Evolution is a Lie

[DrkSdBls]

If only they were Poes.

I'm convinced they are. I've been reading their Drivel for 5 years now. If they were any bit serious, they would of quit by now. It would take a Poe (or someone with a Lobotomy) to keep this up for this long.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Oh yes there is. You are confused on the time involved, and where it started from.

No dad. You're the only one confused here. We can Measure time. You, it seams, are the only one who can not.

There was never any such form of life as a first life form.

No? Then by your concept of Life, you're conceding that Adam couldn't possibly have existed?

But that's neither here nor there. There must always be something as the "First," even if something else came before it.

But again, I'm not going to address Abiogenesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

You clearly have a beef with medicine, as you admit to fantasizing about baffled doctors not being able to figure out God's mysterious bone-morphing diseases.

No, I don't have a beef with medicine.

God laying a strange disease on someone has nothing to do with medicine.

That's like saying I have a beef with the fire department because I don't believe they can put the fires of Hell out.

 

[MoonLancer]

its like seeing a small fire and thinking its hell.

 

[AV1611VET]

its like seeing a small fire and thinking its hell.

What is?

 

[rjc34]

Theeeee operative words being?

'Science' without a qualifier describes all science. Therefore it's the same as saying 'all science can take a hike'.

 

[dad]

No dad. You're the only one confused here. We can Measure time. You, it seams, are the only one who can not.

Actually you cannot beyond this state. Since you have no clue when that started or will end, you are lost.

No? Then by your concept of Life, you're conceding that Adam couldn't possibly have existed?

No. Nothing remotely close to that.

But that's neither here nor there. There must always be something as the "First," even if something else came before it.

False, not in the way the myth of evolution envisions all life starting from a simple form.

But again, I'm not going to address Abiogenesis.

Then you better stick to fruit flies in the last few decades or something you might know.

 

[dad]

You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about have you?

Yes, I am generally certain before I speak. Why?

 

[Darkeonz]

Then you better stick to fruit flies in the last few decades or something you might know.

Pluto orbits the sun about every 250 years. We have known about Pluto for about 80 years, yet we can predict that it will. It has not been observed.

You want the entire timeline of evolution on earth to be observed, or the evidence is invalid to you. But that's not how it works. It would obviously be impossible due to the 2 billion years you'd have to observe, and the fact that you're not able to travel back in time . But we can determine that evolution has, and is, happening just like we can predict that pluto takes 250+ years to orbit the sun

Your idea of god creating Adam and Eve has not been observed, tested, demonstrated or predicted.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahem, an I quote from right under your name:

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE​

I believe that's a blanket statement that anyone not knowing you would interpret as an outright rejection of science.

Theeeee operative words being?

'Science' without a qualifier describes all science. Therefore it's the same as saying 'all science can take a hike'.

Then we see where the problem lies, don't we?

I highlighted the operative words in red.

 

[Darkeonz]

I understood it as rejection of all science, but then again I'm new to this forum, and have no idea who you are.

What is it about science that you do reject?

 

[AV1611VET]

I understood it as rejection of all science, but then again I'm new to this forum, and have no idea who you are.

What is it about science that you do reject?

Here are what I call my Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

Coupled with what I call my Prime Directive,* I'd say the rest is pure science.

* Under no circumstances is anything to contradict the Bible.

 

[Darkeonz]

Here are what I call my Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

Coupled with what I call my Prime Directive,* I'd say the rest is pure science.

* Under no circumstances is anything to contradict the Bible.

So you are holding a belief with no falsifiability? Nomatter what evidence shows up, you'll reject it if it doesn't go hand in hand with the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are holding a belief with no falsifiability?

Correct -- falsifiability is for those who worship the scientific method, and I don't worship the scientific method.

In fact, it has flaws: 74 -- (not that I really care, though).

Nomatter what evidence shows up, you'll reject it if it doesn't go hand in hand with the Bible?

I walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[Tomatoman]

So you are holding a belief with no falsifiability? Nomatter what evidence shows up, you'll reject it if it doesn't go hand in hand with the Bible?

AV likes wasting people's time with his idiotic boolean standards, which can be summarised as a rejection of the scientific method. He doesn't like being told this because he prefers to think that he is being discriminating and picking out what he considers acceptable science from unacceptable. He doesn't like being told that the scientific method is identical for both the science he accepts and rejects, so by rejecting some science on arbitrary grounds he is rejecting the scientific method and thus all of science.

AV wants to have his cake and eat it. (Not surprising: he is a creationist, with a creationist's self-centred, centre of the universe, selfish view of the world.) When he is told he can't have his cake and eat it he throws a toddler tantrum and stamps his feet.

 

[Darkeonz]

Correct -- falsifiability is for those who worship the scientific method, and I don't worship the scientific method.

In fact, it has flaws: 74 -- (not that I really care, though).

I just read it through and it's incorrect. The errors described does not exist. You CAN do tests with astrology. You can test the physics that lets you determine or predict distances of stars and such. You can test gravity, how light if affected by gravity, and so on and on. If someone invents something, you have a hypothesis of why it should work the way it is intended to work. Even if you invent something by pure coincidence, you still have to make an hypothesis to why it works the way it works.

Everything has to be falsifiable, and it has nothing to do with science. To reject something at all cost, just to preserve a believe, is not intelligent

I walk by faith, not by sight.

And could you give me your definition of faith?

 

[Darkeonz]

He doesn't like being told that the scientific method is identical for both the science he accepts and rejects, so by rejecting some science on arbitrary grounds he is rejecting the scientific method and thus all of science.

I couldn't agree more. It really isn't reasonable

 

[rjc34]

I walk by faith, not by sight.

Next time you have to cross the street in heavy traffic, close your eyes and let the lord guide you across by faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Everything has to be falsifiable, and it has nothing to do with science.

-- Huh?

In any event, what falsifies the theory of evolution?

To reject something at all cost, just to preserve a believe, is not intelligent

I won't argue with that; intelligence can mislead.

When God told Solomon to ask for anything and He would provide it for him, Solomon did not choose intelligence.

And could you give me your definition of faith?

Faith is believing something when all [or no] evidence says otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

I couldn't agree more. It really isn't reasonable

Suit yourself; you'll misunderstand my position though.