Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Lonestar_logic]

OOOOH an insult towards me and the President! How clever, you must be a riot at parties.



He's right. See, we use the theory of evolution to make sense of the fossil record. Without the theory of evolution to make sense of it, we're left with quite the conundrum of why the fossil record is like it is, why the timeline of species is like it is. It really only makes sense in light of the theory of evolution.

We know the creationist theory isn't true, because of the varying lifetimes of organisms throughout the record. If the creationist theory were true, all modern species would have the same precise starting point, with nothing before them. In keeping with the "God did it" reasoning and their stubborn antithesis to macro-evolution.



You accept macro-evolution now? How wonderful!



Oh he's a supporter of this neat other theory within evolution called punctuated equilibrium. Essentially he views species change as an incredibly rare event, which happens rapidly, as opposed to gradualism. That's how it explains gaps in the fossil record. The reason he says it hasn't provided evidence of phyletic evolution is because he's attempting to disprove that bit in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

But I'm not sure where the lack of transitional forms comes in, as I quote Gould at the bottom.



Yeah he's the same as above, more or less. I think it's wonderful you've read upon and want to talk about differing theories of how evolution works.

I mean, it's not like you quote-mined for the specific point of trying to discredit the transitional forms you requested in the first place.



Which is what I said above.



Except they aren't. We've found loads of fossils, as exhibited by the list on wikipedia.




Here's a quote from Gould:



So I wonder if you've been quote mining the entire time to paint a rather biased and inaccurate view of what those scientists said. You're not exactly known for your smarts when it comes to science.

By the way, I find it increasingly funny that you quote from scientists who firmly believed in evolution, with quotes and fields that promote macro-evolution just to disprove the fossil record.

It just goes to show how ludicrous evolutionist really are.

So again no rebuttal. I do wonder if you ever actually tire of showing everyone you're the most ignorant person in the room.

You addressed the quotes one by one, I can't argue for those guys. I just know that each one stated that the fossil record does not support evolution. Which many on here point at in support.

You didn't rebut any of the quotes as to why they may be wrong. Therefore you must be in agreement. That's is why you steered the argument to macro-evolution and again there is no evidence that supports even that line of evolution. Next I guess you'll go to micro-evolution.

 

[Divine Wind]

Anyone who doubts that God could create the Universe from a spark 15 Billion years and ago and foresee how it would turn out in present day is doubting God's abilities.

Because our scientific minds are more wrong than they are right. They produce more questions than they answer.

Yeah, it's called "the Scientific Method". Sure, we often get it wrong....initially. Do you know how times Thomas Edison attempted to invent the light bulb before succeeding?

As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

We also had lot of rockets blow up on the pad before successfully launching a man into space plus killed 3 astronauts before successfully going to the Moon. Yes, we fail a lot, but we also get things right. We wouldn't be having this conversation without the technology invented by mankind using God-given talents to do so.

To refute the quality of our gifts, our intellect, is to refute God.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Thank goodness the religious wackos only waste time on one of the scientific theories.



Imagine if we had all this childish denying of gravity, electricity or plate tectonics.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Non sequitur. If you don't know how God created the Universe, then how can you assume the Universe didn't begin and evolve just as our God-given mines have scientifically deduced that it has?

Origin of the Universe

Anyone who doubts that God could create the Universe from a spark 15 Billion years and ago and foresee how it would turn out in present day is doubting God's abilities.

Because our scientific minds are more wrong than they are right. They produce more questions than they answer. They conduct experiments over and over until they get the results they like and dismiss those they don't. The fact that there is no fossil record showing transitional species is more than enough proof to convince me that evolution has never occured in the way they present it.

Boo hoo. Someone's bitter over failing science class.

Is it your claim that man evolved from ape like creatures? If so, then where are these transitional species? Shouldn't there be some still walking this earth? If not why?

And now I see why you did fail. The transitional species of our ancestors are numerous. We have quite good record of them. I suggest you look up the rest of the inhabitants of the genus homo.

Also, no. That's not how it works. We're related to apes by sharing a common ancestor, lots of animals do. The common ancestor diverged and evolved separately, some into apes, and the rest into us. That's generally how speciation occurs. There's no reason for a transitional species to actually exist.

So numerous none can be found?


Sounds about right.


Oh where and what exactly is this "common ancestor"?

This is my point, scientist makes claims like this all the time but have absolutely no evidence to support it!! I've already shown a list of objective evolutionist, paleonologist and the like that have all affirmed that the fossil record does not support your theory of evolution. As a matter of fact the fossil record refutes evolutionist claims.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realised that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”:

" …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust to the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.”

