Invite Friends

Topic: Religion

'Missing link' of human evolution found. Can evolution & Christianity coexist?

  • Comments: 576 |
  • Votes: 40
  • Share
Picture?type=square
Discussion started by Tok Staff:
As new fossils fill in the steps from ape to modern man, can Adam & Eve be reconciled with evidence for a natural process of evolution?
Background article: ... Read more
Results in this view: Y-guided Process 43% - Convince Me 30% - N-no Need-faith 9% - No Common Ground 17%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 260
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 18
Anonymous-user
  • 51
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
  • 49
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Either we evolved from lower life forms or we were made from dirt and a rib. Evolution is a proven fact, which means no Adam & Eve, no original sin, no reason for Jesus to die, no Christianity. Done.
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 7
Picture?type=square
  • 31
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 41
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 16
Anonymous-user
  • 2
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 11
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Evolution is real. Things adapt and change. But rather evolution has being going on for billions, millions or thousands of years it can still co-exist with Christianity AND does NOT mean no Adam & Eve, no original sin, no reason for Jesus to die, no Christianity. That is a false statement, not backed by fact. Ask any theistic evolutionist.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman I just proved it. How can you deny it? One fact leads to the next. You can’t have Christianity without Adam & Eve. You can’t have Adam & Eve if evolution is real. Ask any sane person.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You are self deluded. You proved nothing. Evolution is real, but doesn't necessarily include billions of years or one creature becoming another. And even IF it does, Adam and eve can still exist either as individuals in the process or as a group. This what theistic evolutionists believe.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman So "theistic evolutionists" want their cake and eat it too.

A believer of the god of the Bible must believe Adam & Eve was made by god with dirt and a rib. That's NOT evolution.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Kirby - The story of Adam and Eve was an allegory. It is not anything historical.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Then it is WORTHLESS
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Andrew - Unless the lesson is learned from it. Yes, much of the Bible is allegory and is not worth much to anyone when they take it as literal.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman What's the "lesson"? You can beat your slave with a rod as long as they don't die within 2 days?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Dan, we don't know if Adam and Eve were literal and historical or if they were an allegory. To believe they were allegorical without proof one way or another is not a scientific view just faith.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris And even IF billions of years is true, it does not take away from Adam and Eve being historical (possibly two of the first fully evolved humans) in recorded history. Or they could be completely allegorical like Dan's opinion assumes.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Hey idiot...if Adam and Eve were evolved, then they couldn't have been made from dirt and a rib.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Kirby - Please prove with empirical evidence that Adam & Eve were real, then we can go from there on this discussion.

It IS scientific to deny it is real until evidence supports the concept.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson KIrby - of what group would Adam and Eve be categorized?

(Current theology teaches that Adam & Eve are an allegory or myth - an example of development of humanity, and NOT a literal issue.)
Picture?type=square
By Daniel Spain 4.543 billion years to be exact. And I side 100% with Andrew here even though we may not always agree with each other.
Evelution happened first then About 200,000 years ago modern man came into existence. AFTER that someone wrote about there being a god with zero proof so evelution trumps faith here. I think google may even quote similar to what I listed.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Evolution is fact and does have proof, but no scientific proof of billions of years nor one species becoming another. Many of the 'facts' for those are not derived by science, but are theories of what some say the data says.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris There is not scientific proof of that only theories that this is true.
Picture?type=square
By Daniel Spain https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I know science definitions.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I said theories...meaning they take a lot of data, math and other observations and create an explanation. Billions of years or one species to another has not been proven.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Kirby, you are a brainwashed idiot. Stop listening to apologists and start listening to scientists for a change!

First of all, a theory in science isn't just some random guess.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

Second of all...we know what the speed of light is and the furthest stars we can see are 4.543 billion light years away. That and radiometric dating methods do prove billions of years.

