A001:

The book of lies and half-truths, the Bible, is the source of your confusion and your lack of understanding of how science works.

This is strawman argument. He raised issues, talk about it. That's how to discuss.

Workch:
Donnie is a biblical paleontologist
Expert researcher in the field and has several peer reviewed scientific papers

You and A001 need to work on how you reason and handle thoughts in arguments. If not you will be lying against people and say what they never said. Donnie never said all you wrote above. Give your argument and stop using strawman approach, either in abusive or deviation. Since you know better and wiser,address what he raised. That's how to speak.

hupernikao:


You and A001 need to work on how you reason and handle thoughts in arguments. If not you will be lying against people and say what they never said. Donnie never said all you wrote above. Give your argument and stop using strawman approach, either in abusive or deviation. Since you know better and wiser,address what he raised. That's how to speak.

I would have taken him seriously if he had explained the basic mechanism of radiometric dating to me. But he dismissed radiometric dating results without first understanding the basics

His likes are called conspiracy theorists

hupernikao:


This is strawman argument. He raised issues, talk about it. That's how to discuss.

What issues did he raise?

BassReeves:
Genesis 2:15
'So the LORD God took the man [He had made] and settled him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.'

Genesis 3:23
'So the LORD God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and He sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made.'

Analysis of fossil records by scientists at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History revealed evidences that the structure of plant and animal communities changed significantly about 6,000 years ago, this was caused by first human who happened to around the time began agriculture. Adding to that point, also, the proportion of co-occurring species pairs that were relatively stable started from the late Paleozoic until 6,000 years ago.

Parthenogenesis (i.e. 'virgin creation') not only happens but is scientifically and biologically possible to have a virgin birth, if you know what to do and know how to do it.

Parthenogenesis, you'll be interested to know, is a form of reproduction in which an egg can develop into an embryo without being fertilized by a sperm

The human virgin birth or human parthenogenesis that occurred, was a one off and Jesus is the only begotten, Son of God, that had a virginal conception, which was also immaculate.

No evidence and all these are fabricated lies indeed? Smh at you. Facts matter, if you are going to make wild allegations, at least make sure you absolutely know what you are talking about

---

---

---

A001:
You're very confused.

Let's leave evolution out of the matter, since you're clearly Ignorant about some key concepts in biological science.

The origin of Homo sapiens is Africa, and according to the available body of archeological evidence, modern humans originated 300,000 years ago.

And yet you said Adam is the first modern man (a homo sapiens) that lived 6000 years ago, according to the Bible contrary to concrete scientific evidence about the period.

How do you reconcile these contradictory statements?

Yes, Adam is the first modern man (i.e. a homo sapiens) that lived 6000 years ago. The Bible wasn't necessarily set out to share full disclosure concrete scientific evidence. It is more of a theological manual, than being a scientific manual, journal or book

hupernikao:
How did you come about the age of the earth from the Bible by merely using Adam' living 6000years ago.

I didnt read anything in the A001post anywhere that talked about the specificity of the age of the earth.

Workch:
Donnie is a biblical paleontologist
Expert researcher in the field and has several peer reviewed scientific papers

No one takes experts in Christian science seriously.

A001:

No one takes experts in Christian science seriously.

They are only relevant on social media argument but in real life their ideas are irrelevant in scientific research.

A good number among them cannot decipher simple atomic model but they want to discredit years of empirical research in radiometric dating because it contradicts they ridiculous belief system.

The Bible says life on this planet began some 6,000 years ago but since what we are hearing from researchers says otherwise and nobody lived back then to tell us exactly how old is mankind then why not put everything to test?

Keep whatever any book (including Bible) says aside for now and let's see whose teachings is able to organize their students in an orderly manner. I believe that whoever knows how life began or when it began should be in the best position to make those learning from Him reason well and cohabit peacefully.

There's no logical reason for arguing about the beginning when there's no way forward!

Workch:
The Bible is wrong about 6,000 creation myth. You can say that we shouldn't take the passage literally but thats what the Bible implies, that earth and everything in it cannot be older than 6000years. That's wrong

Show me anywhere in the Bible where it stated the date the earth was created or where the age of the earth was stated?
It was expressly and simply stated that " In the beginning,God created the heaven and the earth" Gen 1:1. It stated that the earth was without form, before the 7 days creation,earth was without form, meaning earth was already existing but without form.
It also stated that the Spirit of God moves over the deep(water), meaning water was already existing.
It also stated that God separated the water from land,note he didn't create water or land in Genesis,they were already in existence.
That in the beginning means dateless time. The universe existed long before creation of Adam.
What happened in Genesis was a recreation,God was redesigning what( Man and Nature) he once designed and destroyed by flood.
Yes creation account of Genesis was a restoration of earth to what it was, before He(God) punished it through flood.

