A very specific question for evolutionists.

[MoonLancer]

If you're talking about my Apple Challenge, I'm wondering why you can't give me a scientific conclusion as to why it is wrong - (despite the fact that I've given you a scientific reason as to why it is right). The Apple Challenge is your chance to shine, and impress me with your knowledge of science. Instead, you guys make fun of it, then wonder why I still think ex nihilo creation is viable.

science only deals with whats falsifiable. your apple challenge is anything but. Are you faulting science with not being able able to answer the unfalsifiable? is this what you mean holding science to a higher standard?

your apple challenge has nothing to do with science. its a semantic argument.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes --- He wrote Revelation ---

Originally Posted by Revelation 1:1-2
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

John wrote "The Revelation to John," not Jesus. John may have claimed an angel gave him Jesus' revelations, but Jesus certainly did not write it.

 

[Split Rock]

I notice that i have exactly 0 friends, the same amount of requests made for said friends here on the forums. I make no apologies for the truth, though if i am wrong Apologies if i hurt your feelings. Can you honestly say, that some of your repeated mantras are not intended to offend?

I'll be your friend, if you will be mine..

P.S. I just went on a Mad Friending Spree! Friend me up, everyone!!!!

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I don't see you guys patting me on the back when I say I hold science up to a Higher Standard, or that God gifts us scientists, either. The only time I ridicule science is when it sticks its nose where it doesn't belong --- misinterpreting the Bible.

That "higher standard" is a standard that scripture itself could not meet. you reject a concept that is supported by no less than the entire field of biology. every piece of biological evidence is consistent with evolution. every cell, every protein, every organ, every gene, every bone, every fossil, every DNA, every RNA, EVERYTHING! yet you reject it. On the other hand there is nothing to support the biblical story of creation outside of the bible.


We ridicule scripture when it treds on the territory of science. Science is backed up by something more than a word or a collection of words. Things like observation and experimentation. These observations and experimentations are repeatable and verifiable.

nobody has to take my word for it that humans are related to chimpanzees. I can show genetic evidence, ERV evidence, physiologic evidence, compare the sequences of every protein in both species, molecular biological evidence from every sequence in both species. perhaps if your ideas had more behind them than faith then evidence-based scientific thinkers would take it more seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

That "higher standard" is a standard that scripture itself could not meet. you reject a concept that is supported by no less than the entire field of biology. every piece of biological evidence is consistent with evolution. every cell, every protein, every organ, every gene, every bone, every fossil, every DNA, every RNA, EVERYTHING! yet you reject it. On the other hand there is nothing to support the biblical story of creation outside of the bible.


We ridicule scripture when it treds on the territory of science. Science is backed up by something more than a word or a collection of words. Things like observation and experimentation. These observations and experimentations are repeatable and verifiable.

nobody has to take my word for it that humans are related to chimpanzees. I can show genetic evidence, ERV evidence, physiologic evidence, compare the sequences of every protein in both species, molecular biological evidence from every sequence in both species. perhaps if your ideas had more behind them than faith then evidence-based scientific thinkers would take it more seriously.

And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?

 

[MoonLancer]

And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?

LoL. If all you want out of science is to validate your beliefs about the bible, your going at it all wrong.

simple answer, Jesus diden't walk on water. Unless that is, you can show us how its done?

 

[corvus_corax]

If you're talking about my Apple Challenge<snipped to get to the point> you guys make fun of it...

I finally had to break down and give you guys the answer to it. --- four times.

Be very careful painting with your broad brush
I did NOT make fun of it
I answered it directly (and I wasnt the only one).
You even repped me (and I'd like to assume you repped the others who anwered the way I did), because it was OBVIOUS that NO evidence could be brought forth

You keep bringing up your Apple Challenge, and you keep LYING about the results, in that you paint "you guys" with a broad broad brush.

The least you could do is recognize that more than one person actually "got it"

 

[AV1611VET]

Be very careful painting with your broad brush
I did NOT make fun of it
I answered it directly (and I wasnt the only one).
You even repped me (and I'd like to assume you repped the others who anwered the way I did), because it was OBVIOUS that NO evidence could be brought forth

You keep bringing up your Apple Challenge, and you keep LYING about the results, in that you paint "you guys" with a broad broad brush.