Third, like I already explained before, but you willfully ignored it:
You can take ANY two species and with DNA find out what their common ancestor is. That alone is overwhelming evidence that one species evolved into another. All the other evidence we have (fossils, observing fruit flies, etc.) only CONFIRMS it.

So please educate yourself and stop holding back science with your BS apologetics that wilfully ignores the evidence we have that proves " billions of years or one creature becoming another"!

Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "Billions of years or one species to another has not been proven." Just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it true.

I'm getting really sick and tired of idiots like you who are willfully ignorant of the evidence that proves you wrong. You are holding back science by spreading LIES about what we know (not theorize) about life and the Universe.

You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Now STOP IT!
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "I know science definitions."

Apparently, you don't!
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris But much of what passes for scientific theory isn't just an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. There is a lot of twisting facts with opinions of what the facts and data says.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris So please educate yourself and stop holding back science with your BS apologetics that wilfully ignores the evidence we have that proves " billions of years or one creature becoming another" is NOT provable! Just because you say "Billions of years or one species to another HAS been proven." over and over again doesn't make it true.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I'm getting really sick and tired of those ignorant of science like you who are willfully ignorant of the evidence that proves you wrong. You are holding back science by spreading LIES about what we know and don’t know about life and the Universe. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Now STOP IT! I know science definitions. But apparently you don’t or you would agree with me.

Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I think you go who is a brainwashed idiot backwards. I do listen to scientists, honest ones. And I know a theory in science isn't just some random guess.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Knowing the speed of light and the distance of the furthest stars we can doesn't prove the age. That is an opinion. Notice they always say "we believe' not "we know' And Radiometric dating methods do not prove billions of years/ I gave you the facts of the oldest time period that dating can give. you ignore the facts.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I did not ignore what you said but refuted it. There is a difference. Like I already explained before, but you willfully ignored Taking ANY two species and their DNA does not prove what their common ancestor is, BUT that they were made with similar DNA make up. So that is NOT alone overwhelming evidence that one species evolved into another. I have refuted endlessly with facts that fossils, observing fruit flies especially doesn't CONFIRM it.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman wasnt there some monkey girl named eve 500 k ago we all came from?
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman No. There was a common ancestor found named Lucy.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman YEAH THATS THE MONKEY BEATCH
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman there is no reason that evolution can not be the hand of god
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Evolution isn’t a supernatural miracle. End of debate.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you do not understand the mind of god infidel
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Dude, you make a claim you can't prove. Billy, never claimed as fact that God guided evolution. He just said it could be. You made a definite claim that Evolution isn't a supernatural act. Prove your claim.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Evolution is a science (Biology), so by definition it can’t be supernatural. Science only deals with the natural world.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Andy, I agree. I always say that to you. We did not say evolution was supernatural. We said it could have been created and guided by a supernatural ie outside of nature being.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Prove that's even possible.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Again, I have endlessly said you can't prove the supernatural scientifically, science science is the study and observation of the natural universe. You claimed it was not possible.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Then there's no reason to believe it.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris There are non-scientific things that can make us believe in God.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman So stop believing in god.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "You claimed it was not possible.". No you IDIOT. I asked you to prove it is possible. I NEVER made such a claim. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman so you think this was just some big accident? well maybe you were, but the last 13 billions years? come on man you dont see the hand of god in that? mind you his work is sloppy at times admitedly
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman do you feel that calling people idiots is going to convince them you are right or just as horses ass
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman No, I don't see delusions of supernatural hands of god.
Get help.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Why would we stop believing in God, if there are things that give us reason the believe? Do you have scientific proof that believing in God is a delusion?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman The oldest time period that CARBON dating can give is limited.
The oldest time period that other forms of radiometric dating can give is in the billions of years and each and every form of it converge onto the same results.

