Chris OConnor wrote:Ah, so you haven't read any books on evolution but you know it to be untrue.

...years of listening and years of research into what I was listening to evolutionists say

Did you listen to them speak in person or in YouTube videos? What videos? Please post a few links.

So you've done research? Excellent. What sources did you use for this research? What was the nature of this research? Please explain how you went about conducting the research without cracking open a book on evolutionary theory.

Have a nice day Chris. I notice that I haven't even been welcomed yet here at Booktalk but boy have I been assailed at all fronts by the evolutionary elite. lol Really, I couldn't care less what you believe, you believe what you want because I sure will believe what I want. Your evidence FOR evolution is good enough for you but not me, ok? If you want to believe you came from some swamp-dwelling critter then have at it. lol I myself think it rather childish but hey, that's ole unedjamacated me. Actually, no I haven't listened to any You Tube videos on the matter. Do you want to know my research? Ok, Google, "evolution is a hoax" and there ya go. But I am going to start exploring your excellent site after I answer a couple more scholars on evolution.

Interbane wrote:

Barry wrote:See? You have faith in the environment, the environment is your god.

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean I have faith I'll be rained upon at some point? The environment doesn't produce conclusions. Humans do. I don't have faith in the conclusions of humans ex nihilo, but I trust conclusions if they were arrived at by proper method.

There is no evidence. We have gone from searching for the "missing link" to saying ALL fossils are transitional. Evolution, like climate change, is hardly settled science. It is not even a science. The theory of evolution originated not long after God created man and he promptly rebelled.

There's more evidence than you could possibly digest in your remaining years in support of evolution. If you don't know this to be true, you've been horribly mislead at some point in your life. No words will change your position, but you need to know you're wrong, beyond the shadow of a doubt. There are many hibernating threads on this topic in our archives that you're welcome to read through to catch up.

Mankind has been puttering around on earth for around 14 thousand years. We are still here. To think that WE, little ole fallible man, can destroy this earth is really naive at best.

What you're appealing to here aren't good reasons. Obviously, our "puttering" has increased exponentially, as has our population size. It is the opposite of naive. You have blinders on if you don't see that we're changing the environment for the worse.

According to you folks, the earth's atmosphere at one time had to be so clogged with CO2 that life as we know it could not have originated.

Really? Could you provide a source for that claim. I'd like to read the words of this expert who knows what conditions are impossible for any life, rather than just life as we know it.

CO2 levels have been higher in Earth's history. But correspondingly, the Earth's temperature was much higher, the weather much harsher, sea levels higher, etc. Thrusting us into such a dramatically different Earth would wipe out the majority of our population. No one here is arguing that fallible old man won't survive. Just that our numbers will be greatly reduced.

But that's a good thing in your holy book, right? Perhaps the difference between us is that we actually agree that the environment will change, yet we think it's a horrible thing that millions or billions will die, while you think it's a good thing. Please tell me that's not true.

Lone facts on a pulpit do nothing, which is why it's so easy to come to conclusions that are opposite the truth from a handful of true facts. You need a comprehensive set of facts and evidence, which you make clear you don't have.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human- ... ssions.htm

Uhhh, which proper method? Everyone has a "proper" method, which is yours?

No, YOU need to know that YOU are wrong. In your little vapor span of life, how can you possibly arrive at conclusions that have taken billions of years to produce? lol You can't. You can only read others opinions that coincide with your own, of which there are THOUSANDs of differing opinions that you dismiss because YOUR worldview is different. Again, mankind CANNOT destroy himself environmentally speaking and there is a difference in pollution and climate change. One we can't do anything about, the other we can. Guess which is which. I have no desire to visit dead threads on the subject.

Our puttering hasn't increased all that much. Human nature is exactly the same.

Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

Its early atmosphere was probably formed from the gases given out by volcanoes. ... The early atmosphere was probably mostly carbon dioxide, with little or no oxygen. There were small quantities of water vapour, ammonia and methane. As the Earth cooled down, most of the water vapour condensed and formed the oceans.
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Evolution of the atmosphere
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... rev1.shtml

Sorry, try this one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... rev7.shtml

So, I am to assume that life, no matter what form, originated in that? Or waited for more favorable conditions and THEN, life came from non-life? lol Oh boy, Saturday morning cartoons weren't that good. lol

It's never a good thing when billions die. Of COURSE, I believe in climate change and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it. It is called WEATHER! Now, pollution on the other hand...

