a better explanation of i
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses. This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes. That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on exactly the same place on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
@Anton That's correct... it's not evidence for evolution. Why would anybody think it might be? However, genetic variation within a species is the mechanism whereby the process of evolution happens.
If you had actually read my comments you would have learned that evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.
Are you saying that the frequency and distribution of alleles doesn't change? That would mean that there's only one species of life on Earth... the first one.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution starts at the Big Bang,
Where did you dredge up that absurd anachronism? Hubble didn't make the red shift observations until the 1920s - Charles Darwin had been DEAD for FORTY YEARS by then!!
If you'll notice, Darwin titled his book
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
It's pretty clear Darwin is talking about the origin of species, not the astronomical origin of the Earth.
However, one of the things required by Darwin's theory about the origin of species is TIME. Millions of years. Darwin was slightly preceded by a geologist name Lyell who observed the surface of the Earth and saw the result of several hundred million years of natural processes at work.
Lyell's observations were only the beginning. It turns out the Earth and the cosmos are filled with clocks. from seasonal layers in glaciers to layers of sedimentary rocks to radioactive decay to supernova remnants. I'm going to put up a separate post that's a short introduction to some of these clocks.
Well, let's see some of that evidence and see if he can offer a better explanation of it.
All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.
Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.
I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome is not very large, but nevertheless has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.
Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the same nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.
Now, why would this be?
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.
3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.
I am on topic. You choose to jump from the proposed 13 billion years ago Big Bang to an imaginary 2,5 million years ago when apes had human babies and from there you jump to yesterday when Anthony Fauci manipulated Corona Viruses with gain of function experiments and thereby want to convince me of a silly theory that had been debunked years ago both by advances in DNA and RNA research, geological sciences and various other facts. Explain Origins of Life, which forms part of the Evolution Theory. Then we can discuss why the tail bone of a whale looks like the swelling of arthritis on my big toe.
@Anton Nothing you have written here is coherent, reasoned, rational, or even close to reality.
I therefore assume you are simply seeking to waste everyone's time, especially in light of the fact that you have not replied to the content of any of my comments.
Deliberately wasting other people's time is unethical and juvenile... please find a different way to vent your frustrations.
Well, let's see some of that evidence and see if he can offer a better explanation of it.
Embryology can be very helpful in showing how our evolutionary history appears during foetal development. There are a few quick and easy examples that spring to mind from all those available: gills, blood vessels, and kidneys.
In the early stages of development, fish embryos have a series of pouches (separated by grooves) near where the head will later develop. These are called the brachial arches - they develop into gills, and the grooves between them develop into the gill slits. It‘s very straightforward.
Other vertebrates have the same structures... including humans. In fact, I once had the opportunity to see these brachial arches for myself on a foetus, and it was fascinating. They‘re not ‘sort of like’ a fish‘s brachial arches... they are a fish‘s brachial arches. They‘re morphologically completely identical.
Tiktaalik roseae, on the cusp between ocean and land, used gills and lungs, but after the move onto land, gills were superfluous (although Olympic swimming competitions would be very different had we retained them). Sometimes (it‘s very rare) the gill slits fail to close, but it‘s easily corrected via minor surgery once the infant is born.
Blood vessel development in fish is, once again, basic and straightforward, producing six major blood vessels. In mammals (including humans, of course), the same six major blood vessels appear in early foetal development, but then three of them disappear at the same time that our circulatory system stops resembling that of fish and instead becomes identical to the circulatory system of embryonic amphibians. Not similar... identical. In amphibians, this system simply grows into an adult amphibian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course) it changes into the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles. Not similar to the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles... identical. In reptiles, this system simply grows into an adult reptilian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course), it undergoes further changes (the development of carotid, pulmonary, and dorsal arteries) to become the mammalian circulatory system.
During development, human embryos form three distinctly different types kidneys... the pronephros, the mesonephros, and the metanephros. The first two systems are discarded. The pronephros is the kidney system found in fish and amphibians, the mesonephros is the kidney system found in reptiles, and the metanephros is the kidney system that we eventually use.
From fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. No matter how many comforting myths we mutter to ourselves, every foetus carries the truth.
Well, let's see some of that evidence and see if he can offer a better explanation of it.
All vertebrates have discs of cartilage that lubricate the joints between the vertebrae in the spinal column. These discs are compressible to absorb shock and strain. They have the consistency of firm rubber and allow the spine to be flexible while remaining strong. In humans, though, these discs can “slip” because they are not inserted in a way that makes sense given our species’ upright posture.
In all vertebrates except humans the spinal discs are positioned in line with the normal posture of that animal. For example, the spinal columns of fish endure completely different kinds of strain than the spinal columns of mammals. The fish uses its backbone to stiffen its body and then pulls against it in a side-to-side motion in order to swim. But fish don’t have to worry much about gravity and shock absorption since they are suspended in water.
Mammals, however, must use limbs to hold their body weight, and those limbs must attach to the spinal column. Different mammals have different postures and so require different strategies for weight distribution via the spine. In almost all of the tremendously diverse spinal columns found in nature, the spinal discs have adapted to the posture and gait of the animal. But not ours.
As our ancestors evolved into a more upright posture, the lumbar (lower) area of the vertebral column became sharply curved. It’s that curve in our lower backs that allows us to walk upright, and to move faster than when we walked on a fours. Unfortunately, that rearrangement of our bones wasn’t accompanied by alterations to the spinal discs. Consequently we’re left with a lower back that is kind of, sort of, might be, could be adequate, but definitely not ‘perfect’ (whatever that would be).
Human vertebral discs are in an arrangement that is optimal for knuckle-walkers, not upright walkers. They still do a decent job of lubricating and supporting the spine, but they are much more prone to being pushed out of position than the vertebral discs of other animals. They are structured to resist gravity by pulling the vertebral joints toward the chest, as if humans were on all fours. With our upright posture, however, gravity often pulls them backward or downward, not toward the chest. Over time, this uneven pressure creates protuberances in the cartilage. This is known as a spinal disc herniation or, more commonly, a “slipped disc.”
Spinal disc herniation is unheard of in any primate species except humans.
Well, let's see some of that evidence and see if he can offer a better explanation of it.
All apes except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. We humans are the only apes to have 23 pairs.
Evolution made a testable prediction; That somewhere in the human genome we should find evidence of chromosomal fusion. In other words, we should be able to find a fused human chromosome with the remnants of extra telomeres and centromeres.
Since the loss of all the genes in a chromosome would have been fatal to any species, scientists reasoned that if the Theory of Evolution was correct about common ancestry, one of two things must have occurred. Either two chromosomes had fused in humans’ evolutionary past, or chromosomes had split in the other apes. Using 'Occam's Razor’, which states that among competing hypotheses, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, the most likely event was chromosome fusion in humans’ ancestors.
Normal chromosomes have a centromere (a chromosomal locus that ensures delivery of one copy of each chromosome to each daughter at cell division.) and ends that are capped with telomeres… think of them as the aglets on shoelaces). It was postulated that if two chromosomes had fused, evidence for such an event would be found in a chromosome with two centromeres and telomeres where they did not belong. That is exactly what was found in human chromosome 2 (chromosomes are numbered by length).
It was subsequently established that the equivalent chimpanzee chromosomes contain the same genes as human chromosome 2 and if placed end to end the positions of those genes match those of the human chromosome. The same chromosomes in all other ape species also line up in the same way…. the fusion event has been confirmed.
Recently we have obtained largely complete genomes of two other human species, those of Neanderthal and Denisovans. We see the same chromosome fusion in their genomes as well, which tells us that the fusion event took place in a common ancestor.
The greatest test of any scientific Theory is in its usefulness as a predictive tool. In this case, as in many others, the Theory of Evolution has delivered.
[sep][sep] Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating. Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
Originally developed for climate science, the method is now an invaluable tool for archaeologists, who can track up to 13,000 years of history using tree ring chronologies for over 4,000 sites on six continents.
