not to the satisfaction of peer review.

Science adapts to the best standing evidence.

From the second sentence on wikipedia's Radioemtric Decay page: "The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay"

I don't think you have any idea about this subject if you think this is debunked.

Alright, so I need to go, but here are my closing arguments:

First, @Puerto Rican Nelson You are wrong. The majority of people actually believe in a God creating the universe. Imagine how much more would be convinced if we had fair media attention. There is so much evidence that evolution is statistically impossible, but we don't get a fair chance to share it.

No they don't

Most dont i whould say

Second, @Cobra Commander Under different circumstances, that rate can change.

@Yusa the majority of people centuries back believed blood letting was an effective medical treatment for most things.
Ad populum.

How exactly can that change?

I need to go now, my brain doesn't want to argue any more tonight, but will have fresh evidence and a fresh brain in the morning

@Vlad Want to play chess?

dunno about the last bit

Imagine if instead of god
People put faith in themselves instead

Post made by the satanism gang

Also, I will be willing to debunk more of your theories tomorrow to prove to you that evolution is false and that there would have to be a God.

Also most may believe in creation in some form, a majority of people (at least here in the US) aren't as resistant to understanding how evolution and stuff works

Yeah even the Pope agrees evolution is ok

that puts a good billion christians on our side

You've debunked nothing, you can only make assertions with literally zero proof.

This has been nothing but 5 hours of logical fallacies and whataboutery

Yeah
Now im just gonna make this clear i dont hate religion, its actually an area of interest for me

But i live by the motto: science before belief

Hell you can believe what you want, just be honest that it's a *belief* at least. Don't act like you know something is 100% true if you can't bring up any evidence.

Yeah my point exactly

reason can inform faith, but faith exists without it by definition.

Just realized i made a typo
Typing is hard

> You've debunked nothing, you can only make assertions with literally zero proof.

That's how I feel about everything you've said.

> you can believe what you want, just be honest that it's a belief at least. Don't act like you know something is 100% true

Same goes for you. You are believing in life coming from non-life. You can't repeat it and you can't guarantee me that it's true. Although you are apparently 100% sure that it is. I've given proof and methods that suit me and you have given proof and methods that suit you. Tomorrow I will have some extra proof to make a triple-logic punch. Full of links that are NOT from wikipedia or Answers in Genesis. I mean dude, just admit that life coming from non-life is a belief and not an indisputable fact.

No its fact you twat

The experiment he gave did not prove that life could come from non-life

Despite the fact that I have said that I didn't claim that the origin of life is 100% determined and that I referenced evidence for that?

He just proved that chemicals could change

Exactly

Into life

Life is chemicals

@Cobra Commander Yep. It's not even past the theory stage. It's just that, a theory. And a very unscientific one

Just think about that until tomorrow

gradual process: inorganic molecules > amino acids/organic molecules > RNA/Protenoids

A theory is a hypothesis with enough evidence to be considered fact by definition...

jesus christ *learn* about the things you try to argue against before you debate

Alright, well then both life coming from non-life and a God creating the universe could be considered theory

Equal theories

What evidence supports God creating the universe?