# Val's Evolution versus Creation



## Johnny b

Moderator note: This discussion split off from this thread:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/facts-are-facts-if-you-believe-them-that-is.1197154/



Drabdr said:


> For some reason... they're always "facts" when they support what we believe.
> 
> Not sure any of you have been watching the Vietnam War documentaries on KERA. But they are really well done.
> 
> However.... it demonstrates that facts about war and such are from the eye of the beholder. It's a tricky thing.
> 
> I guess that's why the story of Christ took four gospels instead of one.


For some people it is.

Here are facts that upset fundamentalists.
Mankind existed up to millions of years before 'Adam and Eve'(of which there is no physical record), thus upsetting the concept of original sin.
More so, the historical records of past life on Earth are evidence of evolution......or as a fundamentalist might coin 'evilution' 

The 'eye of the beholder' is indeed biased 
And denial of reality follows.


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> For some people it is.
> 
> Here are facts that upset fundamentalists.
> Mankind existed up to millions of years before 'Adam and Eve'(of which there is no physical record), thus upsetting the concept of original sin.
> More so, the historical records of past life on Earth are evidence of evolution......or as a fundamentalist might coin 'evilution'
> 
> The 'eye of the beholder' is indeed biased
> And denial of reality follows.


Um... yea. Those facts are about as factual as most of the other facts I've seen. 

You should publish those facts and become a zillionaire. You figured out something no one else has been able to!! 

I don't know how old the earth is; no one else does either. We can speculate.

No one know the origin of life or how the planet started. We can only speculate.

Those... are facts!


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Um... yea. Those facts are about as factual as most of the other facts I've seen.
> 
> You should publish those facts and become a zillionaire. You figured out something no one else has been able to!!
> 
> I don't know how old the earth is; no one else does either. We can speculate.
> 
> No one know the origin of life or how the planet started. We can only speculate.
> 
> Those... are facts!


And denial begins


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> And denial begins


You admit you deny my facts? 

Naw... I don't know how old the earth is. I know there is a lot of good research that puts it around 2 million.

That's pretty old.


----------



## Johnny b

With out inheritable 'original sin', many beliefs seem moot.






Delete that one simple concept and what flows as fundamentalist logic in the Bible changes radically as the object of being 'saved' from 'original sin' by the 'ransom' of Jesus .......would logically be done by a different mechanism, as there is no concept as 'inheritable original sin'.
(And no, I'm not claiming what that is or would be. Only what it couldn't be)


The eye of the beholder can be incredibly biased to reality 


'Adam' never existed as the first human, nor Eve as the first wife, 6000 years ago or even 60,000 years ago..

Does it bother me? Nope.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> You admit you deny my facts?
> 
> Naw... I don't know how old the earth is. I know there is a lot of good research that puts it around 2 million.
> 
> That's pretty old.




Just more of the same


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> With out inheritable 'original sin', many beliefs seem moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Delete that one simple concept and what flows as fundamentalist logic in the Bible changes radically as the object of being 'saved' from 'original sin' by the 'ransom' of Jesus .......would logically be done by a different mechanism, as there is no concept as 'inheritable original sin'.
> (And no, I'm not claiming what that is or would be. Only what it couldn't be)
> 
> The eye of the beholder can be incredibly biased to reality
> 
> 'Adam' never existed as the first human, nor Eve as the first wife, 6000 years ago or even 60,000 years ago..
> 
> Does it bother me? Nope.


You do make a good point. There are many who are so literal with the bible....

That book is (to me) about Faith; first and foremost. The only really detailed accurate information given is about the geneology of Jesus. Which... is relevant so that the prophesy given/fulfilled is accurate. Which it was.

The rest.... other worlds other stuff..... literal years or not; aliens or not, whatever..... is not relevant. There is all kinds of stuff that could have happened which is not recorded in the bible. Nor does it need to be.

But...yea. Adam was the first guy.... nothing can prove otherwise. Now how old he really is.....


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> ........
> 
> But...yea. Adam was the first guy.... nothing can prove otherwise. Now how old he really is.....


Brad, believe what ever you choose in regards to religious beliefs.
BUT......
To post a claim is a testable challenge when focused at others.

I don't need to prove 'Adam and Eve' of the Bible didn't exist in the physical sense.
Fundamentalist beliefs set their 'creation' point at about 6000 years ago.
It only needs to be shown that mankind existed before that period .....so their existence as the first creation of mankind would be an impossibility.

If you are claiming 'Adam and Eve' are possibly millions of years old, I personally know many fundamentalists that will challenge you, falling back on their faith in the Holy Bible.
I bible study with them and they seem to often pray for me


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Brad, believe what ever you choose in regards to religious beliefs.
> BUT......
> To post a claim is a testable challenge when focused at others.
> 
> I don't need to prove 'Adam and Eve' of the Bible didn't exist in the physical sense.
> Fundamentalist beliefs set their 'creation' point at about 6000 years ago.
> It only needs to be shown that mankind existed before that period .....so their existence as the first creation of mankind would be an impossibility.
> 
> If you are claiming 'Adam and Eve' are possibly millions of years old, I personally know many fundamentalists that will challenge you, falling back on their faith in the Holy Bible.
> I bible study with them and they seem to often pray for me


You started this... so Yeah... you have some burden of proof also.  You claimed the Original Sin did not occur. I still maintain it did.

John.... sometimes... I'm sad about how close-minded I see people in the Christian Faith. They get upset because I challenge their Faith. It's like... their whole world crumbles when someone talks science, carbon dating, etc.

To clarify.... the discussion is more valid to frame in terms of Young Versus Old Earth.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> You started this... so Yeah... you have some burden of proof also.  You claimed the Original Sin did not occur. I still maintain it did.
> 
> John.... sometimes... I'm sad about how close-minded I see people in the Christian Faith. They get upset because I challenge their Faith. It's like... their whole world crumbles when someone talks science, carbon dating, etc.
> 
> To clarify.... the discussion is more valid to frame in terms of Young Versus Old Earth.


You're delusional 

I gave you an example of 'fact' abuse and all you are accomplishing is proving by example 

Without the existence of 'Adam and Eve' , the concept of inheritable original sin has no basis and its lingering through the New Testament has an impact on theology and interpretation.

Then I findout you are a believer in the 'Adam and Eve' allegory as if it were fact.
And now you want a discussion about young earth versus old earth beliefs.

You sly dog, you 
You really want to debate creation theory, evading the issue that Adam and Eve couldn't have existed as the first of mankind.

Your conundrum......how to create the first humans 6000 years ago but after they already existed 

Old earth...young earth....doesn't matter as long as your conundrum goes unanswered


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> You're delusional
> 
> I gave you an example of 'fact' abuse and all you are accomplishing is proving by example
> 
> Without the existence of 'Adam and Eve' , the concept of inheritable original sin has no basis and its lingering through the New Testament has an impact on theology and interpretation.
> 
> Then I findout you are a believer in the 'Adam and Eve' allegory as if it were fact.
> And now you want a discussion about young earth versus old earth beliefs.
> 
> You sly dog, you
> You really want to debate creation theory, evading the issue that Adam and Eve couldn't have existed as the first of mankind.
> 
> Your conundrum......how to create the first humans 6000 years ago but after they already existed
> 
> Old earth...young earth....doesn't matter as long as your conundrum goes unanswered


I'm fine with someone not believing. I'm fine with believing.

All I'm saying is there is no proof there was an Adam and Eve; nor is there proof there wasn't. 

