About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

No that is pure speculation. Complete guesswork with no demonstration.

Okay. Prove it. Or are you just making more false claims that you cannot support?

Accusing scientists of "pure speculation" is a very serious charge. By doing so you took on a burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

D.N.A. testing indicates that the Amerindians migrated from southeast Siberia, which is part of Russia today. The Inuit came somewhat later, and they were largely from northern Siberia.

Unfortunately he conflated Siberia with Russia. He claimed earlier that linguists showed that the Native American languages came from Russian. That would be a rather interesting feat since Russian is a European language and Russia's conquest of Siberia was long long long after those migrations ended.

Perhaps a time machine was involved.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is not a "debate". You are merely being corrected.

Agree, but for reasons different from yours. It's not debate without rebuttal. Dissent is not enough. Repeating claims that don't attempt to falsify the claims of others is neither rebuttal nor debate (dialectic). Debate is essentially unseen outside of the critical thinking community, because it requires two or more critical thinkers to do it. One needs to be able to make sound arguments, and to identify fallacious one and identify the fallacy in order to debate.

These elements have a mind to evolve? What absolute nonsense.

Yes, but it's your nonsense, not mine. I think we're all still amazed that you called yourself a scientist.

That is not evidence of rocks first colliding and sticking together. That picture could be anything.

You're incorrect twice here. Yes it is evidence of rocks colliding and sticking together, and no it couldn't be anything. It is a photograph of a bilobar asteroid taken by a robotic probe. That doesn't change because you find fact inconvenient and choose to ignore it. That just means that you can't learn what contradicts your faith-based beliefs, and thus have no way to correct your errors.

that is pure speculation. Complete guesswork with no demonstration.

But that's not a problem for you, or it shouldn't be if you are to be consistent. It describes YOUR worldview.

 

[Apostle John]

I think we're all still amazed that you called yourself a scientist.

I think you’re the same person with a whole host of alter egos. I think your worldview is very narrow-minded and blinkered.

 

[Audie]

I think you’re the same person with a whole host of alter egos. I think your worldview is very narrow-minded and blinkered.

Why do you pretend to be a scientist?

 

[Apostle John]

Unfortunately he conflated Siberia with Russia. He claimed earlier that linguists showed that the Native American languages came from Russian. That would be a rather interesting feat since Russian is a European language and Russia's conquest of Siberia was long long long after those migrations ended.

Perhaps a time machine was involved.

Yes maybe I should have said eurasia but regardless you did beautifully expose the myth of multiple cradles of civilisation, that was my original point. At least 16000 years the science you follow says the glacial bridge went. Native Americans should have had their own indistinguishable language indecipherable from any origin by the time linguists began their studies.

Why do you pretend to be a scientist?

I don’t.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you’re the same person with a whole host of alter egos.

It's logically possible, but it seems like a lot of extra work for no benefit.

I think your worldview is very narrow-minded and blinkered.

The blinkering is called critical analysis, it's there by design, and unlike the blinkering illustrated below, it's beneficial. Irrational belief is excluded. And it works very well. I'm happy. My life is sufficient. All I need do from here until the end is maintain the status quo for as long as fate allows.

The narrow-minded part is wrong. You've got that backward. I'm a critical thinker, which teaches and requires open-mindedness. Faith-based thinking, which you probably recommend, is closed-mindedness by definition. Let me illustrate the difference: The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

The sine qua non of closed mindedness is the refusal to look at evidence. Here are other examples:

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

He's telling you his mind is shut, and he's proud of it. He sees it as a virtue.

Here's another believer telling us his mind is closed for business:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

And another:

“When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

 

[Astrophile]

That is not evidence of rocks first colliding and sticking together. That picture could be anything.

That is a picture of the trans-Neptunian object 486958 Arrokoth; it was imaged by the New Horizons probe on 1st January 2019. See 486958 Arrokoth - Wikipedia for more information.

 

[Apostle John]

That is a picture of the trans-Neptunian object 486958 Arrokoth; it was imaged by the New Horizons probe on 1st January 2019. See 486958 Arrokoth - Wikipedia for more information.

That’s similar to the other ‘photo’. If it isn’t an optical illusion, it could have been made by God. It provides no evidence of two rocks colliding and then fusing.

 

[Apostle John]

It's logically possible, but it seems like a lot of extra work for no benefit.

It could be therapeutic for you or you could have an agenda.

 

[Apostle John]

It's logically possible, but it seems like a lot of extra work for no benefit.

The blinkering is called critical analysis, it's there by design, and unlike the blinkering illustrated below, it's beneficial. Irrational belief is excluded. And it works very well. I'm happy. My life is sufficient. All I need do from here until the end is maintain the status quo for as long as fate allows.

