New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[night912]

Not true. If rabbits were one of the majority of creatures on earth that could not leave remains why would I look for remains from them? You are arguing from ignorance.

How would you know that if you never look? So if one was to say that missing link creatures are part of that, why look for them? If god is part of that, why look for god?

 

[night912]

One assumes if there are processes needed in the world in which atoms are involved, that God knew. So the world would have started off with rocks and isotopes in place so that the processes could start to work. The forces and laws that existed at the time would determine how all the atoms behaved. We do not know what nature existed at creation, and afterward up till the time of Noah. There is no reason that I am yet aware of, or have heard, that the nature that existed was the same as what we have today.
Therefore that different nature would be responsible for a lot of the isotopes we have. It is not known that there even was radioactive decay in that time. So whatever processes were going on may have had nothing to do with any decay sequence radioactivity. We do not know what forces and laws existed.

All we know is what nature exists NOW. We see decay NOW happening, and science has simply assumed it was always like this. That is why the ratios represent great ages in their minds.

If you do not know how it was at the time of creation, then you don't know that it was to how it is today. Unless you know how it was at that time, then you cannot know that it had changed. So there goes your theory.

 

[dad]

How do you get different laws? The Bible doesn't even make such a claim.

Have you seen trees growing in a week, or people living to 1000 years old today?

And very innefficient, dont you think? And it still must be asked why the deception? Why was god not more clear on this, instead of designing something that would inevitably suggest the universe and earrth are billions of years old?

He told us about creation and where life and stars and the sun came from. He told us what life was like in the days of the Fathers. The deception is not on His end.

 

[dad]

How would you know that if you never look? So if one was to say that missing link creatures are part of that, why look for them? If god is part of that, why look for god?

Who is looking for them? Not me.

 

[dad]

If you do not know how it was at the time of creation, then you don't know that it was to how it is today.

Correct, we do not know how nature was then compared to today. Therefore we cannot assign radioactive decay that we have today to then.

Unless you know how it was at that time, then you cannot know that it had changed. So there goes your theory.

Bingo. Science cannot know how it changed. Heck, they do not even know whether it changed or not!

 

[shunyadragon]

No. You simply interpret ratios with your chosen beliefs. Nothing to do with time or billions of anything.

Again, no coherent response . . .

ALL the evidence available demonstrates the time and natural processes are constant over billions of years.

The discovery of the new ancient intermediate species of whale reflects a very important part of the falsification of Hypothesis. Making prediction in a hypothesis is critical. Over recent years scientist have made predictions where in the strata scientists could find intermediates in the evolution of different lineages of species. The evolution of whales is a classic example of the success of making predictions to support a hypothesis.

Where is your science to support your religious assertions?

 

[shunyadragon]

Correct, we do not know how nature was then compared to today. Therefore we cannot assign radioactive decay that we have today to then.
Bingo. Science cannot know how it changed. Heck, they do not even know whether it changed or not!

ALL the evidence available demonstrates the time and natural processes are constant over billions of years, and demonstrating a consistent.predictable scientific natural existence. In contrast you have presented absolutely nothing in terms of evidence.

 

[Bear Wild]

Correct, we do not know how nature was then compared to today. Therefore we cannot assign radioactive decay that we have today to then.
Bingo. Science cannot know how it changed. Heck, they do not even know whether it changed or not!

Science does know how the world has changed in time and has predicted what has been found in the world. Only in the imaginary world of "dad" does the properties of the natural world change whenever "dad" wants it too. How convenient for "dad" since if he does not like what is present "dad" will change the time space continuum to fit what he wants to believe. Thus all evidence in science is worthless to "dad" because it is wrong if it does not support "dad"s beliefs. Thus you cannot discuss any idea about evolution with "dad" because nothing that is real in the natural world is real to "dad"s wonderland.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have you seen trees growing in a week, or people living to 1000 years old today?

I have watched trees grow over a week, and what evidence do you have that anyone has lived to 1000 years?

 

[dad]

Again, no coherent response . . .

Don't blame others if you cannot understand. It was simple enough. The way you date things depends largely on isotope ratios that you say formed in the present nature. For no apparent reason, you can give us.

 

[dad]

ALL the evidence available demonstrates the time and

Except you give no evidence that time is the same in deep space. Why is that?

 

[dad]

Science does know how the world has changed in time and has predicted what has been found in the world.

Show the evidence that science knows what the forces and laws in place on earth were? There is none and it is foolishness to claim there is.

Only in the imaginary world of "dad" does the properties of the natural world change whenever "dad" wants it too.

Either you know nature here was the same or not. Don't blame other posters for your fail.

change the time space continuum to fit what he wants to believe.

No such thing outside earth and the area of the solar system. Your continuum is the fishbowl!

Thus you cannot discuss any idea about evolution with "dad" because nothing that is real in the natural world is real to "dad"s wonderland.

Of course the current nature is real. Strawman. Stop whining because you can't prove it was always the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except you give no evidence that time is the same in deep space. Why is that?

Probably because it would be pointless since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Would you care to learn? If he posts evidence you will simply deny it as you have done so often in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show the evidence that science knows what the forces and laws in place on earth were? There is none and it is foolishness to claim there is.

Either you know nature here was the same or not. Don't blame other posters for your fail.


No such thing outside earth and the area of the solar system. Your continuum is the fishbowl!
Of course the current nature is real. Strawman. Stop whining because you can't prove it was always the same.

dad rule number one applies.

All it takes to get it lifted is learning what is and what is not evidence.

 

[dad]

Probably because it would be pointless since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Would you care to learn? If he posts evidence you will simply deny it as you have done so often in the past.

If you run out of toilet tissue let us know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Except you give no evidence that time is the same in deep space. Why is that?

There is overwhelming evidence of time throughout our universe. There are unlimited scientific references that document time on earth, our solar system and beyond in the cosmos. Simple geometric triangulation documents distances and time in terms of billions of year and miles in the cosmos.

Again, what is your academic background in making bizarro ancient religious assertions concerning cosmology, science and time other than a religious agenda?

 

[shunyadragon]

If you run out of toilet tissue let us know.

Do you need more?

 

[dad]

I have watched trees grow over a week, and what evidence do you have that anyone has lived to 1000 years?

Well, watch an olive tree. Let us know if it grows fruit and leaves in a week. Science has no evidence that people did or did not live for 1000 years. So I see no reason to question the record God gave us.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, watch an olive tree. Let us know if it grows fruit and leaves in a week. Science has no evidence that people did or did not live for 1000 years. So I see no reason to question the record God gave us.

All you need to do is provide objective verifiable evidence concerning your claims.

We have ancient trees counted by annual growth rings up ~89,000 years; A quaking Aspen in Fishlake National Forest, Utah, USA that is still alive. 10 Oldest Trees in the World (Updated 2019)

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you run out of toilet tissue let us know.

You are not fooling anyone.

Why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?