Other than this argument that we both know won't go anywhere, , how's things been hanging?


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> I'm fine with someone not believing. I'm fine with believing.
> 
> All I'm saying is there is no proof there was an Adam and Eve; nor is there proof there wasn't.
> 
> Other than this argument that we both know won't go anywhere, , how's things been hanging?


Let's step back a pace or two 

The topic really isn't one of religious beliefs. It's about 'facts'.

I'm fine with anyone believing anything they want.....with the caveat that I'm neither coerced to agree nor influenced in negative ways.

As to the issue of proving a negative, well where's the logic in that?
Can't be done.
But providing a contradiction can enlighten and provide logic. In providing a path, it can also enforce disclaimers for the impossible.

How can something unique exist if it already exists?

Is 'Adam and Eve' fact.....or an allegory/parable?

If fact, where is the physical evidence that contradicts the fossil records?

This is really the element that upsets a Fundamentalist's belief system the most, imo.
With out A&E......being 'saved' becomes meaningless and they'll defend it till the end of time.
Or they lose their faith.

I took it as an allegory/ parable.



> how's things been hanging?


Pretty good, actually......especially after having had a tumor removed from my noggin the size of my fist 
(no joke)


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Let's step back a pace or two
> 
> The topic really isn't one of religious beliefs. It's about 'facts'.
> 
> I'm fine with anyone believing anything they want.....with the caveat that I'm neither coerced to agree nor influenced in negative ways.
> 
> As to the issue of proving a negative, well where's the logic in that?
> Can't be done.
> But providing a contradiction can enlighten and provide logic. In providing a path, it can also enforce disclaimers for the impossible.
> 
> How can something unique exist if it already exists?
> 
> Is 'Adam and Eve' fact.....or an allegory/parable?
> 
> If fact, where is the physical evidence that contradicts the fossil records?
> 
> This is really the element that upsets a Fundamentalist's belief system the most, imo.
> With out A&E......being 'saved' becomes meaningless and they'll defend it till the end of time.
> Or they lose their faith.
> 
> I took it as an allegory/ parable.


The same could be said of.... Benjamin Franklin. Is it fact he existed? Can't. At some point, it's an element of Faith.

I say the bible is a book of Faith. No dispute.

What I'm saying is I perceived you stated you can prove elements of the bible wrong. And that... is not accurate. The bible has just as good of a probability as being accurate, as being a load of bunk.

And yes..... I totally agree with you. Many fundamentalists make way more stuff fact that really isn't. And... poo poo good Science because it doesn't fit their story.



> Pretty good, actually......especially after having had a tumor removed from my noggin the size of my fist
> (no joke)


Well... that's kind of what i was wondering. I just didn't want to start the subject. 100% recovery? No issues?


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> The same could be said of.... Benjamin Franklin. Is it fact he existed? Can't. At some point, it's an element of Faith.
> 
> I say the bible is a book of Faith. No dispute.
> 
> What I'm saying is I perceived you stated you can prove elements of the bible wrong. And that... is not accurate. The bible has just as good of a probability as being accurate, as being a load of bunk.
> 
> And yes..... I totally agree with you. Many fundamentalists make way more stuff fact that really isn't. And... poo poo good Science because it doesn't fit their story.
> 
> Well... that's kind of what i was wondering. I just didn't want to start the subject. 100% recovery? No issues?


The Franklin/A&E is an apples to oranges comparison.
Franklin existed close to our time line and left physical evidence. Examples of his own written words(letters exist). Not an issue of faith, fact.

For faith of existence of a historical person, you need to go back in time before history was recorded as it proceeded. And even afterwards, there is much distortion , likely causes....politics, wealth, religion....and obviously more.



> What I'm saying is I perceived you stated you can prove elements of the bible wrong. And that... is not accurate. The bible has just as good of a probability as being accurate, as being a load of bunk.


I'm not into proving the Bible wrong, but I will argue the validity of some interpretations.
And there is much I don't understand.
I brought up the blind faith in A&E to demonstrate how 'facts' are accepted.
And this crosses over into politics.
There was blind faith in B Clinton, GW Bush, Obama and now Trump.
There are 'facts' presented in each case that are undeserving of belief .
Party loyalty is the most likely basis for this blind trust.......along with ignorance (  )



> Well... that's kind of what i was wondering. I just didn't want to start the subject. 100% recovery? No issues?


100% recovery from the craniotomy...and the tumor was benign. A very large meningioma that gave me no symptoms till I collapsed. At first it was thought I was alone and unconscious for 3 days, but my sister checked some dates and it was actually 4days+.
That period was what took it's toll.
Still putting up with a pressure wound on my hip from being wedged up against the leg of a chest of drawers. Cut right to the muscle.
Did wound vac treatments for 6 months. Helped a lot, but still have a hole there I can stick my pinky finger in.
There was extensive nerve damage, but I was told that was probably a blessing. I don't respond well to opioids so I don't use them.
That was 1.5 years ago

I get about OK......I just don't run as fast as I did 50 years ago 
No lost memories other than a couple bad movies 

My neurosurgeon told me I one of the few to recover this well..
Mentally, I don't feel any different.

And that's a fact


----------



## valis

Brad, you cannot seriously subscribe to the Franklin didnt exist thing. Thats beyond faith and into looney land, where my baby sis resides. As you know, she is a YEC, believes oxygen doesnt exist (show her proof, as it is invisible), and dinos were planted by mankind to fool ourselves.

You are faaaaar too smart for that.

If we didnt have Franklins DNA in hair or some such I would be astounded. As John stated, he was very close to our timeline and left a TON of evidence. Show me one shred of proof that ANY big hitter from the bible ever walked this rock and we will go from there. Jesus, Noah, Moses, anyone. I understand thatsome of the bit players in the bible have been proven to be real, through, oddly enough, a receipt, but of the main folk have ever been verified.

I agree it is entirely a book of faith, but I dont capitalise that word as you and my sis do. I think that you are a very open minded person who accepts all as individual choices and I respect the hell out of you for that, as I think the bible is an excellent guidebook (one tends to meet better quality people at church as opposed to a bar) but just that; a book written by man.

But that is my view and I know yours is different. No worries. Ill happily buy you a beer and discuss this.

But Franklin? Really?


----------



## valis

Damn, Brad; for me type all that on a tablet, you mustve got me wound up.


----------



## Drabdr

Ok... how about Julius Caesar?

Or.. Copernicus...

Galen???

You have evidence they existed, and then to some point, you accept the evidence as fact. Or... you take some leap of Faith.

There is no difference with Adam and Eve. Or Moses. Or Jesus.

So... by the same evidence that Franklin existed (written document); or pick someone older, same thing, is the same strength of evidence that Adam and Eve existed (written documents).

You see... things kinda boil down to Faith. You have Faith that no one is pulling the wool over your eyes that Franklin existed. I have Faith that Adam and Eve existed.

Put this way... we have basically the same evidence that Confucius existed as Moses did. It's just we may feel that there is less reason for someone to make up Confucius than to make up Moses (and thus the things he did).

Of course I believe that Franklin existed. Geeze... we wouldn't have electricity!  ha!!


----------



## Drabdr

For what it's worth Tim...
I would probably argue more strongly with your sister than you would. 

Some of the things they ( those that claim they are Christians) do and say... drive me batty.

Like you stated, I think you and I have batted this around long enough that we respectfully accept our viewpoints. And I owe you and the others ( the old gang that has moved on...) much.