The narrow-minded part is wrong. You've got that backward. I'm a critical thinker, which teaches and requires open-mindedness. Faith-based thinking, which you probably recommend, is closed-mindedness by definition. Let me illustrate the difference: The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

The sine qua non of closed mindedness is the refusal to look at evidence. Here are other examples:

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

He's telling you his mind is shut, and he's proud of it. He sees it as a virtue.

Here's another believer telling us his mind is closed for business:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

And another:

“When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

There’s always evidence that trumps or tops all other so called evidence. If you and Bill Nye remain atheist until ‘fate allows’ and you are then confronted with the fact that the Lord Jesus exists, this will be evidence too late to benefit from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes maybe I should have said eurasia but regardless you did beautifully expose the myth of multiple cradles of civilisation, that was my original point. At least 16000 years the science you follow says the glacial bridge went. Native Americans should have had their own indistinguishable language indecipherable from any origin by the time linguists began their studies.

I don’t.

Sorry, but that did not do that. The civilizations in the New World did not occur until long after the land bridge was gone. The Old World civilizations could not have started the New World civilizations.

Why do you think that multiple places where civilization began is not possible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s similar to the other ‘photo’. If it isn’t an optical illusion, it could have been made by God. It provides no evidence of two rocks colliding and then fusing.

So you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Please tell us why it is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s always evidence that trumps or tops all other so called evidence. If you and Bill Nye remain atheist until ‘fate allows’ and you are then confronted with the fact that the Lord Jesus exists, this will be evidence too late to benefit from.

What if Jesus was just a man that died on the cross and was left up there to rot?

 

[YoursTrue]

At best he will merely have another opinion.

Can you tell my why you think that it is possible for a God to poof a man into existence by magic, but cannot poor a single living cell into existence with magic?

I do not think the Bible account says God poofed a man into existence, but it must be taken with constructive sense and evaluation of what it is saying. You have your opinions. I cannot explain exactly how God "did it," but yes, I do believe God is (1) the one that enabled man and animals and plants to live -- and (2) however He did it is not explained, and (3) we know that one day in God's view is as 1,000 years, so however long it took, that's how long it took.
And yes, I realize that nostrils provide life-giving forces (such as air) to get into one's body, no matter how I look at it, it's mind-blowing. So when it says that God breathed into Adam's nostrils and he gained life, yes, however it happened, God gave Adam life and life begets life. PLUS -- gorillas and monkeys have a lot more body hair than we do.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone -- Plus, when God said "Let us make man in our image," I am very sure (yes I am) that He didn't mean He looked like Adam and someone else looked like Eve. in heaven So anyway -- it must be read in a spiritual sense, not as physical exact science necessarily. Although I no longer believe in the concept of evolution of the fittest. Although -- changes happen, but not in the idea as that's how it all came about, with or without connecting abiogenesis to the formula.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not think the Bible account says God poofed a man into existence, but it must be taken with constructive sense and evaluation of what it is saying. You have your opinions. I cannot explain exactly how God "did it," but yes, I do believe God is (1) the one that enabled man and animals and plants to live -- and (2) however He did it is not explained, and (3) we know that one day in God's view is as 1,000 years, so however long it took, that's how long it took.
And yes, I realize that nostrils provide life-giving forces (such as air) to get into one's body, no matter how I look at it, it's mind-blowing. So when it says that God breathed into Adam's nostrils and he gained life, yes, however it happened, God gave Adam life and life begets life. PLUS -- gorillas and monkeys have a lot more body hair than we do.

It does, The Bible describes what is called a Golem spell. God did magic in the Bible. You don't get to say that it is not magic when God does it.

And why on Earth do you think that breathing is mind bending? Physiologists understand what is happening. It is really cool, but there is no magic involved.

You have just as many body hairs, roughly, as chimps and gorillas. Yours are merely much finer and quite a bit shorter. (We hope)

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone -- Plus, when God said "Let us make man in our image," I am very sure (yes I am) that He didn't mean He looked like Adam and someone else looked like Eve. in heaven So anyway -- it must be read in a spiritual sense, not as physical exact science necessarily. Although I no longer believe in the concept of evolution of the fittest. Although -- changes happen, but not in the idea as that's how it all came about, with or without connecting abiogenesis to the formula.

Why do you keep saying "evolution of the fittest"). The actual phase was (survival of the fittest and Darwin never used that phrase. You should really drop it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you keep saying "evolution of the fittest"). The actual phase was (survival of the fittest and Darwin never used that phrase. You should really drop it.

Aw, c'moin, even if that is what the expression is, it means evolution of (or to) the fittest. But ok, I'll try to say "survival of the fittest" in the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aw, c'moin, even if that is what the expression is, it means evolution of (or to) the fittest. But ok, I'll try to say "survival of the fittest" in the future.

But that is wrong too. It gives people the wrong idea. Evolution is not about who is the biggest or the strongest. It is about who can reproduce and make sure that their offspring survive to become adults.