Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! Once again, list a single mechanism which is permitted or allowed other than naturalistic mechanisms. Just one. Single. Solitary. Mechanism.

Again, you are using very poor language here. No mechanism are "permitted" or not "permitted". There are no presuppositions limiting mechanisms. Conclusions are drawn upon observations. There is no observed mechanism that is not naturalistic. When mutation rates and other factors are investigated it can be shown that evolution can occur without outside help of any kind, unnatural or supernatural. Natural forces are enough to accomplish the observed phenomena. No god's are invoked in the process since there is no evidence of a need of gods.

Again, when a ball is thrown to do need to invoke a god to explain why it falls? The observed process of evolution is no different.

Point out something other than naturalistic mechanisms. Anything.

Sorry, it is your claim, you need to point out the need for something other than naturalistic mechanisms. The burden of proof is upon you for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I use single or double quotes? Go back and check if you're unsure. Now, did you use single or double quotes?

Stop a moment. Read a little about single and double quotes. This should be important to you.

Nope, my usage was fine. Your claim, let's see your evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Again, you are using very poor language here. No mechanism are "permitted" or not "permitted". There are no presuppositions limiting mechanisms. Conclusions are drawn upon observations. There is no observed mechanism that is not naturalistic. When mutation rates and other factors are investigated it can be shown that evolution can occur without outside help of any kind, unnatural or supernatural. Natural forces are enough to accomplish the observed phenomena. No god's are invoked in the process since there is no evidence of a need of gods.

Again, when a ball is thrown to do need to invoke a god to explain why it falls? The observed process of evolution is no different.




Sorry, it is your claim, you need to point out the need for something other than naturalistic mechanisms. The burden of proof is upon you for that.

You know the drill very well, more mountains of nothing from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know the drill very well, more mountains of nothing from you.

Interpretation, justlook has no answer to a post that refutes his nonsense.

Thanks justlook.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know the drill very well, more mountains of nothing from you.

You refuse to look at the mountains because they are found on links.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, my usage was fine. Your claim, let's see your evidence.

Let's take this a step at a time.

I used single quotes for 'yer a liar'. You used double quotes. Do you understand that you changed what I said when you changed the quotes?

Again, take a couple of minutes at most and find out what single and double quotes mean.

I'm just trying to help you.

 

[justlookinla]

You refuse to look at the mountains because they are found on links.

It's not my fault you don't have the capacity to present your beliefs with supporting evidence in the form of quotes from others with whom you agree, or your own thoughts.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not my fault you don't have the capacity to present your beliefs with supporting evidence in the form of quotes from others with whom you agree, or your own thoughts.

I already have, multiple times. You never addressed it. You run away from it, and go back to your "science is atheism" nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's take this a step at a time.

I used single quotes for 'yer a liar'. You used double quotes. Do you understand that you changed what I said when you changed the quotes?

Again, take a couple of minutes at most and find out what single and double quotes mean.

I'm just trying to help you.

Depending upon your country of origin the rules vary. Your usage was incorrect for the U.S.. Mine was correct for the U.S.. Now since I was only quoting the "yer a liar" part my usage was correct. If I quoted a significant part of your post it would look like this:


"I used single quotes for 'yer a liar'(sic). You used double quotes."

The (sic) would point out your incorrect use of quotation marks. I assumed you were not from the U.S. and used the correct form for me.

Oh, I believe that Canada uses the same rules that we do too, though I will not swear to it.

 

[justlookinla]

I already have, multiple times. You never addressed it. You run away from it, and go back to your "science is atheism" nonsense.

From a previous post of yours that you will not answer...

"The theory does not make absolute statements of what is or isn't involved."​

Give an example of a statement which isn't absolute in the view that only naturalistic mechanisms explains the creation of mankind.

Why do I suspect you're going to 1) ignore the request or 2) pretend to answer by giving a link or 3) make some disparaging remark while not giving an answer.

 

[justlookinla]

Depending upon your country of origin the rules vary. Your usage was incorrect for the U.S.. Mine was correct for the U.S.. Now since I was only quoting the "yer a liar" part my usage was correct. If I quoted a significant part of your post it would look like this:


"I used single quotes for 'yer a liar'(sic). You used double quotes."