----------



## valis

Yup, we have. The main difference between my sis and you? You dont try to convert me.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Ok... how about Julius Caesar?
> 
> Or.. Copernicus...
> 
> Galen???
> 
> You have evidence they existed, and then to some point, you accept the evidence as fact. Or... you take some leap of Faith.
> 
> There is no difference with Adam and Eve. Or Moses. Or Jesus.
> 
> So... by the same evidence that Franklin existed (written document); or pick someone older, same thing, is the same strength of evidence that Adam and Eve existed (written documents).
> 
> You see... things kinda boil down to Faith. You have Faith that no one is pulling the wool over your eyes that Franklin existed. I have Faith that Adam and Eve existed.
> 
> Put this way... we have basically the same evidence that Confucius existed as Moses did. It's just we may feel that there is less reason for someone to make up Confucius than to make up Moses (and thus the things he did).
> 
> Of course I believe that Franklin existed. Geeze... we wouldn't have electricity!  ha!!


You obviously have faith, Brad...and imo, that's a good thing.
But you are presenting examples with no contradictions to prove a point I made that still isn't addressed.

Your conundrum.

How can something unique be created after it already exists?

Is denial of reality a rational solution?

**********************
In the case of Trump, how is one of his claims established fact if he later contradicts it?
( that can be applied to any politician, businessman, religious leader or private citizen )

Is any 'fact' real if successfully challenged?

Is a belief the same as a fact?


----------



## Drabdr

Nice try, John. You and Stoner Jack would have had fun together. I must admit though, you're quite good at playing the debate chess master.

I have no burden of proof, as I didn't start this. The argument was made that it could be proven Adam and Eve weren't the first and thus no original sin. I Asserted there is no proof, and have to see it.

So in my mind that bold assertion should be retracted, or be clarified with " in my opinion".


----------



## Drabdr

valis said:


> Yup, we have. The main difference between my sis and you? You dont try to convert me.


I won't ever give up in Hope though.


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> How can something unique be created after it already exists?


This is your burden of proof. and finding old bones is not proof.

If your assertion is that old bones are your proof, then we're done here.


----------



## valis

Drabdr said:


> Nice try, John. You and Stoner Jack would have had fun together. I must admit though, you're quite good at playing the debate chess master.
> 
> I have no burden of proof, as I didn't start this. The argument was made that it could be proven Adam and Eve weren't the first and thus no original sin. I Asserted there is no proof, and have to see it.
> 
> So in my mind that bold assertion should be retracted, or be clarified with " in my opinion".


Goodness. Toss Mulder and GB in there and I think it would be like God dividing by zero or something.


----------



## Drabdr

valis said:


> Goodness. Toss Mulder and GB in there and I think it would be like God dividing by zero or something.


Yea... Mulder seem to have more time on his hands than me. He would have had a lot of fun with the Trump haters.


----------



## valis

Drabdr said:


> I won't ever give up in Hope though.


Again, my personal belief system (PBS) is that everyone has one. That doesnt make anyone correct, it is just that, a PBS. 
As the last I checked, the only way to verify a PBS is to die, and we havent heard verification from anyone who has (man, I miss Jim [pyritechips]), I think that the whole mess is completely unprovable, from a logical standpoint. 
And no, I have no desire to find the concrete answer.


----------



## valis

Drabdr said:


> Yea... Mulder seem to have more time on his hands than me. He would have had a lot of fun with the Trump haters.


Good lord, hadnt even thought about what that group woulda thunk about Trump....I should contact GB....


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Nice try, John. You and Stoner Jack would have had fun together. I must admit though, you're quite good at playing the debate chess master.
> 
> I have no burden of proof, as I didn't start this. The argument was made that it could be proven Adam and Eve weren't the first and thus no original sin. I Asserted there is no proof, and have to see it.
> 
> So in my mind that bold assertion should be retracted, or be clarified with " in my opinion".


Again, only a denial of reality.
You are making my point 

All you need to do is read up on the findings of the linage of mankind by paleontologists and how their findings are age dated. There is no 'opinion' to physical evidence if denial is the only consideration .
It's just blind denial 

And trying to explain why the creation of something unique can be created after it exists is not my burden ( 

And please, no disparaging comparisons to a pot head


----------



## Johnny b

Tabvla said:


> Those scientific "facts".... might be interesting to check some of them.....
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/scicheck/
> Question :
> 
> Why do the vast majority of folk assume that something is "factually correct" if it is ensconced in scientific jargon...?.....
> 
> T.


The objective of science is to understand and it does take challenge to bring about correctness.
Obviously most are unsure of what the terms mean and are convinced by ignorance.


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Again, only a denial of reality.
> You are making my point
> 
> All you need to do is read up on the findings of the linage of mankind by paleontologists and how their findings are age dated. There is no 'opinion' to physical evidence if denial is the only consideration .
> It's just blind denial
> 
> And trying to explain why the creation of something unique can be created after it exists is not my burden (
> 
> And please, no disparaging comparisons to a pot head


Like I thought... were done.

You stated a proof you can't back up. I stated there is no proof one way or the other.

Next thing you're going to tell me is it's OK to kneel during an anthem. Ha!!!
Just kidding. Surprised that hasn't opened up here.


----------



## valis

Brad, do you believe in radiocarbon dating, just out of curiousity?


----------



## valis

Drabdr said:


> Like I thought... were done.
> 
> You stated a proof you can't back up. I stated there is no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Next thing you're going to tell me is it's OK to kneel during an anthem. Ha!!!
> Just kidding. Surprised that hasn't opened up here.


You two are soooo lost in logical fallacies you are missing the true point; this is a proper spirited debate.

And you two knuckleheads are trying to turn it into an argument.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> This is your burden of proof. and finding old bones is not proof.
> 
> If your assertion is that old bones are your proof, then we're done here.


Sad.

You've complained about 'Trump haters' discussing Trump's leadership, and here you are projecting the hatred of science with denial as reasoning.

Should I consider you a ( shudder ) Fundamentalist? ...... (  )

BTW, I am a registered Republican that has donated and carry my Black NRC membership card in my wallet, which has in bold gold print:
* Presidential Advisory Board * smack dab in the middle, right above my name.
( my others don't however)


So, I think I've actually paid for the privilege to complain about party leadership


----------



## Drabdr

valis said:


> Brad, do you believe in radiocarbon dating, just out of curiousity?


Sure! It's extremely repeatable and based on reasonable logic.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Sure! It's extremely repeatable and based on reasonable logic.


eek!


----------



## Drabdr

valis said:


> You two are soooo lost in logical fallacies you are missing the true point; this is a proper spirited debate.
> 
> And you two knuckleheads are trying to turn it into an argument.


Oh contraire. 

I picked that up from the outset. You and Jack taught me well.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Like I thought... were done.
> 
> You stated a proof you can't back up. I stated there is no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Next thing you're going to tell me is it's OK to kneel during an anthem. Ha!!!
> Just kidding. Surprised that hasn't opened up here.


?

How can something unique be created after it already exists?
Do you deny the evidence found by paleontologists and the manner it's dated?


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Oh contraire.
> 
> I picked that up from the outset. You and Jack taught me well.


