I have manage to do what seem impossible here on Nairaland. On a separate thread , I have managed to get the Nairaland grand old duke of young earth creationism to accept an old earth view of the earth. Davidylan now accepts that the earth is many millions of years old, at least 525 million years old. He now cites scientific publication in support of his narrow view of creationism when it suits him but how he reconciles the main core of the scientific papers with his narrow view of creations would take tremendous amounts of cognitive disonance. I suppose such disonance is nothing new to him and he has probably lived with this all his life.

This is the paper from New Scientist that Davidylan cited in support of this views about creationism and his opposition to Darwinian evolution. The paper contains the following;


The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

They concluded that the undulating procession of ancient arthropods, each about 2 centimetres long, represents more than a quirk of fossilisation. Though none of their arms, legs or antennae survived a half billion years in stone, the animals probably interlocked appendages to stay together.

"We hypothesise that the chain was in the water column and it met its demise by whatever reason or forces, then it sunk to the bottom," he says.

Modern creatures called tunicates, or sea squirts, form long chains to boost mating opportunities, but Siveter doubts that his crustaceans engaged in a carnal dance because no modern crustaceans show this behaviour. Group feeding is off the table, too, because each animal's mouth appears blocked by its neighbour's tail.

"The simplest explanation for this is that it is some kind of collective behaviour coming together for migration, perhaps associated with defence in numbers," he says.

Nigel Hughes, a palaeobiologist at the University of California, Riverside, agrees that the parade represents more than the death throes of ancient arthropods. Rather, the fossils provide "snapshot scenes of 'normal' life" in the Cambrian, he says.

"Finding an example of collective behaviour so long ago is really eye opening to us," says Iain Couzin, a biologist at Princeton University. He and colleagues are now creating computer models to understand the evolution of group action, which seems to arise often and with little individual complexity needed.

"Collective behaviour is all around us and it's also within us, the function of cells within in the body is a form of collective behaviour."




which he fully accepts as plausible and closer to the truth about the reality of crustacean life history. These are some of Davidylans posts on the said thread in support of the old earth view and in support of the scientific endeavours and processes that uncovers and makes available such knowledge to humankind. As is his wont, he uses scientific material without realy appreciating whether is fully supports his view. So when I noticed that he had cited the above article, I feigne ignorance and skepticism about the pedigree of the article to see if Davidylan would stand by his citation. This is what I did:

davidylan:

Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?
There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

This is just a plain travesty of reasoning. Where does he get this figure from? The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years. You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it. This is simply dishonest and wrong.

This is his first response:

Quote from: huxley on Today at 02:06:37 AM
This is just a plain travesty of reasoning. Where does he get this figure from? The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years. You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it. This is simply dishonest and wrong.

You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

This was my next post to his response:

davidylan:

You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

Davidylan,

Many thanks for the links to the New Scientist article. I like it when people reference respected material in such debates and I have learned a lot from that material. Many thankz.

But I have got one important reservation and it is the following:

Why should I trust the work of these Chinese scientist? Is it conceivable that they have got their methodology all wrong and have fed the world with wrong and misleading data about the alleged age of these crustaceans. Can we be sure that the figure of 525 millions is in the correct ball-park?

I have great doubts that this work is credible and would much appreciate it if you would throw more light on their methods, because if their data is correct, it could potentially overturn some of the bedrock of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

---

And this was his following response

davidylan:

Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead.

That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published.

Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794

And this was my response:

Thanks for that again. I think we are getting somewhere now. So you agree that this is a very scientifically credible work and the dates of 525 MYA is very plausible? It that were not the case it would have been challenge by the peer-review process.

Now, 525 MYA ago happen to fall right in the middle of the cambrian period, which spans 543MYA - 495MYA, and you agree with the scientist of your reference article that crustaceans roamed the earth then.

What other animals roamed the earth alongside the crustaceans? Why have human, rabbits, elephants, dogs fossils NEVER been found in rocks dating this period, circa 525 MYA? Why do they only appear in much later rock strata?

Can you show me scientific articles, peer-reviewed as the one you cited, that show these mammals to have existed in the cambrian?

---

At this point, Davidylan now realises that he has been caught in his lies, dishonesty and deception. Otherwise, why is he unable to provide an answer to these simple answers. This was his response and see for yourself his deception:

Dude . . . you cant keep recycling around your own stupidity and forcing us to answer your own queries. You are the one who swears by the gods of science not me, you're the one who claims fossils prove evolution is true not me . . . answer your own question.

