If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

Why don't you link to ACTUAL peer reviewed scientific articles instead of non-peer reviewed websites that have a blatant bias? Oh, no... because that wouldn't give you the answer you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Show us you can define evolution.

 

Read them and their peer review instead of spouting off first.

 

Evidence for evolution is___________________________________________________.

 

Considering they aren't peer reviewed, that'd be kind of hard.

 

Found in genetics, morphological comparisons, the fossil record, domestic breeding, etc. Now can you even define evolution?

 

Did you read them?

- - - Updated - - -

If you do not know what "evidence" is, what the hell are you doing debating on the thread?

 

No, because they aren't even related to evolution, they're all about radiometric dating. One, why would I read articles about an irrelevant topic? Two, why would I read articles about an irrelevant topic that aren't even published in scientifically peer reviewed journals?

Why don't you talk about the 20 billion year old Earth and Universe, again? That was funny.

 

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

There certainly are limits to radiometric dating.

But, your links contain creationists quoting SCIENTISTS on the discrepancies SCIENTISTS are finding and reporting so that they can be studied.

You haven't yet pointed to mistakes that science has made - only to weaknesses that SCIENCE has found in methods they have developed.

And, as at least some of your articles point out, those weaknesses come from known sources, so those sources can be considered when dating methods are used.

On top of that, radiometric studies are NOT limited to the elements called out by those particular articles.

On top of that, there are other methods of dating, as I pointed out earlier, whereby crosschecks are made.

Nobody can possibly argue that the cites you posted suggest the possibility of a young earth, by the way.

 

You aren't getting it. Your cites do not target any peer reviewed result from science.

So far, you have identified no error science has made.

 

So, how did we go from 20,000 on the ark to 9,000,000 unique species todayt?

I need for you to explain how we got 8,980,000 new species AFTER the flood.

AND NONE before the flood (as they were created).

AND NONE now, because you deny that evolution is ongoing today.

 

I look forward, very much, to hearing the creationist explanation for this

 

No, photons are not nothing, they are energy. The "nothing" comes from the energy of the entire universe, not this one experiment.

 

Yes, I looked it up and found articles on how consistent and accurate radioactive dating is. Could you provide some direction where to look since you have already done this research at one point in time... Please.

Do I have to go to Jon Hams website to find this info?

 

Simple. You bury them relatively quickly, like in a few decades. Then they stay upright while they fossilize and the soil turns to rock.

Apply pressure and heat.

How does charcoal from wildfires get inbetween layers supposedly deposited during a global flood?

 

can't wait to hear the explanation for this

 

The 'Bible' is observable and the 'Bible' is "viable" (as another of your ilk was seeking) therefore, the 'Bible' if viable and observable as "evidence".

 

Then I'd say it's nonsensical to claim McDonald, Melissinos et al created matter out of nothing. Wouldn't you?

 

AMAZING!!!

Still NO evidence FOR evolution form the self proclaimed smartest people in the world, Noble Prize winner no doubt. But none can reference one, just one evidence for their religion, their faith in Big Bang and Darwinism. Nothing, nada, nichs, nothing.

You ask for ME to provide evidence, but you supply not an iota of evidence.

You can all go to...wherever it is atheists believe they go for eternity.

I'm still waiting for evidence.......................................

- - - Updated - - -

Since the Flood. Explain man made objects found in deep layers of coal.

 

A tree dies, standing upright. It remains upright for tens of millions of years while sediment, deposits all around it, solidifies into stone, still standing upright, another tes of millions of years while the tree still stands whole more deposits. until another 100 million years go by and bury the tree totally.

Is this what you are telling me your think what happened?

 

Wow. You rephrased what he clearly spelled out for you, and then called him out on your version? Give me a break. That is the worst dodge ever.

 

Here it is:

Evolution happens as was found in the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

Let's remember that the Theory of Evolution that is a foundation of all modern biology does not include abiogenesis.

So, that theory doesn't include anything about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Abiogenesis is not a subject that science has an accepted answer for yet - although there are certainly a number of hypotheses.

Creationists like bundling the two separate areas together, because they think it weakens the Theory of Evolution. But, the Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on the answer to abiogenesis.

 

I gave you three more examples of evolution IN HUMANS!

Bue eyes, light skin, and the ability to digest milk as an adult.

These entered the human genome in the last 7k years. Through dna analysis, we can see when and where the changes entered the human genome.

 

Trees are frequently buried by mudslides and the like. It can happen in minutes.