Try a craniotomy.....works for me


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Sad.
> 
> You've complained about 'Trump haters' discussing Trump's leadership, and here you are projecting the hatred of science with denial as reasoning.
> 
> Should I consider you a ( shudder ) Fundamentalist? ...... (  )
> 
> BTW, I am a registered Republican that has donated and carry my Black NRC membership card in my wallet, which has in bold gold print:
> * Presidential Advisory Board * smack dab in the middle, right above my name.
> ( my others don't however)
> 
> 
> So, I think I've actually paid for the privilege to complain about party leadership


When/ where did I hate Science?


----------



## Johnny b

See you guys later 

Have errands to run.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> When/ where did I hate Science?


Where did I post I hated Trump?



Gotta go


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Try a craniotomy.....works for me


Thank you for having a sense of humor about it.

Seriously... I find it amazing you're back on here going at it. It's kind of that thing of... I think my life is rough...


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> See you guys later
> 
> Have errands to run.


Don't overdo it John. Have a good afternoon.


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> ?
> 
> How can something unique be created after it already exists?
> Do you deny the evidence found by paleontologists and the manner it's dated?


How could I deny that? It's kind of obvious.

I will say this... carbon dating has high internal validity; but I have yet to see it's external validity. Saying... an inaccurate thermometer can be highly repeatable, but still be wrong.

I say this from the science side of me; nothing to do with the Bible.


----------



## valis

Fair enough. But get 100, or 1000, thermometers that all show the same temp, at some point in time the theory becomes fact.


----------



## Drabdr

valis said:


> Fair enough. But get 100, or 1000, thermometers that all show the same temp, at some point in time the theory becomes fact.


No argument... just asking. What might be used to verify the accuracy of the dating method?


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Thank you for having a sense of humor about it.
> 
> Seriously... I find it amazing you're back on here going at it. It's kind of that thing of... I think my life is rough...


I can laugh it off only because I am one of the very few that came out of such a situation with faculties and memories.
I was originally told it was the size of a mouse because because the doctors wanted to keep me in a positive mood.
My sister was told at the same time it was unusually large and she should expect personality changes and some loss of memory.
I had an excellent team of doctors and nurses and was told later, I obviously had 'someone' looking over me.

In rehab....my early experiences in testing were actually pretty poor.
Math skills and word association were terrible.
But they returned as I healed.

I joke about it because there's little for me to whine about.
I'm alive and that's a good thing


----------



## Johnny b

No offense, but I've followed these discussions involving evolution and creation in the past and they were never satisfying for me as polarization continued often increasing, to the very last argument.
More interested in how the 'facts' of today are disputed or confirmed.

Bowing out of the current discussion


----------



## valis

Sissy. 

I probably am guilty of hijacking this thread, so apologies.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Sissy.
> 
> I probably am guilty of hijacking this thread, so apologies.


 no offense 

It's just that the topic of religion leads too easily to confrontations that never seem to heal.

( from an old Murphy Brown episode)
...... I 'nose what I 'nose 
so that's all I need.


----------



## Tabvla

valis said:


> Sissy.
> 
> I probably am guilty of hijacking this thread, so apologies.


You have not hijacked this Thread. From disagreement is born Knowledge and from knowledge (ultimately) is born Truth... we hope. But then again, as the 5th Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea (Judea) famously asked some 2000 years ago.... "_What is Truth..?_".

Two millennia later are we any closer to an answer..?

T.


----------



## valis

No, from disagreement, generally dissent is the offspring.

Bottom line, as both Brad and John stated, any religious debate is, at best, an exercise in futility as it is completely unprovable.

It is always fun, IMHO, to debate it though, especially with people such as Brad; he is sooo certain he is correct.


----------



## Wino

valis said:


> No, from disagreement, generally dissent is the offspring.
> 
> Bottom line, as both Brad and John stated, any religious debate is, at best, an exercise in futility as it is completely unprovable.
> 
> It is always fun, IMHO, to debate it though, especially with people such as Brad; *he is sooo certain he is correct*.


Just as certain I am there is no god, and the old testament is no more authentic than Grimm's Fairy Tales.


----------



## Tabvla

valis said:


> No, from disagreement, generally dissent is the offspring.
> .... Edit....


In a limited and pessimistic view you are correct.

Much of what we know in science today is as a result of disagreement. Aristotle's teachings, although inherently incorrect, were accepted for almost 2000 years. But eventually disagreement overcame blind adherence. Copernicus disagreed with the Church about celestial science and eventually Galileo turned that disagreement into the basis of modern astrophysics. Einstein had the temerity to disagree with Newton (who t0 many was close to being a deity) which resulted in our understanding of space-time.

Disagreement is to a very large extent the bedrock on which science is built.

T.


----------



## valis

Call me pessimistic if you wish, or even cynical; you get three human beings in a room and there will be a fistfight sooner or later. That is just basic human nature; we tend to dislike those who disagree with us.

I would think you have had a few bad thoughts regarding myself, through the years.


----------



## Johnny b

Mr. T

You just hit one out of the ballpark :up:


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Call me pessimistic if you wish, or even cynical; you get three human beings in a room and there will be a fistfight sooner or later. That is just basic human nature; we tend to dislike those who disagree with us.
> 
> ........


I my younger days ( much younger ) I only needed one other


----------



## valis

That,my friend, is why I am single.


----------



## Johnny b

I guess I learned to grow up by walking away.

But also how to exit with a smile


----------



## valis

Tabvla said:


> ..... Aristotle's teachings, although inherently incorrect, were accepted for almost 2000 years. But eventually disagreement overcame blind adherence. Copernicus disagreed with the Church about celestial science and eventually Galileo turned that disagreement into the basis of modern astrophysics. Einstein had the temerity to disagree with Newton (who t0 many was close to being a deity) which resulted in our understanding of space-time._


Yes and no; Galileo did not prove Copernicus so much as he disproved the Ptolemaic theory, which resulted in Copernicus' theory becoming the de facto standard.

Also, fwiw, you may want to look up Aristarchus; he beat Galileo to the punch by amillenia or so.



> Disagreement is to a very large extent the bedrock on which science is built.


I can see that; one doesnt have to look beyond the Bone Wars to know that. But I still disagree; my vote is for curiosity. At least that is what drives me.


----------



## valis

Drabdr said:


> No argument... just asking. What might be used to verify the accuracy of the dating method?


Its just carbon Brad; carbon decays at a predictable and observable rate. It is different for organic and inorganic material but the basis remains the same; measure the amount of stable isotope vs its amount of known decay objects, add math, and you got a pretty good estimate. It has been proven numerous times.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Its just carbon Brad; carbon decays at a predictable and observable rate. It is different for organic and inorganic material but the basis remains the same; measure the amount of stable isotope vs its amount of known decay objects, add math, and you got a pretty good estimate. It has been proven numerous times.


hmmm...

Radioactive isotope decay is the model as measuring stick.
Comparison of overlapping models is the check.
And not all models are appropriate for comparison.

C14 is only suitable for organic concerns so long as they're from once living matter and not affected by the fossilization process. Living organics absorb C14 from the environment.
Fossilization is the replacement of the organic elements.
I remember reading the time line only extends back 50k to 75k with C14 and at the boundaries needs correction to adjust for environmental factors.
Obviously organic material, like wood buried under/close to volcanic extrusions (heat) won't test with any accuracy.

But fossils buried in sedimentary rock can be age dated by studying the radioactive isotopes and their decay rate, of that strata along with the sequencing of adjacent strata of known ages.

With the exception of creation science ( an obvious contradiction in terminology ) this appears to be pretty much uncontested science.

In these examples, science + evidence does result in facts.

Nothing unique in origin has ever been recorded as being created after it already exists.