Denying that fact makes you willfully ignorant.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, no radiometric dating can't go over 50,000 years. It makes me factual, and you willfully gullible.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman I already gave you the proof that it does. Argument over.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Like I said, you are ignorant to what evidence is. I made claims backed by logic, critical thinking and true facts. Try it sometime.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, you only made claims. No proof. Argument over.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Polly want a cracker?
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman The oldest rock so far dated is a zircon crystal that formed 4.4-billion-years ago, which was only 200 million years or so after the Earth itself formed.

Uranium-lead dating depends on the decay of uranium-237 and uranium-238 to isotopes of lead. Due to the long half-life of uranium it is not suitable for short time periods, such as most archaeological purposes, but it can date the oldest rocks on earth.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, no it is you who are ignorant to what evidence is. I understand what it is fine. I made claims backed by logic, critical thinking and true facts. Try it sometime.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Yeah polly, I will parrot your comments when ever they apply to you.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Nothing we know is 100% certain, but that doesn't mean we can't get close to the answer.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Polly wants a cracker, I see.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman I know you are, but what am I?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris And again, not true. The problem with all of the dating is we don't know about the many uncertainties, like how much Sr-87 was in the rock when it first formed, as well as many other unknowns. Did other processes remove elements from the rock?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I agree nothing is 100%, but we can get close to some of the answers.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman and 14 BILLION years is damn close.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Kirby - WHAT? Again, not true. Here is a small lesson you need to read. If you dispute this source, please explain why an academic source is wrong when they have no reason to falsify their facts given:

https://study.com/academy/lesson/radioactive-dating-methods-uses-and-limits-of-radioactive-decay-as-a-dating-tool.html

Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Dan I will try and find time to read and watch your sources. I rarely have time for this, and that is why I sometimes don't post for weeks or months.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris It is like knowing who finished a race by who crossed the finish line without knowing where they both started. And monitoring the entire path to make sure one of the runners din't cheat.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I decided to take the 7 minutes to watch the elementary school explanation of Radiometric dating. I understand the practice and how it is used.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris But here is the problem. The issue with all radioactive dates is that they're all based on an assumptions about the past. One can get any date they want depending on the assumptions they make.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris So, you can't figure out rocks age using radioactive dating since no one was there to measure the radioactive elements and when the formation of the rock began. No one was there to monitor the way the elements changed over its entire geological history.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Radiometric dating is based on the half-life of decay which is a constant. It doesn’t slow down or speed up. It dorsn’t need to be monitored.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Let's say a full bucket had 1 million drops of water in it and the faucet the bucket was under dripped 1 drop of water per minute. With math, you can say it took 1 million minutes to fill up the bucket. No one was there to monitor it, yet it's a proven fact.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman It takes Pluto 248 years to go around the sun. Nobody monitored it, yet we can say it's true. The only assumption needed is that the planet follows the laws of physics and doesn't speed up or slow down. If you assume the laws of physics work with radiometric dating, you get ONE accurate answer. You don't just make random assumptions.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Kirby - They are based on decay rates, NOT assumptions, unless you are talking about continuity drift. If so, please offer your evidence which disproves decay rates of specific substances.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Kirby, you never admit you are wrong, which shows you think you know everything, which is impossible. So you're an idiot.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris The bucket example fails for many reasons. With the bucket, for one, we don't know if it dripped 1 drop per minute the entire time. was there water in the bucket before the faucet was turned on? Water added after we left?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Andrew, you never admit you are wrong, which shows you think you know everything, which is impossible. I gladly admit when I am wrong, when shown to be wrong. So far you have not shown me to be wrong.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Andy, first we don't know if the half life has always been constant. Or just constant since we have been observing it. We don't know what all the conditions were when things started or things that might have altered the rate since the beginning and until we started observing and measuring these things. A lot is being assumed. Assuming is not science.

Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Newly formed volcanic rocks have been measured and given the same ages as those found naturally and known to be way older, and the half life of the argon measured is the same for both.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris

With Pluto, we don't know if something has altered its speed and course before we started observing and measuring its speed and course.

Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman To find the most recent common ancestor of a set of taxa on a phylogenetic tree, follow each taxon's lineage back in time (towards the base of the tree) until all the lineages meet up. That node represents their most recent common ancestor.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris If that were true. Again, sharing DNA does not mean there are common ancestors. That is a great opinion though.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, that is the opinion. DNA does adapt, but no proof into another creature. You're done.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman They don't just share DNA. DNA changes over time through natural selection and mutation. That's how you get new species. Check mate. You're done.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman how many pots of coffee are you running on but yes you have beathen him soundly he is a nit wit
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman That's like saying taking a step moves you forward, but nobody has ever walked across state lines because "macro walking" isn't real.

Simple concept....change the environment enough and give the species time enough to adapt to it, and you get a different species.

Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, no not true. Not check mate. Not done. Just because environment changes enough to make DNA changes does not mean a new species. That is a nice opinion, but not proven fact.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman The reason species have DNA that is different is because of change over time., not because some god decided to go and create a whole new species.

So please. do tell...at what point does change over time stop? ...the answer can only be 1. When time stops. 2. when environments stop changing. or 3. when all life ceases to exist. So which is it that stops one species from changing to another? 1. 2. or 3.?
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman See, you do admit that evolution is a fact and that there is change over time to adapt to new environments....So, now you have to come up with an answer to why evolution stops at the point where a species changes to another in order to adapt to the environment...and what makes it stop. ...and if it stops and can't change at some point, how does it adapt to a new environment without changing? I'll wait for this one!
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Adapting to an environment does not mean it turns into another species. And the adaptions are small and adaption does not change the species into another species. Think of it like skin color, stronger bones or body fat type changes.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris And your explanation is an opinion, just like mine is an opinion. And we don't know since we don't know the age of the universe and will die out as a species before we ever find out.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Dude, you are slow. I have said evolution small changes are real and observable. The only thing I take issue with is the claim that billions of years and one species turning into another has been proven or can be proven with actual science.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Once again...small changes happen over a small amount of time and big changes happen over a big amount of time. Unless you can change the speed of light itself, the proof that the Universe is at least 14 billion years old stands.

So we know living things change over time and we know there are billions of years for change to happen.

Now I say the change keeps happening until a new species evolves...and even then keeps happening.

YOU want to say the changes somehow STOP before a new species can evolve, in which case the species wouldn't be able to adapt and die off...so all life would stop existing if that were the case.

I don't want to put words in your mouth....what happens when a new species is required for survival of life? I gave you 3 choices.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "adaption does not change the species into another species. Think of it like skin color, stronger bones or body fat type changes."

in some cases, a new species would be necessary...that's the reason giraffes have evolved with long necks from horses with short necks. Why would any god create a giraffe if it wasn't needed for the survival of life?

Are you trying to tel me that when environments change, god puts a stop to evolution, kills off a species and then creates another one? That makes no sense when an all mighty god can just stop environments from changing. You really are being a stubborn jerk about this. You know that, right?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Once again...small changes happen over a small amount of time and there is no way to prove big there was a big amount of time. Again the speed of light itself doesn’t prove that the Universe is at least 14 billion years old. There are other explanations.. Yes, we do know living things change over time, but we don’t know there are billions of years for change to happen. And there is no proof the change keeps happening until a new species evolves.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman I'm still waiting...at what point does change over time stop? ...the answer can only be 1. When time stops. 2. when environments stop changing. or 3. when all life ceases to exist. So which is it that stops one species from changing to another? 1. 2. or 3.?

Of course, the real answer is 4. Evolution just continues over time and a new species evolves. Simple, easy, logical, probable and proven.