 

[Woyzeck]

I changed nothing. I may have paraphrased you but that is what you said. You said evolution continues to this day but it's impossible to see it, which is basically what i said.

You say there is evidence that evolution is still going on then produce said evidence.

There have been experiments done. You can look at the works of John Endler with guppies, or for a really cool experiment that shows evolution is possible check out a man named Richard Lenski and his long-term experiments with E. coli. There's also the examples of the lizards on an island off the coast of Croatia. They were transplanted during the early 70s and scientists only recently went back to see what happened. The results are interesting.

Subsequently, these experiments show that evolution is a testable theory.

Experiments that are made with a presumed outcome and if that outcome doesn't happen the experiment is discarded. That's what evolutionist do and many have stated as much.

I advise you to look up these experiments and take a look at them instead of just generalizing so you don't have to actually argue about them. I know, it's scary. You might have to read! Or worse, LEARN something!

Adaptation is not evolution. Did those lizards become birds? Or did they simply adapt to their environment?

Thinking coherent thoughts isn't your strong suit is it? Who the bloody balls said the lizards would evolve into birds? Evolution does not work that way!

Adaptation is an integral part of evolution It is the process by which organisms are better suited to the habitat where they live. It is, when speaking of biology, a wholly evolutionary process. It is brought upon by natural selection. For example, those with mutations that help them better to survive in a new environment (whether it's a new geographic location, or the environment has changed) will pass on their genes to the next generation.

So thank you for arguing for evolution. Thank you also for not knowing what adaptation means within modern biology.

As far as the guppies are concerned here are some possible hypotheses

1.Predators are causing guppy populations to become more drab by preying on the most brightly colored individuals and eliminating them from the gene pool.

2.Guppy populations are evolving to more closely match -- or stand out from -- their environment.
3.Female guppies are choosing to mate with the most brightly colored males, giving those males a higher probability of passing their genes on to the next generation.

If this is an example of evolution then why wasn't the chameleon or a number of lizards, frogs, fish as well as mammals and birds heralded in the same mannner?

Those with strong predators, the guppies have camouflage to evade them. Those without strong predators had more showy colors to attract females. The camouflage/attraction tradeoff is actually something many animals go through. Some even prefer to not use camouflage and just go with what attracts females (and predators).

I'm not sure what you're asking or how it pertains to evolution though. Are you asking why other animals didn't evolve similarly?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Anyone who doubts that God could create the Universe from a spark 15 Billion years and ago and foresee how it would turn out in present day is doubting God's abilities.

Because our scientific minds are more wrong than they are right. They produce more questions than they answer.

Yeah, it's called "the Scientific Method". Sure, we often get it wrong....initially. Do you know how times Thomas Edison attempted to invent the light bulb before succeeding?

As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

We also had lot of rockets blow up on the pad before successfully launching a man into space plus killed 3 astronauts before successfully going to the Moon. Yes, we fail a lot, but we also get things right. We wouldn't be having this conversation without the technology invented by mankind using God-given talents to do so.

To refute the quality of our gifts, our intellect, is to refute God.

Comparing Edison to evolutionist is a stretch.

 

[Divine Wind]

Comparing Edison to evolutionist is a stretch.

Because you think so? I disagree. The scientific method is just that, a method. It can lead to many failures, but persistence often leads to success just as it did with our findings about the Big Bang and evolution through the millienia. Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying it is impossible for God to to created the Universe 15 billion years ago as science tells us it occurred?

 

[Woyzeck]

It just goes to show how ludicrous evolutionist really are.

So again no rebuttal. I do wonder if you ever actually tire of showing everyone you're the most ignorant person in the room.

You addressed the quotes one by one, I can't argue for those guys. I just know that each one stated that the fossil record does not support evolution. Which many on here point at in support.

You didn't rebut any of the quotes as to why they may be wrong. Therefore you must be in agreement. That's is why you steered the argument to macro-evolution and again there is no evidence that supports even that line of evolution. Next I guess you'll go to micro-evolution.

They are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution by itself. But if you apply the theory of evolution to the fossil record, the fossil record begins to resemble some order of sense.

It's a differing of opinion whether punctuation equilibrium is correct or not. As I pointed out, one of the founders of the theory essentially nixed the idea of what you were saying about there being no transitional fossils. The scientific consensus accepts the validity of the fossil record as supporting evolution however. So this point is moot.

Actually I only brought up macro-evolution because you're being really inconsistent with regards to that in that post. Given your opinion of science and scientists, it's also a wee bit dickish to choose what you accept as truth. Actually it's flat out retarded.

