Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The first falsehood
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 12:22AM #11
McAtheist
Posts: 8,358

57: Why do you keep posting something that has been refuted?


Not only have you failed to refute the complex set of information d_p_m posted for you for the 25th time, you have failed to provide a single example of any trait or suite of traits in a species that evolution is insufficient to explain.


This is all just the opinion of some guy untrained in any field related to the topic and with an emotional need to pretend that real world evidence doesn't contradict his creation myths at every turn. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 1:57AM #12
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,809

Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:35AM, rsielin wrote:



rsielin: Once you fall hook line and sinker for the falsehood that the Bible and all its scripture is inerrant and literal truth, you are forced into a life time of lies, distortions and misrepresentations.


No creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It’s always with some silly misrepresentation or outright lie. The question for us is, are creationists willingly and deliberately distorting the evidence, facts and it’s compelling explanatory theory for their purposes, or are they mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even so mindboggling simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10.


You simply cannot be a creationist unless you ignore and deny all of the major findings in every field of science for the last one hundred and fifty years. With that in mind, how can any of these clowns even have the audacity to suggest that what they are doing is in any way shape or form moral and honest.

Thus for creationism, it all begins with swallowing and then believing that first lie, and nothing can break those brainwashed shackles thereafter. They're doomed to a life of lies, misrepresentation, dishonesty and fakery for the remaining of their natural lives.



iama:  You are cutting off the limb that you are standing on!


Everything that you have stated, above, is being claimed from your own point of view.


You don't have a clue about what  you are talking about!


Do you remember the Watergate Scandal? Do you remember Nixon's "hatchet man," Chuck Colson?  Chuck Colson died on Saturday.  If he could speak to you he would tell you about what happened to him just before he was sentenced to prison.  Following his time in prison, he formed Prison Fellowship which has gone into the prison systems of 100 nations to speak to prisoners.  Here is what is being said about him:


Chuck Colson Passes to His Reward


You are misrepresenting creation scientists, Christians, science...


Science is not God! Scientists are not gods!  


In order for the evolution speculation to be considered to be science, there needs to be:


- a standardized definition - a current definition for the evolution speculation


- an observational experiment(s) which evidences that "goo to zoo to you" / reproductive relationship exists between all life-forms.


- that the "tree of life" / nested hierarchies are indeed related reproductively, and not speculatively.


- that life can arise from non-life, naturally.


- define natural selection, and give evidence that natural selection increases the DNA conserved information such that "zoo to zoo to zoo to you" is possible, naturally.


- give observational data which identifies where the sedimentary particles in the rock layers of the Earth have historically originated / have spent their entire history, so that radiometric dating can be verified as being a legitimate dating method.


- etc.


You are ragging on the creation scientists, creationists, Christians, etc., because they are challenging the evolution speculation, but you are defending your own position, when it can not, scientifically, according to the Scientific Method of Investigation, be defended.


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 4:47AM #13
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Apr 25, 2012 -- 1:57AM, iamachildofhis wrote:



In order for the evolution speculation to be considered to be science, there needs to be:


- a standardized definition - a current definition for the evolution speculation


- an observational experiment(s) which evidences that "goo to zoo to you" / reproductive relationship exists between all life-forms.


- that the "tree of life" / nested hierarchies are indeed related reproductively, and not speculatively.


- that life can arise from non-life, naturally.


- define natural selection, and give evidence that natural selection increases the DNA conserved information such that "zoo to zoo to zoo to you" is possible, naturally.


- give observational data which identifies where the sedimentary particles in the rock layers of the Earth have historically originated / have spent their entire history, so that radiometric dating can be verified as being a legitimate dating method.


- etc.


You are ragging on the creation scientists, creationists, Christians, etc., because they are challenging the evolution speculation, but you are defending your own position, when it can not, scientifically, according to the Scientific Method of Investigation, be defended.


.




Calling evolution "speculation" is a filthy, disgusting lie and it bring shame and dishonour to Christians, both the normal ones and the crackpots in the Creationist fringe.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 6:55AM #14
rsielin
Posts: 4,717

Apr 25, 2012 -- 1:57AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

You don't have a clue about what  you are talking about!


