@Alientcp I watched videos from page 1...like I ecxpected - bunch of stupidity...
@ddfjdfjh said in #71:
> @Alientcp I watched videos from page 1...like I ecxpected - bunch of stupidity...
Call it however you want. That IS the evolutionary model that we use, whether you agree with it or not. If what you talk about evolution theory does not comply with that model, then you are not talking about the evolutionary theory, you are talking about something else that IS NOT evolution. It doesnt matter if you think its incorrect, we are talking precisely about THAT.
So, if you want to talk about THAT, learn it, but dont invent or attribute sh17 to it that does not belong there.
Now, if you want to prove that is incorrect, which no one has been able to do so. You can win the Nobel Prize for that. But thats an entirely separated topic, i dont care how you proceed.
I dont care if you disagree with the model. Im not asking you to accept it. Im just telling THAT IS THE MODEL And if indeed you saw the videos, it talks about how life changes over time, not about the formation of planets, not about how the sun formed, not about randomness, , not about how life appeared , not about existential dilemmas. Only about the process of how life changes over time. Want to talk about it, learn it, regardless of your opinion, which i dont care, i just care that if you talk about that model, what you say actually compiles with that model, and as you have already saw, im actually trying to explain you what the model says, you are inventing stuff that the model doesnt say and you are attributing it to. Im talking about evolutionary theory, you are not. you are just inventing stuff as you go, and we are not talking about the same, i have a reference point, you dont.
So accept, dont accept it. I dont care. If you talk about evolutionary theory, talk about that model and that model only. Else you are being dishonest because the model doesnt say the things you attribute to it.
That hard to understand?
> @Alientcp I watched videos from page 1...like I ecxpected - bunch of stupidity...
Call it however you want. That IS the evolutionary model that we use, whether you agree with it or not. If what you talk about evolution theory does not comply with that model, then you are not talking about the evolutionary theory, you are talking about something else that IS NOT evolution. It doesnt matter if you think its incorrect, we are talking precisely about THAT.
So, if you want to talk about THAT, learn it, but dont invent or attribute sh17 to it that does not belong there.
Now, if you want to prove that is incorrect, which no one has been able to do so. You can win the Nobel Prize for that. But thats an entirely separated topic, i dont care how you proceed.
I dont care if you disagree with the model. Im not asking you to accept it. Im just telling THAT IS THE MODEL And if indeed you saw the videos, it talks about how life changes over time, not about the formation of planets, not about how the sun formed, not about randomness, , not about how life appeared , not about existential dilemmas. Only about the process of how life changes over time. Want to talk about it, learn it, regardless of your opinion, which i dont care, i just care that if you talk about that model, what you say actually compiles with that model, and as you have already saw, im actually trying to explain you what the model says, you are inventing stuff that the model doesnt say and you are attributing it to. Im talking about evolutionary theory, you are not. you are just inventing stuff as you go, and we are not talking about the same, i have a reference point, you dont.
So accept, dont accept it. I dont care. If you talk about evolutionary theory, talk about that model and that model only. Else you are being dishonest because the model doesnt say the things you attribute to it.
That hard to understand?
@ddfjdfjh said in #66:
> Thalassokrator, I'm not copy-paste expert like someone, all data is from my memmory...
> Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon. This method, according to creationists is completly wrong and this is reason why biologists are dating fossils and cosmologists dating universe for millions and billions years in past .
I'll freely admit that I have copied and pasted the exact ages of the universe and the earth (including their statistical measurement uncertainty, i.e. standard deviation) along some two to three lines of text from the introduction of the relevant wikipedia articles (Age of the universe/Age of the earth). I actually don't see any problem with that. Everything else I wrote myself (the summary of how U-Pb-dating works for example).
For the numbers I wanted to be as precise as the current state of the art science can be, so I looked them up. Had I not looked them up, I would have written (from memory):
Age of the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years
Age of the earth is a bit under 5 billion years (the approximate age of the sun/solar system)
In #60 you claimed that "evolutionists" say that the universe is 5 billion years old (off by a factor of 2.75) and that earth is 2.5 billion years old (off by a factor of 1.8). I didn't want to be pedantic about the numbers (they've changed in the past as new evidence became available), I mainly wanted us to be on the same page about the current state of the art (creationist materials, I find, for whatever reason often address science textbooks for school children that are decades upon decades old and outdated) and to point out that it's not evolutionary biologists who figured these ages out.
