How Old Do You The Earth Is?

[PostmodernProph]

the claim there is evidence for it is why I find it ridiculous......

There is evidence for it. It is not 100% conclusive because no one has charted the DNA of every single life form on the planet yet, but it does exist.

the fact all of creation shares common DNA would be proof of evolution of all creatures from a single life form ONLY if that were the only possible way they could share common DNA.......from my perspective it is evidence that all life forms were created by the same deity.....

Your supernatural deities should be fired for such incompetence and neglect in their "design".

oh I don't know.....there seem to be a lot of people around, so it must work fairly well......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In other words, you're having difficulty understanding what I wrote. I would have thought it was clear enough even for the dense, such as you.

You're so desperate to find a gap to squeegee your gawds into, you're reduced to inventing some silly hidden meaning in my clearly delineated comments.

Find someone else to thump with your gawds. You and your pretentious "contempt" are a laughable joke.

I hate to point out the obvious here, but I never mentioned God when I stated my position. Not only did I not mention God, I never made a claim that He guides evolution. The reason for that is actually pretty simple, I have no need to prove to you, or anyone else, that God is real.

I studied science extensively, and have absolutely no problem with anyone that actually understands it. What offends me is when ignoramuses, like you, try to represent their misunderstanding of fundamental facts as science. That might work when you are speaking with other ignoramuses, but it will not work with people that actually know, and understand, science. Since that seems to offend you, may I suggest you educate yourself?

By he way, did you notice the post where I corrected Rawlings when he claimed there was no evidence for the common ancestor of all living things? How does that little detail fit in with your premise that my only goal is to inject God into evolution?

In other words, you are a hack.

 

[PostmodernProph]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Of course, the issue you cannot reconcile is that evolutionary processes act on biological organisms over periods of billions of years, not less than 6,000 years.

150,000 year old AGW you say?....

Babbling?

How sad for you.

sorry.....first thing that comes to mind whenever you start babbling about 6000 year old earths......

Sorry..... You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies. Even on those rare occasions when you can string words into more than one sentence, your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are identical.

????....you mean apart from the fact I don't believe in a young earth?.......odd you seem to keep overlooking that detail......

 

[AtheistBuddah]

lol....this from someone who thinks man made green house gases caused global warming 150k years ago....

Haha, what are you even talking about. It's fun watching Hollie back you into a corner to the point where you just blurt out whatever random defense you can come up with.

????....when have I ever been in a corner?......

You've been in a corner pretty much since Hollie started posting on this thread, lol

 

[AtheistBuddah]

So the theory of evolution does not claim that man evolved from an ape like creature?

Given the similarity of humans to apes, the idea of a common ancestor is pretty logical. Hard to deny.

Except that man also shares about90 percent of his dna with pigs and mice did we evolve from a mouse like creature too?

if one truly believes in macro-evolution we have a common ancestor with pine trees.....

Ok, now I'm BEGGING YOU, read up on evolution, PUUULLLLEEEAAASSSEEEEE!

????....are you another who has never considered the ramifications of what you claim to believe?....

I don't even have words to probably explain the irony of that statement to you. YES we have given a great deal of thought to the implications of evolutionary theory. We are all animals. So what? We share common ancestry with all life and there's nothing wrong with that. So get off your high horse and accept that humanity is no more special than any other form of life. Plants and animals were not created for us to use.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Your timescale is too small, monkey. I think I found your problem. Your idea of what "a long time" is and what it actually is with regards to the cosmos are vastly different. The entirety of the history of life on this planet when compared to the history of the universe is like a fingernail compared to the whole arm and that thousand years you just mentioned would barely qualify as the dust at the end of that fingernail.

 

[Hollie]

the claim there is evidence for it is why I find it ridiculous......

There is evidence for it. It is not 100% conclusive because no one has charted the DNA of every single life form on the planet yet, but it does exist.

the fact all of creation shares common DNA would be proof of evolution of all creatures from a single life form ONLY if that were the only possible way they could share common DNA.......from my perspective it is evidence that all life forms were created by the same deity.....

Your supernatural deities should be fired for such incompetence and neglect in their "design".

oh I don't know.....there seem to be a lot of people around, so it must work fairly well......

Oh, I don't know... disease, famine, earthquakes and tales of floods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment, yeah, incompetence and a pathology only a serial mass murderer could love.

Be sure to thank your gawds for that blueprint for the cancer cell. A master stroke of design

 

[Hollie]

In other words, you're having difficulty understanding what I wrote. I would have thought it was clear enough even for the dense, such as you.

You're so desperate to find a gap to squeegee your gawds into, you're reduced to inventing some silly hidden meaning in my clearly delineated comments.

Find someone else to thump with your gawds. You and your pretentious "contempt" are a laughable joke.

I hate to point out the obvious here, but I never mentioned God when I stated my position. Not only did I not mention God, I never made a claim that He guides evolution. The reason for that is actually pretty simple, I have no need to prove to you, or anyone else, that God is real.

I studied science extensively, and have absolutely no problem with anyone that actually understands it. What offends me is when ignoramuses, like you, try to represent their misunderstanding of fundamental facts as science. That might work when you are speaking with other ignoramuses, but it will not work with people that actually know, and understand, science. Since that seems to offend you, may I suggest you educate yourself?

By he way, did you notice the post where I corrected Rawlings when he claimed there was no evidence for the common ancestor of all living things? How does that little detail fit in with your premise that my only goal is to inject God into evolution?

In other words, you are a hack.

