"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[dad]

If you want to claim a "different state" the burden of proof is upon you. Until then as usual you lose.

If you want to claim ANY state the burden is on you. Science does claim one. They cannot prove it in any way, it is blind faith alone.

The nature of the past in the bible was different. No proof needed. Science has nothing it can say about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to claim ANY state the burden is on you. Science does claim one. They cannot prove it in any way, it is blind faith alone.

The nature of the past in the bible was different. No proof needed. Science has nothing it can say about it.

I can provide evidence that supports my claims. You can provide none that supports your claims. Once again, without any evidence you lose. Where is your evidence of a different state in the past?

 

[dad]

I can provide evidence that supports my claims.

No you can't. Heck who knows what your claims even are? Just anti creation venom with no substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you can't. Heck who knows what your claims even are? Just anti creation venom with no substance.

Of course I can. Sadly you don't even know what qualifies as evidence.

 

[dad]

Of course I can. Sadly you don't even know what qualifies as evidence.

Yes. Your beliefs are not evidence. Wishing real hard won't help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. Your beliefs are not evidence. Wishing real hard won't help.

I can teach you what evidence is, if you are willing to learn. None of the definitions are mine, I did not write them. Once again, I do have scientific evidence and because I know what scientific evidence is I am extremely sure that you do not have any.

 

[dad]

I can teach you what evidence is, if you are willing to learn. None of the definitions are mine, I did not write them. Once again, I do have scientific evidence and because I know what scientific evidence is I am extremely sure that you do not have any.

Then spill it! Who do you think you are kidding?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then spill it! Who do you think you are kidding?

You have to be willing to learn what scientific evidence is. If you are ready to learn I am ready to teach.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Its evolutionary biologist that are doing this work. Not creationist.

A Surprise for Evolution in a Giant Tree of Life



“And while some scientists have been complimentary, others immediately challenged the results, questioning both the accuracy of the tree and the conclusions that Hedges has drawn. “I am very skeptical about inferring patterns of speciation from such a broad overview of the tree of life,” said Chris Jiggins, a biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. …”

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/surprise-evolution-giant-tree-life/

My opinion is that those who are wedded to the common ancestor theory will sooner or later get bigger surprises in the future. I believe that scientists would be much safer in sticking to the common design interpretation of facts

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Surprise for Evolution in a Giant Tree of Life



“And while some scientists have been complimentary, others immediately challenged the results, questioning both the accuracy of the tree and the conclusions that Hedges has drawn. “I am very skeptical about inferring patterns of speciation from such a broad overview of the tree of life,” said Chris Jiggins, a biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. …”

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/surprise-evolution-giant-tree-life/

My opinion is that those who are wedded to the common ancestor theory will sooner or later get bigger surprises in the future. I believe that scientists would be much safer in sticking to the common design interpretation of facts

I am very sure that you will be wrong. You do realize that there is no scientific evidence that supports your beliefs at all, don't you?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

You mean interpretation of dating methods?

The facts of nature can be interpreted under the following assumptions: The common ancestor theory or the common design one. Evolutionists have chosen the first option. This means that if their assumption is wrong, their entire edifice will crumble.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The facts of nature can be interpreted under the following assumptions: The common ancestor theory or the common design one. Evolutionists have chosen the first option. This means that if their assumption is wrong, their entire edifice will crumble.

Wrong on a couple of points. First that man evolved is not an assumption, it is a deduction from massive scientific evidence. Second there is no consistent interpretation of nature using the creationist beliefs. That is why you can't even find a hypothesis of creationism that would explain life in terms of a creation event. That also means by definition that there is no scientific evidence that supports your beliefs.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I am very sure that you will be wrong. You do realize that there is no scientific evidence that supports your beliefs at all, don't you?

Yes, but I am sure that my view will sooner or later prevail. Lack of evidence? We are drowning in a sea of evidence, but those with a blind spot are unable to see it.

 

[lasthero]

My opinion is that those who are wedded to the common ancestor theory will sooner or later get bigger surprises in the future. I believe that scientists would be much safer in sticking to the common design interpretation of facts

The actual scientists disagree.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, but I am sure that my view will sooner or later prevail. Lack of evidence? We are drowning in a sea of evidence, but those with a blind spot are unable to see it.

Funnily enough, people like you have been sure about such things for over a century. So far, you've always been wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but I am sure that my view will sooner or later prevail. Lack of evidence? We are drowning in a sea of evidence, but those with a blind spot are unable to see it.

Wrong. I was very specific. I said scientific evidence. That is a special class of evidence used by scientists. There is no scientific evidence that supports your beliefs. This is not a matter of interpretation, it reflects the fact that creationists cannot come up with a testable idea that supports their beliefs.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

First that man evolved is not an assumption, it is a deduction from massive scientific evidence.

The massive scientific evidence supports the microevolution which nobody denies. Give me massive scientific evidence that major groups descended from lower forms of life. You can dig as deep as you want in the geologic column and you discover that major forms of life are fixed within their natural limits. Experts have experimented with viruses, for example, but although they do evolve, scientists have never observed viruses evolve into higher forms of life. The same can be said about horses, elephants and rats. We have a variety of dogs, but dogs always breed dogs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The massive scientific evidence supports the microevolution which nobody denies. Give me massive scientific evidence that major groups descended from lower forms of life. You can dig as deep as you want in the geologic column and you discover that major forms of life are fixed within their natural limits. Experts have experimented with viruses, for example, but although they do evolve, scientists have never observed viruses evolve into higher forms of life. The same can be said about horses, elephants and rats. We have a variety of dogs, but dogs always breed dogs.

Nope, there is no evidence that supports your limits. You do not seem to understand the nature of scientific evidence. The fossil record is exactly what we would expect to see if the theory of evolution was correct. That is why there is massive scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. And the fossil record is only a small part of the evidence that supports the theory. There are several different independent sources of evidence all that support the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution only. This is called consilience and is considered to be extremely strong evidence that a theory is correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience


Meanwhile creationism has, as I pointed out, no supporting scientific evidence and that is the fault of creation "scientists". Most of them know how badly their hypotheses have fared in the past and they are not willing to have their ideas tested. Of course you could show that I was wrong and find an actual hypothesis of creationism. It does not need to explain how a god made life, it only has to explain why we see life as we do in light of creationism. To my knowledge there is no such hypothesis out there, and of course there is not "theory of creationism". That would be too well known by definition for it to have escaped my searches.

And it seems that you do not understand what the theory of evolution says. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. But then creationists do not have a working definition of kind either. That is another flaw in their beliefs.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

'....rats. ....'

Rats?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

The fossil record is exactly what we would expect to see if the theory of evolution was correct.

The fossil record is NOT what we would expect to see if the theory of evolution was correct. Where is the record of the ancestors of the living life forms present in the Cambrian Explosion?