Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Astrid]

I know of no evidence for the earth being young. I know of plenty regarding the earth being old. My answer to your request is actually in this post just above: Post #358

Short version: I think when the bible talks of the earth in the context of creation, destruction and recreation, it is speaking of the surface of the earth. That gets made "new" quite a bit. Hence the buried forests in the Sahara.

Wondered why you even mentioned opinions.

I'm well aware of fossils, buried landscapes,
historical geology. " Creation'", destruction, and renewal on a global scale is very leisurely, with the surface in a constant state of change.

Why you seemjngly speak of massive abrupt change is unclear to me. Prease exprain.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

"Why" is not amenable to fact or resson and as such, discussion is of no demonstrable purpose. And this is a phys sci thread.

Yes, it is a phys sci thread in a Christian site. Christians see everything from a "God is our creator" viewpoint. It can not be ignored. However, a phys sci thread can discuss "how" God did it.

And regarding "why", I see it this way:
Science is about "how". Religion is about "why". And the latter is the higher pursuit.

 

[Astrid]

I don't try to prove God. He doesn't need my help. I simply like to share the message. Some (as I did) will accept it and others will not. And the bible is pretty clear. We don't choose him. He choses us.

Your opinion is that you are presenting proof.
That's all that is. Opinion. No data.

Among the probs of a religious nature is that
with proof, faith is meaningless.

From a science pov, the God hypothesis
is impossible to prove.

Also, volcanoes, lightning, disease etc and blah
have all been credited with proving whatever god.
A bit of sciencing disproved those, handily enough.
Or the " flood", ftm.

I think you are being dreadfully hasty offering a
"Proof" when with the advances in molecular biology,
the impossible you imagine may be as the imposibility
of walking on the moon.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, it is a phys sci thread in a Christian site. Christians see everything from a "God is our creator" viewpoint. It can not be ignored. However, a phys sci thread can discuss "how" God did it.

And regarding "why", I see it this way:
Science is about "how". Religion is about "why". And the latter is the higher pursuit.

Then why are you wasting time in a discussion about looking for evidence which disproves a well=established "how?"

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Wondered why you even mentioned opinions.

I'm well aware of fossils, buried landscapes,
historical geology. " Creation'", destruction, and renewal on a global scale is very leisurely, with the surface in a constant state of change.

Why you seemjngly speak of massive abrupt change is unclear to me. Prease exprain.

I don't speak of massive, abrupt, change. Well, there is discussion somewhere of the Cambrian extinction. But my use of the layers of a painting are not meant to suggest lots of massive, abrupt changes. Rather, to argue the idea of even gradual change throughout history. I'm using the painting as a visual aid and analogy only. The point being that stuff could have happened long before the period the bible discusses. And we find evidence of that stuff constantly.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Your opinion is that you are presenting proof.
That's all that is. Opinion. No data.

I'm not really offering proof. I'm offering evidence. As we all are doing. Sometimes evidence can be construed as proof, and other times it can't or may be false, like the testimony of a lying witness in a trial. Their testimony is "evidence", but it is not proof.

So yes, like most, my statements are opinion. Especially regarding anything that happened when none of us were actually there, witnessing it.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, it is a phys sci thread in a Christian site. Christians see everything from a "God is our creator" viewpoint. It can not be ignored. However, a phys sci thread can discuss "how" God did it.

And regarding "why", I see it this way:
Science is about "how". Religion is about "why". And the latter is the higher pursuit.

A higher pursuit that gets no results ?

Regardless of your choice of goggles, you cannot
conjure data that does not exist.

Science works with data. Confusing religion- as you seem
to advocate for- goes nowhere good.

Filtering data to match preconceived ideas, christian
or any other is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Educated Christians know this and if they
cannot overcome some " viewpoint" they
are engaged in pseudoscience.

You do know that?