I'm glad I was able to help you understand your error and the false claim you are now acknowledging.

Otherwise, if you believe your versions of gods are real, that's fine.

 

[PostmodernProph]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Your timescale is too small, monkey. I think I found your problem. Your idea of what "a long time" is and what it actually is with regards to the cosmos are vastly different. The entirety of the history of life on this planet when compared to the history of the universe is like a fingernail compared to the whole arm and that thousand years you just mentioned would barely qualify as the dust at the end of that fingernail.

my time scale was set to reflect that period of time in which there WERE scientists to observe the event.....as I recall, in all the years previous, it was never observed either......your evidence its ever happened is a bit less than the dust at the end of that fingernail......

 

[konradv]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.

 

[PostmodernProph]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.

because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....

 

[AtheistBuddah]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Your timescale is too small, monkey. I think I found your problem. Your idea of what "a long time" is and what it actually is with regards to the cosmos are vastly different. The entirety of the history of life on this planet when compared to the history of the universe is like a fingernail compared to the whole arm and that thousand years you just mentioned would barely qualify as the dust at the end of that fingernail.

my time scale was set to reflect that period of time in which there WERE scientists to observe the event.....as I recall, in all the years previous, it was never observed either......your evidence its ever happened is a bit less than the dust at the end of that fingernail......

There is plenty of evidence for it. Science does not have to be there to witness something in order to prove that it happened. This fact is easy enough for people to grasp when it comes to forensic scientists proving when, how, and by whom a crime such as murder was committed. So why is it so hard to accept that proving evolution to be a fact works the same way?

 

[Hollie]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.

because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....

You need to let go of your paranoia. I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds. For that matter, I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove Leprechauns or other objects 'de art.

Gee whiz, pages and pages of posts and still, no ne of the fundamentalists are stepping up to the plate with any defense of creationism / ID. I was hoping Creationists would finally propose their General Creation Theory...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we don’t have a consensus of creationists.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any YEC'ists have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. ID'iots / supernaturalists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims.

 

[PostmodernProph]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Your timescale is too small, monkey. I think I found your problem. Your idea of what "a long time" is and what it actually is with regards to the cosmos are vastly different. The entirety of the history of life on this planet when compared to the history of the universe is like a fingernail compared to the whole arm and that thousand years you just mentioned would barely qualify as the dust at the end of that fingernail.

my time scale was set to reflect that period of time in which there WERE scientists to observe the event.....as I recall, in all the years previous, it was never observed either......your evidence its ever happened is a bit less than the dust at the end of that fingernail......

There is plenty of evidence for it. Science does not have to be there to witness something in order to prove that it happened. This fact is easy enough for people to grasp when it comes to forensic scientists proving when, how, and by whom a crime such as murder was committed. So why is it so hard to accept that proving evolution to be a fact works the same way?

for one thing, criminal justice is not science.....for another, even if it were, you haven't provided enough evidence to convict humans for evolving from a single celled organism.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.

because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....

I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds.

???....neither do I....atheists aren't a relevant scientific body.....

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.

agreed....you just need to prove that humans evolved from a single celled organism......

 

[Hollie]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.

because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....

I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds.

???....neither do I....atheists aren't a relevant scientific body.....

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.

agreed....you just need to prove that humans evolved from a single celled organism......

I see. Your objection to science is furthered by your fear of knowledge.

And still, you sidestep any requirement to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.

because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....

I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds.

???....neither do I....atheists aren't a relevant scientific body.....

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.

agreed....you just need to prove that humans evolved from a single celled organism......

I see. Your objection to science is furthered by your fear of knowledge.

And still, you sidestep any requirement to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

no, my objections to your argument is furthered by my fear you don't have one.......and as stated many times, the scientific method does not apply to statements of faith.....abandon your silly insistence that its science and you too will not be required to provide evidence to support your claims......

 

[konradv]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.

because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....

That a dumber response than usual. People already wave flags saying they've proven God isn't real. There are threads on this very board about it. You just prove my point with your continual posting of flip answers that don't really answer anything.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Your timescale is too small, monkey. I think I found your problem. Your idea of what "a long time" is and what it actually is with regards to the cosmos are vastly different. The entirety of the history of life on this planet when compared to the history of the universe is like a fingernail compared to the whole arm and that thousand years you just mentioned would barely qualify as the dust at the end of that fingernail.

my time scale was set to reflect that period of time in which there WERE scientists to observe the event.....as I recall, in all the years previous, it was never observed either......your evidence its ever happened is a bit less than the dust at the end of that fingernail......

There is plenty of evidence for it. Science does not have to be there to witness something in order to prove that it happened. This fact is easy enough for people to grasp when it comes to forensic scientists proving when, how, and by whom a crime such as murder was committed. So why is it so hard to accept that proving evolution to be a fact works the same way?

for one thing, criminal justice is not science.....for another, even if it were, you haven't provided enough evidence to convict humans for evolving from a single celled organism.....

FORENSICS is very much a science. I didn't say shit about criminal justice did I? Criminal Justice is a larger field, which forensics fits into. And what is your requirement for proving the claim? How much evidence do scientists need to provide for you to accept the theory of evolution?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FORENSICS is very much a science. I didn't say shit about criminal justice did I? Criminal Justice is a larger field, which forensics fits into. And what is your requirement for proving the claim? How much evidence do scientists need to provide for you to accept the theory of evolution?

Actually, forensics is pretty much the opposite of science right now, though it is improving.

Please, challenge me on that so I can shove your ignorance down your throat.