Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View And the devastating evidence keeps rolling in …
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 5:27PM #71
Abner1
Posts: 6,437

Iama wrote:


> I presented the creationists' paradigm with reference to those same life-forms.


But claimed it was written by creationists.  Here's your introduction to those articles:


"An attempt by evolutionists to explain what actually does exist re: all life-forms - evidence for special creation:"


It wasn't an attempt by evolutionists to do anything.  It was  entirely by creationists, and you misrepresented it.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 5:28PM #72
d_p_m
Posts: 10,126

Jun 28, 2012 -- 4:33PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Jun 15, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Abner1 wrote:



iama: My reply was related to "convergent evolution" which was the topic of that segment of d_p_m's comments.


And it consisted of five articles by creationists, not by evolutionists as you falsely claimed.  If you were an honest person you would admit what you did and fix it, not try to obfuscate.



iama:  I don't need to fix anything, because I was referring to d_p_m's use of the wiggle-room term "convergent evolution," and I then, gave some examples of animal life-forms by which evolutionists forced to speculate their "convergent evolution," in order to explain-away a reality evidence which doesn't fit...




Wrong again. Not only does the evidence fit, it is predicted by the ToE. It's not a problem, it's proof that the ToE is a sound theory (= explanation for life as we find it in the world).

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 7:13PM #73
McAtheist
Posts: 8,355

iama:  "Way too old (over 65 million years old)" is speculation derived from the evolution paradigm!


No, an old Eath is the only rational explanation for the actual evidence.  Rates of sedimentary lithification, rates of shield volcanic deposition, rates of erosion of different materials, rates of glacier advance and retreat,speed of the movement of tectonic plates, rates of amino acid racemization, number of magnetic pole reversals,  number of layers in ice sheets, the number of meteor impacts, the number of seasonal layers in sedimentary deposits, depth of varnish on rocks, the speed of light from distant stars --- all of these give the age of the Earth in hundreds of millions of years.


Even YEC researchers in the form of the ICR-CRS's RATE groups found "evidence for more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay” (p. 284, Thousands Not Billions).


Do you accuse the RATE group of indulging in "speculation derived from the evolution paradigm", Iam?


So, unless you have some very convincing evidence from some very credible sources, the young Earth plan of your religious agenda is already fully discredited --- and no, don't post any more crap from your usual list of misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies from YEC websites.  (You don't want to be embarrassed again like you were when I showed, using  Kirschner's and Gerhar's own words, how completely your creationist nutbar website misrepresented their work, do you?)


For starters, why don't you tell us why the data from the RATE group is wrong, Iam.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 8:12PM #74
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Jun 28, 2012 -- 7:13PM, McAtheist wrote:


iama:  "Way too old (over 65 million years old)" is speculation derived from the evolution paradigm!


No, an old Eath is the only rational explanation for the actual evidence.  Rates of sedimentary lithification, rates of shield volcanic deposition, rates of erosion of different materials, rates of glacier advance and retreat,speed of the movement of tectonic plates, rates of amino acid racemization, number of magnetic pole reversals,  number of layers in ice sheets, the number of meteor impacts, the number of seasonal layers in sedimentary deposits, depth of varnish on rocks, the speed of light from distant stars --- all of these give the age of the Earth in hundreds of millions of years.


Even YEC researchers in the form of the ICR-CRS's RATE groups found "evidence for more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay” (p. 284, Thousands Not Billions).


Do you accuse the RATE group of indulging in "speculation derived from the evolution paradigm", Iam?


So, unless you have some very convincing evidence from some very credible sources, the young Earth plan of your religious agenda is already fully discredited --- and no, don't post any more crap from your usual list of misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies from YEC websites.  (You don't want to be embarrassed again like you were when I showed, using  Kirschner's and Gerhar's own words, how completely your creationist nutbar website misrepresented their work, do you?)


For starters, why don't you tell us why the data from the RATE group is wrong, Iam.




