How much longer?

[AV1611VET]

How do creationists think everything got here?

Creatio ex nihilo is how we know everything got here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can u name some major differences between chimps now and millions of years ago?

Six inches between two dots on a piece of paper?

A tooth?

Something that looks like a chimp from the past, so it must be a chimp from the past?

 

[Onearm]

Creatio ex nihilo is how we know everything got here.

As I said they think it was done by magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said they think it was done by magic.

No, you think it was done by magic; and that's preventing you from understanding.

 

[justlookinla]

Common descent is part of the evidence for the how. You don't seem to grasp this very, very simple concept.

No it's not. It's the result of the HOW, the process, it's not the HOW, the process itself. You're still, after many posts now, attempting to not address the issue of evidence for the HOW, the process which actually produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

The evidence was provided for you.

Where? When? Post number. Reference. Quote it. Simply saying "the evidence was provided for you" is nothing more than empty words without support for the claim.

Address the evidence specifically. You're nothing but a time waster and goal post mover. Address the evidence that was provided to you. It is laid out simply for you to address. Go through it one by one and describe why you think what is being presented is not evidence.

Where is it? You've offered nothing concerning the HOW, the process. You constantly attempt to change the issue to common descent, but that's not the issue.

Address the evidence that was provided to you.

None has been provided.

Address why you think they are guesses and not confirmed with evidence. Go one by one. I laid it out for you using the scientific method. If you disagree with this, explain why and how by addressing the quotations and links provided to you. Demonstrate that you read and understood them and offer your rebuttal. Your efforts at doing this thus far have been futile. Show me you can construct an argument against the sources provided for you without using your ad-nauseam response.

You've not offered a single bit of evidence for the HOW, the process, based on the scientific method. Nothing. Zero.

 

[justlookinla]

I asked a question, why do you answer a question with a question?

"Magic" is simply mocking a particular view and isn't a serious question.

 

[justlookinla]

How does this not answer your question, what specifically do you object to in this post? I don't know what you're trying to achieve with your constant goal post moving and evasion.



If you don't think that the explanations of how two life forms came from a common ancestor is concerned with common descent you are either completely ignorant of the topic you're attempting to discuss (I use that term loosely) or dishonest.

If you think common descent addresses the HOW, the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago, you need to actually point out how common descent offers evidence. All common descent does is make the claim that life forms are related, it doesn't begin to address HOW, the process, whereby those life forms were produced from previous life forms which ended up producing both pine trees and humans.

Stop trying to change the issue and actually address it....with evidence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No.

All these laws are drawn up and made to fit with the aid of computers and whatnot.

Scientists build and calibrate their own equipment and make all the rules as they go along.

They call them "discoveries."

Example: Date the rocks by the fossils; date the fossils by the rocks.

And of the 70-some different ways to date the earth, scientists pick only the five (?) that give them deep time, and then make up some explanation as to why the other 65 are PRATTS.

Wow! Is this how Biblical literalists really think?
I would call this post an expose` on Creationist thinking.

So, are all scientists, past and present, liars involved in the massive conspiracy to thwart God's plan for mankind, or is it just the scientists since Galileo?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Magic" is simply mocking a particular view and isn't a serious question.

They have their own way of talking that, in the end, just confuses them more.

What we call "the miracle of creation," they refer to as "magic."

But then, they have to.

Consider these two questions:

1. Are you saying God created the earth by magic?
2. Are you saying God created the earth by a miracle?

The first question puts the weight on the questionee to explain further what is meant.
The second question puts the weight on the questioner to understand what it is he is asking.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, are all scientists, past and present, liars involved in the massive conspiracy to thwart God's plan for mankind, or is it just the scientists since Galileo?

Not all scientists are.

I think there are some, named "Steve," who aren't.

And more appropriately, it is to sterilize the Scriptures, than to "thwart God's plan."

And no -- not since Galileo -- since the inception of the scientific method.

One Bible theologian puts the culmination point at Isaac Newton.

I disagree.

I put the culmination point at the scientific method -- Francis Bacon.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Ahhh, but doctors are not asking me to ignore how everything in nature propagates in favor of Fairie Dust. They actually correct their mistakes.