Greatzeus:

Show me anywhere in the Bible where it stated the date the earth was created or where the age of the earth was stated?
It was expressly and simply stated that " In the beginning,God created the heaven and the earth" Gen 1:1. It stated that the earth was without form, before the 7 days creation,earth was without form, meaning earth was already existing but without form.
It also stated that the Spirit of God moves over the deep(water), meaning water was already existing.
It also stated that God separated the water from land,note he didn't create water or land in Genesis,they were already in existence.
That in the beginning means dateless time. The universe existed long before creation of Adam.
What happened in Genesis was a recreation,God was redesigning what( Man and Nature) he once designed and destroyed by flood.
Yes creation account of Genesis was a restoration of earth to what it was, before He(God) punished it through flood.

1,000 Christians, 1,000 interpretations

MaxInDHouse:
The Bible says life on this planet began some 6,000 years ago but since what we are hearing from researchers says otherwise and nobody lived back then to tell us exactly how old is mankind then why not put everything to test?

Keep whatever any book (including Bible) says aside for now and let's see whose teachings is able to organize their students in an orderly manner. I believe that whoever knows how life began or when it began should be in the best position to make those learning from Him reason well and cohabit peacefully.

There's no logical reason for arguing about the beginning when there's no way forward!

Brilliant!

Discoveries like this show the Bible is not a book to be taken seriously by any rational thinker:

The Doom of Homo Erectus: Mass Death Marks End of Species

Indonesian site suggests archaic humans perished about 110,000 years ago.

In the family tree charting human evolution, Homo erectus stands out. Originating in Africa about 2 million years ago, H. erectus was the first hominin — our closest evolutionary kin — with modern human proportions.

It was also the first known hominin to venture beyond Africa and into Europe and Asia, reaching China by about 1.7 million years ago and Indonesia by 1.5 million years ago.

But the accomplishments of H. erectus don’t end there. It’s also the earliest known hominin to have lived in temperate environments, such as the Transcaucasus region that today includes the Republic of Georgia.

The longevity, range and adaptability of H. erectus make it the most successful hominin species in the fossil record.

(Sure, we modern humans live on all seven continents, surviving — often with some help from technology — everywhere from the South Pole to the Sahara, but we’ve only been around a few hundred thousand years.)

Last of Their Kind

So, how did it all end for this mega-successful archaic human? When, and where, did the last H. erectus shuffle off this mortal coil?

These are questions that have long bedeviled paleoanthropologists. One of the most promising sites in the hunt to find the erectus expiration date, Indonesia’s Ngandong, yielded numerous fossils of the hominins during excavations in the 1930s.

Features on the skulls and other bones suggested the individuals were among the most evolved of the species. Dating the material, however, was challenging.

Previous estimates of how old the fossils were ranged from half a million years old to less than 30,000 years old, largely because of the geography of the site. Ngandong’s bonebeds are near the Solo River in Central Java, on a terrace.

As the course of the river changed over time, slices of land eroded and were rebuilt. In short, things got jumbled up.

Now, however, researchers painstakingly recreated a regional chronology for Ngandong, charting changes in both the river’s course and topography of the surrounding hills.

The team also used multiple dating methods to determine the age of the fossils and material that accumulated with them, such as quartz grains and pumice.

The result: The H. erectus fossils of Ngandong are 108,000 to 117,000 years old.

The new, more robust date range confirms the Ngandong hominins are the last known members of H. erectus in the fossil record. And that’s by more than 100,000 years — other late H. erectus fossils from a site near Beijing have been dated to about 230,000 years ago.

A Species Washed Away

The new ages for the Ngandong fossils also rule out an overlap of H. erectus and anatomically modern humans in the region.

The Ngandong fossils, mostly pieces of skull, represent at least a dozen members of H. erectus that appear to have died at the same time. Bones of other animals were also deposited at the site, but researchers have not found stone tools or other artifacts.

The immediate area where the fossils were found was, at the time the bones accumulated there, gravel or sand channel bars in the river itself.

Despite apparently being washed downriver and deposited at the site, the partial fossils show little wear and tear, something expected in bones getting tossed and tumbled for a while in turbulent waters.

The evidence suggests that the individuals died in a single flood event a short way upriver. It was an inglorious end to the species …

… Or was it? Genomic studies of modern populations in nearby New Guinea have identified about 1 percent of their DNA comes from an archaic human that’s not Denisovan, Neanderthal or Homo sapiens.

It may well represent interbreeding with a late population of H. erectus, suggesting that a sliver of this successful species lives on in the genes of some modern humans.

Source: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-doom-of-homo-erectus-mass-death-marks-end-of-species

Workch:
I would have taken him seriously if he had explained the basic mechanism of radiometric dating to me. But he dismissed radiometric dating results without first understanding the basics

His likes are called conspiracy theorists

He never dismissed it. You want to put that in his words. And that's not good. He told you that such results have had wrong output before. He never said all its results were wrong. This is what you should face.