Also I wanted to give a bit more context: How for example geologists determined the age of the earth. They didn't guess that number. They didn't invent it. And they don't hide their methodology. In fact, they publish it for others to check and replicate. Anyone with a sufficient amount of curiosity and time and resources can learn and study about this subject and dig up similar minerals (for example in Australia, which has some of the oldest rocks anywhere on the earth's crust) and repeat their experiment and check out whether or not they are correct. Science is a participatory process.
The rest of your post #66 deals with alleged unreliability of radiocarbon dating that creationists claim to have found.
I'll even grant you that point. Let's imagine – for the sake of argument – that radiocarbon dating is indeed unreliable. Then maybe some fossils are dated incorrectly (some, not all, because carbon 14 dating is not the only dating method available).
Ok, so what? If I understood you correctly, you are arguing for young earth creationism (earth is about 10,000 years old according to YEC). I just showed you (in #63) that uranium-lead-dating yields ages in the billions of years. Uranium-lead-dating has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating. So even if the latter were inaccurate, this would have no bearing on the former.
I quote you directly: "This method [carbon 14 dating], according to creationists is completly wrong and this is reason why biologists are dating fossils and cosmologists dating universe for millions and billions years in past ."
It's palpably absurd to claim that cosmologists are using carbon 14 dating (C14 has a half life of only 5730±40 years) to determine the age of the universe (in the billions of years). To picture how absurd this sounds, consider how many C14 half lives will have elapsed in just one billion years:
1,000,000,000/5730≈174520 That means that after a billion years only (1/2)^174520 of the original C14 will be left. That's 10^(-52535), so nothing at all, 0%. It will all have long decayed away.
Cosmologists study the expansion of the universe, cosmological redshift of distant galaxies and the CMBR. All of this has nothing to do with radioactive isotopes of carbon found in rocks on earth.
> Thalassokrator, I'm not copy-paste expert like someone, all data is from my memmory...
> Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon. This method, according to creationists is completly wrong and this is reason why biologists are dating fossils and cosmologists dating universe for millions and billions years in past .
I'll freely admit that I have copied and pasted the exact ages of the universe and the earth (including their statistical measurement uncertainty, i.e. standard deviation) along some two to three lines of text from the introduction of the relevant wikipedia articles (Age of the universe/Age of the earth). I actually don't see any problem with that. Everything else I wrote myself (the summary of how U-Pb-dating works for example).
For the numbers I wanted to be as precise as the current state of the art science can be, so I looked them up. Had I not looked them up, I would have written (from memory):
Age of the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years
Age of the earth is a bit under 5 billion years (the approximate age of the sun/solar system)
In #60 you claimed that "evolutionists" say that the universe is 5 billion years old (off by a factor of 2.75) and that earth is 2.5 billion years old (off by a factor of 1.8). I didn't want to be pedantic about the numbers (they've changed in the past as new evidence became available), I mainly wanted us to be on the same page about the current state of the art (creationist materials, I find, for whatever reason often address science textbooks for school children that are decades upon decades old and outdated) and to point out that it's not evolutionary biologists who figured these ages out.
Also I wanted to give a bit more context: How for example geologists determined the age of the earth. They didn't guess that number. They didn't invent it. And they don't hide their methodology. In fact, they publish it for others to check and replicate. Anyone with a sufficient amount of curiosity and time and resources can learn and study about this subject and dig up similar minerals (for example in Australia, which has some of the oldest rocks anywhere on the earth's crust) and repeat their experiment and check out whether or not they are correct. Science is a participatory process.
The rest of your post #66 deals with alleged unreliability of radiocarbon dating that creationists claim to have found.
I'll even grant you that point. Let's imagine – for the sake of argument – that radiocarbon dating is indeed unreliable. Then maybe some fossils are dated incorrectly (some, not all, because carbon 14 dating is not the only dating method available).
Ok, so what? If I understood you correctly, you are arguing for young earth creationism (earth is about 10,000 years old according to YEC). I just showed you (in #63) that uranium-lead-dating yields ages in the billions of years. Uranium-lead-dating has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating. So even if the latter were inaccurate, this would have no bearing on the former.
