Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[AV1611VET]

Belief has no place in science.

Tell me, VO, can you make science give you what you want?

If so, can you make it give you what you want the first time?

If so, how do you explain Thalidomide?

 

[VirOptimus]

Tell me, VO, can you make science give you what you want?

If so, can you make it give you what you want the first time?

If so, how do you explain Thalidomide?

Science has nothing to do with ”want(s)”.

Your obsession with revelling in human suffering is not shared by me.

 

[VirOptimus]

What do you call miracles then?

Not existing. Just wishful thinking like all magic.

 

[VirOptimus]

Apparently no other belief is considered... but after the curiosity, what drives science?

The question is nonsensical.

Science is a description of physical reality, no more, no less.

 

[Aman777]

Science is a description of physical reality, no more, no less.

False, since evolutionists falsely teach that Humans (descendants of Adam) obtained their superior intelligence, which is like God's, Genesis 3:22 from mindless Nature. There is nothing about physical reality in their false view. Greedy old men like it that way since it's easier to deal treacherously with an animal than with a Human. Love of money is the root of ALL evil.

 

[VirOptimus]

False, since evolutionists falsely teach that Humans (descendants of Adam) obtained their superior intelligence, which is like God's, Genesis 3:22 from mindless Nature. There is nothing about physical reality in their false view. Greedy old men like it that way since it's easier to deal treacherously with an animal than with a Human. Love of money is the root of ALL evil.

Science has nothing to do with god(s).

 

[Aman777]

Science has nothing to do with god(s).

Then, why do the mods not like me calling scientists, Godless? since what you say is the Truth? Science is willingly Godless. Amen?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then, why do the mods not like me calling scientists, Godless? since what you say is the Truth? Science is willingly Godless. Amen?

Scientists may or may not believe in god(s), doesnt change the science one way or the other.

 

[Aman777]

Scientists may or may not believe in god(s), doesnt change the science one way or the other.

How can one believe what God told us in the Bible...BUT...reject His Truth when it comes to Science? Either we evolved or God created. Theistic evolutionists must reject Genesis in order to believe that we evolved Naturally.

 

[Kylie]

What am I supposed to say when someone asks me what a Biblical kind is?

Lie and say, "I don't have any idea," just for their satisfaction?

Given that the "kind=genus" claim you've been pushing doesn't actually work, it would seem that claiming you don't know wouldn't be a lie after all!

 

[Kylie]

again: its just a speciation. why to call it evolution? the design model can also exlain speciation, since its basically still the same creature and belong to the same family.

Once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about...

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that the "kind=genus" claim you've been pushing doesn't actually work, it would seem that claiming you don't know wouldn't be a lie after all!

Then give us a definition that does.

 

[Kylie]

Then give us a definition that does.

The problem is that you seem to be under the impression that the Biblical "kind" MUST be a thing.

It does not need to be.

 

[VirOptimus]

How can one believe what God told us in the Bible...BUT...reject His Truth when it comes to Science? Either we evolved or God created. Theistic evolutionists must reject Genesis in order to believe that we evolved Naturally.

There are many different kind of ”truths”. The modern literal truth is very wrong to use when reading texts like the ones contained in the bible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think a sufficient fossil (physical) record is anywhere close. Morphology is questionable. But, as for many of the other things you refer to, I've already stated:

If we pretend that not a single fossil exists, then evolution theory would be still supported by such solid mountain of evidence that it honestly is nothing short of a perversion to still deny it.

I know you don't agree to that. Primarily because you have dogmatic religious beliefs that contradict it. But your dogmatic religious beliefs don't trump reality.

You believe what you believe, religious, with no actual regard for evidence.

The fact of the matter is that fossils are nice, but they aren't the be all, end all of evolution theory. Far from it. While the fossil evidence is solid, the other lines of evidence, like the genetic record, are a lot more precise and more slam-dunk kind of evidence.

So this insistance on the fossil record by the creationist camp is wrong in two ways actually. First, they are obviously wrong about what that record really is all about and second, the completely overestimate its value in terms of how much explanatory power it gives to evolution theory.

Bottom line:
If you remove all fossil evidence in support of evolution from existance, evolution stays standing as tall as ever, on the genetic record alone.

