Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Astrid]

Atomic structure has order, and can be mathematically predicted, thus everything above that also has order, or can be mathematically predicted/proven (as having order, etc) although we are still a long, long way off from that, etc.

God Bless.

You dodged the " increase in order"

 

[Astrid]

I wouldn't expect anything less. Your not of the world of mystics which I referenced.

There is a world of mystics?

 

[Neogaia777]

Dodge city

I didn't come here to fight, etc.

And especially get into a fight in a thread where the fight would be completely off-topic, or totally derail the thread either, etc.

So "you win", ok.

Happy?

Ok, good.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

You dodged the " increase in order"

I just call that simpler order, or order that humans can more easily see/comprehend, etc.

But, see my last post, "you win", ok.

God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

I just call that simpler order, or order that humans can more easily comprehend, etc.

God Bless.

Never mind. I see you cannot do it.

But as for me, if one of the bases fot
something i believe is demonstrably false,
I don't make excuses,I don't lie to myself,
I don't invent new definitions to make the
false look true or any of that.

It's called intellectual integrity.

Too bad your book left out mention of
integrity as a value

 

[Neogaia777]

Never mind. I see you cannot do it.

But as for me, if one of the bases fot
something i believe is demonstrably false,
I don't make excuses,I don't lie to myself,
I don't invent new definitions to make the
false look true or any of that.

It's called intellectual integrity.

Too bad your book left out mention of
integrity as a value

Well, I'm so very, very glad you are so virtuous, and have so much integrity, etc.

Have a nice/great day, ok.

I've got things to do, etc.

God Bless.

 

[dlamberth]

There is a world of mystics?

Yep. Sometimes called the "Wisdom Traditions".

 

[AV1611VET]

How are ID and creationism mutually exclusive?

In short, ID focuses on the product, whereas [true] Creationism focuses on the Producer.

In addition, ID does not openly rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Astrophile]

Not immediately at least. It takes trillions of years. I get it.

It took about 350 million years from the first tetrapods to the first apes.

 

[Astrophile]

On the details, yes. After all, did the rooster crow once, or twice. As Josh McDowell said in his book, one of the reasons he believed the gospels is because they were NOT in lockstep agreement. Being a trial attorney he said that one way you can tell witnesses conspired to lie is when the testimony is identical from all of them. Real witnesses to an event never agree on everything. That's how you know the event really happened. But disagreement on details doesn't mean the event itself didn't happen.

So the fact that the elders disagreed on the type of tree under which they said they saw Susannah having sex with her lover doesn't prove that their story was false and that Susannah was innocent.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't invent new definitions to make the false look true or any of that.

The IAU did.

 

[BCP1928]

The IAU did.

No, they didn't. They merely reclassified Pluto. Nothing objectively true about Pluto was changed.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did.

From Merriam-Webster:

In 2006 the International Astronomical Union defined planet in such a way as to exclude Pluto, reclassifying it instead as a dwarf planet. Although discussion of the matter continues, the change has been widely accepted.

SOURCE

 

[Astrophile]

The moon says that the earth is nowhere near 4.5 billion years. So does the ocean floor and erosion of the shoreline. If only rocks really could talk.

According to The moon may be 40 million years older than we thought, Apollo 17 samples suggest , U-Pb dating of zircons from Apollo 17 rock samples has yielded an age of 4.46 billion years. Since the Moon was formed as a result of a collision between the Earth and another planet, the Earth must be at least 4.46 billion years old; by any standard this is near to 4.5 billion years. What makes you think otherwise?

The floors of the oceans are much less than 4.5 billion years, because older oceanic crust has been subducted. However, continental rocks have yielded ages up to about 4.0 billion years.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, they did.

From Merriam-Webster:

In 2006 the International Astronomical Union defined planet in such a way as to exclude Pluto, reclassifying it instead as a dwarf planet. Although discussion of the matter continues, the change has been widely accepted.

SOURCE

Nothing objectively true about Pluto was changed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing objectively true about Pluto was changed.

Did I even mention something about Pluto being objectively changed?

Or did I mention inventing new definitions to make the false look true?

In short, did I say Pluto changed, or did I say the definition of "planet" was changed?

 

[Astrid]

Nothing objectively true about Pluto was changed.

It's way past time to stop indulging this pluto nonsense

 

[AV1611VET]

It's way past time to stop indulging this pluto nonsense.

You might want to stay away from California, New Mexico, and Illinois then.

Especially New Mexico and Illinois.

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy". The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto and a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009 on the basis that Tombaugh was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU."

SOURCE

But I guess Pluto has fallen victim to the theory of [planetary] evolution, hasn't it?

 

[Neogaia777]

You might want to stay away from California, New Mexico, and Illinois then.

Especially New Mexico and Illinois.

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy". The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto and a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009 on the basis that Tombaugh was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU."

SOURCE

But I guess Pluto has fallen victim to the theory of planetary evolution, hasn't it?

What a waste of resources, lol.

But you know, things like this are always the "very, very important things", right? Lol.

Yeah, we definitely gotta set aside a lot of brain power/room, not to mention probably a lot of tax payers dollars, always for very, very important things like this, etc.

Reminds me of politics, and our government, and the world, and hollywood, and our political arena right now, lol.

Which the rest of world, or at least the US, is following like the pied piper right now, etc, lol.

God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are indeed confused. And indulging in an ad hominem attack to boot. I expect nothing else from the pro evolutionist community. It is a real interview of a real person by a real writer. What the molecular biologist said is not unique. Professor James Tour, one of the leaders in the field, tells his students not to mention that they disbelieve in evolution - if they wish to pursue a career in science.

If you wish to refute the arguments, why not address them instead of using leading rhetorical questions? Perhaps that's only argument that you have?

Tour is not a molecular biologist. He is a synthetic organic chemist specializing in molecular machines. They are not the same thing. The "scientist" quoted in that article is not James Tour, so he is irrelevant.