Is he lying about this.
Has the result of dating always been accurate. You are the one who is neglecting this.

This is the basis of his own argument.

Workch:
What issues did he raise?

1. That scientific dating has presented faulty results in some cases.

2. That the 6000 years earth from the Bible is your own creation. Not the Bible.

These are the issues.

hupernikao:


1. That scientific dating has presented faulty results in some cases.

2. That the 6000 years earth from the Bible is your own creation. Not the Bible.

These are the issues.

1. Radiometric has to be verified so many times and that’s how the fault are gotten and corrected. But when it’s correct, the results are usually consistent. The fault was not detected by pastors or church members who debunk it, it was detected by scientists using the same radiometric dating to correct it.
2. We don’t know the version of Christian creation story to take seriously again

hupernikao:


He never dismissed it. You want to put that in his words. And that's not good. He told you that such results have had wrong output before. He never said all its results were wrong. This is what you should face.

Is he lying about this.
Has the result of dating always been accurate. You are the one who is neglecting this.

This is the basis of his own argument.

You have no idea how science works.

Even some of the parameters on your phone will be corrected in future. It’s not absolute, you keep learning and improving unlike religious people who are dogmatic and never accept new evidence

Workch:
You have no idea how science works.

Even some of the parameters on your phone will be corrected in future. It’s not absolute, you keep learning and improving unlike religious people who are dogmatic and never accept new evidence

Firstly, you should correct the way you do feel the body of science knowledge lies at your door step. Telling someone you don't know, that he doesn't know how science works is a rush conclusion.

Secondly. What you write up there just confirmed exactly what he has been telling you. That the technology is dynamic hence writing off an assumption, or a likelihood of things is like saying science can't be done change. If science can and always evolving why then the conclusion that he is very wrong. A true scientist never absolutely write off opinions the way you do.

Workch:

1. Radiometric has to be verified so many times and that’s how the fault are gotten and corrected. But when it’s correct, the results are usually consistent. The fault was not detected by pastors or church members who debunk it, it was detected by scientists using the same radiometric dating to correct it.
2. We don’t know the version of Christian creation story to take seriously again

You are really joking. It's not smart trying to always pit science and religion or church against each other. It's not a clever approach at all. It's an assumption of those who never see beyond their room doors.

No one here claimed Pastor or church is competing or giving scientific results. Why are you troubled with that. We are all looking at how things works or should be. That is what you should face. Science isn't working on disproving the bible, it's working to know how things works. It's only those who Ave identity crises that try to bring trouble here.


A result that doesn't stay beyond 1000 years cannot be called stable. And that's the domain of science, dynamic that has changed and evolved almost every 100 years.

So calm down and look at the real issues than dressing a boxing ring for science and religion.

hupernikao:


Firstly, you should correct the way you do feel the body of science knowledge lies at your door step. Telling someone you don't know, that he doesn't know how science works is a rush conclusion.

Secondly. What you write up there just confirmed exactly what he has been telling you. That the technology is dynamic hence writing off an assumption, or a likelihood of things is like saying science can't be done change. If science can and always evolving why then the conclusion that he is very wrong. A true scientist never absolutely write off opinions the way you do.

Very intelligent replies.

hupernikao:



You are really joking. It's not smart trying to always pit science and religion or church against each other. It's not a clever approach at all. It's an assumption of those who never see beyond their room doors.

No one here claimed Pastor or church is competing or giving scientific results. Why are you troubled with that. We are all looking at how things works or should be. That is what you should face. Science isn't working on disproving the bible, it's working to know how things works. It's only those who Ave identity crises that try to bring trouble here.


A result that doesn't stay beyond 1000 years cannot be called stable. And that's the domain of science, dynamic that has changed and evolved almost every 100 years.

So calm down and look at the real issues than dressing a boxing ring for science and religion.

Science will always be pitted against religion if religion don't stop lying about their beliefs.

How can you tell us that we were created from dust by a magical being without any evidence to back it? Even after the overwhelming evidence presented by theory of evolution that its false. All you do is deny science and evidence.

Whether or not you like it, science is unintentionally revealing the lies in religion

hupernikao:


Firstly, you should correct the way you do feel the body of science knowledge lies at your door step. Telling someone you don't know, that he doesn't know how science works is a rush conclusion.

Secondly. What you write up there just confirmed exactly what he has been telling you. That the technology is dynamic hence writing off an assumption, or a likelihood of things is like saying science can't be done change. If science can and always evolving why then the conclusion that he is very wrong. A true scientist never absolutely write off opinions the way you do.

A scientist will write off opinons that are ridiculous and magical. Magic like in Christianity is not acceptable in science.

It's either you work it out or get lost with the "God did it" notion. You dig?