----------



## Johnny b

And I walk away with a smile


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> ................
> 
> But I still disagree; my vote is for curiosity. At least that is what drives me.


I'm not a scientist, but I do think a scientist's view in that regard would be more accurate than us non-scientists.

I would add 'correctness' to that


----------



## valis

Johnny-be-Good said:


> And I walk away with a smile


That, my friend, is akin to poking the hornet's nest and then two-stepping to safety.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> That, my friend, is akin to poking the hornet's nest and then two-stepping to safety.


It's all about walking away with a 'Smile'


----------



## Brigham

It all reminds me of Asimov's resublimated thiotimolene.


----------



## valis

I got that reference.


----------



## Drabdr

You still haven't proved/ disproved anything about Adam Eve. 


So if I understand... the aging model has an upper limit for accuracy/ estimation. Then, using other estimation methods (measuring levels of sediment) the other measuring methods "add" to the base model. So... where one estimation "ends", the others take over. Is that accurate John?


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> You still haven't proved/ disproved anything about Adam Eve.
> 
> So if I understand... the aging model has an upper limit for accuracy/ estimation. Then, using other estimation methods (measuring levels of sediment) the other measuring methods "add" to the base model. So... where one estimation "ends", the others take over. Is that accurate John?


sigh!



You just don't like the answers.

First, how would you suggest evidence of A&E be scientifically investigated?
All that exists of their existence is the testimony in an account probably written by the hand of Moses which may or may not have been an allegory/parable that Fundamentalist theologians estimate described a biblical existence some 6000 years ago and not in Moses' own timeline.
Unfortunately there is no direct evidence of A&E ( none I'm aware of at least ) to study in the scientific sense.

But there does exist in the physical sense, direct evidence of mankind and many of his ancestors that are older in large magnitudes of years. This is not conjecture, allegory/parable or theological interpretation.
It's existence in reality, not mental abstracts.



> So if I understand... the aging model has an upper limit for accuracy/ estimation.


Different models have differing accuracy and different boundaries based on the elements and nature of those models.
Overlap and consistency provide comparable values and confidence in the models.
Variations beg explanations and provide limitations of the particular models being compared.
Using an inappropriate model only gives bad results.....such as using C14 testing on rock strata or exceeding the range of reproducible results because of long term chemical reactions or even short term when exposed to an extreme environmental action, like heat as I presented earlier.



> Then, using other estimation methods (measuring levels of sediment) the other measuring methods "add" to the base model.


?
If you mean the thickness of a sedimentary strata....no. Thickness is a concern related to the mechanical activity of erosion and accumulation of sedimentation.
Sorry, I don't know what * " other measuring methods "add" to the base model. " *
means.



> So... where one estimation "ends", the others take over. Is that accurate John?


You are looking for an accumulation of errors as a reason to puff up the 'estimations'.

I've not read of any form of age dating allowing error into sequencing by establishing a boundary and extending the next from that specific point.
That's why you'll see ranges projected often in 100k years to millions of years with out specific dates.....like on 4000 BC, A&E picked an apple (  )
Often, at a specific location, a strata may not exist or be of a differing thickness from local erosion and differing rates of sedimentation, and yes, it needs to be accounted for otherwise there is an incongruity that goes unanswered.

( I learned a lot of interesting 'facts' (  ) several decades ago watching science and theology students go at it at several forums  )
And I still remember how 'creation science' works 

I'm comfortable with reality.
Even when scientific types don't know it all, let alone myself.


----------



## Johnny b

Brad, I thought you posted you had no issues with scientific age dating.

What is it you are trying to prove?

If you have issues with scientific age dating, shouldn't you be explaining them rather than expecting me to explain the processes?

But isn't that really just a diversion because I brought up an extreme example that showcases what becomes 'fact' through acceptance in order to maintain a belief?
It's not a stretch to compare my example to the acceptance of Trump's 'fake news' and 'alternative facts' claims.

Sadly, when reality is only defined by consensus, facts can easily become victims of the imagination.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> How could I deny that? It's kind of obvious.
> 
> I will say this... carbon dating has high internal validity; but I have yet to see it's external validity. Saying... an inaccurate thermometer can be highly repeatable, but still be wrong.
> 
> I say this from the science side of me; nothing to do with the Bible.


I reread some past comments to try to understand your change in viewing accuracy of carbon-dating.
valis gave good reasoning.

Instruments can be off, but when results are suspicious, instrument re-calibration, instrument replacement or comparison is, or at least, should be done.
And the basis for acquiring scientific knowledge is to embrace skepticism and design challenges for correction. The scientific method.

This is the distinction between religion and science.
An element of structured religion exists to validate itself. Science exhibits (among many things) challenges for correctness.
One embraces challenge, the other rejects it.

And in this forum, we currently discuss the validity of the 'religion' of Trump.


----------



## Drabdr

Welp, I hear talking in circles. So.. . I
can go in circles on my own. 

Return to your Trump bashing.


----------



## Johnny b

Good morning Brad 

I see you're logged on and reading this thread.

I'll have to take a break about 11AM when my bible study starts with my Jehovah Witness friends 
 

I'm actually learning a lot I didn't understand about their POV.

But, why did you introduce religion into this topic?
It truly never ends well, just ends.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Welp, I hear talking in circles. So.. . I
> can go in circles on my own.
> 
> Return to your Trump bashing.




It never ends well....just ends.

Enjoy the day


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> It never ends well....just ends.
> 
> Enjoy the day


Sure it can! There was no yelling, and that I recall, no one referred to Hitler or Nazi!


----------



## Johnny b

Something has changed.
So you did want to discuss the goodness of evolution


----------



## Johnny b

Disclaimer......I'm walking out of here with a big grin on my face


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Good morning Brad
> 
> I'll have to take a break about 11AM when my bible study starts with my Jehovah Witness friends
> 
> 
> I'm actually learning a lot I didn't understand about their POV.


Yes. They are an interesting group. There are some things about them I love. And things... that drive me nuts. 

I did want to address your question:


> But, why did you introduce religion into this topic?


Um... I didn't introduce it. You did:



> Here are facts that upset fundamentalists.
> Mankind existed up to millions of years before 'Adam and Eve'(of which there is no physical record), thus upsetting the concept of original sin.
> More so, the historical records of past life on Earth are evidence of evolution......or as a fundamentalist might coin 'evilution'


All I was saying is that statement cannot be proven, not about millions of years; but about before Adam and Eve and such.

Again... we both have our viewpoints and such. No worries.


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Something has changed.
> So you did want to discuss the goodness of evolution


Oh... don't flatter yourself! 

Years ago when we had the Civilized Debate forum, there were twenty people on here debating things. Also, due to the software limitations, we had to close threads about about 4000-5000 posts. So we were up to like Val's Evolution versus Creation, volume 6 or something.

So in honor of him... I just named this thread after those old discussions.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Yes. They are an interesting group. There are some things about them I love. And things... that drive me nuts.
> 
> I did want to address your question:
> 
> Um... I didn't introduce it. You did:
> 
> All I was saying is that statement cannot be proven, not about millions of years; but about before Adam and Eve and such.
> 
> Again... we both have our viewpoints and such. No worries.


Nope....you did introduce the 4 Gospels in a post with out any reference beforehand to religion by myself or any one else 

Would you like a link ? 

It's still there 

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/facts-are-facts-if-you-believe-them-that-is.1197154/#post-9418573

And I smile again as I amble about


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Oh... don't flatter yourself!
> 
> ....................


