Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

[dad]

[/color]

Empirical science is the opposite of personal interpretation.

Much like a fairy tale. However the basis for the method is the only issue, and you have none that is suitable for crossing into the territory of the far past or future. Your methods have NO weight in the creation evolution issues then.

 

[Loudmouth]

Much like a fairy tale. However the basis for the method is the only issue, and you have none that is suitable for crossing into the territory of the far past or future. Your methods have NO weight in the creation evolution issues then.

The only fairy tale is the laws of nature changing to fit your religious beliefs.

 

[dad]

The only fairy tale is the laws of nature changing to fit your religious beliefs.

Speak of what you know. Science is in no position to declare any laws we now have existed in the far past as is, and in the package and arrangement we now enjoy. Rather than weld the universe far out of man's realm, and powers of real observation and knowledge, with the blow torch of a belied system based on only the present state, one had better be honest!

The records we have that you want to disrespect, belittle and sully here happen to have credentials and the stamp of the Almighty, and do cover the pre present state times and events!

You need more than not liking it here, and not knowing what you are talking about. Just the facts maam.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is in no position to declare any laws we now have existed in the far past as is, . .

Since the invention of the telescope science has been in this position, and scientists have observed the constancy of laws through the past and through space. These are DIRECT observations of the past, and the laws are the same.

The records we have that you want to disrespect, belittle and sully here happen to have credentials and the stamp of the Almighty, and do cover the pre present state times and events!

They have the stamp of human authors.

 

[Doveaman]

The whole point of empirical science is that it is the same for everyone, and that the results are repeatable. There is nothing "personal" about it.

Each man must come to a conclusion in his own mind. That makes it personal.

 

[Jazer]

You'll excuse me if I just laugh at you. That's why the scientific method was established. To stop morons from just inventing evidence and making claims.

So why are they still inventing evidence and making claims? How often is the evidence for evolution some sort of art picture. That is soon shown to be someone inventing evidence. Visual aids and evidence is not the same thing.

 

[Incariol]

So why are they still inventing evidence and making claims? How often is the evidence for evolution some sort of art picture. That is soon shown to be someone inventing evidence. Visual aids and evidence is not the same thing.

Because in our experience, Jazer, you guys literally cannot comprehend the actual science. When I post it the response is far too often:

a.) ignore it.
b.) call it "gibberish", "magic words", "nonsense" or other flame to excuse not being literate.
c.) accuse me of trying to trick you with technical talk.

 

[Doveaman]

Hominid Adam.

What evidence do you have for this?

In addition to the evidence found in nature, I also rely on the evidence found in Scripture:

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7).

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" (Acts 17:26).

Jesus said: "I am the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25)

Jesus said it, therefore it is a fact. And since it is a fact, then it serves as evidence.

The facts of Scripture, in addition to the facts of nature, serve as evidence that supports my theory.

How do you differentiate between the DNA we inherited from our common ancestor with chimps, the DNA that was the product of mutation and selection since our lineage diverged from the chimp lineage, and the DNA that was produced by God?

I don't need to differentiate. The same DNA that supports your theory also supports my theory. We simply have a different explanation for it. For you it is evolution. For me it is recreation with modifications.

How do you test this idea?

An idea is tested by determining if the idea measures up with the facts of Scripture. If it doesn't, then the idea can take a hike.

 

[Incariol]

In addition to the evidence found in nature, I also rely on the evidence found in Scripture:

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7).

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" (Acts 17:26).

Jesus said: "I am the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25)

Jesus said it, therefore it is a fact. And since it is a fact, then it serves as evidence.

The facts of Scripture, in addition to the facts of nature, serve as evidence that supports my theory.
I don't need to differentiate. The same DNA that supports your theory also supports my theory. We simply have a different explanation for it. For you it is evolution. For me it is recreation with modifications.
An idea is tested by determining if the idea measures up with the facts of Scripture. If it doesn't, then the idea can take a hike.

 

[dad]

Since the invention of the telescope science has been in this position, and scientists have observed the constancy of laws through the past and through space.

Absurd. Theyy have looked at far away things thinking that they were further than they are, and that they were in our space.

They have the stamp of human authors.

Nope. Humans can't raise the dead. Etc.

ho hum

 

[dad]

Because in our experience, Jazer, you guys literally cannot comprehend the actual science. When I post it the response is far too often:

a.) ignore it.
b.) call it "gibberish", "magic words", "nonsense" or other flame to excuse not being literate.
c.) accuse me of trying to trick you with technical talk.

Evos wouldn't know actual science if it slapped them on the head. Instead they post mostly rhetoric, cynicism, blasphemy, present state past based belief models, would be cleverisms, and intellectual and moral fart festival material.

 

[rikerjoe]

Absurd. Theyy have looked at far away things thinking that they were further than they are, and that they were in our space.

Feel free to prove them wrong.

 

[rikerjoe]

Evos wouldn't know actual science if it slapped them on the head. Instead they post mostly rhetoric, cynicism, blasphemy, present state past based belief models, would be cleverisms, and intellectual and moral fart festival material.

ROFLMAO, oh the irony....

 

[Ration]

Evos wouldn't know actual science if it slapped them on the head. Instead they post mostly rhetoric, cynicism, blasphemy, present state past based belief models, would be cleverisms, and intellectual and moral fart festival material.

I'm an (almost) actual scientist, and I'm pretty sure I know actual science. I have devoted 3 years of my life, and am intending to devote the rest to conducting 'actual science'. I have conducted work in biology, physics and chemistry labs. I have been examined on my knowledge of the scientific method. In fact, my own government gives me money to do this stuff.

I'm pretty sure I know actual science, and I'm an evo...

 

[Naraoia]

So why are they still inventing evidence and making claims?

Who is?

How often is the evidence for evolution some sort of art picture.

How often, indeed?

If you're talking about this sort of stuff... you know, the pictures that actually get presented as evidence of something in peer-reviewed literature... well, it's only an "art picture" to those who don't know what's going on in it. If you aren't, you might want to explain precisely what you are talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

Absurd. Theyy have looked at far away things thinking that they were further than they are, and that they were in our space.

They are in our space, and they are that far away. All of these things have been directly observed.

Nope. Humans can't raise the dead. Etc.

But humans can write stories about the dead rising, or have you never seen a zombie movie.

 

[sandwiches]

Each man must come to a conclusion in his own mind. That makes it personal.

Of course, conclusions can be wrong. So, whether you think you can fly unaided due your subjective conclusions, you're still wrong.

In other words subjectivity doesn't make everyone right.

 

[dad]

Feel free to prove them wrong.

I, by science could no more prove them wrong than they could prove themselves right or wrong. On would expect more from a science claim that opposes the actual records.

 

[dad]

They are in our space, and they are that far away. All of these things have been directly observed.

If this were the case, we could move on. However you can't just declare all space to be identical to earth space! I have to tell you this??

But humans can write stories about the dead rising, or have you never seen a zombie movie.

Not sure this is the thread to deny last Thursday, Peter Paul and Mary, etc. No one needs your unfounded insults about the people in the actual record that my people died to declare true. Have some respect.

 

[dad]

I'm an (almost) actual scientist, and I'm pretty sure I know actual science. I have devoted 3 years of my life, and am intending to devote the rest to conducting 'actual science'. I have conducted work in biology, physics and chemistry labs. I have been examined on my knowledge of the scientific method. In fact, my own government gives me money to do this stuff.

I'm pretty sure I know actual science, and I'm an evo...

Then consider this a wake up call. You have no clue whatsoever or knowledge regarding the laws and forces and state before the flood.

Science does not go there. If what you have thought it did, it is false to the core.