Thou hypocrite, stop bothering to ask for scientific peer-reviewed articles when all you can provide is talkorigins and youtube.com

---

Having been caught out, he then resorts to insults and adhominems, as in :

dude, your own duplicity makes me sick. You who swears by the gods of science DID NOT know that there were crustaceans during the cambrian period . . . infact you labelled me dishonest and fraudulent for even suggesting what had already been published since the summer of 2008.

You're merely trying to mitigate the disaster that your own ignorance has exposed you to. I dont disaprove of science in general if not i wont be in the field at all. What i find despicable is the fact that many of you clueless bufoons who cant EVEN READ THAT SCIENCE instead prefering to rummage through youtube links stay here bellowing hot air.

Science is not flawless . . . but slowly it is begining to prove wrong the very pillars that you hold unto.

And here is me, revealing to him how he was caught:

Has my catching you so easily rile you? Do you now have to resort to insult instead of making arguments withs facts and data? I know this was gonna happen?

This is not a debate about who knows more than whom, but a debate about getting to the truth about the reality concerning the diversity of life on the planet. Nobody can claim to know everything there is to know about a given subject. Even experts who work on their select field daily can never claim to know everything about their subject. Least of all me, you is not an expert, but an interested layperson. If I do not know a fact and its relation to the grand scheme of things, chances are good that I may know where and how to inform myself about that fact - I go to the learned sources, the experts, the likes of the scientific journals, books, etc, etc, to inform myself. I do not come here to parade knowledge or ignorance - I come so that we can together try to arrive at credible knowledge. So it does not bother me in the least if you call me ignorant. In fact, if you point at my ignorance of a fact, I am generally quite happy because it give me the opportunity to go bone up of the knowledge concerning that fact.

[size=15pt]Why do you inform yourself about evolution?[/size]

---

Now, what do you people think about Mr Davidylan? Does he appear to be an honest man or is he involve in deceiving the weak and gullible. Or is he completely self-delusional?

If you are a Christian, do you agree with him that the earth is many millions of years old, in gross contravention of the Genesis narratives? IS Davidylan a man you would proudly associate with? Would you introduce you friends and family to this sort of man. Would you be happy if your daughther were engaged to such a character?

Absurd - because i've always been a proponent of an old earth. I dont believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

Genesis DOES NOT describe the creation of the earth . . . it describes the RE-CREATION of the earth as we know it today. Its not too difficult to see that.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- When was this "begining"?

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

- in essence, the earth was already in existence way before man stepped foot on it.

davidylan:

Absurd - because i've always been a proponent of an old earth. I dont believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

Genesis DOES NOT describe the creation of the earth . . . it describes the RE-CREATION of the earth as we know it today. Its not too difficult to see that.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- When was this "begining"?

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

- in essence, the earth was already in existence way before man stepped foot on it.

How old do you think the earth is then? 10000 years? 100000 years? 1 million years, 10 million years, 300 million years? or greater than 800 million years?

How old Davidylan? Some cited scientific articles would be much appreciated, David. Haha.

huxley:

How old do you think the earth is then? 10000 years? 100000 years? 1 million years, 10 million years, 300 million years? or greater than 800 million years?

How old Davidylan? Some cited scientific articles would be much appreciated, David. Haha.

when you start citing scientific articles then you can demand from me. I usually cite articles and i make sure they are top of the line journals not the run of the mill nonsense you plagiarise from talkorigins.
Disgusting hypocrite.

What draws me again and again to such nauseating threads such as this is the incessant LIES, DISHONEST CLAIMS and RAMPANT PENCHANT FOR SLANDER that passes for posts from these spawns of ignorance. Have a look at this:

At this point, Davidylan now realises that he has been caught in his lies, dishonesty and deception. Otherwise, why is he unable to provide an answer to these simple answers. This was his response and see for yourself his deception:

But THAT is actually not the truth.

- I made the initial claim that shrimps were at least 400 million yrs old (i.e. would have existed in the cambrian era).

- Huxley DOES NOT believe that shrimps existed in cambrian rocks and infact (for someone who had relatively kept away from the thread) proceeded to call me out on my statement being "wrong and dishonest" with this - This is just a plain travesty of reasoning. Where does he get this figure from? The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years. You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it. This is simply dishonest and wrong.

