@KellyJay saidI am not interested in scoring a victory. But you can not say you believe in a young Earth while at the same time saying you don't ignore science.
Yes, in my claim I have repeatedly stated it doesn’t matter as far as I am concerned. It isn’t anything I try to prove or convince anyone about, yet you simply cannot leave a meaningless argument to me, to suggest I am making one about the age.
I told you to claim victory about age, you believe science has shown you the age of something you have no idea how it started, w ...[text shortened]... ooked like at its inception. Okay by me yeah you, now address the problems I have been highlighting!
If you ask me 'where do I ignore science?" - don't be surprised when I point to your ludicrous non scientific view that the Earth is young. Only somebody ignoring science would make such a claim, in the same way a flat Earther would be ignoring science.
It's bizarre you are not understanding that.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidYou don’t know how it began, am I wrong?
I am not interested in scoring a victory. But you can not say you believe in a young Earth while at the same time saying you don't ignore science.
If you ask me 'where do I ignore science?" - don't be surprised when I point to your ludicrous non scientific view that the Earth is young. Only somebody ignoring science would make such a claim, in the same way a flat Earther would be ignoring science.
It's bizarre you are not understanding that.
You don’t know what it looked like when it began. I told you I will accept any age you choose because that topic is meaningless to me. That bothers you, not my problem.
I believe in a creator, and He could have created the universe any way He wanted, at any time He chose too. Science could be spot on with respect to age, the scriptures are not clear, so it is not addressed in scripture, and any date someone has is not anything I care to confirm or deny.
Now we can look at the universe and see when a mind is required or not.
1 edit
@Suzianne saidNot ignoring that, nothing in that book addresses the problems of information directing internal genetic processes, Darwin had no idea about the genetic code, back in his time they were clueless about the specifics guiding all the processes. The best explanations that can come from that are variations in small changes within species, not wholesale variations in forms and features.
Just one: there are many more.
On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859
You think I am wrong about that, point me in the right direction please!
@KellyJay saidOne cannot be "clueless" and come up with his ideas on Natural Selection.
Not ignoring that, nothing in that book addresses the problems of information directing internal genetic processes, Darwin had no idea about the genetic code, back in his time they were clueless about the specifics guiding all the processes. The best explanations that can come from that are variations in small changes within species, not wholesale variations in forms and features.
You think I am wrong about that, point me in the right direction please!
@Suzianne saidI don’t believe he coined the phase “natural selection” in addition nothing about that would directly modify the genetic code to modify DNA so new features and forms would appear. That would be like suggesting random mutations could produce anything other than gibberish instead of creating new features and forms.
One cannot be "clueless" and come up with his ideas on Natural Selection.
@KellyJay saidIt is not meaningless to you. That is a cop out. - You have said you believe the Earth is young. Rather than defend that position or explain how such a stance is not a case of ignoring science (which puts the Earth at billions of years old) you simply shrug it off.
You don’t know how it began, am I wrong?
You don’t know what it looked like when it began. I told you I will accept any age you choose because that topic is meaningless to me. That bothers you, not my problem.
I believe in a creator, and He could have created the universe any way He wanted, at any time He chose too. Science could be spot on with respect to age, the sc ...[text shortened]... care to confirm or deny.
Now we can look at the universe and see when a mind is required or not.
Again, don't make claims about not ignoring science if you are simply going to run away from examples where you clearly do just that.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidCop out is your avoiding the things I do push, instead of addressing something totally meaningless to me. There are Christians who believe in a young universe and those who believe in an old one, accepting either doesn’t alter my concerns one way or the other. For you it is a big deal a young one shuts down all beliefs concerning evolutionary theory, I don’t have any problem saying age doesn’t help, even an old universe would not automatically mean evolutionary theory is correct due to mindless processes.
It is not meaningless to you. That is a cop out. - You have said you believe the Earth is young. Rather than defend that position or explain how such a stance is not a case of ignoring science (which puts the Earth at billions of years old) you simply shrug it off.
Again, don't make claims about not ignoring science if you are simply going to run away from examples where you clearly do just that.
@KellyJay saidI'll ask you plainly Kelly. You've said more than once you don't ignore science. - YOU alone made this statement. - I have presented you with an example where you clearly do ignore science. Do you accept that?
Cop out is your avoiding the things I do push, instead of addressing something totally meaningless to me. There are Christians who believe in a young universe and those who believe in an old one, accepting either doesn’t alter my concerns one way or the other. For you it is a big deal a young one shuts down all beliefs concerning evolutionary theory, I don’t have any probl ...[text shortened]... old universe would not automatically mean evolutionary theory is correct due to mindless processes.
Or are you just going to carry on playing dumb?