How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

[marke]

Another of your many error (or lies). Evolution is nothing if not logical - it is a powerful explanatory framework that makes sense of vast quantities of data.

There is no end to the publishing of articles, papers, and books cropping scientific reports, and mining data to support their apriori atheistic evolutionist beliefs. Evolution is atheistic speculation called scientific theory but is far from being proven scientific fact.

 

[expos4ever]

Let's talk science instead of fallacies.

This is the very definition of begging the question.

 

[expos4ever]

The notion that random scrambling of genetic code will produce increases in function is not logical

This is, of course, completely misleading and I suspect that you know this.

You surely know that the mechanism of evolution makes perfect sense - random mutations in genetic code can produce characteristics that increase the chance the organism will survive to pass that trait to its offspring. While other random mutations will produce characteristics that cause the organism to die before reproducing and passing the mutation on.

When you pair random mutations with natural selection, it becomes very easy to see how evolution works. But, of course, you conveniently silent on the matter of natural selection.

 

[Gary K]

This is, of course, completely misleading and I suspect that you know this.

You surely know that the mechanism of evolution makes perfect sense - random mutations in genetic code can produce characteristics that increase the chance the organism will survive to pass that trait to its offspring. While other random mutations will produce characteristics that cause the organism to die before reproducing and passing the mutation on.

When you pair random mutations with natural selection, it becomes very easy to see how evolution works. But, of course, you conveniently silent on the matter of natural selection.

As usual you actually deny science.

Every time a cell mutates it loses genetic information. So the trillions of times a cell must mutate for evolution to be true actually causes degradation of information and degradation of the organism. That leads to organism death not organism improvement.

 

[Right Divider]

This is the very definition of begging the question.

Incorrect.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Think what you are, by implication, asking people to believe. You are asking them to believe that tens of thousands of highly trained experts - with real jobs they can lose if discovered to be lying - are collaborating in a vast conspiracy to deceive the world into thinking that we evolved from lower forms when there is no good evidence to support this view. If you are willing to take such notions seriously, you can dismiss any well-established scientific finding.

And all this because you insist on a literal reading of the first chapter or so of Genesis, when a metaphorical one is certainly plausible, and in no way diminishes the authority of scripture.

Alateone was more than eloquent on the score on here where it came to her abandoning her former adherence to YEC. When the evidence didn't fit she admitted it and the difficulty it entailed. Still, what does she know, just a professor of biology after all...

 

[ok doser]

This is, of course, completely misleading and I suspect that you know this.

You surely know that the mechanism of evolution makes perfect sense - random mutations in genetic code

aka random scrambling of genetic code

can produce characteristics that increase the chance the organism will survive to pass that trait to its offspring

aka increases in function

Not logical

. While other random mutations

aka random scrambling of genetic code

will produce characteristics that cause the organism to die before reproducing and passing the mutation on.

aka loss of function

Logical

 

[marke]

This is, of course, completely misleading and I suspect that you know this.

You surely know that the mechanism of evolution makes perfect sense - random mutations in genetic code can produce characteristics that increase the chance the organism will survive to pass that trait to its offspring. While other random mutations will produce characteristics that cause the organism to die before reproducing and passing the mutation on.

When you pair random mutations with natural selection, it becomes very easy to see how evolution works. But, of course, you conveniently silent on the matter of natural selection.

Science does not prove that unseen unintelligent forces of questionable origin or existence have produced the complexity and design of living forms on earth.

 

[marke]

Alateone was more than eloquent on the score on here where it came to her abandoning her former adherence to YEC. When the evidence didn't fit she admitted it and the difficulty it entailed. Still, what does she know, just a professor of biology after all...

Failing to comprehend or understand truth does not prove truth is a lie.

 

[Right Divider]

Alateone was more than eloquent on the score on here where it came to her abandoning her former adherence to YEC. When the evidence didn't fit she admitted it and the difficulty it entailed. Still, what does she know, just a professor of biology after all...

Again your fallacy of credentials (appeal to authority). Discuss facts of science or go away.

Every single time you come to "discuss", you use FALLACIOUS arguments.

 

[Stripe]

Alateone was more than eloquent on the score on here where it came to her abandoning her former adherence to YEC. When the evidence didn't fit she admitted it and the difficulty it entailed. Still, what does she know, just a professor of biology after all...