Note that later he proceeds to LIE that he was merely "calling my bluff".

However i provided an scientific peer-reviewed article from Science AAAS magazine (this journal had the highest impact factor rating of over 30 as at 2007, higher than Nature magazine) . . . showing that shrimps had been observed in far older rocks (525 million yrs old) displaying behaviour much too complex for species that science and the dumb huxley claim were still evolving.

Huxley however refuses to accept the article; claiming he is not comfortable with the work of Chinese researchers here - Davidylan,

Many thanks for the links to the New Scientist article. I like it when people reference respected material in such debates and I have learned a lot from that material. Many thankz.

But I have got one important reservation and it is the following:

Why should I trust the work of these Chinese scientist? Is it conceivable that they have got their methodology all wrong and have fed the world with wrong and misleading data about the alleged age of these crustaceans. Can we be sure that the figure of 525 millions is in the correct ball-park?

I have great doubts that this work is credible and would much appreciate it if you would throw more light on their methods, because if their data is correct, it could potentially overturn some of the bedrock of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Note again that he LIES that all this was just in an attempt to "bluff" me . . . BUT his post betrays his ignorance because of the 4 researchers on the publication ONLY ONE (1) was Chinese, all other 3 were BRITISH! He also did not know the journal the article was published in hence his ignorant questions about dating and methodology . . . issues that would have been thrashed out during the peer review process (a process the ignorant sheep has NEVER witnessed as is evidenced by his questions).

Having no further leg to stand on, he then proceeds thus - Thanks for that again. I think we are getting somewhere now. So you agree that this is a very scientifically credible work and the dates of 525 MYA is very plausible? It that were not the case it would have been challenge by the peer-review process.

Now, 525 MYA ago happen to fall right in the middle of the cambrian period, which spans 543MYA - 495MYA, and you agree with the scientist of your reference article that crustaceans roamed the earth then.

What other animals roamed the earth alongside the crustaceans? Why have human, rabbits, elephants, dogs fossils NEVER been found in rocks dating this period, circa 525 MYA? Why do they only appear in much later rock strata?

Can you show me scientific articles, peer-reviewed as the one you cited, that show these mammals to have existed in the cambrian?

Now note certain things about the way ignorant evolutionists argue:

1. He NEVER at any point admitted he was WRONG when he LIED that shrimps could not have been in cambrian rocks, lying that he was merely bluffing even though he had NO scientific proof to back up his claim.

2. Rather than tackle his lies, he proceeds to cover it up by pretending to ASK another question as to why we dont have rabbit fossils in cambrian rocks dating about the same time as the Science AAAS article - now why this is particularly interesting is the fact that those who swear by the gods of science NEVER have answers to their own scientific questions, they prefer to ask us! And yet they claim we are the ignorant ones?

3. Huxley then proceeds to ask me to provide peer-reviewed articles - a thing i have CONSISTENTLY done while all he has done is plagiarise www.talkorigins.com and youtube!!!

Since i bluntly felt it a waste of time to pursue serious intelectual debates with a puny brain who doesnt even know what was found in Cambrian rocks, i decided to ask him to answer his own question (which he has REFUSED to do yet accuses me of being the one caught in lies and deciet)?

What a monumental catastrophe.

Since i bluntly felt it a waste of time to pursue serious intelectual debates with a puny brain who doesnt even know what was found in Cambrian rocks.

And you do? Then you know that there are no fossils of man dating back to that era. Strange to see that you're even acknowledging that there was a Cambrian period.
Rather looks like the 7 daya are out the window doesn't it?

Bastage:

And you do? Then you know that there are no fossils of man dating back to that era. Strange to see that you're even acknowledging that there was a Cambrian period.
Rather looks like the 7 daya are out the window doesn't it?

I do because modern man as we know him today was not in existence then. As regards the existence of man, i subscribe 100% to the Genesis account.
Call me a fool if you wish.

Yeah its not like you have any idea what cambrian periods are anyway . . . oh but anything to sound smart is ok.

Topic

Allahu Akbar!

Yeah its not like you have any idea what cambrian periods are anyway

LOL. Any book on dinosaurs refers to the Cambrian so I've been aware of it since I was a child.

