Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

I admit I just skimmed the article, still unsure how this fossil is out of place. Dinosaurs are not my thing, what should we be seeing and how is this out of place?

untill this fossil scientists thought that this dino never lived so early. so its basically like finding a human fossil with a dino one. here is another out of place fossils that dont fit well with evolution:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08623

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/981090-worlds-oldest-and-most-complex-trees

 

[Strathos]

im not sure what you are trying to say. i just said that since we cant falsify evolution- evolution isnt a scientific theory. do you agree?

The fact that you can't falsify evolution doesn't mean that it can't possibly be falsified. You just don't have the requisite evidence to do so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

meanwhile you repeat this about several times without any real answer. so last time: can you give a simple answer for my question or not? you can even link me to the answer in the other discussion if you want.

I can, but I won't. Because you have already proven in the past countless times that you'll just ignore the answer and repeat the same falsehoods within no more then 3 posts.

So forgive me if I don't feel like feeding the trolls right now.
Perhaps someone else feels like stepping in that swamp again, but I don't.

I wish them good luck, but already know what the outcome will be.

 

[DogmaHunter]

im not sure what you are trying to say. i just said that since we cant falsify evolution- evolution isnt a scientific theory. do you agree?

No.

Rabbits in the pre-cambrian.
non-primates sharing more ERV's with humans then humans do with primates.

That's 2 ways to falsify it. There are a couple million more.

Now you can turn around, ignore this and repeat the same falsehoods.

My money is on within 3 posts. Anyone else in on this action?

 

[DogmaHunter]

you can see that so far no one in this thread was able to give an answer.

Nobody was WILLING to give you an answer.

isnt it weird?

Given your posting history, not only is it not weird - it is completely expected that this point would eventually be reached.

i begin to believe that im right and evolution is indeed non- scientific .

Just beginning? Please. You believe that coming in and if you made anything clear by now, it is that you will NEVER change your mind on that - not even if someone came up and hit you upside the head with the very proof that shows you wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

again: a comment with no real answer to my question. inseatd of repeating this again and again why not just give a simple answer?

We've been repeating those answers "again and again". And again. And again.

And yet here we are. Again.

I think it was Einstein that defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results".

I no longer expect different results.

 

[pitabread]

i actually mentioned that they push back the creature in time. so why are saying that i didnt read it? (or at least the main claim of the article)

But you are trying to make the argument that that would be a falsification of evolution. It's not. Read the article again.

 

[Jimmy D]

you can see that so far no one in this thread was able to give an answer. isnt it weird? i begin to believe that im right and evolution is indeed non- scientific .

A quick search reveals eight pages of you waffling on about out of place fossils in multiple threads, none of which were ignored. You're always a polite poster so I don't want to be rude to you, but this obsession of yours is getting tiresome.



https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-73#post-72754554


You are always free to leave the debate, but it's not on me if you do. I am not satisfied in the slightest. The fact that you continue, even now, not to acknowledge that the simple fact that the fossil record for members of the genus Homo is extremely complete and depicts origins of the genus within less than 10 million years demonstrates that your claim that a 70 million year old Homo sapiens fossil could just be hand waved away is incorrect. You have yet to demonstrate any actually comparable event in which something on that scale was handwaved despite a very complete fossil record. All examples provided either pertain to organisms which do not have a very complete fossil record, significantly less amount of time adjusted, or both. In fact, all the ones I recall have both.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-63#post-72642766

-_- no, because that would make humans predate all other primates, let alone other apes, which DOESN'T match up with genetic evidence whatsoever. It would be out of order. Snakes diverging from lizards 53 million years after the existence of lizards doesn't change order at all.

The difference is like this: My great great grandma had to predate me, and so did my great grandma. But by how many years depends on the age at which the people in my family had children. It wouldn't matter if my great great grandma gave birth to my great grandma at the age of 37 or 16, they still would both predate me in the correct order either way. Same thing as the lizard and snake situation happens with this example.

However, a human living alongside dinosaurs might as well be my great grandmother for how out of order it is. That is, it would be the equivalent of making an ancestor that chronologically MUST be born after a bunch of others be born long before they even existed. It would be my great grandmother predating her own mother, and no amount of "pushing back" could hope to repair the order. If the snake fossil predated the oldest lizard fossil, this would be the situation that evolution would have problems with.

 

[pitabread]

as i said: if the answer is so simple why you cant give it again? maybe i miss it or something. unless there is no such answer. am i right?

What is the point of repeating ourselves if you're not going to remember any of this? You've had these discussions repeatedly on this forum. Here's an example: https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-63#post-72642766

But every single time you act like these discussions never happened.

I'm trying to figure out why that is the case. Is it because of the language issue? Do you not understand what the rest of us are trying to explain? Is is a memory issue and you simply can't remember prior discussions? Are you just not reading people's posts?

