A Question Rgarding Embedded Age

[bhsmte]

"It may well be"

"This may mean"

"based on the assumption"

"using a software program to create an evolutionary road map that showed the most likely relationships among the organisms"

"researchers don't know yet the details of when or how this other change occurred"

"may be"

This folks is a perfect example of the subjective 'evidence' of those who embrace Darwinist creationism. The maybes, could be's and might have beens aren't evidence, but simply the faith based beliefs of those who believe humans are the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism acting upon these life forms who are "simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals. Unlike other bilaterians, they have no body cavity, and no specialized circulatory and respiratory organs, which restricts them to flattened shapes that allow oxygen and nutrients to pass through their bodies by diffusion."

Here's a photo. See the resemblance to humans?

Resemblance? That's a good one just.

Hey, if you don't understand science, get a tutor, or just stay away from it altogether, much less cognitive dissonance to deal with then.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"It may well be"

"This may mean"

"based on the assumption"

"using a software program to create an evolutionary road map that showed the most likely relationships among the organisms"

"researchers don't know yet the details of when or how this other change occurred"

"may be"

This folks is a perfect example of the subjective 'evidence' of those who embrace Darwinist creationism. The maybes, could be's and might have beens aren't evidence, but simply the faith based beliefs of those who believe humans are the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism acting upon these life forms who are "simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals. Unlike other bilaterians, they have no body cavity, and no specialized circulatory and respiratory organs, which restricts them to flattened shapes that allow oxygen and nutrients to pass through their bodies by diffusion."

Here's a photo. See the resemblance to humans?

Since when does an ancestor have to resemble humans? Plus, flatworms are a very distant ancestor, millions upon millions of years of evolution are between them and us. Lots can happen within that sort of time scale.

 

[justlookinla]

Resemblance? That's a good one just.

Hey, if you don't understand science, get a tutor, or just stay away from it altogether, much less cognitive dissonance to deal with then.

As some have said, science isn't interested in the truth. Do you agree?

Stick with your faith-based evidence of 'could be's, maybe so's, and probably's if you wish. Just don't expect me to follow it.

 

[justlookinla]

Since when does an ancestor have to resemble humans? Plus, flatworms are a very distant ancestor, millions upon millions of years of evolution are between them and us. Lots can happen within that sort of time scale.

Guesses and suppositions.

 

[bhsmte]

As some have said, science isn't interested in the truth. Do you agree?

Stick with your faith-based evidence of 'could be's, maybe so's, and probably's if you wish. Just don't expect me to follow it.

Not really no.

Science is interested in discovering facts to understand how things work. verifiable facts, will give you a better chance at getting at the truth, then anything else, IMHO.

And no, I don't expect you to change your tune just, not on these boards anyway, as you are in far too deep for that.

 

[justlookinla]

Not really no.

Science is interested in discovering facts to understand how things work. verifiable facts, will give you a better chance at getting at the truth, then anything else, IMHO.

And no, I don't expect you to change your tune just, not on these boards anyway, as you are in far too deep for that.

My 'tune' has been the same in the relatively short time I've been here. God is creator.

 

[bhsmte]

My 'tune' has been the same in the relatively short time I've been here. God is creator.

It has, the agenda must be followed, or internal problems arise.

 

[justlookinla]

It has, the agenda must be followed, or internal problems arise.

You're not speaking of the atheist agenda by any chance, are you?

 

[Dizredux]

As some have said, science isn't interested in the truth.

You keep bringing this up, can you point to where someone has said this?

Dizredux

 

[RickG]

You're not speaking of the atheist agenda by any chance, are you?

Atheist agenda! What's that?

 

[bhsmte]

You're not speaking of the atheist agenda by any chance, are you?

Not quite, I was referring to the agenda of protecting a specific personal belief at all costs.

You see, people who rely on objective evidence, don't have these internal issues, because the evidence is not internally manufactured, but objective and for all to see.

A good thing to, cuts down on that inner turmoil, otherwise known as cognitive dissonance, which is so easy to identify, if you know the behaviors that go along with it.

 

[justlookinla]

You keep bringing this up, can you point to where someone has said this?

Dizredux

I'm not going back and search for it, I've seen it said more than once though.

What do you think, is science interested in truth?

 

[justlookinla]

Not quite, I was referring to the agenda of protecting a specific personal belief at all costs.

You see, people who rely on objective evidence, don't have these internal issues, because the evidence is not internally manufactured, but objective and for all to see.

A good thing to, cuts down on that inner turmoil, otherwise known as cognitive dissonance, which is so easy to identify, if you know the behaviors that go along with it.

There is no objective evidence in the 'could be's, maybe's and possibly's which are an integral part of Darwinist creationism. If you have faith in those guesses and suppositions, that's your choice.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no objective evidence in the 'could be's, maybe's and possibly's which are an integral part of Darwinist creationism. If you have faith in those guesses and suppositions, that's your choice.

It's ok just, I completely understand why you need to make the claims you do and turn a blind eye to objective evidence. Considering the circumstances, you really have no other option.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no objective evidence in the 'could be's, maybe's and possibly's which are an integral part of Darwinist creationism.

Please rewrite your post with the correct English words.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Also, please describe why the measured decay rate of isotopes is not objective.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheist agenda! What's that?

We sometimes make references to the Humanist Manifesto.

And although it's not atheistic per se, it comes close enough.

 

[justlookinla]

Please rewrite your post with the correct English words.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Also, please describe why the measured decay rate of isotopes is not objective.

I'm using the term which addresses a single life form from long long ago becoming a human.

Measured decay rate of isotopes doesn't address what/who created humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm using the term which addresses a single life form from long long ago becoming a human.

If you are talking about the evolution of a human through natural processes, then that would be evolution, not creationism.

Measured decay rate of isotopes doesn't address what/who created humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Twisting words to make them say the opposite of what they actually mean is a dishonest and childish tactic. That is what I am addressing.

 

[justlookinla]

If you are talking about the evolution of a human through natural processes, then that would be evolution, not creationism.

I'm talking about the creation of a human through natural processes. Darwinist creationism.

Twisting words to make them say the opposite of what they actually mean is a dishonest and childish tactic. That is what I am addressing.

Nothing is being twisted. Humans were created from a single life form of long long ago, according to one creationist theory. It's a simple fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm talking about the creation of a human through natural processes. Darwinist creationism.

It is called evolution. Creationism means creation through supernatural means. Please rewrite your post with the correct word usage.

Nothing is being twisted.

That is a flat out lie. You are twisting the meaning of creationism to mean evolution when creationism is DEFINED as the opposite of evolution.

The most interesting thing is how many lies you have to hide behind in order to protect your religious beliefs.