But returning to your statement:

I do because modern man as we know him today was not in existence then. As regards the existence of man, i subscribe 100% to the Genesis account.

This is contradictory. The Bible states that modern man existed just a couple of days after the Earth was created. Or are you stating that there was some sort of pre-form man? Mr Amoeba? If that's the case, God is nothing but an amoeba is He? After all, He created Amoeba man in his own image, didn't He? And by that very implication, you are endorsing Evolution.

And what's this about "modern man"? According to creationists, "modern man" was there at the beginning. If there's a modern man that insinuates that there was a pre-modern man. You're again then stepping over into the realms of Evolution.

The problem we have here David is that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't believe in Genesis and the concept of "modern man".

Bastage:

This is contradictory. The Bible states that modern man existed just a couple of days after the Earth was created. Or are you stating that there was some sort of pre-form man? Mr Amoeba? If that's the case, God is nothing but an amoeba is He? After all, He created Amoeba man in his own imagage, didn't He?

And what's this about "modern man"? According to creationists, "modern man" was there at the beginning. If there's a modern man that insinuates that there was a pre-modern man. You're then stepping over into the realms of Evolution.

The problem we have here David is that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't believe in Genesis and the concept of "modern man".

the only reason it is contradictory is that you have a low capacity to understand complex material as long as it isnt regurgitated talking points you can read off atheist websites. Sorry to say.

I repeat quite clearly for your benefit again - Genesis was the begining of modern man as we know him today and the RE-CREATION of the earth. Genesis 1:1 talks about "the begining" . . . but we are not told WHEN this begining occured. Was it when we appeared? Apparently not because somewhere in Jeremiah we see him talk about a vision of the earth when man wasnt not created yet. No point confusing you with details.

Gen 1:2 talks of the creation of our modern earth, the creation of organisms that we see today and the creation of man. Certainly dinosaurs were not created then if not they would have long killed man off the face of the earth. The presence of fossils for dinosaurs is proof an ancient pre-adamite earth once existed.

That there is a modern man does not automatically mean there must have been a pre-modern man . . . there may have been but i dont know neither do you.

As regards the part i highlighted, it is simply an example of your inability to reason. What a shame. It made absolutely no shred of sense.

davidylan:


1. He NEVER at any point admitted he was WRONG when he LIED that shrimps could not have been in cambrian rocks, lying that he was merely bluffing even though he had NO scientific proof to back up his claim.

2. Rather than tackle his lies, he proceeds to cover it up by pretending to ASK another question as to why we dont have rabbit fossils in cambrian rocks dating about the same time as the Science AAAS article - now why this is particularly interesting is the fact that those who swear by the gods of science NEVER have answers to their own scientific questions, they prefer to ask us! And yet they claim we are the ignorant ones?

3. Huxley then proceeds to ask me to provide peer-reviewed articles - a thing i have CONSISTENTLY done while all he has done is plagiarise www.talkorigins.com and youtube!!!

Since i bluntly felt it a waste of time to pursue serious intelectual debates with a puny brain who doesnt even know what was found in Cambrian rocks, i decided to ask him to answer his own question (which he has REFUSED to do yet accuses me of being the one caught in lies and deciet)?

What a monumental catastrophe.

You have totally missed the point, Davidylan and you are a perfect example of what your holy book says about too much knowledge making one mad even though in your case it is more like too much biased use of incomplete knowledge making you mad (forgive me the pun)

1. You seem more interested in getting a fact right than understanding the implication of that fact in the Global picture. Huxley does not need to accept that he got a fact wrong, the fact is that he can have his doubts about the legitimacy of any particular research work. Besides what more do you want?the title of this post already indicates that he has considered the possibility that the research work you quoted could be plausible and he doesn't need to own up to anything.

2. What exactly are you saying here? I am sure Huxley would agree that scientific fact usually arise out of questions which lead to hypotheses and theory which are then tested and where did you hear of a God called science? possibly another one you created. Huxley has never said science knows everything afterall science is an ongoing process but is your God an ungoing process? you claim your God knows everything or whatever but you don't know everything so how can you be sure he knows everything or what "everything" is? Huxley never claimed to know everything apart from the fact that the creation story in your bible is utter balderdash.

3. He asked a question of how old you beleive the earth to be which you have not answered and you should be happy that he is asking you for Scientific articles because he probably knows that you will get them somehow even though it is rather unfortunate that you cannot place those findings within the bigger picture of their implications due to your myopic view distorted by your hypocrisy into proving a point at all costs


@Huxley

Thank you for at least making him accept the fact that the earth is more than the 3000 or whatever number of years the creation story of the bible seems to suggest, he will have to come up with his own holy book now (something like Dylan's Bible perhaps) because I'm sure his pastor will drive him away from his church if he reads this (except of course if his pastor is as confused and hypocritical as he is).

I do wonder how he will explain the 7 day creation story in light of his accepting the old earth view of the earth. I'm sure by then he will seek to discredit the same article he has cited now, what a muppet.

duduspace:

Thank you for at least making him accept the fact that the earth is more than the 3000 or whatever number of years the creation story of the bible seems to suggest, he will have to come up with his own holy book now (something like Dylan's Bible perhaps) because I'm sure his pastor will drive him away from his church if he reads this (except of course if his pastor is as confused and hypocritical as he is).

I do wonder how he will explain the 7 day creation story in light of his accepting the old earth view of the earth. I'm sure by then he will seek to discredit the same article he has cited now, what a muppet.

i knew that long long before nairaland existed so dont bother thanking Huxley.

Apart from that . . . much of your diatribe really missed the mark entirely. It was simply nothing but an "oh yeah a chance to attack the messenger" post. Thanks for the unsolicitated verbiage. We would appreciate you providing us with concrete evidence for evolution rather than repeating the same tired old ad hominems again.

davidylan:

i knew that long long before nairaland existed so dont bother thanking Huxley.

Apart from that . . . much of your diatribe really missed the mark entirely. It was simply nothing but an "oh yeah a chance to attack the messenger" post. Thanks for the unsolicitated verbiage. We would appreciate you providing us with concrete evidence for evolution rather than repeating the same tired old ad hominems again.

Oh, sorry I didn't know that you knew more than your bible was telling us because your bible never told us of a pre-Adamite race, would you mind filling the gap for us? you might just end up creating yet another religion only problem is that Davidylanyism is a bit of a tongue twister but you'll definitely succeed in getting some idiots to follow you.

FYI, I will not beleive in evolution until I actually witness the process or until it becomes as real as the PC on which I type this post but I will not accept your garbage creation story as a placeholder because of that, it simply doesn't add up to the facts on the ground as even yourself have proved with your article. You creationist only continually shift the goal posts to support your beliefs.

And I don't need to attack you at all, your own posts attack you because they reveal your hypocrisy.

David, stop dodging reality and look at your own words again.

If you believe in Genesis 100% as you state then you must believe that the Universe, the Earth, plants, animals and man were created in 7 days.

duduspace:

Oh, sorry I didn't know that you knew more than your bible was telling us because your bible never told us of a pre-Adamite race, would you mind filling the gap for us? you might just end up creating yet another religion only problem is that Davidylanyism is a bit of a tongue twister but you'll definitely succeed in getting some idiots to follow you.

You've not been reading it. Go back and refresh your memory or dump it. I have no time to show you.

Bastage:

David, stop dodging reality and look at your own words again.

If you believe in Genesis 100% as you state then you must believe that the Universe, the Earth, plants, animals and man were created in 7 days.

Genesis 1 talks of the creation of plants, animals and man NOT the universe and earth.
Genesis 1:1 tells us the earth was already there before the rest were formed. Do i have to print these in braille too?

duduspace:

You have totally missed the point, Davidylan and you are a perfect example of what your holy book says about too much knowledge making one mad even though in your case it is more like too much biased use of incomplete knowledge making you mad (forgive me the pun)

1. You seem more interested in getting a fact right than understanding the implication of that fact in the Global picture. Huxley does not need to accept that he got a fact wrong, the fact is that he can have his doubts about the legitimacy of any particular research work. Besides what more do you want?the title of this post already indicates that he has considered the possibility that the research work you quoted could be plausible and he doesn't need to own up to anything.

2. What exactly are you saying here? I am sure Huxley would agree that scientific fact usually arise out of questions which lead to hypotheses and theory which are then tested and where did you hear of a God called science? possibly another one you created. Huxley has never said science knows everything afterall science is an ongoing process but is your God an ungoing process? you claim your God knows everything or whatever but you don't know everything so how can you be sure he knows everything or what "everything" is? Huxley never claimed to know everything apart from the fact that the creation story in your bible is utter balderdash.

