Rejecting evolution with science...

[Unhappy1]

Are you referring to the growth rates?

The entire thing really , its all based on assumptions. Not to mention that formula is incredibly simplistic and leaves out a number of variables.

 

[Ekstasis]

Lets rather figure out why exactly you thought that set of equations were at all accurate. You have presented them as though this presents a very real problem for the modern theory of evolution. Why did you do that? Do you think those numbers are all accurate and if so please explain why.

In the same spirit of argument can you explain why scientists assume decaying rates of radio active isotopes are constant from the beginning of time when using dating methods? Can you also explain why these dating methods have been proven wrong when testing known age items?

 

[Ekstasis]

The entire thing really , its all based on assumptions. Not to mention that formula is incredibly simplistic and leaves out a number of variables.

like what? Even much smaller growth rates will still not bring about the predicted years of evolution

 

[Swa]

The entire thing really , its all based on assumptions. Not to mention that formula is incredibly simplistic and leaves out a number of variables.

It is based on known growth rates.

 

[Swa]

We don't see hundreds of books and websites dedicated to "big bang denialism." The question that needs to be asked is why is it so important to them? Karl Giberson is on a mission of "Saving Darwin." Why try to save Darwin? And why does Darwin need saving in the first place? Darwin's theories will either stand or fall on their own as we can see. These questions have easy answers when understanding that it is not about what's true and what's not and never has been. It is not about science but about saving A RELIGION.

 

[porchrat]

In the same spirit of argument can you explain why scientists assume decaying rates of radio active isotopes are constant from the beginning of time when using dating methods? Can you also explain why these dating methods have been proven wrong when testing known age items?

I'm pretty sure we have had this conversation before too. I find that usually when a creationist presents examples of this sort of thing it is people attempting to use dating methods in situations where they are known not to work correctly.

We understand the concept of radioactive decay, we know how it works as a physical phenomenon. It isn't the same thing as absolute population numbers, which are a total mystery, Ekstasis.

Now please answer my questions. Why did you think these calculations were at all accurate?

like what? Even much smaller growth rates will still not bring about the predicted years of evolution

Uh yes actually they will, that is how numbers work, you make the growth rate small enough and suddenly that ridiculous set of thumbsuck equations says the human race is far older. Wow, amazing.

I mean even those guys just took the age they wanted for the emergence of humans (a few thousand years) and worked backwards from that to come up with a matching growth rate. You could do the same for hundreds of millions of years or even trillions of years. That doesn't make the numbers any more or less of a thuimbsuck.

 

[HapticSimian]

like what? Even much smaller growth rates will still not bring about the predicted years of evolution

As per usual, talkorigins cuts through the bollocks. The saddest thing? This utter rubish of yours has been mindlessly parroted for nearly 30 years.

 

[Swa]

Talkorigins...

 

[porchrat]

As per usual, talkorigins cuts through the bollocks. The saddest thing? This utter rubish of yours has been mindlessly parroted for nearly 30 years.

rza presented these same sorts of idiotic arguments stemming from incredible ignorance (and probably that I.Q. of 80 he was always going on about). I have to say I thought Ekstasis was above rza but after this little chat I've categorised him in with rza. I'm genuinely concerned that he might have some sort of comprehension problem or some other learning disability. If he has a learning disability then it isn't his fault that he is a creationist.

 

[Unhappy1]

like what? Even much smaller growth rates will still not bring about the predicted years of evolution

Lol really , because when i plug a smaller growth rate into that equation the numbers come out differently.

 

[Unhappy1]

(7 x 10^9) = 2000(1,0001)^n
n = (9 + (log 7 / 2)) / log 1.0001
n = 207 243, 02 years

According to you this would be proof against the bible.

 

[Swa]

And still no answer to my question. If humans supposedly existed with near the same intellect as today then why was there a cultural and technological explosion only in the last 6,000 or so years? There's no verifiable history of civilisations existing before then and all civilisations just pop up like they were planted there. No history leading up to how they got there apart from that recorded in the Bible.

 

[SaiyanZ]

And still no answer to my question. If humans supposedly existed with near the same intellect as today then why was there a cultural and technological explosion only in the last 6,000 or so years? There's no verifiable history of civilisations existing before then and all civilisations just pop up like they were planted there. No history leading up to how they got there apart from that recorded in the Bible.

