Dr. Dino

[Dutchunter]

So there are doors in the firmament that let the rain in and storehouses of snow in the firmament?

Reread my posts and the article. You know very well I was speaking of evolution "theory" in general with the quote you're responding to- and I still see no evidence from you.

 

[Vance]

No, you said there is no physical evidence which contradicts a literal reading of Scripture. He is pointing out one example of how what we know from science contradicts a literal reading of Scripture. Of course, it does not contradict Scripture itself, just the literal reading of it.

 

[troodon]

Troodon...next time just respond to what I'm saying

What part did I skip? I felt that my response was rather exhaustive.

instead of picking it apart sentence by sentence.

What better way to give it a thorough thrashing than to respond in a clear, linear fashion?

I realize there's so much evidence for your side that you don't have room to post it all

And you are doing such a good job discussing them

(those links/"evidence" have been refuted.

No they have not. If they have perhaps you had better tell us how they have been refuted; else we are in the dark.

Would you like me to post every link to every case made against evolution by AIG and others?)

Or you could tell us in your own words.

But I have to respond to your claim of me violating rule #1. As I said in the SAME SENTENCE

You said: "you have the same beliefs as "non-believers". Not "you have the same belief regarding the creation of the diversity of life on the planet as "non-believers". My apologies for your statement being ambiguous.

(shows how desperate you are)

I'm the desparate one whereas you are forced to wave off all evidence presented by claiming AiG has dealt with it when you yourself have presented no evidence that this is the case.

Now go back to finding all those missing links for us

You can find some on that Dino-Bird Transitions link.

I hate to have to remind people.....evolution is a THEORY- demonstrated over and over to be wrong!

Again all you are providing is empty rhetoric; even AiG does a better job. At least they have the guts to present false evidence.

A "theory" that actually tests to work- THE bomb- duh..........

I haven't the slightest clue what you are trying to say here.

 

[Dutchunter]

No, you said there is no physical evidence which contradicts a literal reading of Scripture. He is pointing out one example of how what we know from science contradicts a literal reading of Scripture. Of course, it does not contradict Scripture itself, just the literal reading of it.

I was responding to his statement on CREATION:


"Sure anybody can do that, but in this case, it is only done when there is physical evidence in the creation that directly contradicts and falsifies a literal reading of the texts."


I think you guys confuse "literal" with "literal using common sense" either way.

 

[Dutchunter]

Troodon....I'm not going to waste my time with someone who goes sentence by sentence and can't even figure out how obvious a difference there is between a theory proven to work- The A-bomb- and one that is still a theory not proven- evolution.

 

[Vance]

Ah, but that is just it. What you call "common sense" is simply knowing that the literal way the Scripture describes it is not actually true, so it must mean something else. And how do you know this? Because you know more about the world around you than people did in ancient times (I am sure that the initial reader of the verse quoted thought that it was literally true just the way it was written). And how do you know more about the world around you? Scientific discovery.

Now apply this process to Genesis 1 and you do NOT get YEC'ism.

 

[Dutchunter]

I sure DO get YEC'ism! Even more so- I get non-evolution'ism!

 

[wblastyn]

Troodon....I'm not going to waste my time with someone who goes sentence by sentence and can't even figure out how obvious a difference there is between a theory proven to work- The A-bomb- and one that is still a theory not proven- evolution.

Please learn how science works before saying anything like that again, it will avoid embarassment.

 

[Dutchunter]

So you found the missing link? Other evidence? It's no longer a theory?

 

[wblastyn]

So you found the missing link? Other evidence? It's no longer a theory?

Of course it's a theory, it will always be a theory, just like gravity is a theory and germs are a theory.

A theory in science is different than the common use of the word.

 

[Vance]

Man oh man, you really don't get it. Please, please go and learn what a theory is versus a fact. We had to explain this to someone else just a couple of days ago. Can someone pull that discussion and link it for Dutch's edification?

As for the missing link, what would expect to find? What would qualify as a missing link for you?

 

[notto]

So you found the missing link? Other evidence? It's no longer a theory?

The point is that Atomic theory is still a theory as well. The bomb is evidence that is is correct just like the several independent lines of evidence point to evolution being correct.

Either way, they will still just be theories. Can you give us a scientific definition of a theory?

 

[Dutchunter]

Wrong....my whole point was that the Atomic one HAS been proven.....evolution has NOT. Already responded to the theory question in the other thread.

 

[Dutchunter]

Man oh man, you really don't get it. Please, please go and learn what a theory is versus a fact. We had to explain this to someone else just a couple of days ago. Can someone pull that discussion and link it for Dutch's edification?

As for the missing link, what would expect to find? What would qualify as a missing link for you?

Vance...I notice you skip over reponses to yourself and jump on my responses to other. Force of habit?

Is this simple enough for you? Evolution is not a fact. The evidence does not support it as fact. It's a fact that evolutionists have been so wrong so often.

 

[Vance]

Of course, evolution is not a fact, that is a ridiculous statement, since evolution is not the type of thing that can be described as a fact. You say you "get" the whole theory issue, then you say something like this.

 

[Dutchunter]

Thank you. Finally. Evolution has not been proven. It is not a fact. And so neither can you say YEC's have been disproven or whatever. That was what my whole "theory" talk was all about. And when someone posts an AIG link saying don't use "theory".....it's obvious you know what I meant.

 

[Vance]

No, you still do not get it. The evidence we have supports the theory of evolution. There has been no evidence that falsifies evolution. Just like gravity (actually more so, since the theory of gravity is being challenged as we speak).

And, yes, every YEC theory has been falsified already, they just won't admit it or present the falsifying evidence. A young earth has been falsified, a global flood has been falsified, every theory they come up with to argue for a young earth or against evolution has been shown to be false. That is all set out in minute detail dozens of places, including the science forum.

Go ahead, present your favorite AIG theory.

 

[wblastyn]

Wrong....my whole point was that the Atomic one HAS been proven.....evolution has NOT. Already responded to the theory question in the other thread.

Theories are either valid or invalid and they cannot be proven, only disproven.

 

[Dutchunter]

No, you still do not get it. The evidence we have supports the theory of evolution. There has been no evidence that falsifies evolution. Just like gravity (actually more so, since the theory of gravity is being challenged as we speak).

And, yes, every YEC theory has been falsified already, they just won't admit it or present the falsifying evidence. A young earth has been falsified, a global flood has been falsified, every theory they come up with to argue for a young earth or against evolution has been shown to be false. That is all set out in minute detail dozens of places, including the science forum.

Go ahead, present your favorite AIG theory.

I do get it. Evolution is not fact. There is plenty of evidence that falsifies evolution- and I'm not just talking about frauds. YEC "theory" has not been falsified. Why don't you try to back up the skull- human evolution theory- first?

 

[Vance]

If you got it, you would not say "Evolution is not a fact" since this very statement (once again) shows an ignorance of what a theory is. Theories are not facts. You might as well say "gravity is not a fact", since this is as true as your statement that evolution is not a fact.

Please feel free to present your evidence that falsifies evolution, and do it in detail. AND be ready to back it up when you get an explanation why it does NOT falsify evolution.

And I am not sure what you mean by the "skull-human evolution theory"?