Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hume said:
Has a lot of the things that we measure in the prehistoric world date in the millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of years, a dating of half a million years would still be difficult for me to accept based on what I observe in reality.
Click to expand...
Understand the assumptions of these dating techniques. If one finds a fossil with soft tissue that RC dates to 30000 years ago in a billion year old rock, which one do we pick as being more accurate?
 
Last edited:
As human beings have been around for less than 200,000 years, I would say that his argument is, at least at that part, fundamentally mistaken.
 
Hume said:
As human beings have been around for less than 200,000 years, I would say that his argument is, at least at that part, fundamentally mistaken.
Click to expand...
How do you know they have been around for 200K? Your textbook says that? Did you do any of the research?
 
The speed of a generational cycle is something that’s very important to distinguish here. Assuming Our Generations are roughly 25 years apart means that our Evolution now will be slower.

For species that reach sexual maturation in mere months, their evolution can occur much faster. In species that reach maturation overnight in a petri dish, their evolution can occur even faster still.
 
The oldest fossils that we can identify as distinctly homosapien are no older than 195k years.
But be sure, I’m not married to the position. If better data comes out that suggests the different date, I’m happy to switch because of my beliefs are data-driven.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Michaelangelo:
Scientific laws are only descriptive , not prescriptive . …
Click to expand...
The descriptive content of a science law rests in its explanatory power. The utility of a science hypothesis directly depends on its predictive ability. One test of the validity of a scientific hypothesis is measured by its predictive value.
Click to expand...
A scientific law describes a pattern. For example Newton described patterns caused by the phenomenon we call gravity. The math he used to describe the patterns have a certain explanatory and predictive power. But only to a certain limit. Because the pattern described in Newton’s law of gravity is very much energy dependent.


I fail to see the “Department of environmental science, policy and management” being an authority on this subject. But you may perhaps explain your choice of authoritative source?
 
Hume said:
As human beings have been around for less than 200,000 years, I would say that his argument is, at least at that part, fundamentally mistaken.
Click to expand...
And you didn’t even bother to read the citation I gave but lurched again into another meaningless counter argument. There’s no point in further exchanges until you do your homework. Post a meaningful criticism on the article citing the article so I know you are serious.
 
Michaelangelo said:
I fail to see the “Department of environmental science, policy and management” being an authority on this subject. But you may perhaps explain your choice of authoritative source?
Click to expand...
It’s much better than the one you did not give.
 
Hume said:
he oldest fossils that we can identify as distinctly homosapien are no older than 195k years.
But be sure, I’m not married to the position. If better data comes out that suggests the different date, I’m happy to switch because of my beliefs are data-driven.
Click to expand...
Data driven. Wow, Do you see the problem with this? What assumptions drive the data you are digesting?
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Hume:
As human beings have been around for less than 200,000 years, I would say that his argument is, at least at that part, fundamentally mistaken.
Click to expand...
And you didn’t even bother to read the citation I gave but lurched again into another meaningless counter argument. There’s no point in further exchanges until you do your homework. Post a meaningful criticism on the article citing the article so I know you are serious.
Click to expand...
No, my criticism is in direct reply to what you posted. It referenced evolution in the “millions” of years.

Our ape cousins sexually mature in 5 to 10 years in many cases. Assuming speciation can occur in as few as 25k generations, then “macroevolution” can happen in our immediate ancestors (causing "us) anywhere between 125k to 250k years. Not millions.

And the further back we go, the more monkey-like then the more mouse-like we become. Faster generational cycles. Speciation can happen even faster.

A mouse that matures in 3 months needs about 6500 years to speciate if the pressure’s there to do it.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
he oldest fossils that we can identify as distinctly homosapien are no older than 195k years.
But be sure, I’m not married to the position. If better data comes out that suggests the different date, I’m happy to switch because of my beliefs are data-driven.
Click to expand...
Data driven. Wow, Do you see the problem with this? What assumptions drive the data you are digesting?
Click to expand...
That it must be observable, testable, repeatable.

I don’t assume the conclusion is true then cherry-pick evidence to support it - which is what you do, with respect.
 
Hume said:
That it must be observable, testable, repeatable.
Click to expand...
Fantastic. We are definitely on the same page.
We do not have empirical, that is observable, repeatable or predictable evidence of human age.
 
Hume said:
No, my criticism is in direct reply to what you posted. It referenced evolution in the “millions” of years.
Click to expand...
Like I wrote, you don’t bother to read what is posted but apparently what you hope was posted. So long (Fred, jr. ?).
o_mlly said:
… some theories of evolution there are hundreds of thousands or millions of years
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
That it must be observable, testable, repeatable.
Click to expand...
Fantastic. We are definitely on the same page.
We do not have empirical, that is observable, repeatable or predictable evidence of human age.
Click to expand...
We have the oldest human bones, which can be dated.

They come in at around 195k years ago.
 
Do you see the nonsense you put yourself through to try to assert the truth of yec?
 
Michaelangelo said:
All light have the same source to the best of our understanding, the electromagnetic field.
Click to expand...
What? Where did you get that idea and what do you mean by “the” electromagnetic field? An electromagnetic field is not even an object.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top