If you remove the genetic record, then you get some degree of impact on the theory. However, the amount of evidence still remaining would still be more then enough to rationally accept the idea. Just like it was before we discovered DNA, which came much later then the theory (but the mechanism of which, was predicted to exist by evolution theory long before it, btw: a means by which traits are inherited by off spring and mutate).

But yea, whatevs I guess.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How can one believe what God told us in the Bible...BUT...reject His Truth when it comes to Science? Either we evolved or God created. Theistic evolutionists must reject Genesis in order to believe that we evolved Naturally.

Or just not take it literally, off course.
Like most christians actually do.

You're in a minority, didn't you know?
In fact, when it comes to the full details of beliefs, it would even surprise me that you, in particular, stand all alone with your beliefs. What with your "space-submarine-arks" and whatnot.

 

[inquiring mind]

If we pretend that not a single fossil exists, then evolution theory would be still supported by such solid mountain of evidence that it honestly is nothing short of a perversion to still deny it.

I know you don't agree to that. Primarily because you have dogmatic religious beliefs that contradict it. But your dogmatic religious beliefs don't trump reality.

Let’s get things straight now... first, I’m not saying that no fossil exists that you can fit into your puzzle; I’m saying, and I believe most of the scientific world (that isn’t denying the reality of the situation that evolutionary science faces) would agree, “there’s not enough stand-alone fossil evidence, in and of itself, to hand down a verdict that absolutely confirms macro evolution.” Can you present one body of evidence, supported by the scientific community, as a whole, that does? As you’re always saying, forget my personal belief, and let’s stay in the courtroom atmosphere momentarily. Where is the solid mountain of ‘fossil evidence’ that connects the dots in such a way that would be unreasonable to deny (a perversion as you say), even without bringing in religious belief?

You believe what you believe, religious, with no actual regard for evidence.

Yes I believe God’s Word, and up to this point physical evidence is lacking that would counter it.

The fact of the matter is that fossils are nice, but they aren't the be all, end all of evolution theory. Far from it.

That’s my point; they’re not.

While the fossil evidence is solid,

Not

the other lines of evidence, like the genetic record, are a lot more precise and more slam-dunk kind of evidence.

Again, I have said (and enter my belief):

I know, there is an enormous amount of evidence of this in all life on Earth. I don’t deny that the make-up of everything on earth has such commonality, and apparently cosmological and geological ages are very old, or appear so anyway, and I have no problem with that. But, I believe we were created by God, according to His ways and in His time-space continuum, neither of which we can begin to understand or detail.

So where you see DNA and genetic record as verification of macro evolution, I see it as one more method used by God in His creation, which confounds man's understanding of His work, and leaves God, God... and man, man.

This is our divide I guess.

 

[Aman777]

There are many different kind of ”truths”. The modern literal truth is very wrong to use when reading texts like the ones contained in the bible.

Amen, but that is exactly the way God chose to reveal Himself to the people of the last days of this Earth. God tells us of recent scientific discoveries in Genesis which are just now being fulfilled. He also tells us of future discoveries science will soon announce just before Jesus returns. Science will make the announcements.

The reason WHY is simple. In the last days God will pour our His Spirit of Truth upon ALL flesh, including unbelievers of every kind. Act 2:17 This leaves everyone with NO excuse for the soon coming Judgment. Rom 1:20 Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Or just not take it literally, off course.
Like most christians actually do.

Really? Do you have the ability to tell us which are Christians since God tells us that no one has that ability?

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Tell us the details of HOW you do it or everyone will think you're just imitating Trump.

You're in a minority, didn't you know?
In fact, when it comes to the full details of beliefs, it would even surprise me that you, in particular, stand all alone with your beliefs. What with your "space-submarine-arks" and what not.

I wouldn't know since I've never posted of "space-submarine-arks" and what not. The only thing I show is that God is able to move matter between Universes within the Multiverse. He's been doing it for thousands of years. Here's the Apostle Paul who went to the 3rd Heaven and back safely:

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Would you call the Apostle Paul......a Spaceman? Probably.

 

[loveofourlord]

Logical fallacy:
Appeal to Authority
The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.

Nice bit of fallacy fallacy :>