The least you could do is recognize that more than one person actually "got it"

I accepted the answer, "no evidence", even though I stated there was indeed physical evidence that one could [hypothetically] present.

I vaguely remember one person stating what that physical evidence was.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?

With all your fancy scripture, you can't tell us how he did it either -- with the extra handicap that you can't even tell us if he actually did it.

 

[Bombila]

How to look like you are walking on water.

Sandflats. We have a lot of sand flats on our coast, sometimes they are absolutely flat, but often there are little hills and dales created by currents and waves and channels and stream outlets. When they are just covered, especially when the evening sun slants across them, there's no way to see where the hollows are. You could stand on one with only a couple cm. of water around your toes, but someone stepping out of a boat a few feet away would sink over his head until you hauled them up beside you on the flat.

Would be pretty dazzling if you didn't know the flat was there.

 

[corvus_corax]

I accepted the answer, "no evidence", even though I stated there was indeed physical evidence that one could [hypothetically] present.

I vaguely remember one person stating what that physical evidence was.

You know what? That's great, and I really mean that with no sarcasm.
So are you now going to stop broadbrushing in regard to your Apple Challenge?
Please?
Because continuing to broad brush the way you have is an abomination, according to your KJV

 

[tanzanos]

And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?

There are spiders and a lizard that walk and or run on water; do they qualify as deities? They deserve to be mentioned in the bible on a par with Jesus. Perhaps a new gospel dedicated to water walkers?
David Copperfield is also illegible!

 

[pgp_protector]

There are spiders and a lizard that walk and or run on water; do they qualify as deities? They deserve to be mentioned in the bible on a par with Jesus. Perhaps a new gospel dedicated to water walkers?
David Copperfield is also illegible!

Or Cris Angel.
Though a Good Magician wouldn't give away there secret.

 

[AV1611VET]

So are you now going to stop broadbrushing in regard to your Apple Challenge?

Consider it stopped.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?

How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?

The same way they would investigate the claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, I suppose.

 

[[serious]]

The same way they would investigate the claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, I suppose.

By looking for sunken ships?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?

The same way they would investigate the claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, I suppose.

those arent the same. there are countless journals, diaries, treaties, physical evidences of war. Also, this isnt a supernatural claim. it is well wthin the realm of historical & physical plausibility outright.

so what do we have to account for walking on water? the gospels. they were physically written long AFTER the events in question. any contemporaneous accounts are lost to history to an event of physical implausibility. even taking historical standards of evidence, it falls flat. the weight of the human body is well past the threshold of surface tension. all we can hope is that you dont have doubts about surface tension.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

That "higher standard" is a standard that scripture itself could not meet. you reject a concept that is supported by no less than the entire field of biology. every piece of biological evidence is consistent with evolution. every cell, every protein, every organ, every gene, every bone, every fossil, every DNA, every RNA, EVERYTHING! yet you reject it. On the other hand there is nothing to support the biblical story of creation outside of the bible.


We ridicule scripture when it treds on the territory of science. Science is backed up by something more than a word or a collection of words. Things like observation and experimentation. These observations and experimentations are repeatable and verifiable.

nobody has to take my word for it that humans are related to chimpanzees. I can show genetic evidence, ERV evidence, physiologic evidence, compare the sequences of every protein in both species, molecular biological evidence from every sequence in both species. perhaps if your ideas had more behind them than faith then evidence-based scientific thinkers would take it more seriously.

And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?

you really didnt respond to anything i said except to handwave it under the phrase "fancy science". creation is supported by one source. that source has questionable origins and is filled with problems of historical veracity and physical plausibility. on top of that, the story is not in any way reflective of the universe or how it operates. Talk about higher standard, creation cant even meet the standard of elementary school science. it fails at things like the solar system and photosynthesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

those arent the same. there are countless journals, diaries, treaties, physical evidences of war.

I didn't say war, I said the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Science today can no more validate the Spanish Armada, than it can Jesus walking on water; so the question, "How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?" cannot be ascertained within the realm of science.