I do understand your point of view both of you.
I understand that you belive in this.
I hope that you two can see that even though scientists on the TET side wants to
count a number of things as evidence, just as the creationist scientists wants to
count them as evidence for their agenda, there is not any real evidence observed.
However, this whole idea of TET has been invented and not observed, if you don't
count micro evolution.
TET is not science. It could be historic science but it does not qualify cause it lacks witness.
The Evolution Theory is not a science. You are right. It's a scientific theory. Just like the Gravitational Theory is. You choosing to ignore evidence and us showing you a lot of evidence does not mean it's wrong.
We've refuted every single one of your arguments, including the ability for evolution to create information (see nylonase). Yet, you will go on with that line of argumentation next time you talk to someone.
This is one of the major reasons for people like Dawkins voices get heard so loudly.
It's like talking to a child with their fingers in their ears screaming : Lalalalala!
To belive in historic documents as them that is included in the bible.
What would you call that?
Written historic documents from 4000 to 1800years old depending on witch book you chose to read in the bible.
You have to understand that when they were written the bible did not exist.
Later when these scripts had been choosen to represent the word of God, the
individual books became a part of the bible.
So you do have to treat each document as a historic document
not as a part of a religiosbook.
Nothing to do with what we've discussed and since you don't listen to arguments anyway, there is little point in me refuting that line of thinking.
Since I have myself been filled with the different excuses, turnarounds and inventions of all the things that TET needs, not to be totaly disgraced,
It took the bigger part of my life to see through it.
for belief in TET people have invented meassurments of time that fits the geologic time scale. Still, it does not work but who cares…
The redshift was hijacked to be a doppfler effect. The invention of dark materia was needed. The invention of the Ort cloud. Now we have to think about paralel universes.
It gets so silly because TET simply can't do it.
Have you noticed that the age of the earth is expanding rapidly cause TET always need more billions of years to seem trustworthy.
Wow! You really do not understand sciences. These conclusions were arrived at with completely different methods and mindsets and with nothing to do with evolution.
Geologists figured out timescales on its own, independently of evolution.
Physicists predicted dark matter as part of a completely different theory, which again helps measure time independently of evolution.
The whole point is that all of these discoveries
independently verify timescales and they all come down to similar conclusions (with none of them coming down to 6000 years old).
Because they all concur, they are then used together as evidence against arguments like yours!
It's totaly out of hand. They make up a new caveman/apeman every now and then. It gets refuted but lives on for ages in text-books and museums.
All these "trees of life" has been refuted. They live on several of them posted in this thread, called evidence by evolutionists.
cavemen/apemen ? I assume you mean the finds that turn out to be hoaxes. Yes, some people are dumb, greedy and want attention. The point is that science uncovered those as frauds. Religion doesn't do that and keeps ancient myths in its holy books with no regard for authenticity.
The trees of life as you call them are mere representations of the evidence! They are not evidence in and of themselves, another blatant misunderstanding on your part with relation to science.
The second law of TD does aply to the universe no matter how much evolutionists cry out. It has not been refuted. The evo-side always do refute something else and say it's the same. It is not.
Been addressed.
Because of the mocking of plain and simple truths in favour of a young earth
it's not easy to reach you.
It does not matter if sombody says it's silly to talk about all the evidence for a young earth, the evidence is still there.
No, it isn't as we have refuted in this very thread !
I'm done with you, you can keep posting your nonsense.
As a summary:
- We've refuted your line of argument considering no gain of information possible. i.e. Degeneration as you defined is BS.
- We've refuted your arguments of use with the law of thermodynamics.
- We've shown the basics of the mechanics of plate tectonics
- You have shown to use conspiracy theorist strategies based on nonsense (see Dawkins professorship)
- Refuted your line of questioning regarding missing links
- You seem to think the theory of evolution is still based entirely on Darwin's books, but it actually has "evolved" a lot since then.
- You misunderstand or misrepresent scientific terms by rewording them : e.g. kind instead of species, with no definition for the word
- We've taught you that most fish cannot go from freshwater to saltwater without dying.
- We've shown the ark to not be able to carry or provide for all the animals on it whether they be millions or thousands.
- You used other religion's mythologies to prove your own.
- You philosophise about all of this without using facts.
Well, that was an interesting conversation, but I'm done talking with you. Have a good evening.