I quote you directly: "This method [carbon 14 dating], according to creationists is completly wrong and this is reason why biologists are dating fossils and cosmologists dating universe for millions and billions years in past ."
It's palpably absurd to claim that cosmologists are using carbon 14 dating (C14 has a half life of only 5730±40 years) to determine the age of the universe (in the billions of years). To picture how absurd this sounds, consider how many C14 half lives will have elapsed in just one billion years:
1,000,000,000/5730≈174520 That means that after a billion years only (1/2)^174520 of the original C14 will be left. That's 10^(-52535), so nothing at all, 0%. It will all have long decayed away.
Cosmologists study the expansion of the universe, cosmological redshift of distant galaxies and the CMBR. All of this has nothing to do with radioactive isotopes of carbon found in rocks on earth.
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
@Thalassokrator
"Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon."
This is copied by me from wikipedia in english
The age of the universe is estimated based on the Big Bang theory.
@Alientcp
I'm not an expert but this is from scientists :
"The first radioactive dating technique, which was well studied and formed the basis for all the others, uses the fact that uranium-238, an unstable radioactive element, spontaneously decomposes into lead-206. Proponents of the Old Earth concept believe that uranium-238 did not form here on Earth, but was formed by the fusion of smaller atoms inside stars, and was ejected into space during earlier supernova events. Both smaller and larger atoms are thought to be part of the interstellar dust that united and formed Earth billions of years ago.
Simply put, when a scientist wants to determine the age of a rock, he must first study the current state of the rock. This means: measuring the amount of each required isotope in that rock, including the amount of uranium-238 and lead-206. This can be done with great precision. Since we already know the rate of decay from parental uranium to lead offspring, we can begin the process of answering the question, "How old is this rock?" How long, in other words, did it take this amount of decomposing uranium to produce the amount of lead present?
But is that how we determine the true age of this rock? As can be inferred, the assumptions involved in each dating attempt call into question the age obtained.
The Bible says: On the first day, "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1: 1). On the third day, the land was separated from the sea (verse 9). It is certain that the rocks that existed at that time were either those created directly by God, or those that were formed during these early processes.
Had scientists been present during the sixth day of creation and taken a specimen of this newly created rock, it would obviously have been only a few days old. (For the sake of illustration, suppose radioactive isotopes began to decay immediately after they were created.) If this rock were taken to a laboratory and dated with a set of assumptions we discussed earlier, how old would this rock look? The question could be: When God created the earth, was lead-206 present then? Or, was this lead concentration too high? If so, the rock has shown an artificial illusion of history from the very beginning, if some assume that the excessive amount of lead-206 comes only from the decay of uranium.
The Bible says that at the end of the creation period, everything was "very good." Did lead atoms exist in the beginning? We think they are. The various isotopes of lead are indeed "very good" because lead has been used much more by humans throughout history than uranium, which has only been used in recent decades. In order for the Earth to be "very good", it would certainly have to have lead, and various isotopes of lead. We think the rocks looked "old" (if we used those dubious assumptions to date them), even though they were newly created.
It is not an act of deception of God's work. The Bible is very clear about the fact that Creation took place only a few thousand years ago, unless we tend to misinterpret isotope relationships.
The accepted age of the Earth today is about 4.61 billion years. Have you ever wondered: How did that number come about? Apparently, based on some of the radioactive dating techniques. But which rock is dated? What rock was there during the formation of the Earth, so that it can give the age of the Earth?
Theories of origin differ, but all (except the theory of creation) believe that the Earth was once, either during or after its formation, a glowing sphere. There was no solid material then. Even young rocks have been subjected to strong metamorphism, so there is no possibility of dating that could estimate the time of their formation. Some rocks today are thought to be 3.8 billion years old or similar, but how did 4.6 billion years come about?
What is the answer? Meteorites! Rocks that fell from space. These meteorites were once dated to 4.6 billion years or similar, usually using the lead-lead isochron method.
Theories about the formation of the solar system assume that the Sun and the planets from its system were formed by the thickening of intergalactic dust, at about the same time. Meteorites are thought to be mostly remnants of decaying planets after their thickening. So meteorites are the same age as Earth. Meteorite dating is the dating of the Earth, or, as it is considered. But, obviously, some things are assumed here, things that are not known to us..."
"Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon."
This is copied by me from wikipedia in english
The age of the universe is estimated based on the Big Bang theory.
@Alientcp
I'm not an expert but this is from scientists :
"The first radioactive dating technique, which was well studied and formed the basis for all the others, uses the fact that uranium-238, an unstable radioactive element, spontaneously decomposes into lead-206. Proponents of the Old Earth concept believe that uranium-238 did not form here on Earth, but was formed by the fusion of smaller atoms inside stars, and was ejected into space during earlier supernova events. Both smaller and larger atoms are thought to be part of the interstellar dust that united and formed Earth billions of years ago.
Simply put, when a scientist wants to determine the age of a rock, he must first study the current state of the rock. This means: measuring the amount of each required isotope in that rock, including the amount of uranium-238 and lead-206. This can be done with great precision. Since we already know the rate of decay from parental uranium to lead offspring, we can begin the process of answering the question, "How old is this rock?" How long, in other words, did it take this amount of decomposing uranium to produce the amount of lead present?
But is that how we determine the true age of this rock? As can be inferred, the assumptions involved in each dating attempt call into question the age obtained.
The Bible says: On the first day, "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1: 1). On the third day, the land was separated from the sea (verse 9). It is certain that the rocks that existed at that time were either those created directly by God, or those that were formed during these early processes.
Had scientists been present during the sixth day of creation and taken a specimen of this newly created rock, it would obviously have been only a few days old. (For the sake of illustration, suppose radioactive isotopes began to decay immediately after they were created.) If this rock were taken to a laboratory and dated with a set of assumptions we discussed earlier, how old would this rock look? The question could be: When God created the earth, was lead-206 present then? Or, was this lead concentration too high? If so, the rock has shown an artificial illusion of history from the very beginning, if some assume that the excessive amount of lead-206 comes only from the decay of uranium.
The Bible says that at the end of the creation period, everything was "very good." Did lead atoms exist in the beginning? We think they are. The various isotopes of lead are indeed "very good" because lead has been used much more by humans throughout history than uranium, which has only been used in recent decades. In order for the Earth to be "very good", it would certainly have to have lead, and various isotopes of lead. We think the rocks looked "old" (if we used those dubious assumptions to date them), even though they were newly created.
It is not an act of deception of God's work. The Bible is very clear about the fact that Creation took place only a few thousand years ago, unless we tend to misinterpret isotope relationships.
The accepted age of the Earth today is about 4.61 billion years. Have you ever wondered: How did that number come about? Apparently, based on some of the radioactive dating techniques. But which rock is dated? What rock was there during the formation of the Earth, so that it can give the age of the Earth?
Theories of origin differ, but all (except the theory of creation) believe that the Earth was once, either during or after its formation, a glowing sphere. There was no solid material then. Even young rocks have been subjected to strong metamorphism, so there is no possibility of dating that could estimate the time of their formation. Some rocks today are thought to be 3.8 billion years old or similar, but how did 4.6 billion years come about?
What is the answer? Meteorites! Rocks that fell from space. These meteorites were once dated to 4.6 billion years or similar, usually using the lead-lead isochron method.
Theories about the formation of the solar system assume that the Sun and the planets from its system were formed by the thickening of intergalactic dust, at about the same time. Meteorites are thought to be mostly remnants of decaying planets after their thickening. So meteorites are the same age as Earth. Meteorite dating is the dating of the Earth, or, as it is considered. But, obviously, some things are assumed here, things that are not known to us..."
@ddfjdfjh You are not an expert at anything, it is obvious, and you have little to no capability of reasoning.
I am not trying to prove an old earth. I am trying for you to understand how the theory of evolution works, not to accept it, how does it work, or how it is useful. The videos i provided are the best explanation for dummies that you will find out there.
As i stated in several occasions, geology is not part of evolutionary theory (astronomy either btw), though geology does support evolution. If geology is wrong, the evidence for evolution is still solid, at most, the dates are wrong, but the model itself is correct.
Thats why creationism cant prove evolution wrong, they dont understand the model. Having arguments against geology is just that. If you prove geology wrong, you are not proving creation. You are proving geology wrong. You need to provide evidence for creation. You are engaging in a false dilemma "Either geology is correct or creation is correct, therefore, if geology is wrong, creation is correct". Both can be wrong, but only one can be correct due to having exclusive claims.
