Einstein's gulf

[JohnR7]

1) Mathmatical evidence of evolution = 0
2) Fossil evidence of evolution = 0
3) Laboratory observations of evolution = 0
4) Laws of Physics that support evolution = 0

Einstein's gulf is a seperation between the concrete world of hard objects, with the abstract world of speculation along with abstrast ideas and thinking. There is no evidence in the concrete world for evolution. It is a product of abstract ideas and thinking with no basis in the real world.

"Einstein's Gulf is hard to get around. For any materialistic theory of evolution-i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.-all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse/"
http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

 

[notto]

Speaking of logical burdens . . .

 

[lucaspa]

1) Mathmatical evidence of evolution = 0
2) Fossil evidence of evolution = 0
3) Laboratory observations of evolution = 0
4) Laws of Physics that support evolution = 0

Einstein's gulf is a seperation between the concrete world of hard objects, with the abstract world of speculation along with abstrast ideas and thinking. There is no evidence in the concrete world for evolution. It is a product of abstract ideas and thinking with no basis in the real world.

"Einstein's Gulf is hard to get around. For any materialistic theory of evolution-i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.-all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse/"
http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

John, in order to have an honest discussion, you have to move beyond repeating claims that have already been falsified.

1. Evolution is not atheism. The site made a strawman of "materialistic theory of evolution" We have stated many times that atheism is just as much a faith as theism. And that evolution and science, properly understood, do not back atheism.

2. Real evolution -- descent with modification by natural selection -- does indeed have supporting evidence.

All of population genetics and the math associated with it support evolution. Remember, deviations from Hardy-Weinberg are massively documented by population geneticists.

I've posted the transitional series many times. You've NEVER challenged the data. Now again you make the already refuted claim of no fossil evidence.

I've posted several laboratory studies of evolution. Again, you have NEVER challenged them, much less shown they are wrong. So we have another empty claim.

All the laws of physics support evolution. None of them contradict it. We've gone thru this many times also. Again, you never challenge the refutations of that claim.

Repeating empty claims that have been refuted many times doesn't help Christianity, John. It simply makes the Christian look foolish. Not my opinion, but that of St. Augustine.

"Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. "

St. Augustine saw that repeating empty claims is a disgraceful thing for a Christian to do, and other Christians are supposed to prevent such embarassment in order to protect Christianity.

Want to know why I participate? To prevent the destruction of Christianity by such ridiculous arguments as used in the OP and at the website cited.

 

[Arikay]

And thus proves someone doesnt understand evolution or science.

This seems to be common. That creationists dont even understand the theory they are fighting against.

So, how often do you have to repeat something to one person before you can conclude that they are either not listening, and thus you should stop talking to them, or they are willingly promoting false information?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,


until i read the tread... i thought Enstein's Gulf was some place in the Carribbean

then, for a moment, i thought it should have said Ensteins Golf... which was equally odd... but i thought that i would like to know if Enstein played golf, if so, what was his handicapp?

 

[wblastyn]

1) Mathmatical evidence of evolution = 0
2) Fossil evidence of evolution = 0
3) Laboratory observations of evolution = 0
4) Laws of Physics that support evolution = 0

How long have you been here and you're still convincing yourself that there is no evidence??

 

[Orihalcon]

i think, through this post, we have proven that somebody can't count past 0.

 

[Cantuar]

That is really, really pathetic. Quite apart from anything else, you might think that physicists would have noticed after all these years if one of the major theories in biology contravened basic physical laws. Physicists aren't usually slow to point out problems with other scientific disciplines. The claim that evolution contravenes physical laws is laughable as well as being untrue. Course, so is this rubbish about lack of laboratory and fossil evidence. And apparently John has managed to survive all this time on this board without taking in anything anybody's said about population genetics.

 

[goat37]

I hate to do this, but:


1) Mathmatical evidence of GOD = 0
2) Fossil evidence of GOD = 0
3) Laboratory observations of GOD = 0
4) Laws of Physics that support GOD = 0


If you are using science as your basis to debunk evolution, then you have to use the rest of science as truth... which says, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
With that being said, there were no birds nor mammals 250 million years ago. Birds came from non-birds, and mammals came from non-mammals.

BTW... if evolution didn't happen, then why would God create birds with the right genes for making a full set of teeth? Or humans with a tail for that matter... hmmmm?

 

[JohnR7]

i think, through this post, we have proven that somebody can't count past 0.

Good thing because 0 is the number of people who actually addressed Einsteins Gulf.

 

[notto]

Good thing because 0 is the number of people who actually addressed Einsteins Gulf.

Yourself included I see.

 

[JohnR7]

BTW... if evolution didn't happen, then why would God create birds with the right genes for making a full set of teeth? Or humans with a tail for that matter... hmmmm?

Wait a min. Birds have a gene for making a full set of teeth? Or is this just another evolutionist claim with nothing to back it up.

 

[JohnR7]

Yourself included I see.

I'm just the pin boy here, I just set up the pins so you guys can knock them down. Did anyone follow the link?

 

[foolsparade]

John, in order to have an honest discussion, you have to move beyond repeating claims that have already been falsified.

Want to know why I participate? To prevent the destruction of Christianity by such ridiculous arguments as used in the OP and at the website cited.

and that is exactly what is happening.

 

[JohnR7]

John, in order to have an honest discussion, you have to move beyond repeating claims that have already been falsified.

Oh really? Well I just ran a search on Einstein's Gulf and nothing came up. So it has not been a subject on this forum in the last year. Just to be sure the search function was working I ran a search on just Einstein and 326 threads came up.

 

[notto]

1)
"Einstein's Gulf is hard to get around. For any materialistic theory of evolution-i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.-all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse/"
http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

Can you (or your source) document where Darwin proposed a theory that non-living chemicals sprang up to life? This is a lie. Darwin believed in God and says God's work in his studies of evolution. Why would your source lie to you like this?

 

[Arikay]

Anymore I just have to say:
whats the point of responding?
DNFTT.

Before the teacher can teach, the student must be willing to learn.

 

[goat37]

Wait a min. Birds have a gene for making a full set of teeth? Or is this just another evolutionist claim with nothing to back it up.

Yes John, birds have genes which are used for making teeth. I will cite my sources in just a sec....

 

[strubenuff]

Is John a troll?

 

[Arikay]

I really really really want to say No.
but currently I cant.
Wish I could.

Is John a troll?