You really made yourself look stupid. Happy now?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I never said the changes somehow STOP before a new species can evolve, I just said the changes never change the species from one to another.And we don’t know that in some cases a new species would be necessary..No proof giraffes have evolved with long necks from horses with short necks. God might create a giraffe to create a giraffe. I have NEVER said that when environments change, god puts a stop to evolution, kills off a species and then creates another one.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, your 4 choices are false. You are still assuming billions of years and that small changes eventually make one species become another. You are very arrogant to call others stupid, when you are so close minded.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Yeah, you said one spieces doesn’t change from one to another...but you never said why. So what’s your number 5? I’m not assuming anything. I’m usung proven facts. Unless you prove otherwise and win a Nobel Prize, they are true facts based on evidence.

So, Einstein...why does change over time, which you admit happens, suddenly stop at the point if changing to a new spieces? It would have to stop in order to avoid change.

If god made a giraffe for the fun if it, that god would have one hell of a poor design! Getting blood to flow to the brain is alone rediculous.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, you are twisting facts and making a false premise... that one species turns into a different species. The change would never turn it into another species. There is no 1 through 4. AND Your giraffe comment is a nothing burger.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman “small changes eventually make one species become another. “

No I said small changes happen over a small amount of time, and big changes hapoen over big amounts of time.

....unless 1,2 or 3.

So I’m still waiting for your amazing #5 answer. The whole world wants to know. This is groundbreaking!!
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Not going round and round with you. I already explained this. No, your 4 choices are false. You are still assuming billions of years and that small changes eventually make one species become another.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris you are twisting facts and making a false premise... that one species turns into a different species. The change would never turn it into another species. There is no 1 through 4. AND Your giraffe comment is a nothing burger.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman OK let's sum this all up:
You claim:
1. Stars aren't billions or millions of miles away
2. There Universe is very young
3. One species can't evolve into another
4. Evolution with change over time does exist.
5. Evolution doesn't stop.
6. Science is very seriously corrupt with a giant conspiracy theory that pushes changes in species as fact, but can still function enough to get us to the moon.
7. Radiometric dating is limited to 50,000 years.
8. God randomly creates crazy species with design flaws.
9. Small changes over a small time can't mean bigger changes over bigger time.

My response is:
1. Prove it. Science proves otherwise
2. Prove it. Science proves otherwise
3. Prove it. Science proves otherwise
4. Duh!
5. Agreed
6. You're messed up in the head
7. You're proven wrong.
8. That's a joke, right?
9. Simple logic proves you wrong there.

3 & 4 are direct contradictions of each other.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "I never said the changes somehow STOP before a new species can evolve,"

Well, if the changes keep going, you eventually get a new species...so which is it?
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "your 4 choices are false"

OK, lets go over them one at a time:

1. Change over time stops when time stops...TRUE Change over time stops when environments stop changing...TRUE
3. Change over time stops when all life ceases to exist...TRUE

Hmmmm...So how are they false???
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris They are false choices because I never said change stops. I said that change never makes one species become another.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Never gave a giant conspiracy of the corruption in science, I gave links to top level scientists claiming this. Radiometric dating is limited to 50,000 years and their are things not being taken into consideration when it is used mentioning a few things. Never said God randomly creates design flaws. I never said Small changes over a small time can't mean bigger changes over bigger time. I said you can't prove the longer time with science.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You make a pot of crap up dude.
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I never said the stars aren't billions of miles away. I never said the universe is very young. I said we can't know the age through science. I said there is no proof one species changes into another. I never said with change over time does not exist.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I never said Small changes over a small time can't mean bigger changes over bigger time. I said you can't prove the longer time with science.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman The longer time has been proven with science and your denial of that is just willful ignorance. That's why I can't reason with idiots like you. If I could reason with a theist, there wouldn't be any.
So go believe what you want, since you don't care about truth and reality. You want your own facts.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman " I said you can't prove the longer time with science."
"I never said the stars aren't billions of miles away"