If you want to prove evolutionary theory wrong, and i mean the model itself, you need to understand the model first, which i provided and you refuse to learn. If you dont understand it, you cannot prove it incorrect, you only prove your ignorance in the subject, which you are doing marvelously. You have no clue about what you are talking about.
I am not trying to prove an old earth. I am trying for you to understand how the theory of evolution works, not to accept it, how does it work, or how it is useful. The videos i provided are the best explanation for dummies that you will find out there.
As i stated in several occasions, geology is not part of evolutionary theory (astronomy either btw), though geology does support evolution. If geology is wrong, the evidence for evolution is still solid, at most, the dates are wrong, but the model itself is correct.
Thats why creationism cant prove evolution wrong, they dont understand the model. Having arguments against geology is just that. If you prove geology wrong, you are not proving creation. You are proving geology wrong. You need to provide evidence for creation. You are engaging in a false dilemma "Either geology is correct or creation is correct, therefore, if geology is wrong, creation is correct". Both can be wrong, but only one can be correct due to having exclusive claims.
If you want to prove evolutionary theory wrong, and i mean the model itself, you need to understand the model first, which i provided and you refuse to learn. If you dont understand it, you cannot prove it incorrect, you only prove your ignorance in the subject, which you are doing marvelously. You have no clue about what you are talking about.
@Alientcp ok You sounds very convinced in evolution theory...
When did evolution start and is it ended or it's still present ? Have anyoneone saw monkey or any other animal transforming to human ? Where are the fossils that are transitional forms from species to more advanced species? Fossil apes found so far that have allegedly evolved into humans have been proven to be humans from birth, not apes. For millions of years of life on Earth, scientists should have found a fossil, for example. a fish with grown legs or a dinosaur that got feathers. None of this exists - no transitional form from simpler to more perfect animal . There are thousands of fossils, very well preserved even with undigested food remains found, but there are no fossils to prove evolution.
God was left out of science because his existence cannot be proven and the Bible is the most read book in the world and a new era is being counted from the birth of the Son of God ....
When did evolution start and is it ended or it's still present ? Have anyoneone saw monkey or any other animal transforming to human ? Where are the fossils that are transitional forms from species to more advanced species? Fossil apes found so far that have allegedly evolved into humans have been proven to be humans from birth, not apes. For millions of years of life on Earth, scientists should have found a fossil, for example. a fish with grown legs or a dinosaur that got feathers. None of this exists - no transitional form from simpler to more perfect animal . There are thousands of fossils, very well preserved even with undigested food remains found, but there are no fossils to prove evolution.
God was left out of science because his existence cannot be proven and the Bible is the most read book in the world and a new era is being counted from the birth of the Son of God ....
@ddfjdfjh said in #78:
> @Alientcp ok You sounds very convinced in evolution theory...
Because it works as a model to understand how evolution happens. If you knew how the model work, you would understand why.
> When did evolution start and is it ended or it's still present ?
Biological evolution is the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.
Its an observable phenomenon. We can see that with your sons or fathers. We have USED it to create different breeds of dogs, cattle, corn and most of the things that grow on farms and the fields. It has been present since the replication of DNA and will always be present as long as DNA make mistakes at duplicating
>Have anyoneone saw monkey or any other animal transforming to human ?
And you dont understand the model. Humans ARE monekys, just as monkeys ARE mammals and mammals ARE chordates.
>Where are the fossils that are transitional forms from species to more advanced species?
Doesnt matter what i show you, if you dont understand the model, you dont understand the transition.
>Fossil apes found so far that have allegedly evolved into humans have been proven to be humans from birth, not apes.
Humans ARE apes........ Is as if you are requesting a transitional fossil between a dog and a chihuahua. Chihuahuas ARE dogs. Humans ARE apes. Apes ARE monkeys. But you dont know the model, obviously everything you say about it is wrong.
>For millions of years of life on Earth, scientists should have found a fossil, for example. a fish with grown legs, or a dinosaur that got feathers.
You dont need to dig up in the fossil record, there are fish with legs right now, and fish with lungs.