Workch:
A scientist will write off opinons that are ridiculous and magical. Magic like in Christianity is not acceptable in science.

It's either you work it out or get lost with the "God did it" notion. You dig?

Can you give me one magic like, in Christianity?

hupernikao:



You are really joking. It's not smart trying to always pit science and religion or church against each other. It's not a clever approach at all. It's an assumption of those who never see beyond their room doors.

No one here claimed Pastor or church is competing or giving scientific results. Why are you troubled with that. We are all looking at how things works or should be. That is what you should face. Science isn't working on disproving the bible, it's working to know how things works. It's only those who Ave identity crises that try to bring trouble here.


[b][A result that doesn't stay beyond 1000 years cannot be called stable. And that's the domain of science, dynamic that has changed and evolved almost every 100 years. [\b]

So calm down and look at the real issues than dressing a boxing ring for science and religion.

if I tell you now that you don't understand how science works, you will see it as an insult.

Why can't you just ask how it works instead making nonsense up. Please kindly read up for precisions and accuracy in experiemmets before embarrassing your household with your sciolism.
A radiometric dating result of 350milliom years with a precision level of + or - 1000 is still very valid. Even with - or + 10, 000

Read up precision in scientific experiment before you type anything because if you type nonsense here, I go bash you

Workch:
Science will always be pitted against religion if religion don't stop lying about their beliefs.

How can you tell us that we were created from dust by a magical being with any evidence to back it? Even after the overwhelming evidence presented by theory of evolution that its false. All you do is deny science and evidence.

Whether or not you like it, science is unintentionally revealing the lies in religion

You haven't still yet understood the both sides you are pitting together. You talk in absolute term whereas the very science you speak of talks in relative. Even in the face of accurate result, science language is still presented in relative terms.

So if man doesn't come from dust (since it's sound ridiculous to you), where did man come from, even as per science. Put it here.

hupernikao:


You haven't still yet understood the both sides you are pitting together. You talk in absolute term whereas the very science you speak of talks in relative. Even in the face of accurate result, science language is still presented in relative terms.

So if man doesn't come from dust (since it's sound ridiculous to you), where did man come from, even as per science. Put it here.

sorry, I cannot understand stuffs that contradict evidence.
The evidence we have is clear, evolution is fact and creation is not.

No evidence for a god
Noah’s flood is hoax
Humans cannot undergo parthenogenesis.

Those are what Christianity entails and they aren’t consistent with facts on ground. We have to let you guys stop spreading those lies

hupernikao:


Can you give me one magic like, in Christianity?

Are you seriously asking me this question?
Every part of the Bible is magical.

Even the birth of Jesus is magical

Workch:
if I tell you now that you don't understand how science works, you will see it as an insult.

Why can't you just ask how it works instead making nonsense up. Please kindly read up for precisions and accuracy in experiemmets before embarrassing your household with your sciolism.
A radiometric dating result of 350milliom years with a precision level of + or - 1000 is still very valid. Even with - or + 10, 000

Read up precision in scientific experiment before you type anything because if you type nonsense here, I go bash you

You have said nothing. All I read is just lack of calmness to read properly.

You must first help yourself to read well all I write so that you aren't responding outside the mark.

No one is disputing scientific result here. Pay attention to the next statement.

All scientific findings have changed in every 500 years if not less, and I said, most of the discoveries don't stand a thousand years before being changed, updated or discarded. That is what being relative means.

What you called precision today, in another 100 years, science will evolve and then you will know its never close to precision. So what's your point of absoluteness.

hupernikao:



You have said nothing. All I read is just lack of calmness to read properly.

You must first help yourself to read well all I write so that you aren't responding outside the mark.

No one is disputing scientific result here. Pay attention to the next statement.

All scientific findings have changed in every 500 years if not less, and I said, most of the discoveries don't stand a thousand years before being changed, updated or discarded. That is what being relative means.

What you called precision today, in another 100 years, science will evolve and then you will know its never close to precision. So what's your point of absoluteness.

So because of that the Bible has to be true?

What kind of reasoning is this?

Workch:
Are you seriously asking me this question?
Every part of the Bible is magical.

Even the birth of Jesus is magical

You haven't answered me.

hupernikao:


You haven't answered me.

dont ask me stupid questions.
I’m not here to take stupid questions, if you don’t see the birth of Jesus as a magic then leave it

Workch:
sorry, I cannot understand stuffs that contradict evidence.
The evidence we have is clear, evolution is fact and creation is not.

No evidence for a god
Noah’s flood is hoax
Humans cannot undergo parthenogenesis.

Those are what Christianity entails and they aren’t consistent with facts on ground. We have to let you guys stop spreading those lies

You haven't answered me. How did man comes to be. Give answers that you trust.

hupernikao:


You haven't answered me. How did man comes to be. Give answers that you trust.

Through evolution from ancient apes