Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth

Originally posted by sonhouse
For one thing, evolution says nothing about either the beginnings of life or the beginning of the universe, yet that is explicitly what he says in the first minute.

The bit about generations coming at 50 year intervals is clearly a dodge, a guess he knows is BS, just to further his ridiculous argument, so he can come up with a number of generations give ...[text shortened]... very young.

I don't need anything more than that to see he is making up BS as he goes along.

If evolution says nothing about the beginnings of life, how can it
possibly be right about stating that life evolved from a common ancestor,
which obviously goes back to the beginning of life?

You missed the point on the generations estimate, which was way too
conservative, as you pointed out. The point was to show that from the
time of the flood til now that the population we see at present on the
Earth could easily resulted from Noah's three sons and their wives The
population should be even higher by your estimates. Of course death
through wars, disease, and famines could reduce your figures.

P.S. The Holy Bible says something about it. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
If evolution says nothing about the beginnings of life, how can it
possibly be right about stating that life evolved from a common ancestor,
which obviously goes back to the beginning of life?

evolution says nothing about the origin of life, and it can be right in determining the origin of species based on the available evidence.

creationists on the other hand can't be right about anything because they have no evidence for anything. all they have is an invisible magic man in sky waving a wand and saying "make it so."

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
evolution says nothing about the origin of life, and it can be right in determining the origin of species based on the available evidence.

creationists on the other hand can't be right about anything because they have no evidence for anything. all they have is an invisible magic man in sky waving a wand and saying "make it so."

There is not enough available evidence for evolution to be right, so the only
other choice is creation. Ha ha.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is not enough available evidence for evolution to be right, so the only
other choice is creation. Ha ha.

Um, No, that's a false dichotomy... Among other things.

First:
Evolution and creationism are NOT the only two options and are not exhaustive and exclusive.
Thus evolution being wrong (it isn't) is NOT and can't be proof that creationism is right.

Second:
Even if it were true that we didn't yet have enough evidence to know evolution happened and
is happening (we do) that wouldn't mean evolution was wrong it would mean it wasn't yet verified.
It would if that were true be called a hypothesis, not a theory.
However it IS a theory and for good reason, it is massively verified by evidence.

Third:
Creationism DOES NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING.
And thus is not an alternative 'explanation' to evolution.
Creationism (or ID) is essentially the hypothesis that "God did it" applied to life on earth.
As I have explained before, God did it is not a valid explanation of anything for two reasons.
One, we explain things in terms of things we understand. We don't and can't understand god and thus
god is useless as an explanation because you have simply replaced one mystery with another one.
Two, because god is posited to by infinitely powerful and could thus do anything and make anything
behave any way god wanted and work any way god wanted.
There is no set of circumstances at all that you could ever conceive or encounter that would contradict the idea
that god did it. This means that the hypothesis that god did it is both un falsifiable and utterly useless for making
any predictions whatsoever.

This means that even if evolutionary theory was proved wrong (basically impossible at this point because it's
been proved right) it would still be a better and more useful hypothesis than Creationism because it DOES make
testable predictions that HAVE been tested and found to be true.

Fourth:
The massive overwhelming majority of experts in this field say that you are wrong and as the papers and evidence is
published you can SEE that you are wrong to claim that there is not enough evidence.
To claim to KNOW otherwise is thus to Lie blatantly. It's not possible to KNOW otherwise.
And you are self admittedly too ignorant (and proud of it) on the subject to claim anything about it.

You are quite simply wrong on every possible level.
Evolution is fact. Creationism is useless fairy tales.
You are an ignorant, arrogant, bible thumping YEC, with all the scientific understanding of a medieval goat herder.
Your bible is utter nonsense and drivel, written by people who thought the world was flat.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is not enough available evidence for evolution to be right, so the only
other choice is creation. Ha ha.

If you don't know anything about evolution, then don't have opinions about it. Listen at robbie, he thinks everyone knowing nothing should stay shut.