 

[Woyzeck]

Because our scientific minds are more wrong than they are right. They produce more questions than they answer. They conduct experiments over and over until they get the results they like and dismiss those they don't. The fact that there is no fossil record showing transitional species is more than enough proof to convince me that evolution has never occured in the way they present it.

Boo hoo. Someone's bitter over failing science class.

Is it your claim that man evolved from ape like creatures? If so, then where are these transitional species? Shouldn't there be some still walking this earth? If not why?

And now I see why you did fail. The transitional species of our ancestors are numerous. We have quite good record of them. I suggest you look up the rest of the inhabitants of the genus homo.

Also, no. That's not how it works. We're related to apes by sharing a common ancestor, lots of animals do. The common ancestor diverged and evolved separately, some into apes, and the rest into us. That's generally how speciation occurs. There's no reason for a transitional species to actually exist.

So numerous none can be found?


Sounds about right.

What? You just hear what you want to, huh? We have found quite a lot of our human ancestors. It's just a quick google search away.

Oh where and what exactly is this "common ancestor"?

Between what and what? Humans and chimps? Humans and gorillas?

The closest we have between human and chimps is Ardipithecus ramidus but I'm pretty sure it's not the actual most recent common ancestor. To my knowledge we haven't found the one between human and chimps yet as a fossil. Fossils are rare, it turns out. But we know it existed 6 million years ago, somewhere in Africa. There's some other close species to the most recent common ancestor too.

This is my point, scientist makes claims like this all the time but have absolutely no evidence to support it!!

Oh my, you must be serious and truthful if you used not one exclamation point, but two exclamation points!

Sadly, this is a flat out lie. You really are in dire need of going to your local library and pickinh up a biology book. Don't worry, Richard Dawkins doesn't write all of the evolution ones, so you can save your eyes from possible blasphemy.

I've already shown a list of objective evolutionist, paleonologist and the like that have all affirmed that the fossil record does not support your theory of evolution. As a matter of fact the fossil record refutes evolutionist claims.

Uh lol whut? How does it refute it? You didn't point that out at all. Fossil records are also not the only proof of evolution. There is a wealth of other material out there.

How cute you are with your elementary school understanding of biology. You must have some pretty interesting conclusions you can offer about astronomy too, you've clearly down the requisite 25-minutes of not thinking for it.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realised that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”:

" …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust to the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.”

Yeah the fossil record was sparse in his time. Not surprisingly, in the intervening century and a half, we've found quite a bit of them. So I'm not sure why you continue to claim this. I even gave you a list of them. But you just ignored that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There have been experiments done. You can look at the works of John Endler with guppies, or for a really cool experiment that shows evolution is possible check out a man named Richard Lenski and his long-term experiments with E. coli. There's also the examples of the lizards on an island off the coast of Croatia. They were transplanted during the early 70s and scientists only recently went back to see what happened. The results are interesting.

Subsequently, these experiments show that evolution is a testable theory.

Experiments that are made with a presumed outcome and if that outcome doesn't happen the experiment is discarded. That's what evolutionist do and many have stated as much.

I advise you to look up these experiments and take a look at them instead of just generalizing so you don't have to actually argue about them. I know, it's scary. You might have to read! Or worse, LEARN something!

Adaptation is not evolution. Did those lizards become birds? Or did they simply adapt to their environment?

Thinking coherent thoughts isn't your strong suit is it? Who the bloody balls said the lizards would evolve into birds? Evolution does not work that way!

Adaptation is an integral part of evolution It is the process by which organisms are better suited to the habitat where they live. It is, when speaking of biology, a wholly evolutionary process. It is brought upon by natural selection. For example, those with mutations that help them better to survive in a new environment (whether it's a new geographic location, or the environment has changed) will pass on their genes to the next generation.

So thank you for arguing for evolution. Thank you also for not knowing what adaptation means within modern biology.

As far as the guppies are concerned here are some possible hypotheses

1.Predators are causing guppy populations to become more drab by preying on the most brightly colored individuals and eliminating them from the gene pool.

2.Guppy populations are evolving to more closely match -- or stand out from -- their environment.
3.Female guppies are choosing to mate with the most brightly colored males, giving those males a higher probability of passing their genes on to the next generation.

If this is an example of evolution then why wasn't the chameleon or a number of lizards, frogs, fish as well as mammals and birds heralded in the same mannner?

Those with strong predators, the guppies have camouflage to evade them. Those without strong predators had more showy colors to attract females. The camouflage/attraction tradeoff is actually something many animals go through. Some even prefer to not use camouflage and just go with what attracts females (and predators).

I'm not sure what you're asking or how it pertains to evolution though. Are you asking why other animals didn't evolve similarly?