Contradiction. Stars billions of miles away prove longer time, scientifically. You just painted yourself into a corner.
Have a nice day.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, I planted my self in no corner. My point is valid and still stands, science has not proven longer times. Your denial of that is just willful ignorance. So go believe what you want, since you don't care about truth and reality. You want your own facts.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Science did prove it and you IGNORING the evidence for that proof makes you Willfully IGNORant. So go believe what you want, since you don't care about truth and reality. You want your own facts.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman exactly there are none so blind as those that will not see
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you cant win an argument with kirby the magic baby and the invisible man with the beard guide him
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman What does your god look like, Dykeman?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Andrew, there is no evidence that shows what you claim. Sigh. I 100% care about truth and reality. It might be you in a fantasy world.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman so are you a scientists? hm sort of impressed
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "There is a lot of twisting facts with opinions of what the facts and data says."

That's BS since all scientific theories are peer reviewed.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, peer review is very corrupted. And just because 500 biased guys all agree with each other doesn't prove a thing
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Idiot, if peer review was corrupted, science wouldn't work and things like rockets and computers you use to type your BS with wouldn't exist. You're done.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, wrong. Science works fine with out the current corrupted version of peer review. Like any system not all of it is corrupt. Not everything peer review is corrupted or flawed. But much of it is rubber stamping.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Yeah, like you know what's corrupt and what isn't. You're not even a scientist.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris WAIT??? you are a scientist and can prove their is no corruption? There is enough corruption to doubt much peer review.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman LOL...how do you find flaws and corruption is science? WITH MORE SCIENCE! You're an idiot!
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris In some cases I know what is corrupt and what is not. And scientists are saying much of it is corrupt. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman The very computer you use to write your BS shows the corruption is minimal at best and overcome by peer review.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, nice opinion, but again not true. Different areas of study have more corruption than others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Yes, but the corruption in science prevents true science.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Again, if true science was hindered by corruption, the technology that comes from true science wouldn’t exist, and neither would the computer you are typing on.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Not true at all. The corruption is in some disciplines more than others. And maybe all the corruption has hindered what we could have in tech and computers? Maybe we would have bigger and better things.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "The corruption in science prevents true science."
"The corruption is in some disciplines more than others."

Either it's true science or it's not. You can't have it both ways.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Wrong, its not both ways to say there is corruption in anything, including science. Everything isn't all corrupt or all perfect.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Science is science. You didn't say there's corruption in part of science. You said, "...the corruption in science prevents true science." ALL OF IT.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No science is not always science. There is pseudo science and badly done science..
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman pseudo science and badly done science is not real science, idiot.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris But some of what passes for science is pseudo science and badly done science.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman ...and the ONLY way to find out if it's pseudo science or not is to use REAL SCIENCE to debunk it. IDIOT!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris There is stuff passing as mainstream science, using non science to back it up and backed by some powerful, well funded folks.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "" Knowing the speed of light and the distance of the furthest stars we can doesn't prove the age"

If something is 1 light minute away and I can see the light from that object emitting the light, that proves 1 minute.

If a star is 1 billion light years away and I can see the light from that star emitting the light, that proves 1 billion years.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, not necessarily look up flaws and counter arguments of speed of light and star distance. Plenty of arguments to the contrary.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman So the whole Universe is 100 miles wide? Stop being such an idiot.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Who said the whole universe is 100 miles wide. You didn't search into alternative scientific explanations. So close minded.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Hey if it's flawed it's flawed,so it could be anything. Yet, you have no evidence for what you claim.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Wrong, many top scientists are stating how peer review is flawed and corrupt. Here is just one of many articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Search: dr peter boghossian who claims this, and who Richard Dawkins is defending.
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris And the corruption claims are not BS.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman The corruption claims are irrelivant integrity of science.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You are welcome to that opinion.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Opinions are subjective.
What I claimed was objective.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No what you have claimed is very subjective.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Actually what you claimed was subjective.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris If you say so. You live in a closed intellectual system.
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "I did not ignore what you said but refuted it. "
Based on ZERO evidence. Just saying "no it isn't" doesn't prove anything.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Says the man who gives no evidence on anything. And I have given you plenty of arguments that shot down the few things you have presented. And you have shot down things I have given proof for. so....
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman You have no idea what evidence even is. Either you're ignorant or stupid. Which one is it?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Sure I do. it is you who don't. I have stated many times the facts, which you tend to ignore.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman You stated false facts with no evidence to back them up.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Now you're using the "i know you are but what am I" argument.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, over the years I have stated facts with much evidence. You post as much evidence as I do and make many claims. The links you have shared I destroyed in minutes.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Another corrupt system.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Oh wow...I must be dealing with superman!!! You're so amazing! I'm not worthy!!

