How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[alang1216]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

 

[esalla]

LOL you post science krap here all the time doofy

I would say you're the doofy as you, too, can't explain Bart Ehrman's beliefs nor what Jesus said regarding humans on Earth from the beginning in the Bible. You may as well be ignored by everyone.

Please ignore me Mr. Bond................................

Again when you say that God created life this is a scientific statement

Not that your feeble brain can process reality

 

[zaangalewa]

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

Heh. It's total nonsense what you just posted.

Unfortuatelly dominate pseudo-Christians and pseudo-scientists in the public discussions around evolution, so all of this discussions - specially in the English speaking world - are nearly always only nonsense.

Nobody understands much of what you post in S&T

S&T? Science and technology? I'm freaky good in science and technology.

nor can you explain what you say in R&E

R&E? Religion and Ethics? ... Hmm ... I don't remember I said any nonsense in this context. And I said for sure lots of things there, which are important for me and others.

when asked.

I'm able to explain every single of my thoughts. For everything what I think exist reasons.

Who knows what you believe with your Catholicism?

I and the people who speak with me. In general I believe what's written down in the catechism of the holy church - with exceptions. And this exceprtions have always roots in traditions, roots in reasoning and/or roots in love. And sometimes I'm just simple not really convinced from something what's written there. But which church has such a good wide transparent base for all believers?

Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth?

Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.

The much more astonishing thing: When Pope Francis came he was for me a typical Catholic - unbelievable typical - who shared perfectly my belief - although he grew up in another continent continent, another culture and another language. Pope Francis is for sure one of the persons in the world who suffers a lot to be separated by Corona from his spontanous way to live with his brothers and sisters. Nevertheless he fights for the life of everyone in dignity and peace - til the last moment of life on Earth, when god will overtake.

 

[esalla]

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

Heh. It's total nonsense what you just posted.

Unfortuatelly domintae pseudo-Christians and pseudo-scientists in the public discussions around evolution, so all of this discussions - specially in the English speaking world - are nearly always only nonsense.

Nobody understands much of what you post in S&T

S&T? Science and technology? And I thought I'm damned good in science and technology.

nor can you explain what you say in R&E

R&E? Religion and Ethics? ... Hmm ... I don't remember I said any nonsense in this context. And I said for sure lots of things there, which are important for me and others.

when asked.

I'm able to explain every single of my thoughts. For everything what I think exist reasons.

Who knows what you believe with your Catholicism?

I and the people who speak with me. In general I believe what's written down in the catechism of the holy church - with exceptions. And this exceprtions have always roots in traditions, roots in reasoning and/or roots in love. And sometimes I'm just simple not really convinced from something what's written there. But which church has such a good wide transparent base for all believers?

Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth?

Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.

The much more astonishing thing: When Pope Francis came he was for me a typical Catholic - unbelievable typical - who shared perfectly my belief - although he grew up in another continent continent, another culture and another language. Pope Francis is for sure one of the persons in the world who suffers a lot to be separated by Corona from his spontanous way to live with his brothers and sisters. Nevertheless he fights for the life of everyone in dignity and peace - til the last moment of life on Earth, when god will overtake.

Time for your meds

 

[zaangalewa]

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

Heh. It's total nonsense what you just posted.

Unfortuatelly domintae pseudo-Christians and pseudo-scientists in the public discussions around evolution, so all of this discussions - specially in the English speaking world - are nearly always only nonsense.

Nobody understands much of what you post in S&T

S&T? Science and technology? And I thought I'm damned good in science and technology.

nor can you explain what you say in R&E

R&E? Religion and Ethics? ... Hmm ... I don't remember I said any nonsense in this context. And I said for sure lots of things there, which are important for me and others.

when asked.

I'm able to explain every single of my thoughts. For everything what I think exist reasons.

Who knows what you believe with your Catholicism?

I and the people who speak with me. In general I believe what's written down in the catechism of the holy church - with exceptions. And this exceprtions have always roots in traditions, roots in reasoning and/or roots in love. And sometimes I'm just simple not really convinced from something what's written there. But which church has such a good wide transparent base for all believers?

Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth?

Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.

The much more astonishing thing: When Pope Francis came he was for me a typical Catholic - unbelievable typical - who shared perfectly my belief - although he grew up in another continent continent, another culture and another language. Pope Francis is for sure one of the persons in the world who suffers a lot to be separated by Corona from his spontanous way to live with his brothers and sisters. Nevertheless he fights for the life of everyone in dignity and peace - til the last moment of life on Earth, when god will overtake.

Time for your meds

Anything else to say, impatient dark soul, who lives in fear of psychiatric diseases and rejects modern medical methods?

 

[esalla]

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

Heh. It's total nonsense what you just posted.

Unfortuatelly domintae pseudo-Christians and pseudo-scientists in the public discussions around evolution, so all of this discussions - specially in the English speaking world - are nearly always only nonsense.

