To be honest it sounds like you are trying to fit todays facts to match up with your fiction. They don't fit and its a feat of mental gymnastics to even try to make them.

People like WLC and Frank Turek make their career out of mental gymnastics

It appears that you are confusing the age of the earth for the age of the milky way, based on the numbers you are using (11-13 billion years) and the idea of expansion and redshift.

The age of the earth is determined using radioactive decay (radiometric dating), which is quite different, and current estimates are like 4.5 billion years.

He did not make a mistake, he just avoided the question because it conflicts directly with his faith.

Ok, got it. though age of the universe, which I referenced is 13.1 billion years; difference between age of the universe and the milky way ?

Also i thought only in terms of the "big bang' which I believe only speaks to universal origin. And so, according to this reference point not only the earth was formed but also the sun during this length of time.


I just wanted to get it because of the little time we have left( few billion years ?) and referenced the wrong number. thanx again.

You're such a liar ; you and I are done; sit on your hands and the world will be a better place to live. You're on auto pilot with no conception of your final destination, ideas reacting just as floating bulbar in a river of flotsam and jetsam. No more than fish bait ..... sayonara

the universe is believed to be 13.8 billion years old

You wrote a novel without answering the question, so I assumed you did not want to answer. I call it like I see it. Btw you still haven't answered the question.

Facts? ROFL.

That 98% figure was debunked years ago.

'An article in Science puts the actual figure at 94%. (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, June 29, 2007). But even these figures are only measuring about 2% of our total genetic makeup - that is, those genes that code for proteins, the building blocks of our physical bodies and functions.

The vast majority of our DNA, known as "non-coding DNA" - sometimes called "junk DNA" because it was once thought not to have function - is very different in humans from most non-coding genes found in chimps and other apes. However, recent research has found that, contrary to previous belief, this repetitive DNA isn’t "junk" after all, but has distinct purposes.'

Besides, we share ~70% DNA with a friggen slug.

Wheeee!!!

No, actually you are showing how blind and ignorant you are.

"What information that is in DNA?"

Is that a question? Is that English?

"It's perfectly possible that DNA evolved."

Um, not from "randomness" it's not. Not even close.

Try again?

This is *exactly* what atheists do.

Assume material naturalism, and then try and explain everything in
that light.

Wheeeee!!!!!

Actually, that's a lie - but I know it makes you feel better about yourself
to lie like that.

you fill in the blanks with godidit based on faith

Are you familiar with WLC's divine command theory and the underlying premises?
Turek is much less sophisticated than WLC. WLC is more skilled at misrepresenting the opponent's views in debates. They're both in the apolegetics business though which pretty much necessitates mental gymnastics.

umm nope, your quote was

and my response is
Its a perfectly reasonable question.


Well, Im glad you are able to show this, who knows, you could win a nobel prize for this work.

OK. I'll bite.

Are you actually questioning if there is information in DNA?
(snicker)

You said there was information in DNA. Perhaps you need to define information first?

I have no idea why you quoted me. I was talking about the uncertain nature in response to people who claim theory of changes. What does that have to do with your claim?

My guess is that their big influence is on making atheist/agnostics more...uhh...atheisty. That is, people identifying more with these labels, being more "out", being versed in some of the issues, and so forth. Or at least this is far far more than the number of "conversions".

True. And they have been very successful at that project.

Damn i have a lot in common with a slug and the rest of earths life. Makes you think.

Well, we share about 98% of our DNA with mice.

Then again, an F-16 with a working engine and an F-16 without a working engine are almost identical. But one of them will tend to act more like a rock.

What standard of morality are you using to judge the 'god of the bible' this way? I understand your personal opinion is yours to hold and that's fine, but it's amusing to me how many so called enlightened atheists draw upon the aether for their moral judgements of non-existent beings.

Yeah that evidence of common ancestry thing is pretty awesome, agreed.