And yes, we do have dinosaurs with feathers. Feathers dont fossilize, but they are imprinted in the rock. And the fossilized bones of avian dinosaurs do in fact, posses the indentations of where the feathers were.
>None of this exists - no transitional form from simpler to more perfect animal . There are thousands of fossils, very well preserved even with undigested food remains found, but there are no fossils to prove evolution.
But it does exist. You dont understand the model, you cant tell what a transitional form is. All fossils prove evolution. You just dont know why, because you dont understand the model. Though fossils are not even necessary to prove evolution, DNA does it by itself. The fossils are just the cherry on top.
Though evolution doesnt always mean better or bigger. In fact dinosaurs were better adapted than mammals ever were. They are still here and are still very successful, but the environment conditions have changed greatly and we wont see the big versions anytime soon.
> God was left out of science because his existence cannot be proven and the Bible is the most read book in the world and a new era is being counted from the birth of the Son of God ....
Just as Astrology is not part of science. It cannot be proven either. But particular claims can be proved wrong though. Like the flood, or keeping the sun 3 days on the same place.
I mean, you have been typing for what? a solid week? you can watch those videos in 2 or 3 days and be released from ignorance for the rest of your life. And i dont mean to believe them, just to understand the model. Yet, you have objections that make no sense. Those arguments have nothing on the theory of evolution. The reason is simple. You dont know anything about the theory of evolution, you cant make a dent to it because those objections debunk themselves very clearly once you understand it.
> @Alientcp ok You sounds very convinced in evolution theory...
Because it works as a model to understand how evolution happens. If you knew how the model work, you would understand why.
> When did evolution start and is it ended or it's still present ?
Biological evolution is the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.
Its an observable phenomenon. We can see that with your sons or fathers. We have USED it to create different breeds of dogs, cattle, corn and most of the things that grow on farms and the fields. It has been present since the replication of DNA and will always be present as long as DNA make mistakes at duplicating
>Have anyoneone saw monkey or any other animal transforming to human ?
And you dont understand the model. Humans ARE monekys, just as monkeys ARE mammals and mammals ARE chordates.
>Where are the fossils that are transitional forms from species to more advanced species?
Doesnt matter what i show you, if you dont understand the model, you dont understand the transition.
>Fossil apes found so far that have allegedly evolved into humans have been proven to be humans from birth, not apes.
Humans ARE apes........ Is as if you are requesting a transitional fossil between a dog and a chihuahua. Chihuahuas ARE dogs. Humans ARE apes. Apes ARE monkeys. But you dont know the model, obviously everything you say about it is wrong.
>For millions of years of life on Earth, scientists should have found a fossil, for example. a fish with grown legs, or a dinosaur that got feathers.
You dont need to dig up in the fossil record, there are fish with legs right now, and fish with lungs.
And yes, we do have dinosaurs with feathers. Feathers dont fossilize, but they are imprinted in the rock. And the fossilized bones of avian dinosaurs do in fact, posses the indentations of where the feathers were.
>None of this exists - no transitional form from simpler to more perfect animal . There are thousands of fossils, very well preserved even with undigested food remains found, but there are no fossils to prove evolution.
But it does exist. You dont understand the model, you cant tell what a transitional form is. All fossils prove evolution. You just dont know why, because you dont understand the model. Though fossils are not even necessary to prove evolution, DNA does it by itself. The fossils are just the cherry on top.
Though evolution doesnt always mean better or bigger. In fact dinosaurs were better adapted than mammals ever were. They are still here and are still very successful, but the environment conditions have changed greatly and we wont see the big versions anytime soon.
> God was left out of science because his existence cannot be proven and the Bible is the most read book in the world and a new era is being counted from the birth of the Son of God ....
Just as Astrology is not part of science. It cannot be proven either. But particular claims can be proved wrong though. Like the flood, or keeping the sun 3 days on the same place.
I mean, you have been typing for what? a solid week? you can watch those videos in 2 or 3 days and be released from ignorance for the rest of your life. And i dont mean to believe them, just to understand the model. Yet, you have objections that make no sense. Those arguments have nothing on the theory of evolution. The reason is simple. You dont know anything about the theory of evolution, you cant make a dent to it because those objections debunk themselves very clearly once you understand it.
@Alientcp good luck and good bye...
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.