I knew you knew nothing about about our history and this post of yours pretty much proves it.

 

[AlmightyBender]

And still no answer to my question. If humans supposedly existed with near the same intellect as today then why was there a cultural and technological explosion only in the last 6,000 or so years? There's no verifiable history of civilisations existing before then and all civilisations just pop up like they were planted there. No history leading up to how they got there apart from that recorded in the Bible.

Intellect <> knowledge. Agriculture is the answer to your question btw in that civilizations only started forming after people discovered how to farm.

Also there are hundreds of other religious books that give histories as to how humanity started "creating" civilisations. Don't see why your version in the Bible is any more plausible than the rest. It is actually pretty similar. LOL at you thinking that the Bible is the only text that deals with this. Please dude, just go visit your local library.

 

[Splinter]

By extension, every argument you have states that science disproves evolution, considering the statements made are based on agreed science.

So contribute properly, object rationally, stop accusing people of being liars when they're not, or if you can't handle this like an adult, fsck off...

How cute. Last time I used the f-bomb you reported me and tried to get an infraction out of it. I'll be the better man here and leave this one be. That's one...

You continually report people for rude language. As confirmed by a mod to me. So why do you continue doing it to others? This statement was followed up by:

Really? This is exactly the reprehensible behaviour empirex used to demonstrate on another forum before he got banned there. Makes me wonder.....

EDIT: DJ is referring to Swa

 

[Swa]

I knew you knew nothing about about our history and this post of yours pretty much proves it.

No answer I see.

Intellect <> knowledge. Agriculture is the answer to your question btw in that civilizations only started forming after people discovered how to farm.

Also there are hundreds of other religious books that give histories as to how humanity started "creating" civilisations. Don't see why your version in the Bible is any more plausible than the rest. It is actually pretty similar. LOL at you thinking that the Bible is the only text that deals with this. Please dude, just go visit your local library.

So with the intellect already in place it took >50,000 years to invent farming? That is ridiculous BS. Again there is no real history for before around 6,000 years ago. Cave paintings and stuff we don't fully understand isn't evidence of humanity existing for tens of thousands of years. Also there are many civilisations that made their living from fishing or hunting yet no history for before this time. I am not saying the Bible is more plausible. I am saying it fits in with it again confirming it an accurate account of history.

 

[HapticSimian]

Intellect <> knowledge. Agriculture is the answer to your question btw in that civilizations only started forming after people discovered how to farm.

Also there are hundreds of other religious books that give histories as to how humanity started "creating" civilisations. Don't see why your version in the Bible is any more plausible than the rest. It is actually pretty similar. LOL at you thinking that the Bible is the only text that deals with this. Please dude, just go visit your local library.

Knowledge being cumalitive, and the tendency of many progressive phenomena to follow a pattern of logistic growth.

Given the 'argument', perhaps Swa should expand on why Moses walked up the mountain and didn't take a helicopter. Alas, I think I can predict his answer with near absolute certainty:

This message is hidden because Swa is on your ignore list

 

[porchrat]

Really? This is exactly the reprehensible behaviour empirex used to demonstrate on another forum before he got banned there. Makes me wonder.....

EDIT: DJ is referring to Swa

I highly doubt Swa is an empirex clone. Someone who doesn't have him on ignore see if you can get him to explicitly state that HIV causes AIDS and that HIV wasn't created by some group in the West.

 

[porchrat]

Knowledge being cumalitive, and the tendency of many progressive phenomena to follow a pattern of logistic growth.

Given the 'argument', perhaps Swa should expand on why Moses walked up the mountain and didn't take a helicopter. Alas, I think I can predict his answer with near absolute certainty:

LOL I'm also noticing an unusually high number of Swa posts of that nature.

The number of people seeing posts like that from Swa just grows and grows

 

[OrbitalDawn]

LOL I'm also noticing an unusually high number of Swa posts of that nature.

The number of people seeing posts like that from Swa just grows and grows

Only adding to the applicability of that Mencken quote I posted the other day. His inability to persuade anyone that he's right only feeds into his paranoia. This brings forth claims of conspiracies, evolution being a religion etc.