The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).
Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating. Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.
Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here: https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/
Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.
Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.
No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well, and they ALL give life FAR MORE than 6000 years to evolve.
If you argue "God hid those dinosaur bones (and all the isotopes used for dating) in the rocks" I can't disprove it. If you argue "God built all those layers into the glaciers and into stalactites, made the nova remnants appear millions of years old, etc." I can't disprove it. But you've got to ask yourself, why would God put all these inter-corroborating clocks all over the Earth and all thru the galaxy if they were all false???
The intro cracked me up and invited me too welcomly 😂
But we've talked in the past. Are there any specific constraints to what you're trying to focus on? Or are you arguing that evolution theory is as comprehensive as creation or that the evidence for creation is less concrete?
- this universe can assemble itself - this universe can organize itself - this universe can create itself - this universe is eternal
There's no reason to believe otherwise. The eternal bit doesn't mean the universe as it it now, the singularity it came from would be eternal. Postulating a creator doesn't help because one needs to believe -
- that creator can assemble itself - that creator can organize itself - that creator can create itself - that creator is eternal
so one is right back where one started.
This is incredible and this is why I think atheists don't really put thought behind what they start to present as "alternatives" to a creator for this universe.
As I've just shown, theists don't really put any thought behind what they try to present as vialable alternatives to the Big Bang.
Your colleagues love to waffle around and just pretend like there is rationality in other conclusions but it is just a hope to discourage belief and understanding in God.
Can you give any examples of that "waffle around"? I've never seen it.
So, what evidence do you have for these things belonging to the universe and not to a creator that is super to this universe?
The point is, any explanation as to the origin of "the creator" can simply be applied to a singularity or the universe itself, thus rendering "the creator" an unhelpful and unnecessary postulate.
No, you've got some explaining to do AND I don't avoid questions. I literally answered it already and can re-explain it or you can reread it to get the logical reasoning.
I must have missed it somehow. Please copy and paste it here. The question is, where did the creator thing come from and why can't the same explanation be applied to a simple singularity. Arguing that the universe is too complex to come into being without an intelligent creator but that intelligent creator can come into being without an even more intelligent creator, and so on, is illogical.
What is the natural numbers series, since you think I am not understanding a concrete infinite series that has a start?
It has a finite beginning so is not totally infinite.
If you mean the God I worship, that God cannot come from anywhere. That God would be where things come from. God is not a natural phenomenon like wind that has a cause and explanation but is rather the explanation of what caused and brought everything about
OK, so why can't we just say the same thing about a singularity that expanded to form the universe?
Because of reasoning, proofs, and evidences.
Such as?
the distinction is that the creator for this entire cosmos can't be some clearly fabricated story traceable to some society and their people.
Why not?
does this sound like it could be a fairy tale or some god that is fabricated by people?
Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like.
Other gods would just simply be stories that can be easily demonstrated to not have been true. Does that make sense?
No. Members of other religions could say the same of your god and religious stories.
Tge singularity is not a known thing. The laws of physics don't actually apply to the singularity and we name the start of this universe as the singularity.
What do you mean by "it's not a known thing". We know more about it than "god".
The notion that it was all one thing together since eternity makes no sense because then it has beconme volatile and unstable from something clearly external.
It make perfect sense. What don't you understand about it? I find some non-physicists have difficulty understanding what physical matter actually is. Think of it as a collection of force fields.
then how can you argue that this universe possesses the regularity it depends on but doesn't have?
Have you heard of quantum flucutations? At the quantum level, the universe is not deterministic.
If all the existential laws are continuing and regular (whuch us a NECESSITY by any amd all reason), it is being sustained by something regular that is clearly not the singularity itself.
There is no evidence of that.
Otherwise, you're tasked with concluding that this singularity was etermal, regular, and necessary but became irregular to its natural state as a singularity and began a universe at its disposal.
That's exactly what appears to be the case. I'm not sure what you mean by "became irregular" though. You're tasked with the same in respct of your god.