Please, I don't need to go through tomes of documents that Al Gore put together, right after he invented the internet. Or was that BEFORE? lol

Have a good day sir.

geo wrote:

BarryW55 wrote:

LanDroid wrote:There is a large collection of evidence here; let us know when you're done reading it.
http://talkorigins.org/

As soon as you get through reading all this.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

The obvious question here is why would you turn to a book of religion to learn about a scientific theory (or to even discuss it)? It makes no sense.

Granted, religion is a source of personal meaning for people. But when it comes to discussing the physical world, we turn to science. If you don't agree with this, that's fine. But I doubt any kind of substantive discussion can ever get past this point.

Well, the book of religion spells out true science. Since science is just another word for knowledge, let's see what that book of religion says about it.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

So, the fear, or reverence, of God is the beginning of knowledge. Now, what if you don't reverence, or respect God? Wat kind of knowledge do you have?

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

So, many shall run back and forth, you know, like a chicken with its head cut off. Knowledge will be increased but what good is it without reverence of God? It leads to this.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Science falsely so called. Like evolution and climate change. And also, on a spiritual level, false teachers and man's traditions against the Word of God.

The bible has been proved right so many times but since it reveals the true God that so many don't believe in, t is cast aside as just another "religious book." Well, that's your call, nothing I can do about it. Have a good day.

Since science is just another word for knowledge.

Not true.

Here, let me help.

Uhhh, which proper method? Everyone has a "proper" method, which is yours?

If there are thousands of different methods for arriving at the truth, how do we select between them? The answer, of course, is that we wean away the methods that have lead to conclusions which are false. We keep what is left. There is a core stock of methods dating back a couple thousand years that have been unfailing. This set is called logic, and is exceptionally more structured than the layman typically knows. What most people call "logical" or "illogical" is an abuse of these ancient terms. Actual logic is the first set of proper methods. Not layman logic.

The second set of proper methods started a little over four hundred years ago. In a sense, this set of newer methods is a structure built around the core set of logical methods. Logic must be used, but the newer set uses methods above and beyond logic. This newer set is also able to go much further than logic in discovering our world, but for that advantage it's also much more susceptible to arriving at false conclusions.

But, that doesn't mean there is any other set of methods more capable of weaning away false conclusions. This newer set - science - is unmatched by any other set of methods. Nothing compares, except for the logical subset, which is required for good science.

Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

This is what is called a false dichotomy. If you reference the first set of methods, you'll find it's a mistake of reasoning dating back thousands of years.

So, I am to assume that life, no matter what form, originated in that? Or waited for more favorable conditions and THEN, life came from non-life? lol Oh boy, Saturday morning cartoons weren't that good. lol

This is an appeal to incredulity. The universe is filled with incredible things. Until we discover them and know them to be true, reactions such as yours are detrimental. Appealing to incredulity does nothing but make you feel better about what you believe. Unless you show that it's impossible, you have nothing. Incredulity is meaningless.

Our puttering hasn't increased all that much. Human nature is exactly the same.

This is a mistake of false equivalence. Human nature may not have increased, but our puttering has increased exponentially. They are two different things.

It's never a good thing when billions die. Of COURSE, I believe in climate change and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it. It is called WEATHER! Now, pollution on the other hand...

It's called anthropogenic climate change. The question is whether or not humans are having an impact on our environment. The evidence answers this question with a resounding and unfortunate "yes".

No, YOU need to know that YOU are wrong.

I could be wrong. But at the very least, I'm a hell of a lot closer to the truth than you are. The sheer number of mistakes of reasoning you make in a single post demonstrates this. From what I can tell, you use emotional reasoning, which is the fastest way to false conclusions. Keep responding, the evidence will pile up. Not that it will matter.

Interbane wrote:

Uhhh, which proper method? Everyone has a "proper" method, which is yours?

If there are thousands of different methods for arriving at the truth, how do we select between them? The answer, of course, is that we wean away the methods that have lead to conclusions which are false. We keep what is left. There is a core stock of methods dating back a couple thousand years that have been unfailing. This set is called logic, and is exceptionally more structured than the layman typically knows. What most people call "logical" or "illogical" is an abuse of these ancient terms. Actual logic is the first set of proper methods. Not layman logic.

The second set of proper methods started a little over four hundred years ago. In a sense, this set of newer methods is a structure built around the core set of logical methods. Logic must be used, but the newer set uses methods above and beyond logic. This newer set is also able to go much further than logic in discovering our world, but for that advantage it's also much more susceptible to arriving at false conclusions.

But, that doesn't mean there is any other set of methods more capable of weaning away false conclusions. This newer set - science - is unmatched by any other set of methods. Nothing compares, except for the logical subset, which is required for good science.

Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

This is what is called a false dichotomy. If you reference the first set of methods, you'll find it's a mistake of reasoning dating back thousands of years.

So, I am to assume that life, no matter what form, originated in that? Or waited for more favorable conditions and THEN, life came from non-life? lol Oh boy, Saturday morning cartoons weren't that good. lol

This is an appeal to incredulity. The universe is filled with incredible things. Until we discover them and know them to be true, reactions such as yours are detrimental. Appealing to incredulity does nothing but make you feel better about what you believe. Unless you show that it's impossible, you have nothing. Incredulity is meaningless.

Our puttering hasn't increased all that much. Human nature is exactly the same.

This is a mistake of false equivalence. Human nature may not have increased, but our puttering has increased exponentially. They are two different things.

It's never a good thing when billions die. Of COURSE, I believe in climate change and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it. It is called WEATHER! Now, pollution on the other hand...

It's called anthropogenic climate change. The question is whether or not humans are having an impact on our environment. The evidence answers this question with a resounding and unfortunate "yes".

No, YOU need to know that YOU are wrong.

I could be wrong. But at the very least, I'm a hell of a lot closer to the truth than you are. The sheer number of mistakes of reasoning you make in a single post demonstrates this. From what I can tell, you use emotional reasoning, which is the fastest way to false conclusions. Keep responding, the evidence will pile up. Not that it will matter.

Oh, you ARE wrong and so close to myth it is rather boring. You are so arrogant that you didn't even use my link. That is what is so pathetic about you "higher educated" folks. You think you know everything. Anthropegenic climate change? lol Did Al Gore come up with that one?

Chris OConnor wrote:

Since science is just another word for knowledge.

Not true.

Here, let me help.

Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc

You are so arrogant that you didn't even use my link. That is what is so pathetic about you "higher educated" folks. You think you know everything.

I've read through all your links Barry.

The thing is, none of us knows the smallest fraction of the knowledge available to us, let alone everything. You're the arrogant one, thinking you're correct without putting in any effort to actually learn what that entails. Thinking you're correct and the tens of thousands of educated scientists worldwide are collectively wrong. Not just on one subject, but on multiple subjects that branch out into hundreds of fields of science. Thinking that you don't need to do any of the studying they had to go through, and you still know better than them. That's arrogance Barry, and it stinks.

Also, I've never been to college.

Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc

You can't understand some terms by their dictionary definition. Science isn't another word for knowledge, as you claim. There are types of knowledge that can be acquired which aren't scientific, even as there is scientific knowledge. If you want the conceptual definition rather than the dictionary definition, try here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

BarryW55 wrote: Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol

Barry, welcome to BookTalk!

BarryW55 wrote:Again, mankind CANNOT destroy himself environmentally speaking ...

Why would you make such a strange statement? One difference between the atomic bomb and a thermonuclear bomb is there is no upper limit on the explosive power of the latter. Humans could construct a thermonuclear bomb powerful enough to turn the planet Earth into microscopic space dust; for all we know doomsday weapons like this may already exist. Or we could unleash global warfare involving biological agents, poisons, and radioactive weapons that render the planet inhospitable to human life. You appear to claim it is Absolutely Impossible for man to "destroy himself environmentally speaking", but obviously that's not true given considerations such as these.

Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

Are you unaware of anaerobic bacteria that thrive in atmospheres devoid of oxygen, such as those rich in CO2? You might want to read the current non-fiction book we're discussing, which at one point describes how cyanobacteria provided oxygen to the ancient atmosphere on earth.

Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc

Surely you realize you linked to a dictionary of etymology, which studies the origins of words? The definition of science provided there is from the 14th century! To find a current definition, please go back to the link Chris O'Connor provided.