The (sic) would point out your incorrect use of quotation marks. I assumed you were not from the U.S. and used the correct form for me.

Oh, I believe that Canada uses the same rules that we do too, though I will not swear to it.

But I didn't say "yer a liar", I said 'yer a liar'. You're still having trouble comprehending the simplest of punctuation.

Anyway, as I said, if the admins have no problem with it, I sure don't.

 

[justlookinla]

I already have, multiple times. You never addressed it. You run away from it, and go back to your "science is atheism" nonsense.

You're having the same problems with punctuation that others are having here. Do you understand what double quotes mean?

 

[Loudmouth]

Give an example of a statement which isn't absolute in the view that only naturalistic mechanisms explains the creation of mankind.

An example is the theory of evolution. The most general statement is that all of the evidence is consistent with the proposed natural mechanisms. This, in no way, rules out divine or supernatural mehcanisms. It just merely states that there is no evidence for the divine or supernatural, and that the evidence is consistent with natural mechanisms.

In a court of law, it is the difference between guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and guilty beyond ANY doubt. Science deals with reasonable doubt. It doesn't deal in absolute doubt.

Why do I suspect you're going to 1) ignore the request or 2) pretend to answer by giving a link or 3) make some disparaging remark while not giving an answer.

Why can't you understand that theories are tentative, and what that means?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're having the same problems with punctuation that others are having here. Do you understand what double quotes mean?

Do you understand what "facts" are?

Do you understand what "tentativiity" is?

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

Do you understnad the difference between not including a mechanism in a theory, and claiming that no such mehcanism exists?

Do you understand the difference between a scientific hypothesis and fiction?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I didn't say "yer a liar", I said 'yer a liar'. You're still having trouble comprehending the simplest of punctuation.

Anyway, as I said, if the admins have no problem with it, I sure don't.

I comprehend punctuation just fine. According to the rules of the U.S. your usage was wrong. The quoted part does not need to have single quotes. My use of double quotes shows that I was quoting you directly assuming that you were not U.S. born and raised.

I made no comment about your "error" (those are called scare quotes by the way). You should have kept quiet about your perceived error that I made.

And as I have pointed out using a strawman argument is a form of lying and the way you are using it is possibly a violation of the rules here. Please refrain from doing so. As a Christian you are supposed to follow the 9th Commandment.

 

[AV1611VET]

You run away from it, and go back to your "science is atheism" nonsense.

Today's science is foolish.

Tomorrow's will be worse.

 

[justlookinla]

An example is the theory of evolution. The most general statement is that all of the evidence is consistent with the proposed natural mechanisms. This, in no way, rules out divine or supernatural mehcanisms. It just merely states that there is no evidence for the divine or supernatural, and that the evidence is consistent with natural mechanisms.

In a court of law, it is the difference between guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and guilty beyond ANY doubt. Science deals with reasonable doubt. It doesn't deal in absolute doubt.

When a guess is presented which demands the viewpoint that life is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms then it's a closed guess as to what created mankind.

Why can't you understand that theories are tentative, and what that means?

"Theories are tentative" means that it's a series of guesses and suppositions.

 

[Skaloop]

Oh, I believe that Canada uses the same rules that we do too, though I will not swear to it.

Yep. We use double quotation marks for quotations and single quotation marks for embedded quotations. The Brits (and probably elsewhere in the Commonwealth) use the reverse.

We also use double quotation marks for written situations that would utilize air quotes if spoken. Single quotation marks are also used to isolate a word that is not meant to be taken as part of the sentence, but rather as a reference to the word itself (eg - There is a difference between 'paraphrase' and 'quotation'.)

And as mentioned yesterday, single quotation marks are not required, nor standard usage, for indicating a paraphrase.

 

[justlookinla]

Do you understand what "facts" are?

Do you understand what "tentativiity" is?

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

Do you understnad the difference between not including a mechanism in a theory, and claiming that no such mehcanism exists?

Do you understand the difference between a scientific hypothesis and fiction?

Do you understand truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you understand what "facts" are?

Do you understand what "tentativiity" is?

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

Do you understnad the difference between not including a mechanism in a theory, and claiming that no such mehcanism exists?

Do you understand the difference between a scientific hypothesis and fiction?

When justlook is getting his heinie spanked he will use any means rather than to address the actual argument.