This I know for sure, your science is absurdly wrong. And the reason you refuse to accept the facts of the natural world is because you have been caught hook line and sinker by that initial falsehood, namely the totality of Christian scripture is literal factual truth. From there you are forced to chart a life's course of deceit and misrepresentation against honest scientists and the knowledge they have accumulated. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 7:31AM #15
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 25, 2012 -- 1:57AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

In order for the evolution speculation to be considered to be science, there needs to be, etc.


I don't know what planet you think you're living on, but here on earth evolutionary biology has been considered science for a very long time.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 10:06AM #16
McAtheist
Posts: 8,358

iam: You are ragging on the creation scientists, creationists, Christians, etc., because they are challenging the evolution speculation, but you are defending your own position, when it can not, scientifically, according to the Scientific Method of Investigation, be defended.


Wrong as usual.


The old Earth/evolutionary model is the only one that explains what is actually found in the real world.  It explains why light from stars billions of light years away is visible here, without resorting to the nonsense of Humphreys or the outright fraud of Setterfield.  It explains the radiometric age of various landforms, 500,000 years of which even the RATE team admits must be accounted for.  It explains the apparent ages of the Hawaiian islands, where all dating methods --- movement rate of the tectonic plate, rate of deposition of shield volcanoes, rates of erosion, radiometric dating --- indicate the the islands grow steadily older as you move NW, from hundreds of thousands years old to millions of years old.  It explains the arrangement of specimens in the fossil record, where no human or modern animal artifact is ever found with dinosaurs without resorting to "magic flood water" which violates all known laws of fluid mechanics.  It explains the genetic nested hierarchy of life on Earth, where whales are more closely related to hippos than to sharks.


And the hypotheses underlying this model have been tested thousands of times because real world events, even in the past, leave real world evidence.; scientists understand that if a particular hypothesis is true, then certain evidence must exist in the real world. They look for that and the acceptance of a given hypothesis is weakened or strengthened by what they actually find.


And that is precisely how we know that the YEC "model" is just crap; we can examine the real world to look for the evidence that must be there if YECism were true:


If the majority of sedimentary strata was laid down and lithified in a year, the resulting release of energy would have boiled the oceans away.  Is there the slightest evidence that this happened? No --- YECism fails.


If the layers of the geologic column were laid down in a year,  all their ages would be the same to radiometric dating.  Do we find that? No --- YECism fails.


If all modern species sprang from a handful of breeding stock, there would be observable genetic bottlenecks.  Do we find that? No --- YECism fails.


If the fossil record was produced by a catastrophic flood in one year and all the creatures therein lived at the same time, the animals and debris would be distributed in the rock strata according to the laws of fluid dynamics.  Do we find that?  No --- YECism fails.


If mountain ranges like the Himalayas were created during and after the flood, in some 4000 years, there would be evidence of the massive energy released so that giant land masses like the Indian plate could move at millions of times its current rate.  Is there the slightest evidence of that? No --- YECism fails.


If Noah's flood actually happened, then there shouldn't be any human civilizations that exist before, during and after the flood.  Is that what we find when we examine the evidence? No --- YECism fails.


YECism is nothing more than a chain of failure from beginning to end.  If faith is belief in what can not be seen, then blind faith (like what YECs have in their "model")  must be belief in what has been repeatedly disproved and discredited.


YECism fails.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 10:42AM #17
MMarcoe
Posts: 17,285

Apr 25, 2012 -- 1:57AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


ragging on the creation scientists, creationists, Christians, etc., because they are challenging the evolution speculation, but you are defending your own position, when it can not, scientifically, according to the Scientific Method of Investigation, be defended.


.





No evolutionary scientist is the least bit threatened by the "challenges" that the YECs are throwing at them.

