Why evolution isn't scientific

[Kylie]

Is that what you say when you are stumped? Can't you find a really intelligent animal and have him say Hi to all the other evolutionists out there? That's what is ridiculous.

Are you serious?

Do you have trouble communicating? How did you come up with that kind of tripe?

That's the argument you presented, dude, how did you come up with it?

They jokes on you sweetie. In the end you lose. God Bless you

Are you even trying anymore?

 

[Kylie]

Genesis/Creation. Deceiving others by refusing to tell us WHERE the creatures which they say are evolving, came from. They find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe anything but that they just appeared...from nothing.... Then, when they get to the 6th Grade, they tell them about abiogenesis or magical chemical generation.

Evolution appears to say that we are here and changing genetically. Big Deal. I suppose it helps deceive the very young until it's time to really indoctrinate them and tell them they are nothing but evolved Apes. First, dehumanize them when they are very young, and then tell them the rest of the made up false story.

Your stories are not evidence, try again.

 

[Aman777]

Your stories are not evidence, try again.

They are as much evidence as your "theories". In fact, they are better sources since you must find the agreement of Scripture, science and history, in order to refute my views. So far, no one has, but keep trying and let everyone else learn. I have confidence in those evolutionists who believe God's Truth.

 

[pitabread]

They are as much evidence as your "theories".

(Scientific) theories aren't evidence. If you think they are then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Aman777]

(Scientific) theories aren't evidence. If you think they are then you're doing it wrong.

Amen, since Scientific Theories are the assumptions of the consensus of scientists, based on facts which lead to their assumptions whether true or false. A good example is the False Assumption of the ToE, which is easily proven wrong. Amen?

 

[pitabread]

since Scientific Theories are the assumptions

No. Not assumptions either.

 

[Kylie]

They are as much evidence as your "theories". In fact, they are better sources since you must find the agreement of Scripture, science and history, in order to refute my views. So far, no one has, but keep trying and let everyone else learn. I have confidence in those evolutionists who believe God's Truth.

Yeah, you don't know how science works, do you?

 

[Aman777]

No. Not assumptions either.

In the case of the ToE, the false assumption of scientists is that the facts point to the idea that man magically evolved his superior intelligence over time. God's Truth shows that prehistoric people produced children with superior intelligence the old fashioned way, through inheritance, beginning with Noah's grandsons. Genesis 10:10

NO evolutionist can explain HOW mindless nature gave us our superior intelligence since it is neutral, has no ability to install God's intelligence in Apes and is dumb as a post. The false ToE also is untrue historically. The only way to obtain the superior intelligence of God is to inherit it from another Human. (Adam's descendants) Genesis 3:22

 

[Aman777]

Yeah, you don't know how science works, do you?

Sure I do and I also can recognize the False ToE which does NOT agree with factual Science, Scripture nor History. I have given you every chance to refute me (prove me wrong) and you have failed as much as Trump has, in running the country. Now, that's bad and needs to be corrected. Amen?

 

[xianghua]

But you are (once again) arguing about hypotheticals, because in reality, all these patterns match.

so if i will show you otherwise you will admit that evolution is false?

 

[xianghua]

So what we would be looking at, is a creature which shares more ERVs with us than chimps do, but also shares LESS of the rest of their genome with us than chimps. In other words, the phylogeny created by ERVs would contradict the phylogeny of the rest of the genome. Evolution would not be able to explain this.

actually it can. we can say that the rest of the genome was less conserve and it got many mutations comparing to other animals. actually some genes in sharks are colser to human than to other fishes:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/05/30/1937469.htm

 

[xianghua]

How hard was that to admit?

By the way, I may start employing one of creationsists' favourite tactics - quote mining. This little gem deserves to be shouted loud and proud every time you spout your nonsense.

so a pc isnt evidence for design too?

 

[xianghua]

That is right.

If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation.

Which designer? And how do you know? What about the multitude of other watch types - digital, for example? Was it the same designer? How would you know?

At the very best, if you find a watch on earth, you could conclude that a human made it.

Which human? And how would you know? And how did this human design and make the watch? Did this human make all the pieces him or herself? All the gears, springs, etc? Or were there other humans involved?


So you can (but likely won't) see that merely positing a Designer or Creator without providing any evidence for whom the designer was, how the designer operated, etc., is something a child might do?

so a watch isnt evidence for design. thanks.

 

[xianghua]

If you can show me a case of something that evolution says is impossible, then I will consider it.

but you already agree that out of place fossil will be something like 12354 instead of 12345. right? so all i need is to find you such a case and you will admit that evolution is false.

 

[Speedwell]

so a pc isnt evidence for design too?

Of course it is. It is made out of plastics and other materials not found in nature, formed in ways which natural processes do not operated. It is obviously man-made so it must have been designed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it is. It is made out of plastics and other materials not found in nature, formed in ways which natural processes do not operated. It is obviously man-made so it must have been designed.

Mans' "common ancestor" is the dust of the ground.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Man's common designer is God.

Luke 3:38 son of of Enos, son of of Seth, son of of Adam, son of of God.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so a pc isnt evidence for design too?

In and of itself, no, a pc is not evidence of design. But the use of manmade materials, evidence of manufacture etc ARE evidence of design.

It's good to see you're finally starting to grasp this concept.

 

[pitabread]

nmind

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Heissonear]

actually it can. we can say that the rest of the genome was less conserve and it got many mutations comparing to other animals. actually some genes in sharks are colser to human than to other fishes:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/05/30/1937469.htm

Some seem to ignore and not hear your little facts as in this post.