Don't hold your breath, you'll probably get a load old tosh about the creator-whiz-bang!-biff-ka-pow!-banana-frankenstein-toothpaste-rhododendron-maximum-icecube-whackadoodle-god, some lame proselytising and a lame quote from the Bible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2012 - 9:20AM #75
Idbc
Posts: 4,597

 Howdy Folks


Jun 28, 2012 -- 7:13PM, McAtheist wrote:


iama:  "Way too old (over 65 million years old)" is speculation derived from the evolution paradigm!


No, an old Eath is the only rational explanation for the actual evidence.  Rates of sedimentary lithification, rates of shield volcanic deposition, rates of erosion of different materials, rates of glacier advance and retreat,speed of the movement of tectonic plates, rates of amino acid racemization, number of magnetic pole reversals,  number of layers in ice sheets, the number of meteor impacts, the number of seasonal layers in sedimentary deposits, depth of varnish on rocks, the speed of light from distant stars --- all of these give the age of the Earth in hundreds of millions of years.


Even YEC researchers in the form of the ICR-CRS's RATE groups found "evidence for more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay” (p. 284, Thousands Not Billions).


Do you accuse the RATE group of indulging in "speculation derived from the evolution paradigm", Iam?


So, unless you have some very convincing evidence from some very credible sources, the young Earth plan of your religious agenda is already fully discredited --- and no, don't post any more crap from your usual list of misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies from YEC websites.  (You don't want to be embarrassed again like you were when I showed, using  Kirschner's and Gerhar's own words, how completely your creationist nutbar website misrepresented their work, do you?)


For starters, why don't you tell us why the data from the RATE group is wrong, Iam.




Don't hold your breath, you'll probably get a load old tosh about the creator-whiz-bang!-biff-ka-pow!-banana-frankenstein-toothpaste-rhododendron-maximum-icecube-whackadoodle-god, some lame proselytising and a lame quote from the Bible.





Here is more NEW devasting evidence!  that keeps rolling in!


The more you learn, the more fascinating the subject becomes.


I think that one of the differences between Theistic Creationism and Non-Theistic Creationism is that "NEW" evidence keeps rolling in to support Non-Theistic Evilution and there is "NO" NEW evidence that keeps rolling in to support Theistic Evolution. 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2012 - 10:01AM #76
MMarcoe
Posts: 17,285

Jul 17, 2012 -- 9:20AM, Idbc wrote:


I think that one of the differences between Theistic Creationism and Non-Theistic Creationism is that "NEW" evidence keeps rolling in to support Non-Theistic Evilution and there is "NO" NEW evidence that keeps rolling in to support Theistic Evolution. 





There isn't supposed to be evidence for theistic evolution. That's not how it works.

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
2 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2012 - 10:07AM #77
amcolph
Posts: 18,010

LOL!  It is if you let the Creationists define 'theistic evolution' for you.  Did you watch that video from CMI that Iama put up?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 17, 2012 - 5:16PM #78
MMarcoe
Posts: 17,285

Jul 17, 2012 -- 10:07AM, amcolph wrote:


LOL!  It is if you let the Creationists define 'theistic evolution' for you.  Did you watch that video from CMI that Iama put up?





Yes, I did. It only proved once again how much CMI likes to tell lies.

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
2 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2012 - 9:07AM #79
Idbc
Posts: 4,597

Howdy Amcoph


 


Jul 17, 2012 -- 10:07AM, amcolph wrote:


LOL!  It is if you let the Creationists define 'theistic evolution' for you.  Did you watch that video from CMI that Iama put up?





I am not letting the Creationist define 'theistic evolution' for me.  


I am 'letting' define 'theistic evolution'.   


"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life"


"Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists"


It does not deny scientific evolution.  It propose that god is the the reason that there is natural evolution.  They do not claim that god "literally" created each species. 


Theistic evoultion is different from Creation Science.  Which does claim that god created each species.  It does deny scientific evolution.    


Neither Theistic Evolution or Creation Science are "scientific'.  


They are both "religious".   


Wether they are both "philosphical"  is less clear to me. 


I think that Creation Science is at least less "philosophical" than Theistic Evolution.     


 More evidence for "natural evolution" keeps "rolling in."


There is no new "evidence" that god is the cause of "natural evolution."  


There is no "new" evidence rolling in for Creation Science.


 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook