Evolution or Intelligent Design

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

I have never heard an evolutionist mention that before. Please explain what you are talking about. Perhaps you could also entertain me by attempting to rebut all of the other evidences for a young earth and against evolution.

A pudding stone is a fairly common sedimentary rock that has a mixture of other rocks embedded in a finer grained sedimentary stone. Given a large object such as a petrified tree, it's perfectly reasonable that it would take multiple layers of sediment to cover it.

As for the others, there's absolutely no need to rebut the bell that was supposedly entombed in coal as its "discoverer" supposedly fully extracted it from its coal matrix, thus making it impossible to distinguish it from a complete fabrication.

I've read more than enuf pseudoscientific mischararacterizations of what science entails presented by YEC Biblical literalists over the years that I'm not going to bother trying to dissolve your preconceived notions by rebutting all your assertions because based on my past experience, my rebuttals, even if accepted by you, will only yield a "but what about ..." from you. The only way to prevent that would be for you to be willing to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience from someone who knows how to teach the difference to someone who has been previously been exposed to pseudoscience presented as if it were science. That's not a skill I have, nor do I have any particular reason to learn it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Law of Biogenesis?

It is indeed true that cellular life today does not arise save from existing cells, and furthermore it is true that because of the efficiency of existing life forms in feeding upon organic matter that even if the appropriate conditions existed on the Earth today for creating the raw materials of life, it would never have the chance to become life on its own before being utilized by an existing lifeform.  However, those observations don't imply that upon a lifeless world, life could not arise without the need for prior life.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

I think that you, or rather whoever you're cribbing your notes from, has been confused by the use of water for neutron shielding. Water is an effective, cheap, shield for baryonic radiation (protons and neutrons) which is one reason it's used to cover nuclear reactor fuel elements held in storage. But as a shield for leptonic and bosonic radiation, it's effectively useless, and those are the radiations which are of primary concern for those who travel outside Earth's atmosphere. (Water is effective at absorbing a few particular frequencies of photons, which we take advantage of to produce microwave ovens.)

I suppose you mentioned the fact that at some times of Earth's existence, there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere, such as the Carboniferous period, which was used as a possible explanation of why dragonflies were so much larger then, but there's several problems with using that as an explanation of gigantism as posited by some Biblical literalists.

First off, let me use something from the Bible itself. If those high oxygen levels were necessary for giants, then what about Goliath?

Second, over geologic history, there have been wide differences in oxygen levels, from much higher than today to much lower. That's really odd if all those layers were supposedly laid down at the same time, and you're going to use the oxygen levels as estimated by mainstream science to advance your theories. This exemplifies what I despise most about usual Biblical literalist attempts to misuse science. They cherry-pick those facts that are useful to the narrative they wish to construct and ignore everything else.

Third, it's generally accepted by mainstream scientists these days that the primary reason we once had gigantic dragonflies but no longer do, is that we now have flying vertebrates that would happily chow down on large lumbering dragonflies if they hadn't already gone extinct.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

I think that you, or rather whoever you're cribbing your notes from, has been confused by the use of water for neutron shielding. Water is an effective, cheap, shield for baryonic radiation (protons and neutrons) which is one reason it's used to cover nuclear reactor fuel elements held in storage. But as a shield for leptonic and bosonic radiation, it's effectively useless, and those are the radiations which are of primary concern for those who travel outside Earth's atmosphere. (Water is effective at absorbing a few particular frequencies of photons, which we take advantage of to produce microwave ovens.)

I suppose you mentioned the fact that at some times of Earth's existence, there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere, such as the Carboniferous period, which was used as a possible explanation of why dragonflies were so much larger then, but there's several problems with using that as an explanation of gigantism as posited by some Biblical literalists.

First off, let me use something from the Bible itself. If those high oxygen levels were necessary for giants, then what about Goliath?

Second, over geologic history, there have been wide differences in oxygen levels, from much higher than today to much lower. That's really odd if all those layers were supposedly laid down at the same time, and you're going to use the oxygen levels as estimated by mainstream science to advance your theories. This exemplifies what I despise most about usual Biblical literalist attempts to misuse science. They cherry-pick those facts that are useful to the narrative they wish to construct and ignore everything else.

Third, it's generally accepted by mainstream scientists these days that the primary reason we once had gigantic dragonflies but no longer do, is that we now have flying vertebrates that would happily chow down on large lumbering dragonflies if they hadn't already gone extinct.

Whenever you resort to using an argument from majority opinion, and you resort to using attacks and rescue devices, you just show how wrong and desperate you are. I no longer have any interest in this debate with you as a result.

Pot, kettle. And thanks for exemplifying once again how Biblical literalists will generally cherry-pick results from mainstream science that back up their narrative, and ignore results that don't align with their interpretation of the Bible.

You've also shown that you apparently don't understand how science works.  It's not, come up with a hypothesis and use only those data that support the hypothesis; rather it's come up up with a hypothesis, see which data supports the hypothesis, which does not preclude the hypothesis, and then which has no relevance to the hypothesis, and then subject it to peer review to see if others agree with your interpretation of how the data relate to the hypothesis.  Furthermore, ideally the data should be reproducible, which in the context of geology typically means you can get consistent results from multiple sites and/or methods.  That use of peer review inherently means that science is based on "majority opinion" so if you want to say you are using science, it means you are stuck with majority opinion being relevant. (Incidentally, the various ecumenical councils, such as the First Council of Nicaea which gave us the Nicene Creed, also made decisions based on "majority opinion" so it's not an idea foreign to Christian thought.)

Does science sometimes make mistakes? Of course it does, but nothing done by man, including interpretation of religious texts, happens without error. However, science has shown itself as a method of evaluating and developing knowledge that can robustly, albeit sometimes slowly, correct errors and detect frauds.