Evolutionists make the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. Lizards, reptiles, not much difference wouldn't you say? But I understand arguing semantics is all you really have.

Fact is you cannot anymore prove evolution than I can prove creation. You can show how things have adapted over time and you may call that evolution but is does not answer the questions about the origins of man. I've heard some say something about a common ancestor, but have seen no evidence that supports it. Fossil records do not support evolutionist theories if anything they refute them.

So you have micro-evolution and the examples of variations which you described actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

However, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution."

Adaptation, micro-evolution is not evolution in the sense of one species evolving into another, such as a dinasaur to a reptile then to a bird etc...

There is no evidence and never has been any evidence that such evolution has occured.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Comparing Edison to evolutionist is a stretch.

Because you think so? I disagree. The scientific method is just that, a method. It can lead to many failures, but persistence often leads to success just as it did with our findings about the Big Bang and evolution through the millienia. Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying it is impossible for God to to created the Universe 15 billion years ago as science tells us it occurred?

Yea I think so. In one instance you have physical data, in the other you only have theories.


I think there is no way science can accurately make that calculation. So no, I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The current observed mutation rate is evidence...

...of evolution. To believe in creationism there would have to be no mutations. You're also forgetting about fusion of cells combining their genetic material or the passing of genetic material from one cell to another.

Where did the cell come from?

Funny, you will get the ol we don't worry about the origins of life. The reason is they have no way how to explain that phenomenon. But a cell is beautiful piece of design.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I don't why evolution disturbs people on the right, but it does. No wonder America ranks up their with Turkey in denying evolution.

Evolution has never been proven. It is only a theory and believing that theory requires just as much if not more faith than Christians have in their beliefs. IMO

i think you might very well be the missing link.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So again no rebuttal. I do wonder if you ever actually tire of showing everyone you're the most ignorant person in the room.

You addressed the quotes one by one, I can't argue for those guys. I just know that each one stated that the fossil record does not support evolution. Which many on here point at in support.

You didn't rebut any of the quotes as to why they may be wrong. Therefore you must be in agreement. That's is why you steered the argument to macro-evolution and again there is no evidence that supports even that line of evolution. Next I guess you'll go to micro-evolution.

They are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution by itself. But if you apply the theory of evolution to the fossil record, the fossil record begins to resemble some order of sense.

It's a differing of opinion whether punctuation equilibrium is correct or not. As I pointed out, one of the founders of the theory essentially nixed the idea of what you were saying about there being no transitional fossils. The scientific consensus accepts the validity of the fossil record as supporting evolution however. So this point is moot.

Actually I only brought up macro-evolution because you're being really inconsistent with regards to that in that post. Given your opinion of science and scientists, it's also a wee bit dickish to choose what you accept as truth. Actually it's flat out retarded.

Choosing what one accepts as truth is exactly what scientist do. Why is it different when I apply the same rule.

 

[Youwerecreated]

...of evolution. To believe in creationism there would have to be no mutations. You're also forgetting about fusion of cells combining their genetic material or the passing of genetic material from one cell to another.

Where did the cell come from?

That's alright Darwinists... I know no one knows where life came from. You people can argue evolution vs mutation, but you have no answer worth it's weight in flatulence as to the origins of life. That's where God comes in, and creation, and that's the part that you truly hate.

Great post,beat back the hordes.

 

[Woyzeck]

You addressed the quotes one by one, I can't argue for those guys. I just know that each one stated that the fossil record does not support evolution. Which many on here point at in support.

You didn't rebut any of the quotes as to why they may be wrong. Therefore you must be in agreement. That's is why you steered the argument to macro-evolution and again there is no evidence that supports even that line of evolution. Next I guess you'll go to micro-evolution.

They are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution by itself. But if you apply the theory of evolution to the fossil record, the fossil record begins to resemble some order of sense.

It's a differing of opinion whether punctuation equilibrium is correct or not. As I pointed out, one of the founders of the theory essentially nixed the idea of what you were saying about there being no transitional fossils. The scientific consensus accepts the validity of the fossil record as supporting evolution however. So this point is moot.

Actually I only brought up macro-evolution because you're being really inconsistent with regards to that in that post. Given your opinion of science and scientists, it's also a wee bit dickish to choose what you accept as truth. Actually it's flat out retarded.

Choosing what one accepts as truth is exactly what scientist do. Why is it different when I apply the same rule.

The only rule you're applying here is being demonstratively stupid. And most scientists don't follow that rule.

 

[Woyzeck]

Experiments that are made with a presumed outcome and if that outcome doesn't happen the experiment is discarded. That's what evolutionist do and many have stated as much.

