Unsimplifiability, proves Darwin was not intent on developing a working theory...

[VirOptimus]

Then ignore them but don't expect me to believe the physical world is all their is to reality, that's atheistic materialism not science.

Nope, thats science.

Science doesnt deal with magic (god(s)) at all. Lots of scientists are belivers.

 

[Danielwright2311]

But you had said that you had never seen it (presumably to show that such a feat was difficult or even impossible), and I did so without using complicated words, and in a manner that was easy to understand. So I hope you will never make that claim again.



And what would count as evidence of what I described?

How about a long term study where scientists observed a population of organisms over many generations and watched as their genes changed as a result of changing pressures that the population faced?

So no science ?

Ok, so all you did was tell me that because of need to change cells change, but with no evidence of any change.

Thats my point.

You just help me prove my whole point, thanks.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, thats science.

No, science is a methodology and epistemology focused specifically on exploring natural phenomenon. That's called an equivocation fallacy.

Science doesnt deal with magic (god(s)) at all. Lots of scientists are belivers.

Which would be scientists that believe in God, miracles and the promises of the gospel. They probably learn how to keep natural science and theistic reasoning in their proper lanes.

 

[Larniavc]

This whole post is nothing more than a thinly veiled insult and sophistry.

It is true though that if you do not understand something you cannot claim it is wrong with any justification.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then in all debates ever, they all say , you just don't understand it, or go back to school, or here is a complected article to read, but when we read it, its full of twists and turns with over educated words that do not lead to any evidence.

That sounds familiar.

i resorted to asking them to explain what they think I don't understand, and do it right here where all can see, and then watch the excuses fly.

They tried to prove evolution a few times but as you say, the more they got into it, the more we saw much of it was based on twists and assumption, and as I recall it didn't make them look good at all.

Any attempt to prove evolution here has fallen on it's face so badly, they had to resort to claiming things like it cannot be proven. And some of their defenses for "Science proves nothing, something that is absolutely untrue, were nothing short of laughable.

 

[pitabread]

i resorted to asking them to explain what they think I don't understand, and do it right here where all can see, and then watch the excuses fly.

People have given you plenty of educational material for which to improve your understanding, but you always refuse it. The only one making the excuses is you.

It makes sense though: creationism primarily thrives on ignorance of sciences so to retain your belief system, the less you know the better.

And by ignoring contradictory information, you avoid the uncomfortable feelings of cognitive dissonance associated with information that conflicts with your current beliefs.

 

[Danielwright2311]

People have given you plenty of educational material for which to improve your understanding, but you always refuse it. The only one making the excuses is you.

No, all you all did was pretend we are not educated in some way to explain away our belief in God.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, all you all did was pretend we are not educated in some way to explain away our belief in God.

Fair enough. I may have made an assumption in that regard. I stand ready to be corrected. Could you detail the extent of your education in biology, noting qualifications gained, levels, institutions etc, coupled with particulars of any self study you have undertaken. Once that is established I shall be happy to offer, unreservedly, an appropriate apology.

 

[pitabread]

No, all you all did was pretend we are not educated in some way to explain away our belief in God.

This has nothing to do with your belief in God. It has to do with understanding of science and in particular, understanding of biological evolution.

In my experience, most creationists demonstrate little to no understanding of science and evolution. There are even studies which support this correlation (e.g. People Who Understand Evolution Are More Likely to Accept It).

Furthermore, my experience is also that most creationists actively resist learning about science and evolution. Kenny is one such example; I've provided him several free courses to learn about the subject, but he complete avoids doing so.

 

[Danielwright2311]

This has nothing to do with your belief in God. It has to do with understanding of science and in particular, understanding of biological evolution.

In my experience, most creationists demonstrate little to no understanding of science and evolution. There are even studies which support this correlation (e.g. People Who Understand Evolution Are More Likely to Accept It).

Furthermore, my experience is also that most creationists actively resist learning about science and evolution. Kenny is one such example; I've provided him several free courses to learn about the subject, but he complete avoids doing so.

There is no real science, just theory.

So there are magicians who preform many acts to look like they truly do magic, but I know its just a trick.