What is going on?

 

[pitabread]

untill this fossil scientists thought that this dino never lived so early. so its basically like finding a human fossil with a dino one.

It's not even the same at all. Again, you clearly didn't read and/or didn't understand the very article you linked.

Why is that?

 

[Aman777]

However, in science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation or a set of statements that have been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments.

In the case of the false ToE, it's a false assumption based on the fact that prehistoric people seem to have changed into Humans, the descendants of Adam. The false assumption of the consensus of scientists is that we must have evolved the supreme intelligence of creation, from mindless Nature.

The answer is simple. The Ark from Adam's Earth was brought to the present Earth. When Noah's grandsons married and produced children, they INHERITED Adam's superior intelligence Genesis 3:22 AND the genetics of the common ancestor of Apes. What is amazing is that God told us exactly this more than 3k years ago in Gen 6:4.

 

[pitabread]

The answer is simple.

If the answer is so simple, why are you the only person on the planet who appears to believe this? Even other creationists haven't adopted your unique approach to creationism.

 

[Aman777]

you can see that so far no one in this thread was able to give an answer. isnt it weird? i begin to believe that im right and evolution is indeed non- scientific .

Evolution is nothing more than the thoughts of people who lived hundreds of years ago, who tried to eliminate God from His own Creation. They changed the name from descent with modification within kinds, to the godless word "evolution" and then added other unsupportable theories to it. Like Trump, they see Humans as Apes.

 

[pitabread]

you can see that so far no one in this thread was able to give an answer. isnt it weird? i begin to believe that im right and evolution is indeed non- scientific .

You've had this all explained to you a dozen times prior. People have even linked to such threads.

Claiming that people haven't answered you is just being dishonest.

 

[Aman777]

If the answer is so simple, why are you the only person on the planet who appears to believe this? Even other creationists haven't adopted your unique approach to creationism.

It's simple. I've studied Genesis for more than 30 years and have found in it the Key to understanding how God's Truth agrees in every way with every discovery of Science and History. Therefore, scientists reject my view along with some Christians who believe the 3k year old traditional religious teaching of ancient men. Would you like to see the key? or are you afraid that it will change your beliefs?

 

[pitabread]

It's simple. I've studied Genesis for more than 30 years and have found in it the Key to understanding how God's Truth agrees in every way with every discovery of Science and History. Therefore, scientists reject my view along with some Christians who believe the 3k year old traditional religious teaching of ancient men.

So you believe you are the only person on the planet that has unlocked the correct understanding of Genesis? Is there anyone else who agrees with you?

Would you like to see the key? or are you afraid that it will change your beliefs?

Don't project how you think others will react. You seem to forget that others have also had their decades-long investigations into theological beliefs and the associated discussions and debates.

No matter what you post, I expect I'll be completely underwhelmed. This isn't my first rodeo.

 

[Aman777]

So you believe you are the only person on the planet that has unlocked the correct understanding of Genesis? Is there anyone else who agrees with you?

I know many people who agree with me. IF you would like to know the Truth about the Bible, remember that the first 34 verses of Genesis tell us the entire story of the creation, including events at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen. 1:28-31

EVERY other verse, from Genesis 2:4 to the end of Revelation provides the details of the 7 Days of creation shown in those 34 verses. IOW, God tells us the complete History of the creation of Heaven in the first 34 verses and EVERY other verse refers BACK to one of those 7 Days. That's because God has but 7 Days and the 7th is Eternity. That's God's Truth Scripturally.

 

[pitabread]

I know many people who agree with me.

Who? And where?

I've never seen anyone on these forums agree with you on your interpretation.

IF you would like to know the Truth about the Bible, remember that the first 34 verses of Genesis tell us the entire story of the creation, including events at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen. 1:28-31

EVERY other verse, from Genesis 2:4 to the end of Revelation provides the details of the 7 Days of creation shown in those 34 verses. IOW, God tells us the complete History of the creation of Heaven in the first 34 verses and EVERY other verse refers BACK to one of those 7 Days. That's because God has but 7 Days and the 7th is Eternity. That's God's Truth Scripturally.

So... it's just your particular interpretation of the Bible.

And the big secret is...?

 

[Aman777]

And the big secret is...?

The secret is that the Holy Spirit hid His scientific Truth in the first 34 verses of Genesis and ONLY Christians of the last days can find it. Kinda leaves you in the dark. Amen?

 

[pitabread]

The secret is that the Holy Spirit hid His scientific Truth in the first 34 verses of Genesis and ONLY Christians of the last days can find it. Kinda leaves you in the dark. Amen?

So who else agrees with you on this? Because like I said, I've never seen anyone on these forums (or anywhere on the internet) agree with your particular interpretation.

You appear to have a unique Christian theology.