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 12:21PM #18
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,809

Apr 25, 2012 -- 4:47AM, steven_guy wrote:



iama: In order for the evolution speculation to be considered to be science, there needs to be:


- a standardized definition - a current definition for the evolution speculation


- an observational experiment(s) which evidences that "goo to zoo to you" / reproductive relationship exists between all life-forms.


- that the "tree of life" / nested hierarchies are indeed related reproductively, and not speculatively.


- that life can arise from non-life, naturally.


- define natural selection, and give evidence that natural selection increases the DNA conserved information such that "zoo to zoo to zoo to you" is possible, naturally.


- give observational data which identifies where the sedimentary particles in the rock layers of the Earth have historically originated / have spent their entire history, so that radiometric dating can be verified as being a legitimate dating method.


- etc.


You are ragging on the creation scientists, creationists, Christians, etc., because they are challenging the evolution speculation, but you are defending your own position, when it can not, scientifically, according to the Scientific Method of Investigation, be defended.


steven_guy: Calling evolution "speculation" is a filthy, disgusting lie and it bring shame and dishonour to Christians, both the normal ones and the crackpots in the Creationist fringe



iama:  I will continue to call "goo to zoo to you" evolution a speculation, until I am presented with scientific evidence that all life-forms are reproductively related.  Until that observational evidence is forthcoming, it remains a speculation!


You can collect / scientists can collect all of the observational data for what, CURRENTLY, exists, but until they can present observatinal data for the reproductive relationship of all life-forms, it can't be called a "theory"!


The Creation paradigm includes the reproductive relationship of KINDs of life-forms, and NOT "goo to zoo to you" reproductive relationship.  Within each of the KINDs of life-forms there exists, without any controversy, reproductive relationship.  There is NO EVIDENCE, currently, nor has there EVER been evidence for reproductive relationship of all life-forms!


If life-forms have EVER evolved / gone from "goo to zoo to you" type evolution, it has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. 


Here is what is missing: the addition of DNA information coding for a different life-form, which caused the reproduction of another KIND of life-form, different from its parentage.


There is such a feature of life-forms, that their DNA is conserved, but that there is existing within their non-coding DNA mechanisms which cause variations to be reproduced, but always within the original created KIND of life-form.


Until then, it is purely speculation to consider that "goo to zoo to you" has EVER occurred!


You might NOT REALIZE IT, but the existing definition(s) for the evolution speculation, are, currently, no different from what The Creation paradigm understands to be reality reproduction of life-forms.


Have you ever noticed that the science journals / magazines will make their claim that there has been a new species found?  What has been found is NOT evidence for "goo to zoo to you" evolution.  It is always stated as, for instance, a new species of FROG, a new species of SALAMANDER, a new species of some kind of BIRD, a new species of some kind of SNAKE, a new species of ???  The "frog" catagory doesn't "evolve," but a new variety of "frog" has been found.


There is no evidence for "goo to zoo to zoo to zoo to zoo................................. ......................................................................................................................to you"


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 12:32PM #19
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 25, 2012 -- 12:21PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

I will continue to call "goo to zoo to you" evolution a speculation, until I am presented with scientific evidence that all life-forms are reproductively related.  Until that observational evidence is forthcoming, it remains a speculation!


Call it what you will. Your uninformed opinion isn't important. You and your fellow creationists are trying to fight a battle you had already lost long before any of you were born.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 12:33PM #20
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,168

Apr 25, 2012 -- 12:21PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


There is NO EVIDENCE, currently, nor has there EVER been evidence for reproductive relationship of all life-forms!


If life-forms have EVER evolved / gone from "goo to zoo to you" type evolution, it has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. 





There is actually plenty of evidence, in a number of different forms: genetic, fossil, atavistic, etc.


But as you've made it clear, the ONLY evidence you are prepared to accept AS evidence is direct eye witness observation of evolutionary history as it occurred.


Science does not demand that. Science only demands that the available data is consistent with and well-explained/predicted by the theory. The Theory of Evolution meets this standard. Creationism does not. Not only is the available data not well-explained or predicted by YECreationism, it is actually contrary to it. Which is why, over the past couple hundred years, science has steadily moved AWAY from YECreationism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook