@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidAnd that's just one.
You ignore all science Kelly, all science.
Google Brian Cox and spend a few hours in his company.
@Suzianne saidYou've called me names without justification. You argue—well, not really. You state your point of view as if that alone is all that is required. Here is what you think, so I must agree, I heard what you think. Very little respect is shown to others here as individuals, but I'll give you this: you do show it now and then, unlike others here.
Ah, the "grandiose statements" defense.
@KellyJay saidYou have frequently referred to me as delusional, when not expressing a view that parallels your own. (Which is kind of ironic when your own belief structure involves a young Earth where humans emerged perfectly formed in a garden and were led astray by a talking serpent).
You've called me names without justification.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidDelusions and illusions are views that have nothing to do with reality, you cannot
You have frequently referred to me as delusional, when not expressing a view that parallels your own. (Which is kind of ironic when your own belief structure involves a young Earth where humans emerged perfectly formed in a garden and were led astray by a talking serpent).
give a good explanation for how you came up with your rationale that has
anything to do with giving reasons for the reality we see. Nothing that can
account for life or the fine-tuning of the universe, or the universe itself without
evidence for your views.
When I say there are very specific instructions being carried out on a cellular level
there are reasons for that, it has to do with the instructions built into life, none
of that will spring up from random chance and necessity.
Those things have a quality that has to do with rational, we see encoded
instructions, that in all of our human experiences through all time that type of
arrangement for instructions comes from only a mind not chance and necessity.
Computations embedded inside layers of integrated systematic code is too
complex, the odds are so great in terms of possibilities it isn't reasonable to think
anything but a mind could do it, suggesting anything else is delusional, willfully
blind, suppressing the truth.
Granting you all the time you think you need, doesn't help your cause, because
there are too many things that must occur at the same time for step one, then
the following steps also have requirements, but unlike step one only a very short
periods are in play due to the degrading that would occur destroying all that was
done at the beginning.
Feel free by all means show me the science I'm ignoring.
@KellyJay saidDon't get on your high horse about posters insulting you when you yourself call others delusional (especially when leading the way on delusional thought).
Delusions and illusions are views that have nothing to do with reality, you cannot
give a good explanation for how you came up with your rationale that has
anything to do with giving reasons for the reality we see. Nothing that can
account for life or the fine-tuning of the universe, or the universe itself without
evidence for your views.
When I say there are very sp ...[text shortened]... ds are in play due to the degrading that would occur destroying all that was
done at the beginning.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidAlmost all modern science holds that the Earth is extremely old. Are you not ignoring this science or are you genuinely unaware of it and require direction?
Feel free by all means show me the science I'm ignoring.
Sigh. Start your journey here:
'Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, and the motions of tectonic plates imply hundreds of millions of years of change. Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago. These and other dating techniques are mutually consistent and underscore the reality of “deep time” in Earth history.'
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said"Almost all modern science holds that the Earth is extremely old. Are you not
Almost all modern science holds that the Earth is extremely old. Are you not ignoring this science or are you genuinely unaware of it and require direction?
Sigh. Start your journey here:
'Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hund ...[text shortened]... n Earth history.'
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0
ignoring this science or are you genuinely unaware of it and require direction?"
Does not matter, if it is old or young something out of the ordinary is going on, it
had a beginning, or it always was. Both of those are supernatural, if you have
another hypothesis please share your reasoning for thinking it is a viable possibility.
If it is very old, that doesn't change why it behaves the way it does, no cosmic
answers are made clear in why it is fine-tuned galactically or down to the
subatomic either. Large amounts of time do not automatically put all the
required ingredients for life in the same place, at the same time, in the correct
environment, so I'll give you any amount of time you want, any amount of time
you think you need, it will not help you.
Given life on Earth has some necessary molecules they must be made by the
various components required to make them. That removes all of your arguments
on long periods helping life begin because, without the possibility of
success for life beginning, all the time in the universe is meaningless.
The ingredients for life must form into something leading to life, if anything
required is no longer available because the chemical reactions went in a
non-life-friendly way, there is now zero possibility life can occur.
Time doesn't add anything to life's success, for time to be part of the equation all
other factors must be ready at the same place, and time, with the right quantities
too little doesn't help, and if there is anything present that inhibits life from
forming you are back to zero chances.
What science am I overlooking?
1 edit
@KellyJay saidYou are overlooking this science (or more likely pretending it isn't there).
What science am I overlooking?
'Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, and the motions of tectonic plates imply hundreds of millions of years of change. Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago. These and other dating techniques are mutually consistent and underscore the reality of “deep time” in Earth history.'
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidYou are trying to prove time and my response tells you that you can have all the time you want, it doesn’t make a difference to the questions about the universe or life. Count all your arguments as won with respect to deep time and start considering timing issues!
You are overlooking this science (or more likely pretending it isn't there).
'Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, ...[text shortened]... n Earth history.'
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0
1 edit
@KellyJay saidYou say you believe in a young Earth and in the same breath that you don't ignore science (which clearly evidences an old Earth). You are the epitome of an oxymoron.
You are trying to prove time and my response tells you that you can have all the time you want, it doesn’t make a difference to the questions about the universe or life. Count all your arguments as won with respect to deep time and start considering timing issues!
Take the time to read the link I sent you. Try not to ignore the science.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidYeah, so what, I say I believe in a young earth and I do, but I don't argue it, because
You say you believe in a young Earth and in the same breath that you don't ignore science (which clearly evidences an old Earth). You are the epitome of an oxymoron.
Take the time to read the link I sent you. Try not to ignore the science.
as I said, I cannot prove it one way or another. Even if you accepted every word in
the Bible as true it doesn't point to an old or young earth. So I don't argue what I
cannot prove one way or another. I have given you reasons why the age of the
earth doesn't matter, I said you can claim total victory on the age of the earth it
doesn't matter, because long periods don't change the facts of what has to occur in
real-time for life.
Why don't you come up with some explanations about the things I have talked about?