You really have to learn about evolution and science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You missed the point on the generations estimate, which was way too
conservative, as you pointed out. The point was to show that from the
time of the flood til now that the population we see at present on the
Earth could easily resulted from Noah's three sons and their wives The
population should be even higher by your estimates. Of course death
through wars, disease, and famines could reduce your figures.

It is indeed perfectly possible for humans to reproduce exponentially and reach our present 7 billion (approx)
people in much less than 6 or even 4 thousand years.

The reason our population is not in the hundreds of billions (apart from the fact that earth doesn't have a
carrying capacity that high) is that for the vast majority of our history we have not had exponential growth.
In fact for the majority of our history we have had very little growth at all.

So it is indeed possible for humanity to have built up a massive population in less than 4000 years.

However that doesn't prove that that IS what happened.

What you want to do to tell is to look at the evidence for human populations and numbers as well as
genetic studies looking at our ancestry.

And the inescapable conclusion is that the human population NEVER got lower than a low of 1 to 10 thousand and
it did that something like 50~80 thousand years ago.

The population was in the tens to hundreds of millions 6~4 thousand years ago.

ALL the available evidence supports this.

China for example has written history that goes back this far with no break due to the mythical 'great flood'.

You have no concept of how much evidence contradicts your world view, your view is ignorant and unsupportable.
Just as insupportable and ridiculous to anyone with any decent education as those claim the world is flat.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um, No, that's a false dichotomy... Among other things.

First:
Evolution and creationism are NOT the only two options and are not exhaustive and exclusive.
Thus evolution being wrong (it isn't) is NOT and can't be proof that creationism is right.

Second:
Even if it were true that we didn't yet have enough evidence to know evolution happened and ...[text shortened]... le is utter nonsense and drivel, written by people who thought the world was flat.

You need to read Dasa's post on honesty again. You still don't get it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It is indeed perfectly possible for humans to reproduce exponentially and reach our present 7 billion (approx)
people in much less than 6 or even 4 thousand years.

The reason our population is not in the hundreds of billions (apart from the fact that earth doesn't have a
carrying capacity that high) is that for the vast majority of our history we ortable and ridiculous to anyone with any decent education as those claim the world is flat.

Science can not possibly know this for they have no eyewitness report
like the Holy Bible. They only have a bunch of guess work. What are the
other alternatives that you have for creation? Maybe one of them will make
more sense to me than evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You need to read Dasa's post on honesty again. You still don't get it.

Says the man who cheats on a chess website. 🙄

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Says the man who cheats on a chess website. 🙄

Didn't anyone ever tell you not to bear false witness against your neighbor?
I am still curious to the other options to creation and evolution that you
know of.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your own dishonesty is getting the better of you. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your own dishonesty is getting the better of you. 😏

I asked you in another thread to back up your assertion concerning my 'alleged' lies and dishonesty, you never replied. Would you care to try again?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I asked you in another thread to back up your assertion concerning my 'alleged' lies and dishonesty, you never replied. Would you care to try again?!

You have a tendency to jump to conclusions. Someone has told you that
evolution is a fact, that you wish to believe, and you see a littled so-called
evidence that seems to support it and you are sure evolution is true. Now
when you are shown evidence for intelligent design by microbiologists that
seems to support creation or evidence that the earth may not be billions
of years old and man also may not be millions of years old, you are quick
to dismiss it as just religion and not worthy to study. I would say that is
hypocritical and dishonest. Of course, I know you must have another
explanation just like you have all the alternative options for creation and
evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have a tendency to jump to conclusions. Someone has told you that
evolution is a fact, that you wish to believe, and you see a littled so-called
evidence that seems to support it and you are sure evolution is true. Now
when you are shown evidence for intelligent design by microbiologists that
seems to support creation or evidence that the earth may ...[text shortened]... another
explanation just like you have all the alternative options for creation and
evolution.

No one has told me evolution is a fact, i've read numerous books on the subject and come to my own conclusions after reading the evidence. Something you haven't.

Now, how is that 'dishonest' or 'lies'?