Nobody understands much of what you post in S&T

S&T? Science and technology? And I thought I'm damned good in science and technology.

nor can you explain what you say in R&E

R&E? Religion and Ethics? ... Hmm ... I don't remember I said any nonsense in this context. And I said for sure lots of things there, which are important for me and others.

when asked.

I'm able to explain every single of my thoughts. For everything what I think exist reasons.

Who knows what you believe with your Catholicism?

I and the people who speak with me. In general I believe what's written down in the catechism of the holy church - with exceptions. And this exceprtions have always roots in traditions, roots in reasoning and/or roots in love. And sometimes I'm just simple not really convinced from something what's written there. But which church has such a good wide transparent base for all believers?

Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth?

Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.

The much more astonishing thing: When Pope Francis came he was for me a typical Catholic - unbelievable typical - who shared perfectly my belief - although he grew up in another continent continent, another culture and another language. Pope Francis is for sure one of the persons in the world who suffers a lot to be separated by Corona from his spontanous way to live with his brothers and sisters. Nevertheless he fights for the life of everyone in dignity and peace - til the last moment of life on Earth, when god will overtake.

Time for your meds

Anything else to say, dark soul?

Take your meds Captain

 

[zaangalewa]

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

Heh. It's total nonsense what you just posted.

Unfortuatelly domintae pseudo-Christians and pseudo-scientists in the public discussions around evolution, so all of this discussions - specially in the English speaking world - are nearly always only nonsense.

Nobody understands much of what you post in S&T

S&T? Science and technology? And I thought I'm damned good in science and technology.

nor can you explain what you say in R&E

R&E? Religion and Ethics? ... Hmm ... I don't remember I said any nonsense in this context. And I said for sure lots of things there, which are important for me and others.

when asked.

I'm able to explain every single of my thoughts. For everything what I think exist reasons.

Who knows what you believe with your Catholicism?

I and the people who speak with me. In general I believe what's written down in the catechism of the holy church - with exceptions. And this exceprtions have always roots in traditions, roots in reasoning and/or roots in love. And sometimes I'm just simple not really convinced from something what's written there. But which church has such a good wide transparent base for all believers?

Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth?

Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.

The much more astonishing thing: When Pope Francis came he was for me a typical Catholic - unbelievable typical - who shared perfectly my belief - although he grew up in another continent continent, another culture and another language. Pope Francis is for sure one of the persons in the world who suffers a lot to be separated by Corona from his spontanous way to live with his brothers and sisters. Nevertheless he fights for the life of everyone in dignity and peace - til the last moment of life on Earth, when god will overtake.

Time for your meds

Anything else to say, dark soul?

Take your meds Captain

Anything else to say, impatient dark soul, who lives in fear of psychiatric diseases and rejects modern medical methods? It would be by the way the very best for all people all around you, if you would throw your weapons into the next scrap press.

 

[esalla]

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

Heh. It's total nonsense what you just posted.

Unfortuatelly domintae pseudo-Christians and pseudo-scientists in the public discussions around evolution, so all of this discussions - specially in the English speaking world - are nearly always only nonsense.

Nobody understands much of what you post in S&T

S&T? Science and technology? And I thought I'm damned good in science and technology.

nor can you explain what you say in R&E

R&E? Religion and Ethics? ... Hmm ... I don't remember I said any nonsense in this context. And I said for sure lots of things there, which are important for me and others.

when asked.

I'm able to explain every single of my thoughts. For everything what I think exist reasons.

Who knows what you believe with your Catholicism?

I and the people who speak with me. In general I believe what's written down in the catechism of the holy church - with exceptions. And this exceprtions have always roots in traditions, roots in reasoning and/or roots in love. And sometimes I'm just simple not really convinced from something what's written there. But which church has such a good wide transparent base for all believers?

Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth?

Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.

The much more astonishing thing: When Pope Francis came he was for me a typical Catholic - unbelievable typical - who shared perfectly my belief - although he grew up in another continent continent, another culture and another language. Pope Francis is for sure one of the persons in the world who suffers a lot to be separated by Corona from his spontanous way to live with his brothers and sisters. Nevertheless he fights for the life of everyone in dignity and peace - til the last moment of life on Earth, when god will overtake.

Time for your meds

Anything else to say, dark soul?

Take your meds Captain

Anything else to say, impatient dark soul, who lives in fear of psychiatric diseases and rejects modern medical methods? It would be by the way the very best for all people all around you, if you would throw your weapons into the next scrap press.

Lol you are actually funny, but why are you projecting your heavily medicated life onto me?

Like I said, take your pills

 

[ESay]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

I highly doubt that anyone sits on the right or left hands of God. I hope you dont take anthropomorphic 'features' of God literally.

Yes, the angels are the sons of God. Moreover, even humans can be considered the 'sons' of God. But it is one thing if you refer to Jesus as the son of God in Christian interpretation, and the other thing if you somehow equal him with angels with this title.

