Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Brother, It cannot be million or billions, not even tens of thousands.
Not a shred of evidence to support such belief. Scientifically or biblically.
Genesis chapter 5 and 11 give a very clear and simple genealogy from Adam to Christ, (about 4,000years of history)
To throw more time in there means death before sin.

It's actually 6,000 years of history according to bible scholars. https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

Scientists have determined by studying radiocarbon aging techniques and our universe that planet earth is around 4.55 billion years old. You are free to ignore the scientist who study these things.

That is incorrect:
http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

I don't believe that scientific accuracy is a sin.

4,000 plus 2018

You left off six zeros.

Not sure if you have read other threads where I’ve explained how when dating things (whether stars, rocks, trees, dead animals etc etc.) there are always Assumptions at play which dictate the conclusion.

For example, when dating rocks, one major asssumption is that the decay Rate we observe has always been a constant Rate of decay.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/
Likewise with your star article.
There is no accuracy in such techniques whatsoever. Nada. This is why the door is wide open to a ‘young earth’

Oh my god.

decay rates are based upon decay constants (hich are computed in seconds) and all data is developed from seconds, SO, unless te speed of light has significantly changed over geologic time, we can be ure that rad dating is accurate to within 2% of the calculation. The biggest errors are in setermining the decay constants and these, by the math , wont vqry by more than so,e factor which includes a relatevistic corrections, hich is usually a zero , te decima point and then 6 zeros before the value)

The correction factor for "ratio" decays , product decays, or concordia decays, is usually given in time less than a few yers for anything uner 10K an 100000 yrs for anything over 100 Million years.


Its like Creationist "math" that computes decisively that each evolving trait addition in "macro" evolution would take about 1X 100 ^390 . What they dont understand is that these mutations or additions of "new information to a genome" usually take place SIMULTANEOUSLY at many many many sites within a single organism (not successively at one site at a time). Then just think about how many organisms make up a species. Then add on the time scales involved. The math that compoutes gene frequencies approaches certainty quite quickly. The real factor is selection pressures in nature .

PS, the guy presenting that "Error in radiometric decay" is a FTCS (full time creationist shill), who did some relly good work at the initiation of his career. He worked on Birefringence of polonium in granitic micas. He computed that (due to the half life of polonium, these birefringence rings ("Halos" he calls em) indicate that the granites are much younger (conforming to wht Genesis says about the age of the earth having been Created at 4004 BC on Oct 27 at 2:30 PM.(As henry Drummond asked his witness in "Inherit the Wind"
"Was tht Eastern Standard time or Daylight saving Time?? and what time zone were we talking about??). Austens birefringence halos had been debunked severql times by some Canadian Graduate students. Then to show his complete IDiocy, Austen submitted a GSA field trip proposal in 2010 GSA conference about the water depoited Stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon. To this he PROVED UNEQUIVOCALLY that the Grand Canyon was created in the Noachian Flood and the water deposited sediments were PROOF of the worldwide liquid cataclysm .
Enter the same goddam Canadian Grad students who actually accompanied Austen on his approved field trip. These students outfitted themselves with some USGS locl geo maps that showed , in the middle of Austen's "Flood depoited Grqnd Canyon section, were at least 11 unique depowits thqt were hqvily vienced to be SAND DUNES. (Cross bedded truncted sand layers are unoque to dry deposition like loess and sand dunes)
How could a" Flood" retain these dune deposits"??
Well, in the post trip summary report by the attendee students, they swear that Auten said that ""God can do anything he wishes with the seposits. If he wihed to crete drylnd depoists within a flood, he ws able to do so"

Not a very compelling answer so the students summation included a statement that "dr Austen should actully save these findings for an APRIL 1 symposium .It was inferred that there was very little science coming from a trained scientist.
Dr Austen is now with the Discovery Institute and he does crap like this also for "Answers in Genesis"

Science is the philosophies naturalism and realism combined which is only capable of telling the different ways things can physically work . You must use objective idealism to determine where they came from and what is the correct way to use them.

I thought we were talking about the real world here, not some philosophical metaphysical academic foofoo.

Science works. It's functional. It produces valuable, effective results. When you go to the dentist to get a tooth pulled you want real novocaine, right?