I advise you to look up these experiments and take a look at them instead of just generalizing so you don't have to actually argue about them. I know, it's scary. You might have to read! Or worse, LEARN something!



Thinking coherent thoughts isn't your strong suit is it? Who the bloody balls said the lizards would evolve into birds? Evolution does not work that way!

Adaptation is an integral part of evolution It is the process by which organisms are better suited to the habitat where they live. It is, when speaking of biology, a wholly evolutionary process. It is brought upon by natural selection. For example, those with mutations that help them better to survive in a new environment (whether it's a new geographic location, or the environment has changed) will pass on their genes to the next generation.

So thank you for arguing for evolution. Thank you also for not knowing what adaptation means within modern biology.

As far as the guppies are concerned here are some possible hypotheses

1.Predators are causing guppy populations to become more drab by preying on the most brightly colored individuals and eliminating them from the gene pool.

2.Guppy populations are evolving to more closely match -- or stand out from -- their environment.
3.Female guppies are choosing to mate with the most brightly colored males, giving those males a higher probability of passing their genes on to the next generation.

If this is an example of evolution then why wasn't the chameleon or a number of lizards, frogs, fish as well as mammals and birds heralded in the same mannner?

Those with strong predators, the guppies have camouflage to evade them. Those without strong predators had more showy colors to attract females. The camouflage/attraction tradeoff is actually something many animals go through. Some even prefer to not use camouflage and just go with what attracts females (and predators).

I'm not sure what you're asking or how it pertains to evolution though. Are you asking why other animals didn't evolve similarly?

Evolutionists make the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. Lizards, reptiles, not much difference wouldn't you say? But I understand arguing semantics is all you really have.

You asked if they would turn into birds. Evolution does not state those lizards on that island would turn into birds.

Not reading a thing someone says and then shoving words in their mouth seems to be all you have.

Fact is you cannot anymore prove evolution than I can prove creation. You can show how things have adapted over time and you may call that evolution but is does not answer the questions about the origins of man. I've heard some say something about a common ancestor, but have seen no evidence that supports it. Fossil records do not support evolutionist theories if anything they refute them.

Ah once again the old "I can't actually reply so I'll just continue talking" strategy. You really want everyone to know how much you don't know about evolution don't you?

So you have micro-evolution and the examples of variations which you described actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

What makes them "variations" and not evolution? Because you said so?

The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

However, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution."

Yeah they can. New information can enter a gene pool. If you looked at the experiment of Richard Lenski as I suggested you would know this.

Adaptation, micro-evolution is not evolution in the sense of one species evolving into another, such as a dinasaur to a reptile then to a bird etc...

Aren't dinosaurs reptiles? That's kind of stupid to say.

At any rate, yes congratulations on stating the obvious. That is in fact what micro-evolution is. Gold star!

There is no evidence and never has been any evidence that such evolution has occured.

If you're a dumbfuck dumbass like you're intent on being, than yeah there isn't.

For those rational adults in the room there is such a thing as evolution and there is mountain of evidence to support it. You actually haven't even discounted the proof or experiments, but you refuse to accept them because they were done by scientists. Or probably, because you're full of shit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

They are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution by itself. But if you apply the theory of evolution to the fossil record, the fossil record begins to resemble some order of sense.

It's a differing of opinion whether punctuation equilibrium is correct or not. As I pointed out, one of the founders of the theory essentially nixed the idea of what you were saying about there being no transitional fossils. The scientific consensus accepts the validity of the fossil record as supporting evolution however. So this point is moot.

Actually I only brought up macro-evolution because you're being really inconsistent with regards to that in that post. Given your opinion of science and scientists, it's also a wee bit dickish to choose what you accept as truth. Actually it's flat out retarded.

Choosing what one accepts as truth is exactly what scientist do. Why is it different when I apply the same rule.

The only rule you're applying here is being demonstratively stupid. And most scientists don't follow that rule.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Woyzeck]

Comparing Edison to evolutionist is a stretch.

Because you think so? I disagree. The scientific method is just that, a method. It can lead to many failures, but persistence often leads to success just as it did with our findings about the Big Bang and evolution through the millienia. Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying it is impossible for God to to created the Universe 15 billion years ago as science tells us it occurred?

Yea I think so. In one instance you have physical data, in the other you only have theories.


I think there is no way science can accurately make that calculation. So no, I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

Just because you think otherwise, doesn't make it true.

 

[Woyzeck]

Choosing what one accepts as truth is exactly what scientist do. Why is it different when I apply the same rule.

The only rule you're applying here is being demonstratively stupid. And most scientists don't follow that rule.

Your concession is duly noted.

By that logic, you conceded to me awhile ago.