In my perception, only God can be described with the word 'perfect'. All creatures are limited in their 'perfection'. Even if we assume that 'divine' Jesus is the first and the most important creation (somehow the way the Arians did), we will have to admit that his 'perfection' is also limited. So, how can I be sure he was a flawless lamb?

 

[esalla]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

I highly doubt that anyone sits on the right or left hands of God. I hope you dont take anthropomorphic 'features' of God literally.

Yes, the angels are the sons of God. Moreover, even humans can be considered the 'sons' of God. But it is one thing if you refer to Jesus as the son of God in Christian interpretation, and the other thing if you somehow equal him with angels with this title.

In my perception, only God can be described with the word 'perfect'. All creatures are limited in their 'perfection'. Even if we assume that 'divine' Jesus is the first and the most important creation (somehow the way the Arians did), we will have to admit that his 'perfection' is also limited. So, how can I be sure he was a flawless lamb?

Clearly god was not perfect

 

[james bond]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.

"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.

The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.

Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."

Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer

Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”

skepticalinquirer.org

I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.

Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.

 

[james bond]

>>Me: >>Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth? <<

Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.

Haha, so the answer is no, you don't know. It figures. You don't know about your own religion, science, and what's important.

 

[ESay]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

I highly doubt that anyone sits on the right or left hands of God. I hope you dont take anthropomorphic 'features' of God literally.

Yes, the angels are the sons of God. Moreover, even humans can be considered the 'sons' of God. But it is one thing if you refer to Jesus as the son of God in Christian interpretation, and the other thing if you somehow equal him with angels with this title.

In my perception, only God can be described with the word 'perfect'. All creatures are limited in their 'perfection'. Even if we assume that 'divine' Jesus is the first and the most important creation (somehow the way the Arians did), we will have to admit that his 'perfection' is also limited. So, how can I be sure he was a flawless lamb?

Clearly god was not perfect

Why? Because He created imperfect world?

 

[esalla]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

I highly doubt that anyone sits on the right or left hands of God. I hope you dont take anthropomorphic 'features' of God literally.

Yes, the angels are the sons of God. Moreover, even humans can be considered the 'sons' of God. But it is one thing if you refer to Jesus as the son of God in Christian interpretation, and the other thing if you somehow equal him with angels with this title.

In my perception, only God can be described with the word 'perfect'. All creatures are limited in their 'perfection'. Even if we assume that 'divine' Jesus is the first and the most important creation (somehow the way the Arians did), we will have to admit that his 'perfection' is also limited. So, how can I be sure he was a flawless lamb?

Clearly god was not perfect

Why? Because He created imperfect world?

Because perfect only exist in fantasy

 

[james bond]

So, what did Pope Francis say about the age of the Earth?

He didn't say much as he's a liberal and cares more about AGW, protecting the Earth from overuse, and not have civilization just spread haphazardly over it and exploit it. He believes that we should be stewards of the Earth than masters of it. I think he said the Bible teaches this. He rarely uses the Bible in his speeches. This is from what I read in the news; I'm not a follower of Catholicism.

To answer the question, Pope Francis alludes to the age of the Earth and defers to evolution and big bang. He said creation and evolution are both right.

 

[alang1216]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.

"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.

The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.

Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."

Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer

Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”

skepticalinquirer.org

I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.

Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

 

[esalla]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.

"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.

The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.

Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."

Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer

Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”

skepticalinquirer.org

I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.

Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomely

 

[alang1216]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.

"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.

The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.

Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."

Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer

Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”

skepticalinquirer.org

I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.

Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomely

Evolution is a fact and can stand up to however many straw men you throw at it. Evolution is NOT a random process.

 

[esalla]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.

"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.

The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.

Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."

Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer

Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”

skepticalinquirer.org

I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.

Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomely

Evolution is a fact and can stand up to however many straw men you throw at it. Evolution is NOT a random process.

Sorry no proof that dna wrote itself exist

 

[james bond]

Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.

It's too late to come along with your consensus theory. You couldn't answer my question and conceded already by, "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". William Thompson's argument against Darwin turned out to be important because Darwin was about to concede his explanation of ToE could not happen due to not enough time. It also points out how "long time" was of utmost importance to him. The > 6,000 years wasn't that big of a deal and one that Lyell and Hutton left for their readers to come to a decision on. Today, I would say that is the most difficult argument to make since it is based solely on the Bible. What we find physically on Earth has been upset by the global flood and Lyell used geology to attack a 6,000 year old Earth and uniformitarianism.

OTOH, I made a good case on how Darwin could've said I need more than 3 billion years when that article had gone to the internet archives. Several hundred millions years, 3 hundred million years, and his other estimates kept going up as new items, i.e. older items, were discovered. However, creation scientists say these discoveries were all based on assumptions of what Darwin needed as explanations of evolution. Thus, they are all based on circular reasoning in order to back up evolution.