Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, debunked. Many decades ago. And you guys still trot it out as though it's some sort of gotcha! Over and over and over and ....

You don't seriously think the fossil record is the only line of evidence for evolution, do you? That's how you know this "argument" is super outdated.

Creationists never drop what they think is a "good argument".

 

[Wildswanderer]

The oldest known terrestrial rocks, which were found in Quebec, are 4280 million years old,

Sure they are... because rocks come with labels telling how old they are.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You already tried this analogy and failed.

The need for DNA is not an analogy.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The problem with this is the evidence of strategraphy where thousands of feet of different discrete kinds of rocks made of sediments that contain the fossils of the progressive evolution of life over millions of years. It is impossible that it all happened at the same time. In these rocks are thousands of discrete layers of lake sediments, meandering rivers, swamps, beaches, sand dune deposites, and hundreds of feet of limestone deposited in shallow seas with coral. All this takes billions of years to for over time.

That's not how layers generally form. Anyone who has spent any time in the outdoors knows this. Usually they form very quickly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure they are... because rocks come with labels telling how old they are.

They do if one knows how to read the labels. Can you tell me what this says:

I can't read that label. It could have the start of the Declaration of Independence on it. But I doubt it. Just because you personally cannot read something does not mean that others cannot read it either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The need for DNA is not an analogy.

You are right. It is only false. The original life probably did not have DNA.

 

[Wildswanderer]

By you or other creationists? First, they don't debate. They merely disagree, and without sound argument or an understanding of the known science.

Same old falsehoods. Creationists know how to use science.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Peers in science bring critical thinking to the process, and you are correct that they are very biased in favor of that method and against faith.

Which means they can never think outside their little box.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not for trees, just houses. Trees are living things capable of assembling themselves. Houses need designers and builders.

Rotflmao.
The total lack of common sense... and total absurdity of this argument!

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's only faith to those who don't know the science. Without critical analysis of evidence, every belief is by faith. And yes, there is something very wrong with faith. It's a path to false belief.

Wrong. You're just putting your faith in the unproven theories of men. You believe by faith just as anybody in any religion... Did you do all the experiments yourself and confirm them all? Did you dig up all the bones yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same old falsehoods. Creationists know how to use science.

Really? Then why do they fail all of the time? Why can't they write an article that passes peer review? Why are the articles that they write so poor that almost any expert can refute them?

Sorry, there is no massive conspiracy. In the sciences one must be able to support one's claims properly and creationists never can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. You're just putting your faith in the unproven theories of men. You believe by faith just as anybody in any religion... Did you do all the experiments yourself and confirm them all? Did you dig up all the bones yourself?

Nope. You are using the word "unproven" incorrectly. If you are referring to the fact that no theories are "proven" then you are also in effect denying gravity. If you mean in the common usage of the word "prove" then the theory of evolution has been proved. At best you simply do not understand how. Faith is your weakness and you seem to know that it is a weakness. You accuse others of having it too. We have something that you do not have. We have evidence. Faith is not needed when one has evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rotflmao.
The total lack of common sense... and total absurdity of this argument!

Well we did not want to comment on those lacks of yours. It is too bad that you cannot understand a logical argument.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope. You are using the word "unproven" incorrectly. If you are referring to the fact that no theories are "proven" then you are also in effect denying gravity. If you mean in the common usage of the word "prove" then the theory of evolution has been proved. At best you simply do not understand how. Faith is your weakness and you seem to know that it is a weakness. You accuse others of having it too. We have something that you do not have. We have evidence. Faith is not needed when one has evidence.

Yes gravity is a theory... And we're still not sure how it works.
You don't have evidence, you have written words that you choose to believe. You put your faith in men.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes gravity is a theory... And we're still not sure how it works.
You don't have evidence, you have written words that you choose to believe. You put your faith in men.

Nope. We have evidence. You do not understand the concept of evidence. The definition of evidence is clear in the sciences and we do have information that fits that definition perfectly.

Creationists either have to lie, or do not understand the concept of evidence. You merely do not understand. Though that lack of understanding is your fault. People have tried to help you with the concept. Still your lack of understanding does keep your post from being an outright lie.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not how layers generally form. Anyone who has spent any time in the outdoors knows this. Usually they form very quickly.

Then it's a good thing we don't base our scientific knowledge on some random guy's musings on the internet.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/sedimentary-rock
Fossils, Rocks, and Time: Rocks and Layers.
Principles of Geology
Sedimentary Rocks - Geology (U.S. National Park Service)

 

[SkepticThinker]

The need for DNA is not an analogy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rotflmao.
The total lack of common sense... and total absurdity of this argument!

Do point it out then. In detail. Snarky one-liners don't cut it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not how layers generally form. Anyone who has spent any time in the outdoors knows this. Usually they form very quickly.

Really? Let's see some peer reviewed papers on that. I can show you example after example of layers that could not have formed quickly. The only evidence is of slow growths. Let's take varves for instance. Do you know what varves are?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Really? Let's see some peer reviewed papers on that. I can show you example after example of layers that could not have formed quickly. The only evidence is of slow growths. Let's take varves for instance. Do you know what varves are?

Yes, and they can be laid down very quickly.
Such long time estimates are believable to those holding to the gradualism paradigm and assumed to be based on present processes.
What we actually see happening defies the gradualism theory. Sediment rapidly flooding into lakes; underwater slides; turbidity currents; snow-melt events; underflows from a muddy bottom layer; overflows from a muddy layer floating at the top of a lake; interflows from a muddy layer at intermediate depths; and multiple rapid blooms of microorganisms within one year.


"It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as “varved.” There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units ... without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation.26

(Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology—an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.)