Sorry, I should have left it at “we’re done”.
You are incapable of civil discussion on the subject.
You and your space ancestors have a good day.

I'm just wondering what makes some people able to overlook scientific evidence to stick with their religious beliefs. Some are able to believe in both, and be fine with it.

wait a minit bunky. You asked me whether I can ccept panspermia and I said that Ive been consistently saying that panspermia cannot be denied but NOWHERE is it to be crowned as exemplifying ID.
You seem to be quite unsure of what the hell it is to "beleieve in".

Whether you disappear or not, dont go away mad, it doesnt resolve a dmned thing because you just need to feel validated and noone here has that job. I just said that apparently youve not read ANYTHING I said re Panspermia so you wanna go all aunt nellie on me.
Ill sleep well , its just if you start posing crap, dont expect me to be quiet. Ive learned that, whether I am ignored, I am still free to call IDiocy what it may be.

I think you are freaking out because your worldview is leaning more towards mine.At least youre not engaged in malapropic english word salads, your foul debate mannerism is more refined.

Im afraid that Leadft is caught in a corner of his own construction

There was no death before sin. A year before the flood (a year as it appeared to a descendant of Seth, which Noah was) was not measured in revolutions of the earth. The descendeants of Seth were. We calculate years like Cain using 24 hour days. The Nephilum Gen 6. I think it can be argued with good historical evidence gleaned from the sources of the biblical flood story that a year to Seth would be around 25,000 years to Cain. The mark Cain received when he killed Abel made him a wanderer of the earth which, changed his universal perspective of the universe to an earth centered perspective.

. I agree.

Can macroevolution happen without intelligent intervention either at the initiation of the process or a certain major changes like organ systems and flight?

I think the answer is obviously no.

The fossil record would look exactly the same if evolution is intelligently guided. The gaps that, naturalism reveals in the fossil record, can only be explained by naive realism and objective idealism. I do believe that is proven by scientific data in the fossil record combined with Biological genetics and information technology. (And information technology Must be interpreted using naive realism and objective idealism because of the nature of information.)

How does agriculture and medicine use the theory of evolution with the random generation of new information as the only source of new information?

If random is guided by something that, existed before the random introduction of information because, it was built into the system so the system could succeed at evolving to complexity, that by definition is “planning for a future event”.

If it isn’t what would you call it? How would you explain that miraculous coincidence?

By definition random cannot plan or organize for future events otherwise it isn’t random it is intelligent.

Can you give me an example of a system that, we have observed coming into existence that, planned for future events that, was initiated without the involvement of any intelligence?

If you can I would call that evidence by scientific replication, and I will admit that your point of view has merit, and possibly more merit than my point of view.

Excuse me but, who gave you the authority to determine what rule any other human besides yourself should follow.

You are an animal that has been proclaiming an atheistic naturalististc philosophical understanding of the universe for years on this blog. You have been espousing the view that, there is no place in this scientific discussion of the universe and the occupants of this universe that we all are because, that would be religious.

Animals make choices based on one thing:

If I am uncomfortable I need to get comfortable if at all possible.

All other decisions are predetermined instinct that is written into their DNA as algorithms that operate using artificial intelligence.

Are you saying your sense of morality is a preprogrammed algorithm that is producing artificial intelligence?

If so, what if my program that, developed through random mutations says something different? What if mine says, “if, somebody doesn’t treat me the way I want to be treated and has something I need to be comfortable then, I think I should eliminate them.”

That is how someone using nature and the naturalistic philosophy like you have been reasoning with for so may blogs should reach a logical conclusion. Why now the sudden change of philosophies to the objective idealism of a religious believer in God? Are you a closet believer or are you selectively using philosophies as they become convenient to make the point you are trying to make at the time?

provide some evidence and I promise to tear it apart with evidence that says youre full of it.

Id prefer a vingrette dressing on your word salad, You are saying NOTHING . "gaps" are nothing but hiatii in time (or did you not realize that?). Why is it that almost all "gaps" pick up on on of two ways
A. The evolutionary trail can be seen as a continuum

B, The species hqs gon extinct.
Try not to populate your posts withtoo much phony eloquence when you are totlly in the dark

can you understand hoiw others , who think you are so full of ****, feel the same way of your "authority"

Boy you really dipped your johnson into the boiling water with this one here BJ