Even the remnants of my tumor see the humor


----------



## Drabdr

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Nope....you did introduce the 4 Gospels in a post with out any reference beforehand to religion by myself or any one else
> 
> Would you like a link ?
> 
> It's still there
> 
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/facts-are-facts-if-you-believe-them-that-is.1197154/#post-9418573
> 
> And I smile again as I amble about


I know where it is , and I know why it's there.

It was posted to say that sometimes incidents are better told by more than one account. If you ascertained a religious debate from that, well.... that's your right.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> I know where it is , and I know why it's there.
> 
> It was posted to say that sometimes incidents are better told by more than one account. If you ascertained a religious debate from that, well.... that's your right.


Thank you


----------



## Johnny b

Brad, this one's for you 

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...s-humanitys-been-here-longer-than-we-thought/



What's that about Adam, again?


----------



## Johnny b

Me again, for Brad.

I know you have issues with age dating, but give this read a try to see how scientists try to over come obstacles in age dating.
Interesting in that the focus is on Carbon 13.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...life-back-to-at-least-3-95-billion-years-ago/

They have inquiring minds and want to know.............. (  )


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> Oh... don't flatter yourself!
> 
> .................................
> 
> So in honor of him... I just named this thread after those old discussions.


Shouldn't you have given credit to him right off the bat rather than the appearance of me starting this thread?
Or perhaps there is a motive, distract me with a lot of crazy people?





(ouch!)


----------



## valis

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Shouldn't you have given credit to him right off the bat rather than the appearance of me starting this thread?
> Or perhaps there is a motive, distract me with a lot of crazy people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (ouch!)


Well, if you want to get technical, it's a 'she', named Valley. Not me.


----------



## Drabdr

valis said:


> Well, if you want to get technical, it's a 'she', named Valley. Not me.


You know you like the attention.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Well, if you want to get technical, it's a 'she', named Valley. Not me.





> Not me.


I strongly suspected that 

You seem relatively sane (  )

I wonder why Brad referred to her as a 'him'?


----------



## Johnny b

What would Valley say? (  )

* 9.7-million-year-old teeth discovery in Germany could re-write human history *

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rmany-could-re-write-human-history/787140001/


----------



## Johnny b

Think I'll mark this thread solved..................


----------



## valis

Rotsa ruck on solving this mess. I can definitely tell you what baby sis would say; they were planted there by god to test us. Guaranteed. But again, as we cant see oxygen, it doesnt necessarily exist.

And good luck pointing out the gigantic hole in her logic. 'Faith' exists; science does not.


----------



## valis

Drabdr said:


> You still haven't proved/ disproved anything about Adam Eve.


Surprised I missed this; must have been on my pain meds.

Were you being facetious hereBrad, I am guessing? The whole 'argument from ignorance/burden of proof' thing looms.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Rotsa ruck on solving this mess. I can definitely tell you what baby sis would say; they were planted there by god to test us. Guaranteed. But again, as we cant see oxygen, it doesnt necessarily exist.
> 
> And good luck pointing out the gigantic hole in her logic. 'Faith' exists; science does not.


I suspect there'll never be a satisfactory solution for everyone.

But as this thread was forced upon me (  ) it's mine to claim solved


----------



## valis

Again.....sissy.


----------



## Johnny b

LOL!


----------



## Drabdr

valis said:


> Surprised I missed this; must have been on my pain meds.
> 
> Were you being facetious hereBrad, I am guessing? The whole 'argument from ignorance/burden of proof' thing looms.


The argument was set forth that it could be proven that Adam And Eve weren't the first; thus no original sin.

So I guess from that the whole bible is bunk or whatever.

That was the argument anyway.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> The argument was set forth that it could be proven that Adam And Eve weren't the first; thus no original sin.
> 
> So I guess from that the whole bible is bunk or whatever.
> 
> That was the argument anyway.


No, not at all Brad.

There is great value in the Bible. But also a lot of translations, edits with elements added and subtracted.

Genesis is supposed to have been written by Moses.
Read Numbers 31. Especially from about 31:15 on.
Moses was a blood thirsty leader that murdered women and children after defeating Midian.
It's apparent he kept some surviving women to be kept as whores and slaves for his troops and officers.
This is the man that gave us 10 commandments from God, one of which was 'Thou shall not murder'.
His character is obviously suspect as well as his accounting with in Genesis that puffs up his importance.

So, are Adam and Eve real, a parable, or propaganda using 'original sin' and the concept of being 'saved ' as a tool for demanding obedience?

I can state, mankind existed before Moses claimed God created the first man.

imo, those that reject reality, are only fooling themselves....but that is their right to do so.

Brad. You changed the context of what I was presenting in another thread, and here we are


----------



## Drabdr

I never stated how old the Bible is. Does anyone know?


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> I never stated how old the Bible is. Does anyone know?


True, but I don't remember anyone claiming you did state the age of the Bible.

The issue being addressed was the claim about God creating man, with the contradiction that man existed before that claim. Adam and Eve simply never existed as claimed.
I had been curious for some time when 'True Believers' spoke of being 'saved'. They kept referring to their sins.
But, my studies with a group of Fundamentalists finally brought clarity for me.
A&E is about inherited original sin and being 'saved' addressed that. 
Obviously, evolution wound up showing man existed long before A&E supposedly came about, negating the concept of 'inheritable original sin'.
And reality became a wake up call that needed to be denied in order to maintain blind faith.
Thus evolution became 'evilution' for Fundamentalists and denial of reality a way of life.

As far as the age of the Bible, it's a collection of writings done at different times in the past by various authors. No one single age dating is going to apply.


----------



## Johnny b

As I've said before, threads on evolution and creationism never end well, they just end ......with most everyone maintaining their original position.

To any new reader, even though my name is listed as OP, this was spun off another thread by a different member and I had no intentions of participating let alone starting an epic evolution/creationist debate that has no end.

I've had my say. Those that disagree will have to argue with someone else because it's simply repetition for me and I'd rather be into fresher material.

Peace 

John


----------



## Wino

Drabdr said:


> I never stated how old the Bible is. Does anyone know?


Mine was printed in 1958.


----------



## Drabdr

Wino said:


> Mine was printed in 1958.


Ok... I might have lost some coffee over that one. 

Nicely done, Wino.


----------



## valis

Wino said:


> Mine was printed in 1958.


My personal copy was given to me by my granddad (son's namesake) on my actual date of birth, and so inscribed.

My sis and I got into some kerfuffle in 98 or 99, about religion, and I pointed out her bible verses differed from mine. She asked how old mine was, and I told her, and she responded that I needed to get the updated New Edition.

I did not know how to respond. As a published writer, I believe that all editors believe themselves godlike in every endeavour, but I really dont think any of them would challenge the word of god himself. So Im sorta befuddled.


----------



## oitconz

valis said:


> My personal copy was given to me by my granddad (son's namesake) on my actual date of birth, and so inscribed.
> 
> My sis and I got into some kerfuffle in 98 or 99, about religion, and I pointed out her bible verses differed from mine. She asked how old mine was, and I told her, and she responded that I needed to get the updated New Edition.
> 
> I did not know how to respond. As a published writer, I believe that all editors believe themselves godlike in every endeavour, but I really dont think any of them would challenge the word of god himself. So Im sorta befuddled.