 

[Astrid]

I don't speak of massive, abrupt, change. Well, there is discussion somewhere of the Cambrian extinction. But my use of the layers of a painting are not meant to suggest lots of massive, abrupt changes. Rather, to argue the idea of even gradual change throughout history. I'm using the painting as a visual aid and analogy only. The point being that stuff could have happened long before the period the bible discusses. And we find evidence of that stuff constantly.

That's the problem with fuzzy metaphorical lingo
such as in creation stories.

Nobody knows what it means.

For phys sci thread maybe skip to poesy and metaphors?

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not really offering proof. I'm offering evidence. As we all are doing. Sometimes evidence can be construed as proof, and other times it can't or may be false, like the testimony of a lying witness in a trial. Their testimony is "evidence", but it is not proof.

So yes, like most, my statements are opinion. Especially regarding anything that happened when none of us were actually there, witnessing it.

Events that happened in the psst often leave evidence which still exists today. Got any?

 

[Astrid]

I'm not really offering proof. I'm offering evidence. As we all are doing. Sometimes evidence can be construed as proof, and other times it can't or may be false, like the testimony of a lying witness in a trial. Their testimony is "evidence", but it is not proof.

So yes, like most, my statements are opinion. Especially regarding anything that happened when none of us were actually there, witnessing it.

So,don't say you are sharing the message of proof.
offering evidence? What evidence?


Your witness " proof " is among thecworst kinds of evidence.

In court thev refer not to proof but to proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

Doubting a Creator of the Universe tinkers with
molecules, or volcanoes ?

I'd call that reasonable doubt.

 

[Astrid]

Then why are you wasting time in a discussion about looking for evidence which disproves a well=established "how?"

Inquiring minds ask this

 

[AV1611VET]

Your witness " proof " is among the worst kinds of evidence.

Will cause-and-effect evidence do?

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edicices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs

 

[Larniavc]

But I can explain how JCL works

Don't bother. I'm not taking some randos word on an internet forum.

Actual evidence please.

 

[Ophiolite]

So yes, like most, my statements are opinion. Especially regarding anything that happened when none of us were actually there, witnessing it.

Interesting. Eye witness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence. I have a very low regard for my own observational accuracy, so you may imagine the regard in which I hold that of the rest of you. What counts is that referenced by BCP1928

Events that happened in the psst often leave evidence which still exists today. Got any?

In a murder trial the eye witnesses may lie, the forensic evidence is much less likely to.

 

[Astrid]

Don't bother. I'm not taking some randos word on an internet forum.

Actual evidence please.

And really, as anti evolution data it's a zero.

 

[BPPLEE]

Interesting. Eye witness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence. I have a very low regard for my own observational accuracy, so you may imagine the regard in which I hold that of the rest of you. What counts is that referenced by BCP1928

In a murder trial the eye witnesses may lie, the forensic evidence is much less likely to.

Forensic evidence can be wrong or misleading as well

Whistling Past the Graveyard: Why It’s So Hard to Rid the Courts of Junk Science

“Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System” charts the rise and fall of bite-mark evidence and “science” in the service of law enforcement.

theintercept.com

 

[AV1611VET]

And really, as anti evolution data it's a zero.

376 posts for "nothing"?

 

[Ophiolite]

376 posts for "nothing"?

You have often far exceeded that.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Don't bother. I'm not taking some randos word on an internet forum.

Actual evidence please.

If you want receipts, you're going to have to pay tuition. This isn't an MIT online class.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

A higher pursuit that gets no results ?

Personal experience works. Two healing miracles, four visions, one audible word from God, etc. But it's only good for the person who first hand experiences it. And much greater miracles have been claimed to be witnessed by many. e.g. the resurrection of Jesus. All Christians can do is offer the information. It is up to the person to accept the message. Back in 1981 I was an "intellectual agnostic". A "skeptic", if you will. For me the evidence was compelling on many levels. It only got stronger over the years. Now, you could no more convince me that Jesus didn't do what is claimed than you could convince me my wife doesn't exist. Personal experience is very powerful.

And in Christianity, our relationship with our creator is VERY personal. One on one.