You accuse others of "waffle" but that's what you appear to be doing here. Despite everything you say, you still haven't managed to show why the orogin of quantum singularity cannot be explained in the same way as theists attempt to explain the origin of their god(s).
Then continue with the answers you owe me and we'll have a beautiful dialogue lest you do not wish for such beauty.
I've answered your questions, I'm still waiting for clear, consistent answers to mine.
There is no evidence for creationism. What you’ll get is “how can non living become alive” and “look at the cell, how can it be random.”
From a philosophical standpoint, the concept in God’s mind had to come from somewhere, or it’s also “something from nothing.” Theists never address this.
REAL evidence and observation FOR a young earth creation
Oh, sure, I've got some real evidence & observation for a young earth. I can't remember much of anything prior to the mid 1960s. If I can't remember it, that's evidence it didn't exist before 1960, right? And the oldest people I've ever talked to couldn't remember much before 1900. So that's evidence that the earth didn't exist before around 1900.
The thing is, my real evidence and observation doesn't stand up very well in the grand scheme of things.
I need to weigh ALL the evidence; I can't just cherry-pick the evidence that supports my "creation in 1900" theory.
If the earth was 4.5 billion years old the Grand canyon should have cur the earth in half already,
Yes, it's cutting at a rate of 1 foot every 200 years. So the Colorado River has not been flowing for 4.5 billion years, but it HAS been flowing far longer than 8000 years. BTW, all those fossils in the Grand Canyon layers - did God hide them all there? Why?
All the radioisotope ratios (potassium-argon, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, etc) in the Grand Canyon layers give ages of hundreds of millions of years. did God hide all those isotopes there in just the right ratios? Why? https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/
the sea would have an uniform bed
No, dude. Convection in the Earth's viscous mantle layer (powered by the heat of radioactive decay) is constantly raising mountains and creating sea trenches. The face of the Earth is anything but static.
the moon would have bumped the earth
Measurements say the moon is moving AWAY from the Earth, LOL!!! https://public.nrao.edu/ask/what-happens-as-the-moon-moves-away-from-the-earth/
and we would have so many people on earth
Unless other factors such as war, plague, & famine kept limiting our numbers until very recently.
It's common sense.
Common sense tells us the Earth is flat and the sky is a big bowl. Common sense tells us atoms don't exist (have you ever seen one?) and relativity is wrong and calculus is impossible. Step 1 in science is don't be fooled by common sense.
@ElwoodBlues You obviously are infatuated with evolution and thusly spend quite some reading up on it. I, how ever, don't bother too much on it because I trust God in what He told us about it, and having experienced Him in my life know I can trust His words. So, my time spent on ludicrous theories such as Evolution, the age of the earth, the length of stalactites and primordial soup coming alive is quite limited seeing I find it laughable and to some extent even amusing.
@Anton DUUUDE!!! I never mentioned evolution AT ALL!!! I've only been discussing basic geology that I learned in a freshman level college course decades ago.
You told us you had evidence of a "young earth," but that evidence doesn't hold up to even a cursory examination. Truth is, you don't have evidence of a young earth, you have a book that also talks about "the four corners of the earth" and the "ends of the earth." Does the earth have four corners? Does it have ends??
@newjaninev2 I think you should provide a summary of your observations. Maybe someone will come along that cares and read it. But it should at least be an eye opener for you. 😉
@Sharon It is simple for me. I believe in God. Even though there are questions I would like to have answered when Jesus comes back to get us, It is said then we will know all things.
Exactly what I've been saying. There will be no Gold, no mansions, no virgins, nothing but the creator, and unfortunately, that won't be good enough for the "religious." 😞
@Thevy29 No they can't - that's perhaps the main aspect of any of the natural sciences the Bible Thumpers find hard to accept, for two reasons. Firstly it does not offer rigid certainty like, say, the life-supporting physical properties of pure water; but from that, secondly is open to question and revision as evidence and techniques progress.
SW-User
I see absurdity as reason enough. Debating would also be absurd, but not the former kind, but an undesirable 2nd kind.