Evolutionists on the other hand are still refusing to admit to their mistakes in classification - let alone correct them. And this is why we have people that must ignore their own scientific definitions of species when they call interbreeding pairs separate species.

That is because biologists and paleontologists do not accept your unevidenced claim that all those fossils are different breeds of the same species. Or is it that you have not presented your claim to anyone in the scientific community? If your claim is so rock solid, why aren't you submitting your research to an academic publication for review?

I understand you are just throwing out another strawman because you know accepting the truth will force you to change your beliefs. I've asked Loud for the link to the scientific definition of species he accepts - he has yet to respond to the challenge. I therefore ask now the same of you. Let us settle this issue right here and now. Present your link to the scientific deffinition of species you accept.
Because you can not support they are different - any more than a Poodle is different than a Terrier, or an Asian from an African. So to then attempt to "claim" they are separate species - is a stretch beyond anything ever observed in nature. Just as calling two Finches that mate in front of your eyes separate species.

Link to your accepted "scientific" definition of species. Let's stop the future strawmen and settle this now.

An Species: individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

 

[DerelictJunction]

It goes like this:

1. take a guess
2. if guess doesn't line up with paradigm-of-the-day, or has never been heard before:

• rig a vote - (Pluto)
  
• cross fingers and go ahead with it anyway and hope for the best - (I promised not to mention this example, so I won't)
  
• lie about it - (Thalidomide)
  
• declare paradigm-of-the-day obsolete - (geocentrism)
  
• blame the dictionary - (Pluto)
• if it violates public opinion or the law, change the terminology - ("child in the womb" becomes "fetus"; LSD)

How'd I do?

Again you have succeeded in calling all scientists liars involved in a world-wide conspiracy to maintain the current evolution mindset and thus thwart God's plan for mankind.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Sure I do. I've even tried to make it as simple as possible for you to understand. A visual usually helps one understand...I can post it again if you wish.

You have the visual and you still don't know what an observation is. We couldn't even get past step 1 because you think that a hypothesis is an observation.

Do you realize that a fossil doesn't offer the HOW, the process, claimed by Darwinist evolution which can be subjected to the scientific method to see if it's valid or not?

Do you realize that the scientific method can be used to research more than just the HOW question?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again you have succeeded in calling all scientists liars involved in a world-wide conspiracy to maintain the current evolution mindset and thus thwart God's plan for mankind.

If that's what you got from my post, then I guess that's what you got from my post.

But just like you guys will refuse to take the Bible in context, you'll refuse to take me in context as well.

After all, if you're willing to set general relativity aside to stoop to saying the Bible teaches geocentrism, it's hard telling how far scientists will go to sterilize the rest of It.

 

[justlookinla]

You have the visual and you still don't know what an observation is. We couldn't even get past step 1 because you think that a hypothesis is an observation.

No, I think observation is part of the scientific method.

Do you realize that the scientific method can be used to research more than just the HOW question?

Do you realize the HOW/process is what I've not gotten any evidence for, based on the scientific method?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you realize that the scientific method can be used to research more than just the HOW question?

The job of a scientist, in my opinion, is to observe & manipulate God's creation in such a way as to bring glory to God and benefit mankind.

Anything else is the Devil's work.

Again, in my opinion.

 

[TheBear]

Natural Selection can:
1. Decrease genetic information.

Explain how that works. Thanks.

 

[Onearm]

As I said they think it was done by magic.

No, you think it was done by magic; and that's preventing you from understanding.

What's the difference between magic and ex nihilo?

 

[Onearm]

"Magic" is simply mocking a particular view and isn't a serious question.

Perhaps I should ask you the same question?
What's the difference between magic and ex nihilo?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Not all scientists are.

I think there are some, named "Steve," who aren't.

And more appropriately, it is to sterilize the Scriptures, than to "thwart God's plan."

And no -- not since Galileo -- since the inception of the scientific method.

One Bible theologian puts the culmination point at Isaac Newton.

I disagree.

I put the culmination point at the scientific method -- Francis Bacon.

You're the one who claimed that all the laws of science were put in place to support the lies that scientists foist upon the general populace. That means the laws of physics, doesn't it? So, that takes us back to Galileo at least....probably further.