3. He asked a question of how old you beleive the earth to be which you have not answered and you should be happy that he is asking you for Scientific articles because he probably knows that you will get them somehow even though it is rather unfortunate that you cannot place those findings within the bigger picture of their implications due to your myopic view distorted by your hypocrisy into proving a point at all costs


@Huxley

Thank you for at least making him accept the fact that the earth is more than the 3000 or whatever number of years the creation story of the bible seems to suggest, he will have to come up with his own holy book now (something like Dylan's Bible perhaps) because I'm sure his pastor will drive him away from his church if he reads this (except of course if his pastor is as confused and hypocritical as he is).

I do wonder how he will explain the 7 day creation story in light of his accepting the old earth view of the earth. I'm sure by then he will seek to discredit the same article he has cited now, what a muppet.

Many thanks duduspace and nice to see you here again.   You will have noticed that when it comes to the crunch, David will avoid the crucial questions I/we ask him and embark on a tirade of silly questions.   Let me cite examples of question David dare not address;

1)  Until today he would not address question relating to the age of the earth.  We now know he is an old earth believer, but when asked to give a figure, he refuses to answer.

2)  When asked to define evolution as accepted by the biological scientific community, he refuse to address it.  Preferring to wallow in the strawman carricature of evolution that he and other creationism can easily shoot down

3)  Asked about the lack of mammalian fossils in the pre-cambrian and cambria, he refuses to answer

4)  When asked about what conclusion we can draw from the fact that he shares more DNA material with his siblings than with any of us, he refuses to comply

5)  Asked why be asserts that human can never develop feathers as a malfunction, but can develop tails, he refuses to comply

6)  Asked why would some whales be born with fully developed hind legs, he proffers no answers.


There are many others but these are the few that come to mind right now. Does this suggest we are dealing with an honest man?

I wonder why he would find it especially hard to define evolution as accepted by scientists and he feels able to cited a better that is evolutionary in thrust is largely indicative of delusion and great amounts of cognitive disonance.   Is he incapable of seeing the contradiction?

Genesis 1 talks of the creation of plants, animals and man NOT the universe and earth.

So you're insinuating that the Earth and the Heavens were not created at the beginning of the 7 days but a couple of weeks before? Or millions of years before but just left lying around without God doing anything to it?

OK. I'll give you that if that's the way you want to play it.

But that's really irrelevant here because what we're talking about is the formation of life. What's really important here are the 3rd to 6th days and that gives you even less playing room.

Are you suggesting that all creatures, including modern man were made in those 3 days? Remember: you stated that you support the Genesis account 100%.

to the two hypocrites above me here . . . why dont you kindly return to the evolution thread and share your "wealth of material" with us? run out of gas so soon?

sorry i was responding to duduspace (which i have duly completed) not you.

Its much easier running your itchy fingers about Genesis.

davidylan:

to the two hypocrites above me here . . . why dont you kindly return to the evolution thread and share your "wealth of material" with us? run out of gas so soon?

sorry i was responding to duduspace (which i have duly completed) not you.

Its much easier running your itchy fingers about Genesis.

@ duduspace whats up? long time how have you been doing?

Lets say i dont believe in Genesis AT ALL . . . pls convince me to follow the gospel of evolution.

thank you. I await your learned responses oh "gods".

davidylan:

Lets say i dont believe in Genesis AT ALL . . . pls convince me to follow the gospel of evolution.

thank you. I await your learned responses oh "gods".

There are christians that believe in evolution just as there are so many atheist that dont believe in the TOE(myself inclusive).

mazaje:

There are christians that believe in evolution just as there are so many atheist that dont believe in the TOE(myself inclusive).

chei mazaje, i was just about to invite you over to our stimulating discussion on evolution. Too bad you dont believe in it . . .

There are indeed christians who have been brainwashed into believing in evolution, i dont blame them. We were taught all these nonsense in high school only to find out later that there was absolutely no evidence for all that rubbish diagrams they forced us to reproduce during exams

@Davidylan

Where, when and how in your bible is a pre-adamite race mentioned? please indulge me and quote the relevant passage (literally I mean and without any of your so called spiritual connotations) and pray, why would God have to recreate what already existed again? for example why would God recreate 10,000 years ago crustaceans which existed over 500 million years ago? a case of itchy fingers or idleness?

Lets say i dont believe in Genesis AT ALL . . . pls convince me to follow the gospel of evolution.

No. Let's say you answer the question.
Do you believe that all living creatures were created in 3 days?

mazaje:



@ duduspace whats up? long time how have you been doing?

Thanks Mazaje, I have taken some time off my studies to relocate to the UK on a Tier 1 General Migrant visa so I've been quite busy for a while. I'm in Scotland at present but I'm likely to move down south soon.

duduspace:

@Davidylan

Where, when and how in your bible is a pre-adamite race mentioned? please indulge me and quote the relevant passage (literally I mean and without any of your so called spiritual connotations) and pray, why would God have to recreate what already existed again? for example why would God recreate 10,000 years ago crustaceans which existed over 500 million years ago? a case of itchy fingers?

Duduspace no be small thing nice one. . . . .how do you expect him to explain that without any spritual connotations? the bible completely does not make sense. you need to have the power of the delusional holy ghost to be able to understand what it says. . . . .  

davidylan:

chei mazaje, i was just about to invite you over to our stimulating discussion on evolution. Too bad you dont believe in it . . .

There are indeed christians who have been brainwashed into believing in evolution, i dont blame them. We were taught all these nonsense in high school only to find out later that there was absolutely no evidence for all that rubbish diagrams they forced us to reproduce during exams

And what evidence do you have to show for the two different creation accounts that are in genesis 1 and 2?

duduspace:

Thanks Mazaje, I have taken some time off my studies to relocate to the UK on a Tier 1 General Migrant visa so I've been quite busy for a while. I'm in Scotland at present but I'm likely to move down south soon.

Nice to know that you are doing good, I travelled around a bit myself but am now back in Helsinki.

duduspace:

@Davidylan

Where, when and how in your bible is a pre-adamite race mentioned? please indulge me and quote the relevant passage (literally I mean and without any of your so called spiritual connotations) and pray, why would God have to recreate what already existed again? for example why would God recreate 10,000 years ago crustaceans which existed over 500 million years ago? a case of itchy fingers or idleness?

Ask Him.

Bastage:

No. Let's say you answer the question.
Do you believe that all living creatures were created in 3 days?

No, go to the other thread and answer my questions. You fools (you know those who say there is no God) love whinning "answer me answer me" like 3 yr olds and yet run away when we pose questions to you too.

mazaje:

Duduspace no be small thing nice one. . . . .how do you expect him to explain that without any spritual connotations? the bible completely does not make sense. you need to have the power of the delusional holy ghost to be able to understand what it says. . . . .

And what evidence do you have to show for the two different creation accounts that are in genesis 1 and 2?

there's your answer right there.

No, go to the other thread and answer my questions. You fools (you know those who say there is no God) love whinning "answer me answer me" like 3 yr olds and yet run away when we pose questions to you too.

I've been answering your questions in the other thread. You're a liar by stating otherwise. I would have thought the "answer me, answer me" part of your statement is directly applicable to yourself as you've constantly harped on about requiring evidence and demanded replies.

Now have the decency to answer my question. I'm not even asking for scientific papers or loads of research. A simple yes or no will do.

Do you believe that all life on Earth was created in 3 days?

Bastage:

No. Let's say you answer the question.
Do you believe that all living creatures were created in 3 days?

Sure. Knock yourself out.

www.bible.com

You asked for biblical answers.

I've given them.
In the time between my last post and my next, there is no way you could have read even a small fraction of the books therein.

Bastage:

I've been answering your questions in the other thread. You're a liar by stating otherwise. I would have thought the "answer me, answer me" part of your statement is directly applicable to yourself as you've constantly harped on about requiring evidence and demanded replies.

Now have the decency to answer my question. I'm not even asking for scientific papers or loads of research. A simple yes or no will do.

Do you believe that all life on Earth was created in 3 days?

oh really?  If not that you're just a dishonest jerk too that was really funny.
answering my questions indeed.

See my last post, i answered you just exactly the way you have been "answering" me too . . . why doesnt that suffice you? Surely you thought your own answers were reasonable no?

davidylan:

Ask Him.

I see, the Artful Dodger is at work again, I'm supposed to be asking your fictional God a question you have been unable to obtain an answer to. We know yu well Davidylan, please leave room for the other christians to confirm if they accept your old earth view. I wonder what Lady would say.