Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[dad]

Why is my post lame? I think you have misunderstood it's meaning.

Simply put, if we can observe the laws of physics changing then it would indicate that they may have changed in the past.

Lame! If the change was 4400 plus years ago, who was there to observe? The earliest folks in Egypt? They drew in pictures still! They were concerned with death though...almost like it was a new thing. That makes sense in the changed state after lifespans were drastically drastically reduced! People were dropping like flies.

As we have not yet observed the laws of physics changing, then it has not been falsified.

Theyy don't change every week, no...this is news?

The glacial retreat was there for a reference as to why we don't believe the laws of physics were different in the past, it would seem you stopped reading there and assumed I was supporting a different state past.

The retreat was only centuries old no? Try to focus.

 

[dad]

Dad has failed to provide ANY evidence for his own hypothesis of "unstable past states".

Man do you got a wrong number. Where did you waft in from...left field??

So he is hardly in any position to declare anything to be "lame" when he could easily serve as a dictionary sketch illustration for the term.

Oh, I am in position alright.

His "different past states" is one of those creationist positions that is manufactured out of thin air SOLELY to try and defend a particular traditional interpretation of the Bible which they KNOW is unsupportable by the evidence.

Ill informed are we? In fact the DSP is solid bible 101. Bank on it. Also bullet proof to science.

Of course, the "much higher speed of light in the past" is the most infamous example of this.

What, having no clue what you are arguing against?

They have no idea that their "cure" is a whole lot crazier than the original disease of which their position is infected. And so they deny the fact that their hypothesis can be put to the test---especially by astrophysics---so that we know that the laws of physics apply in other places and times.

Hey, astrophysics is a weak player here. Bring it.

So it is hard to hold back a smile when Dad accuses any idea of being "lame". It is the equivalent of Mr. Magoo accusing his optometrist of being near-sighted.

In your mind, maybe. But ask who cares, or if you can prop up the lame ideas. So far all you do is spout them. You will need a taxi, to get near the target here.

 

[loktai]

Ill informed are we? In fact the DSP is solid bible 101. Bank on it. Also bullet proof to science.
What, having no clue what you are arguing against?

And what if you don't believe that the Bible is the word of god, or true. I could submit the fluffy pink dragon on my shoulder as evidence for the same state past to equal effect.

 

[AV1611VET]

I could submit the fluffy pink dragon on my shoulder as evidence for the same state past to equal effect.

Same state past = uniformitarianism.

 

[dad]

And what if you don't believe that the Bible is the word of god, or true.....

Then beliefs would not matter, and you would remain obligated to show proof for your claims of a past that was as now. In other words, you're hooped.

 

[Delphiki]

Then beliefs would not matter, and you would remain obligated to show proof for your claims of a past that was as now. In other words, you're hooped.

But even though beliefs don't matter, you're not obligated to show proof of your claim that the past was subject to different laws of physics because ____________________ ?

Oh, right... special pleading.

You can blab on all you want about the hypothetical, but the fact remains that you have zero evidence for your claims that contradict what all the evidence actually shows. Not only the evidence, but all the practical applications of science that rely on the evidence being interpreted correctly, whereas you have zero, zilch, nada, 무. Not one productive, useful, or practical application for anything has ever come of your "idea" at all, good, bad, or otherwise. So you're pretty much boned.

You sure are defeated quite often for someone who is supposedly "undefeated".

 

[dad]

But even though beliefs don't matter, you're not obligated to show proof of your claim that the past was subject to different laws of physics because ____________________ ?

Oh, right... special pleading.

No. The bible does matter! I use that.

You can blab on all you want about the hypothetical, but the fact remains that you have zero evidence for your claims that contradict what all the evidence actually shows.

Fact is no evidence shows any silly same state past.

Not only the evidence, but all the practical applications of science that rely on the evidence being interpreted correctly,..

No practical application of science relies on anything but this state.

You sure are defeated quite often for someone who is supposedly "undefeated".

Totally victorious to the nth degree. No need to even break a sweat for your posts. Actually, no real need to even read them!

 

[loktai]

No. The bible does matter!

Prove it.

 

[Delphiki]

No practical application of science relies on anything but this state.

What does your car run on?

 

[StormanNorman]

Just because there are no mammals found in the strata you cited (and other items listed) does not mean evolutiondidit. I expect no mammal remains there generally either.

You are correct; the fact that we don't find mammal fossils where we don't expect to find them doesn't prove evolution. And the fact that one pair of human chromosome actually composes of two fused pairs also doesn't prove evolution. But, what's really more important here is what they fail to disprove.

 

[dad]

Prove it.

No need. It is obviously by the impact it has had and continues to have.

 

[dad]

What does your car run on?

Fuel in this state...brought in from another.

 

[dad]

You are correct; the fact that we don't find mammal fossils where we don't expect to find them doesn't prove evolution. And the fact that one pair of human chromosome actually composes of two fused pairs also doesn't prove evolution. But, what's really more important here is what they fail to disprove.

And what is that? By the way tell us how chromosomes fuse?

 

[loktai]

No need. It is obviously by the impact it has had and continues to have.

You made a statement - you must prove it, or else it will just be ignored as an assertion. Of course your unwillingness to do so speaks volumes for the foundation of your argument.

 

[TheBear]

What a bizarre comment because, unless I'm mistaken, that's Kenneth Miller in the video.

Exactly.

As others have pointed out, too, Ken Miller is a God-believing Christian. In addition, there are a multitude of theists, (many Christians), who accept ToE, many on this very forum, some right here in this very thread. To think that arguing against ToE is arguing against atheism, is a total disconnect from reality. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[AV1611VET]

To think that arguing against ToE is arguing against atheism, is a total disconnect from reality. One has nothing to do with the other.

So arguing that "God created" vs. "nature evolved" has nothing to do with theism vs. atheism?

Wouldn't the statement, "God loves everybody" be an argument against atheism?

 

[TheBear]

So arguing that "God created" vs. "nature evolved" has nothing to do with theism vs. atheism?

Wouldn't the statement, "God loves everybody" be an argument against atheism?

Are you really that dense, AV, or, are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you really that dense, AV, or, are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue?

No, I'm really that dense.

Help thou my density by addressing my post, please.

Yes or no -- is saying, "God loves everybody" an argument against atheism?

 

[TheBear]

I'm not going to be following you down the rabbit hole of flawed logic.



Theists from all over the world accept evolution, including the theist in the OP video.

What part of that is so difficult to understand? When will you and others stop pretending that only atheists accept evolution? You might have said it tongue-in-cheek, but I'm starting to believe that you are that dense.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Are you really that dense, AV, or, are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue?

It's worth remembering that any thoughts or ideas that might cause doubts about his faith are rigorously excised from his mind as satanic. This means that when he thinks (or tries to think) about his beliefs, he doesn't really have a fully operational brain. It must be very hard for him to even consider that one of his long held beliefs might be wrong as that means just one thing: satan has been at work. I suppose this is why Bible literalism is clung to so dementedly. It's all rather pitiable.