Part of the reason you might have found "differences" is the type of translation that was done. 
There are two major types of textual translation (including the Bible) from one language to another and especially when there are cultural differences to get through .
1 - Literal - Sticking as close to the sentence structure and wording of the original language as possible 
2 - interpretive - trying to get a sense of the original message but putting it into modern wording and idiom

The common phrase for these types of translation are *Dynamic equivalence* and *formal equivalence
*
Most Bibles fall into a continuum somewhere between these two types of translation.
Literal translations are almost impossible to read - they are good for formal study but not Joe average. 
Interpretive tends to get the meaning across - if done well - but you can lose all the original cultural context and relies heavily on the philosophy of the interpreter.

I doubt that the two Bibles you mentioned really differed that much - not at any meaningful level. I suspect you might have a King James - archaic language, more literal. The New KJ updates the language (e.g. thee, thy and thou and get dumped along with alot of the *eth endings of words like sinneth, baptiseth, runneth etc.) but the message in both is still the same.

Unless you read Aramaic, classical Greek, Hebrew and possibly Syriac it is unlikely you will actually read anything close to the original scripts. however comparisons of translations and interpretations over the years show a strong fidelity over time for most common translations.


----------



## Johnny b

oitconz said:


> ..............................
> Unless you read Aramaic, classical Greek, Hebrew and possibly Syriac it is unlikely you will actually read anything close to the original scripts. however comparisons of translations and interpretations over the years show a strong fidelity over time for most common translations.


Even with the ability to read Arimaic, classical Greek, Hebrew and possibly Syriac, the original authored writings no longer exist. Only copies of copies of copies.
And even staying within a given language, the fallacy of Chinese whispers potentially complicates meanings even before the issue of interpreting from one language to another.

Now consider the books that get added and subtracted as Councils determine which belong as the Inerrant Word of God. Then consider, should there be more? Should there be less?



> however comparisons of translations and interpretations over the years show a strong fidelity over time for most common translations.


Isn't that really just acceptance through consensus?

Science became an evil entity through a consensus, because it discovered the event of evolution and a theory for the way it works, obviously in conflict with Genesis.


----------



## Johnny b

Johnny-be-Good said:


> ...................
> 
> Science became an evil entity through a consensus, because it discovered the event of evolution and a theory for the way it works, obviously in conflict with Genesis.


What?

Surely there's a fundamentalist out there that disagrees. (  )

What would Donald Trump say? (  )

(Maybe that will get this thread going again )


----------



## Wino

Turnip would make fun of the way Igor walked - that's about the closest he could get to science.


----------



## Lanctus

There are many historical precedents for many of the people and places of the Bible as having been actually existing, as found through archaeology, science, relics, genetics, and sheer dumb "luck". Here are a few: http://boredomtherapy.com/two-men-submerge-huge-pots/?as=799


----------



## Johnny b

Lanctus said:


> There are many historical precedents for many of the people and places of the Bible as having been actually existing, as found through archaeology, science, relics, genetics, and sheer dumb "luck". Here are a few: http://boredomtherapy.com/two-men-submerge-huge-pots/?as=799


Agreed.

But let's focus on Adam and Eve 
They are claimed to have started our predicament


----------



## Brigham

What happened to the people that thought men had one less rib because Adam lost one to make Eve. What a pity there were no x-rays in those days.


----------



## Johnny b

Brigham said:


> What happened to the people that thought men had one less rib because Adam lost one to make Eve. What a pity there were no x-rays in those days.


They found a more profitable gig as politicians ?


----------



## Johnny b

And......back to evilution (  )

* Dinosaur fossil may be a whole new species of the first birds *

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ay-be-a-whole-new-species-of-the-first-birds/


----------



## Johnny b

For all the creationist science haters and....those interested in a simple explanation of radiometric age dating, this video should be of interest:


----------



## valis

do you honestly think that any creationist is going to buy that? My baby sis sure wouldn't.


----------



## Johnny b

Denial of reality does seem to go to extremes with closed minds 

But....some reasonable people may find that an interesting scientific explanation.





LOL!


----------



## Wino

I never knew rocks were incestuous !


----------



## Johnny b

^ Post of the day LOL!


----------



## Johnny b

How could the Earth be only 6000 years old if flowers existed 100 million years ago?

* Eye Candy: Fossil Flowers Bloomed When Dinosaurs Ruled Earth *

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...l-flowers-bloomed-when-dinosaurs-ruled-earth/



> Seven complete specimens of 100-million-year-old flower found preserved in amber


----------



## Brigham

That flower was planted there by god, it is a test. All who fail will spend eternity in pools of fire. That will make god much happier.


----------



## Johnny b

Brigham said:


> That flower was planted there by god, it is a test. All who fail will spend eternity in pools of fire. That will make god much happier.


Very poetic.

And what do you think is the correct answer to your religious belief?


----------



## Brigham

Johnny b said:


> Very poetic.
> 
> And what do you think is the correct answer to your religious belief?


A load of twaddle.


----------



## Johnny b

Brigham said:


> A load of twaddle.


Of course.

It is interesting, however, that you speak for something you don't believe in.
How different is that to Creationists that speak of a creation event 6000 years ago while denying the reality of a 4.5 billion year old Earth?

Seriously, both sound like 'twaddle' to me.


----------



## Brigham

Johnny b said:


> Of course.
> 
> It is interesting, however, that you speak for something you don't believe in.
> How different is that to Creationists that speak of a creation event 6000 years ago while denying the reality of a 4.5 billion year old Earth?
> 
> Seriously, both sound like 'twaddle' to me.


Have you not heard of irony?


----------



## Johnny b

Have you not heard of it also being 'twaddle'?

Ironic twaddle 

BTW, this thread concerns creationism vs evolution, not your dislike of God.
That would be a topic for another thread I did author, and you haven't yet participated in.

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/atheism-and-god.1212579/


----------



## Brigham

Johnny b said:


> Have you not heard of it also being 'twaddle'?
> 
> Ironic twaddle
> 
> BTW, this thread concerns creationism vs evolution, not your dislike of God.
> That would be a topic for another thread I did author, and you haven't yet participated in.
> 
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/atheism-and-god.1212579/


I didn't know that you are in charge.


----------



## Johnny b

Brigham said:


> I didn't know that you are in charge.




I'm not, but my comment stands, nevertheless 

You've made comments relating to your dislike of a concept you don't believe in and avoided explaining your position in a thread that discusses exactly that.

So, what did you add to this thread?

You like to take cheap shots with out explaining why you hate something you don't believe in with, as you have done so with 'ironic twaddle', and write off your lack of participation with a catchy phrase


> I didn't know that you are in charge


.

My point isn't about your belief or non belief, it's a comment about the twaddle you posted and you aren't in charge here either 

But by your own words, you post twaddle


----------



## Johnny b

Getting back to a more serious topic ( the one of this thread  )
I read an interesting article this morning and thought many disbelievers of reality ( young earth creationists ) ought to be subjected to some more reality. (  )
That would be a geological event that extinguished a major life form, allowing mammals to evolve eventually into mankind.

Not a new term or designation........Chicxulub.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-03-31-fossils-detail-day-asteroid-wiped-out-dinosaurs

The last two sentences:


> And this particular event is tied directly to all of us - to every mammal on Earth, in fact. Because this is essentially where we inherited the planet. Nothing was the same after that impact. It became a planet of mammals rather than a planet of dinosaurs.


And that happened about 66 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater


----------



## Johnny b

I can hear the creationist whining already 

*
Making sense of dinosaurs and birds
*
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6542/575



> *Summary*
> Birds are dinosaurs.