The devil will show great tricks, but nothing will take away my faith.

Humans will also do the same, but they use words like science with no tests. Just theory, nothing 100 percent.

All it is written mumbo jumbo, But my God is 100 percent real in my life in every way.

He preforms real true events in my life proving him self to me all the time.

So tell me, what science have I missed that makes sense that 100 proves there is no God?

There is none.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Fair enough. I may have made an assumption in that regard. I stand ready to be corrected. Could you detail the extent of your education in biology, noting qualifications gained, levels, institutions etc, coupled with particulars of any self study you have undertaken. Once that is established I shall be happy to offer, unreservedly, an appropriate apology.

So there you have it, admitted by you, there is no real proof, you use insults and education to prove evolution.

Is that just what my post was about?

I am to uneducated to understand so it must all be true.

 

[pitabread]

There is no real science, just theory.

You might want to read up on what a scientific theory means: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

It's also worth pointing out that the modern theory of evolution is an applied science (e.g. it's useful for things) and companies even have filed patents based on it.

So tell me, what science have I missed that makes sense that 100 proves there is no God?

This isn't about whether or not you believe in God. If you think that's the issue, you're in the wrong forum.

 

[Danielwright2311]

You might want to read up on what a scientific theory means: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

It's also worth pointing out that the modern theory of evolution is an applied science (e.g. it's useful for things) and companies even have filed patents based on it.



This isn't about whether or not you believe in God. If you think that's the issue, you're in the wrong forum.

My lord in heaven, you did not read my post, lol.

What did I say?

Pointing me to a article lol.

How funny,

I read just about every article there is to read, non of them make sense and do not give proof, just theory, lol. how funny you are. There all full of mumbo jumbo junk science terms and made up language that proves nothing, its twists and turns to nothing but opinion not facts.

What wrong, you could not explain yourself? you need another article to explain it.

 

[Danielwright2311]

You might want to read up on what a scientific theory means: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

It's also worth pointing out that the modern theory of evolution is an applied science (e.g. it's useful for things) and companies even have filed patents based on it.



This isn't about whether or not you believe in God. If you think that's the issue, you're in the wrong forum.

Theory - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

I read just about every article there is to read, non of them make sense and do not give proof, just theory, lol.

I pointed you to the definition of a scientific theory, since anyone that trots out the "evolution is just a theory" line probably needs to learn what a theory in science actually means.

There all full of mumbo jumbo junk science terms and made up language that proves nothing, its twists and turns to nothing but opinion not facts.

Are you trolling? Please tell me you are trolling.

Theory - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should take a look the section on scientific theories and read up.

 

[Danielwright2311]

I pointed you to the definition of a scientific theory, since anyone that trots out the "evolution is just a theory" line probably needs to learn what a theory in science actually means.



Are you trolling? Please tell me you are trolling.



Perhaps you should take a look the section on scientific theories and read up.

How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?

 

[Danielwright2311]

I pointed you to the definition of a scientific theory, since anyone that trots out the "evolution is just a theory" line probably needs to learn what a theory in science actually means.



Are you trolling? Please tell me you are trolling.



Perhaps you should take a look the section on scientific theories and read up.

What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955:
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. "

 

[pitabread]

<snip plagiarism>

If you're going to plagiarize material from other web sites, you should at least cite your source: How Evolution Flunked The Science Test | Free Book Library | Amazing Facts

Also, you don't need to repeatedly respond to the same post of mine. You can edit your own posts after the fact.

 

[Danielwright2311]

If you're going to plagiarize material from other web sites, you should at least cite your source: How Evolution Flunked The Science Test | Free Book Library | Amazing Facts

its sharing truth, your the one who suggested I learn about it, but I l know more then you do lol.

Whats wrong? You expect me to read your stuff, but you cant read what I post?

 

[pitabread]

its sharing truth, your the one who suggested I learn about it, but I l know more then you do lol.

Whats wrong? You expect me to read your stuff, but you cant read what I post?

If you are copying and pasting material from other web sites to pass off as your own posts, that is just plagiarism. If you want to cite material that you want to have a discussion about, then post the source and post why you think it is relevant for discussion.