When do you get your Nobel Prize?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Nobel Prize. I will get mine after Sheldon Cooper gets his in real life..
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Just wondering, Kirby. What other conspiracy theories do you fall for?
You listen to Alex Jones?
Ever read a science book or take a science course?
What other things do you believe without evidence?
How do you even function in society?
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL, Jones is a loon. Dude, you are so arrogant. You believe things constantly that you cant prove. You just trust what others tell you about science. Do you do the research yourself? I highly doubt it. Losers of arguments stoop to insults and character assassination. I bet I have read more science books then you ever will.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Um, yeah, I do the research myself. Now what is your excuse?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman kiberty is bright but hes a bible thumper he wont see the truth beccause hed have to accept his world view is dead wrong, its like that cognitive bias stuff, he is totally in denial. once again relgion tunrs a basically bright good haearted person into a blithering lunatic
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Um...look in the mirror, idiot. Your Theist version of the Big Bang was pathetic.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman where did that singularity come from? how did it assemble into our world without some sort of design, calling people idiots just shows you feel threatend, are you afraid there might b a god, and that you might end up in hell? because you may well
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman I told you the singularity was energy and energy can't be created or destroyed, so it was always there. Duh!
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Prove there even is a hell
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman You got it backwards, Dykeman! The singularity didn't assemble in our world. Our world assembled into the singularity (after it expanded into the Universe it is today).

There was no design....I explained that already.

Which hell are you talking about, Dykeman? There are all kinds depending on which god you believe in.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Where's your critical thinking skills, Dykeman? I can't be threatened by something I don't even believe exists.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman critical thinking? hm i might have accidently tossed them out with those empty vodka bottles last night
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman piffle everythnig exploded from a pin head of matter 15 bilion years ago and you expect me to beleive that was just some cosmic accident??
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i cant its impossible thats why i am an agnostic
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman or was it?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you have never spent a weekend with my mother in law or you would not ask that question
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Everybody is agnostic, you idiot.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Believe what you want, Kirby. You already do.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You are talking to yourself.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman You just answered, idiot.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you andrew i have followed your debate i agree with everything you say, and you make compelling arguments but you kinda ruin it when you resort to calling people an idiot, it doesnt halp you be more convincing it makes you look like a Dick
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman ...says the biggest name caller of them all....Sperg ring a bell?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman well just because i do it do you think its okay for you to do it? mt logic is that your moral stance?
two wrongs make a right? every five year old knows better
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman You're an idiot for believing in a god.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman why? prove i'm an idiot for beleiving in god, even if there is no god, there are very good ereasons to beleiv in a diety look at history there are no athesit cultures not one
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman We are all born atheists.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Atheism is the default position. The first humans were atheists since that's the default.

Name a good reason to believe in a god. I'll wait.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Now you're using the ad populum fallacy. Just because a majority or even 100% of a population believes something doesn't make it true.

Your inferior intellect amuses me, Dykeman.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i dont know name one atesist culture, there is somethng in our brain that makes us feel good when we worship a god, its like a cosmic transmitter man, where did that come from then?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman we are born bald with no teeth cr6pping ourselves
the first humans ate their own poo and threw stones at each other.. we are on an evolutionary jounrey