Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[TLK Valentine]

This is how a smart scientist responded to an ignorant.

Indeed -- MikeCarra may or may not be a scientist, but he clearly demonstrates how a smart scientist operates -- he exposes and dismisses frauds.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah yes, there is another great mystery, isn't there? Why are all those eminent Christian scientists, like Morris or Francisco Ayala, in on the great atheist conspiracy to do down Christianity?

Good question. There are many good scientists, but few Christian scientists. Why? Can't they see the holes of evolution theory?

Of course then can see the existed problems of evolution. But they do not believe in God. So what is the combination? Carl Sagan is an impressive example: "We do not know everything. We only know very little. Nevertheless, no God. Thanks."

To see the problems of evolution and to have faith in God can be clearly separated. At the level of understanding scientists (low minority in population), the major problem is not evolution any more. It is God or no God. Many atheistic scientists know clearly the problems of evolution. But because they do not accept God, then it leave them no alternative, but to argue FOR evolution.

TE group is odd. They have their special way to solve the problems clearly seen in evolution. That is not about evolution, but is a view of theology.

 

[juvenissun]

Indeed -- MikeCarra may or may not be a scientist, but he clearly demonstrates how a smart scientist operates -- he exposes and dismisses frauds.

Kindergarden kids can also dismiss "frauds", easily.

 

[juvenissun]

And yet, you yourself have only one trick -- and we all see thorough it every time you trot it out.



You were wrong because you confessed to falsely saying things you knew you couldn't back up:

I always can backup what I said. Always.
I just don't explain it to those who do not deserve it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I always can backup what I said. Always.
I just don't explain it to those who do not deserve it.

You're bluffing, Juven, like you always do.

I told you -- we see through your one and only trick every time.

 

[juvenissun]

You're bluffing, Juven, like you always do.

I told you -- we see through your one and only trick every time.

No, you don't. You are not good enough.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, you don't. You are not good enough.

Not good enough to do what I just did?

You can either back up your claims, or make excuses -- we all know what you're going to do.

 

[bhsmte]

Going back to the point of the OP. Yes, the evidences are "abundant", but hardly overwhelming. That is why evolution can intimidate Christians who do not understand science. The sheer number of so-called "evidence" is where the power of deception is.

However, for those who know. ANY (challenge you here, any one!) of those "evidence" will not pass a detail scrutiny. Not a single one of them, including all the DNA arguments, can prove evolution.

The biggest joke is: Evolutionists can not even give a consistent definition to what evolution is. It is a disastrous starting point. (Do you understand why is it so?)

Are you claiming, that Francis Collins does not understand science?

Francis Collins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

I always can backup what I said. Always.
I just don't explain it to those who do not deserve it.

Not quite Juvy, you get exposed every time you go down this road.

Keep telling yourself that though, maybe it makes you feel better, for a little while at least.

 

[lesliedellow]

Good question. There are many good scientists, but few Christian scientists. Why? Can't they see the holes of evolution theory?

Of course then can see the existed problems of evolution. But they do not believe in God. So what is the combination? Carl Sagan is an impressive example: "We do not know everything. We only know very little. Nevertheless, no God. Thanks."

So Francisco Ayala doesn't believe in God, even though he is an ordained priest, and has a list of scientific honours as long as your arm.

 

[florida2]

Was I wrong?

You said there was a fatal flaw in evolution but are then unable to explain what that is.

Then again, what should we expect from someone who lies about being a geology professor?

 

[MikeCarra]

This is how a smart scientist responded to an ignorant.

"ignorant" is an adjective. Perhaps you dropped the noun it was supposed to be attached to?

Here are some proper uses of the word "ignorant":

"It would be ignorant to refer to someone as 'an ignorant'."

"It is a sign of someone who is ignorant to make a positive claim and then refuse to support that claim."

 

[MikeCarra]

I know MORE than you do.

Are you sure about that?

So I can see very clearly on all your tricks.

It is not a trick to point out that you didn't bother to defend your own point. Why would I believe it if it wasn't even important enough to the guy who made it to defend it?

You can't make me to waste my time.

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean it as an insult. I'm impressed that you are clearly not a native English speaker and you do post here a lot indicating a dedication to a foreign language. So in order to keep you from wasting any time I just want to let you know that "to waste" is the infinitive form of the verb. You may wish to construct the sentence thusly:

"You can't make me waste my time"

You can drop the "to" from the infinitive form.

Explain why was I wrong.

I explained it as much as I needed to! IF you were right you could have provided a positive defense of your claim. Since you didn't it isn't up to anyone else to explain YOUR POINT for you.

This is purely rhetorical and logical in nature.

Regardless of the absolute truth or falsity of the claim you made, if you didn't provide any actual details or defense of your point then it is an easy thing to simply respond in kind.

I will certainly beat you on your shallow argument.

My argument isn't really shallow. Your original point appears to be so lame and weak even you won't provide any defense of it.

Why would I believe an ex cathedra claim from a guy who has been repeatedly shown to be minimally technically skilled in the sciences?

 

[MikeCarra]

I always can backup what I said. Always.
I just don't explain it to those who do not deserve it.

I love it.

And for those who may not know: Juvenissun has claimed on MANY occasions that he is a teacher.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I love it.

And for those who may not know: Juvenissun has claimed on MANY occasions that he is a teacher.

Those of us who do know don't believe a word of it.

Those of us who are teachers find his false claims to be an insult to the profession.

 

[RickG]

Those of us who are teachers find his false claims to be an insult to the profession.

And it is so obvious.

 

[RickG]

Good question. There are many good scientists, but few Christian scientists.

That's a bunch of baloney.

Why? Can't they see the holes of evolution theory?

Whether Christian, some other religion, or atheist, most scientists have little if anything to do with evolution.

Of course then can see the existed problems of evolution. But they do not believe in God.

There are numerous Christians who have no problem with the theory of evolution. It's a fact whether you wish to be in denial of it or not.

So what is the combination? Carl Sagan is an impressive example: "We do not know everything. We only know very little... "

All scientists understand that. It's what we don't know that keeps driving us to find out more.

To see the problems of evolution and to have faith in God can be clearly separated. At the level of understanding scientists (low minority in population), the major problem is not evolution any more. It is God or no God. Many atheistic scientists know clearly the problems of evolution. But because they do not accept God, then it leave them no alternative, but to argue FOR evolution.

I know I've posed this question to you before, but I have yet to get an actual answer. Explain the fossil record throughout the geologic column without evolution.

TE group is odd. They have their special way to solve the problems clearly seen in evolution. That is not about evolution, but is a view of theology.

That statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[RickG]

I always can backup what I said. Always.
I just don't explain it to those who do not deserve it.

In other words, if you can't explain it, that person doesn't deserve an explanation. I see.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And it is so obvious.

Well, as I've always said, the worst kind of liar is the one who can fool himself -- and nobody else.

 

[juvenissun]

I know I've posed this question to you before, but I have yet to get an actual answer. Explain the fossil record throughout the geologic column without evolution.

I have explained it, with words shorter than one line.
If you do not remember, ask me two more times. Then I will repeat it.