----------



## valis

Oh yeah...sent that to my sis....young earth creationist.


----------



## RT

Not sure if you folks are arguing or debating, but my job as a scarecrow (retired) was to keep birds away .
So if I evolved or was created, whatever, it's cool to think I kinda sorta scared dinosaurs.


----------



## Johnny b

Dinosaurs?

Now it's all about the sponges 

* 890-million-years-old? Geologist may have discovered oldest animal fossils ever in Canada *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...st-animal-fossils-ever-discovered/5409377001/

And to think, one of mankind's ancient ancestors was a sponge.

Seriously, that would explain a lot


----------



## Johnny b

I suspect this article will upset most, if not all, creationists/fundamentalists.

* Scientists recreated classic origin-of-life experiment and made a new discovery *

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-of-life-experiment-and-made-a-new-discovery/


----------



## Johnny b

A blast from the past lol.
I was cleaning out a computer and came across some interesting files concerning young earth creationists.
So.....
What has Kent Hovind been up to? ( I wondered )

All the while he was being used as an authority on creationism in the evolution vs creation debates, this is what he was doing and what it lead up to today, recently...domestic violence ( ahem..body slamming his estranged wife )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

A long read.
Not a nice guy lol.


----------



## valis

and again.....these are the people my sister cohorts with......<sigh>


----------



## Johnny b

I suspect most families have or know of someone with radical creationist/fundamentalist beliefs.

My cousin's widow is like that.
He had majored in a science and didn't take up fundamentalism until after he married her.
It seemed, to prove his belief in God and Jesus. he was more argumentative than his wife.
But what are you gonna do...they're family, so we ignored it.

What we didn't ignore was her insistence everything on Fox News was true, Trump was being persecuted and that anyone not supporting Trump is evil.
Pick any Trump/hate topic and she would side with him.


----------



## Wino

True form basic Trumpism - enjoy.🤪






Good for a zombie thread.


----------



## Johnny b

Betty Bowers and Landover Baptist Church........I'd almost forgotten about them :up:

Guaranteeing Salvation since 1620!

I'd post a link but I'd probably be banned


----------



## Wino

A bit dated, but pure christian. Be sure to watch clip all the way to end and don't have any liquid in your mouth.






I've stated before - as an atheist, I'm a better christian than nearly all christians, and I'm a heathen???😤


----------



## Johnny b

Back to 'evolution'

* Researchers date the oldest known human skull at 233,000 years *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...the-oldest-known-human-skull-at-233000-years/



> Volcanologists matched a layer of ash above the fossil skull to an eruption of southern Ethiopia's Shala volcano 233,000 years ago. Their findings seem to line up well with other recent research about when our species' branch of the family tree split from that of our nearest hominin relatives, the ancestors of the now-extinct Neanderthals and Denisovans.
> 
> Recent genetic and archaeological findings have shown that we probably became noticeably ourselves sometime between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago, so it makes sense that the oldest fossil member of our species would come from that time frame.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article on 99 million year old flower fossil:

* Flowers preserved in amber reveal same blooms existed 99 million years ago with dinosaurs *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...wers-amber-99-million-years-study/9312355002/


----------



## Johnny b

A new view to the origin of life:

* How life came to Earth *
https://www.uni-jena.de/en/220210-astro-peptide



> Researchers from the Friedrich Schiller University Jena and the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy have discovered a new clue in the search for the origin of life by showing that peptides can form on dust under conditions such as those prevailing in outer space. These molecules, which are one of the basic building blocks of all life, may therefore not have originated on our planet at all, but possibly in cosmic molecular clouds.
> 
> .................
> 
> Now that it is clear that not only amino acids, but also peptide chains, can be created under cosmic conditions, we may have to look not only to Earth but also more into space when researching the origin of life.


----------



## Johnny b

Of interest:

* An entire lizard trapped in amber is gazing back at us from 110 million years ago *
https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/110-million-year-old-lizard-rhetinosaurus-found-in-amber


----------



## Johnny b

'Creation Science' takes a another hit.
More evidence disproving a 'Garden of Eden' scenario 6000 years ago...........
Obviously mankind was reproducing long before Fundamentalist claims.

* Members of our species were in Western Europe around 54,000 years ago *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ere-in-western-europe-around-54000-years-ago/


----------



## Johnny b

Just more evidence that 'things change'------>evolve.

* In Peru, skull of 'marine monster' points to fearsome ancient predator *
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/s...-points-fearsome-ancient-predator-2022-03-18/



> ..............36-million-year-old well-preserved skull...............
> 
> Scientists think the ancient mammal was a basilosaurus, part of the aquatic cetacean family, whose contemporary descendents include whales, dolphins and porpoises.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article on how fast evolution can occur in short lived species:

* "Evolution can occur really, really rapidly" *
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/evolution-can-occur-really-really-rapidly/



> Researchers detect genetic changes in response to seasonal change.
> 
> When we think of evolution, we often think of slow, gradual changes made over millions of years. However, new research suggests that the process could be happening quite quickly, driving major changes over the course of a single year in response to seasonal changes.


----------



## Bastiat

Quick aside. Anybody heard from Val?


----------



## Johnny b

Nothing since I rejoined.
I think it was Skivywaver that mentioned she was posting over at Facebook.


----------



## Wino

Bastiat said:


> Quick aside. Anybody heard from Val?


Have you heard from or had any contact with Mulder?


----------



## Johnny b

Skivvy also said Mulder was at Facebook.

I don't go there and have no intentions of going there, not because of Mulder, though.


----------



## valis

I've not seen Val here in years....nor Chris. As I dont do FB I have not heard peep from them. 

I do know Skivvy drops in on occassion.


----------



## Wino

I don't FB, Insta-whatever, or Twit. And especially, Truth social !!


----------



## Johnny b

Looks like the shine is off Truth Social

https://www.thewrap.com/trump-truth-social-app-93-drop-signups-traffic/

de-evolution?


----------



## Wino

It's "shiny" like the sheen from a fresh cowpie.


----------



## Johnny b

Stupid people do stupid things.

* Paleontologists dismayed after 112-million-year-old dinosaur footprints were damaged by botched construction job *
https://www.businessinsider.com/dinosaur-footprints-damaged-boardwalk-construction-2022-4



> A section of fragile dinosaur footprints dating back 112 million years was damaged beyond repair by heavy machinery.
> 
> The Mill Canyon Dinosaur Tracksite in southeastern Utah offers a snapshot of life in the early Cretaceous period. It contains roughly 200 fossilized footprints from at least 10 different dinosaur species - including sauropods, ankylosaurs, and ornithopods - according to the Bureau of Land Management. Discovered in 2009, it is among the most studied paleontological sites in the world.


----------



## Johnny b

An interesting article.
Meat eating plants and convergent evolution:

* How plants turned predator *
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/how-plants-turned-predator/

It's a long article, but if your interests are about evolution, it's an interesting article about repurposing existing genes.


----------



## Johnny b

*Astrophysicist Breaks Down The Origins Of Life*

Enjoy:


----------



## Johnny b

*Nearly 8,000-year-old skull found in Minnesota River *
https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/8000-year-skull-found-minnesota-river-84882324

According to 'Creation Science', that would be about 2000 years before Adam and Eve, the first human beings , were allegedly created.


----------



## Johnny b

Dinosaurs with feathers.
An interesting video with host David Attenborough


----------