It's a pity that your idols are all dead.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The theory of evolution has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with how the universe came into being.

Without a theory of origins, you have nothing. That applies to the theory of evolution too.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You are asking them to believe that tens of thousands of highly trained experts

Appeal to popularity.

- with real jobs they can lose if discovered to be lying - are collaborating in a vast conspiracy to deceive the world into thinking that we evolved from lower forms when there is no good evidence to support this view.

The only one who's said anything about a conspiracy (in the common usage of the term) here so far is you.

That being said, those who hate God tend to conspire against Him, so in that sense, yes, there is a conspiracy, but it's a conspiracy against God, not against society.

Evolution is common ground for those who hate God, and since most of the world rejects Him, why would any of those scientists be fired if it promotes rejection of God? Remember, misery loves company. Those who reject God are (generally speaking) far more miserable than those who love Him. Thus, those who promote evolution, to the extent that they hate God, work together to do so, even and especially if it means rejecting what is true.

If you are willing to take such notions seriously, you can dismiss any well-established scientific finding.

Why?

And all this because you insist on a literal reading of the first chapter or so of Genesis,

The first chapter of Genesis is a record of the origin of the universe and everything in it. It was written using literal terms. There's no reason NOT to read it literally.

when a metaphorical one is certainly plausible, and in no way diminishes the authority of scripture.

Bob Enyart spoke at Pepperdyne University about what happens when you reject Genesis 1 as literal. It (rejecting chapter 1 as literal) DESTROYS the rest of scripture, because it is the foundation on which the rest of scripture sits.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Alateone was more than eloquent on the score on here where it came to her abandoning her former adherence to YEC. When the evidence didn't fit she admitted it and the difficulty it entailed. Still, what does she know, just a professor of biology after all...

Bet you that she never read "In the Beginning" by Dr. Walt Brown.

 

[marke]

Bet you that she never read "In the Beginning" by Dr. Walt Brown.

If she had read Dr. Brown it is certain she would never attempt to refute him if she understood the irrefutable nature of the truth he presented.

 

[expos4ever]

Incorrect.

I am correct - you were begging the question. This is obvious.

You initially claimed that mainstream evolutionary science is "indoctrination".

When I challenged you on this, you did not make any actual case that evolutionary science was wrong, you merely claimed it was fallacious. That is the textbook definition of begging the question - assuming the very thing you really need to make a case for.

 

[expos4ever]

Appeal to popularity.

No.

If you guys had provided any credible argument of your own, then, and only then, would I have been guilty of appeal to popularity.

You guys try the same stunt in the covid threads. You cry "appeal to authority" when we, rightly of course, assert that the overwhelming majority of trained experts support the vaccine. And yet all we get from you guys is appeals to somebody making youtubes in mother's basement, or outright lies - like showing us VAERS data and arguing that because people die after the vaccine, this means the vaccine caused their death.

You only have the right to cry "appeal to authority" if you are not doing the same thing yourself, and you are not providing nonsense arguments.

 

[Right Divider]

I am correct - you were begging the question. This is obvious.

No, I am not... this is obvious.

You initially claimed that mainstream evolutionary science is "indoctrination".

No, I did not. I claimed that to believe in millions of years based on radiometric dating is not science.

When I challenged you on this, you did not make any actual case that evolutionary science was wrong, you merely claimed it was fallacious. That is the textbook definition of begging the question - assuming the very thing you really need to make a case for.

No, I claimed that appeals to popularity are fallacious.

 

[Right Divider]

No.

If you guys had provided any credible argument of your own, then, and only then, would I have been guilty of appeal to popularity.

You guys try the same stunt in the covid threads. You cry "appeal to authority" when we, rightly of course, assert that the overwhelming majority of trained experts support the vaccine. And yet all we get from you guys is appeals to somebody making youtubes in mother's basement, or outright lies - like showing us VAERS data and arguing that because people die after the vaccine, this means the vaccine caused their death.

You only have the right to cry "appeal to authority" if you are not doing the same thing yourself, and you are not providing nonsense arguments.

Please get on the topic or get lost.

 

[expos4ever]

Every time a cell mutates it loses genetic information. So the trillions of times a cell must mutate for evolution to be true actually causes degradation of information and degradation of the organism. That leads to organism death not organism improvement.

Nonsense.

From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.