Help a (creationist) brother out?

[Astrid]

Evolution is the lie

Of course you cannot demonstrate that with any
actual data. If you could, you would get a Nobel
with chocolate sprinkles.
The sprinkles would be for the biggest scientific
of all time.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, i did not do that. Tsk

"If it doesnt bother you to bear false witness before your
God, no reason for it to bother me." (from your post #185)

 

[Hark]

All fossils are transitional - all populations evolve continually.

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin

QUOTING ~~~~"Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.

Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.” ~~~~ End of quote

More to be read at that link where references have been given to verify certain reports & not just from "LiveScience".

 

[Astrid]

Like birds evolved from dinosaurs but now dinosaurs evolved from birds?

Course evolutions will say as they have said it before, "well, that is what science does.."

But I say.. their "facts" keep changing and there is no way to prove that they have the facts now.

All assumptions; always have been and will continue to be a false science.

Real science is about what can be observed and proven and a valid scientific theory has to have a phenomenon to be observed in the natural world.

Evolutionists will say this and give an example like the theory of gravity and dropping an object for everybody to see is an example of observing the phenomenon of gravity in the natural world.

But they stop right there because they cannot give an example of the phenomenon of macroevolution to observe in the natural world. They can only give an example of microevolution or the Law of Biogenesis.

BTW You would be remiss in ignoring the title of that Law as if it does not mean life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life hence Biogenesis.

Science is changing even that Law by just inferring that it only means life did not come from nothing just like if you go online, the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution are not the same at all the dictionary web sites & universities web sites. Some keep it separate, some starts blurring the line between the two, and a few reads almost the same thing. So how can you say they are keeping their facts straight when they cannot keep their definitions straight?

Funny how evolutionists do not cry foul on this, but they ignore it just as they do when "science" change their "facts".

" dinosaurs from birds" is untrue. You made that up.

Science does not do proof.

Examples of " macroevolution" are everywhere.

The " law of biogenisis " is not about something from nothing.
Its about how no example has ever been observed.

Amusing that a "law" ( all of which are provisional)
is god given fact when it suits you.

Facts dont change, tho interpretation may.

Definitions are not facts.
Pick any word and check online how many definitions there are.


Lotta phony facts from you, there.
You cannot give even one fact contrary to TOE.
Try for one, your demi gish of opinions and
outright falsehoods is tiresome and a poor smokescreen
for ***fact*** that you have no facts contrary to
ToE.

Btw abiogenesis is not part of theToE.
So you can quit that nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University.

So what? She doesn't use it. That means that she is not a scientist.

Of course you didn't.

That means that you need to find a better source. Print is the source to use since it lends itself to accurate quoting. The verbal raving of a science denier is much harder to quote properly.

 

[Astrid]

Just like with macroevolution, YOU HAVE ACCEPTED all science as written in stone back to the beginning, everything then as it is now, when all we know and build conclusions upon is ‘what we reason we know and understand.’ I can’t help but think God gets a chuckle out of that.

Already forgot this is where you bear false witness

Caps added

 

[Subduction Zone]

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin

QUOTING ~~~~"Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.

Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.” ~~~~ End of quote

More to be read at that link where references have been given to verify certain reports & not just from "LiveScience".

Correct. Paleontology was in its infancy at that time. Today there is no lack of transitional fossils.

 

[inquiring mind]

So what? She doesn't use it. That means that she is not a scientist.

That means that you need to find a better source. Print is the source to use since it lends itself to accurate quoting. The verbal raving of a science denier is much harder to quote properly.

Why don't you just admit that you have swallowed macroevolution hook, line and sinker? And, along with it any assumption, speculation or connection of dots that support that thinking, whether actual or not?

 

[Astrid]

"If it doesnt bother you to bear false witness before your
God, no reason for it to bother me." (from your post #185)

As long as you comprehend that false witnessing
is what you did, and maybe maybe will slow down.

But its all a distraction from the fact that you
can present not one (1) fact contrary to ToE.

Dont feel bad about it, there arent any

 

[Subduction Zone]

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin

QUOTING ~~~~"Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.

Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.” ~~~~ End of quote

More to be read at that link where references have been given to verify certain reports & not just from "LiveScience".

Why even bother a source that is not scientific at all? To even work at ICR one has to swear not to follow the scientific method. That makes their articles worthless in a debate. And you are still wrong when you say "undisputed". Well creationists will dispute anything, but they do not count.

The problem is that you probably do not even know what a transitional fossil is. One good example of an undisputed transitional fossil was discovered while Darwin was still alive. That is an undisputed transitional fossil between Creataceous therapod dinosaurs and modern birds (which are also still theropod dinosaurs).

 

[Astrid]

Why don't you just admit that you have swallowed macroevolution hook, line and sinker? And, along with it any assumption, speculation or connection of dots that support that thinking, whether actual or not?

Someone sure swallowed creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you just admit that you have swallowed macroevolution hook, line and sinker? And, along with it any assumption, speculation or connection of dots that support that thinking, whether actual or not?

Wow! More false accusations. I know that you believe that falsehood, but that does not mean that you did not just bear false witness against your neighbor. You probably cannot name any "assumptions". There are very very few speculations. But then you probably do not understand that term. Lying is making false claims with an intent to deceive. You probably really believe the nonsense that you spout so it is not by that definition a lie, but they are still falsehoods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is the lie

No, evolution has more scientific evidence for it than any other theory in science, including the theory of gravity. In the sciences one does not "prove" anything. But if one goes by the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" evolution has been proven a thousand times over.

 

[inquiring mind]

Just like with macroevolution, you have accepted all science as written in stone back to the beginning, everything then as it is now, when all we know and build conclusions upon is ‘what we reason we know and understand.’ I can’t help but think God gets a chuckle out of that.

Already forgot this is where you bear false witness

Caps added

You found a back door... happy for you and I stand corrected due to you not accepting that concept, although you don't seem to counter it. Maybe I've missed it.

 

[Astrid]

You found a back door... happy for you and I stand corrected due to you not accepting that concept, although you don't seem to counter it. Maybe I've missed it.

You sure are missing making any sense

Now, how about admitting that neither you
nor anyone else has even one fact contrary to
TOE?

 

[inquiring mind]

You sure are missing making any sense

Now, how about admitting that neither you
nor anyone else has even one fact contrary to
TOE?

See, Maybe I wasn't incorrect in saying "You have accepted" (and I think I was speaking to another poster anyway). I was, post #176. So, I'm taking my retraction back and you still stand corrected with Psalms 2:4-5.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See, Maybe I wasn't incorrect in saying "You have accepted" (and I think I was speaking to another poster anyway). I was, post #176. So, I'm taking my retraction back.

If you point out that someone has accepted the fact of evolution that would be fine. But this is a personal attack:

"Why don't you just admit that you have swallowed macroevolution hook, line and sinker?"

We can demonstrate how we know evolution to be a fact, but you would have a lot of learning to do. You would first have to learn what is and what is not evidence. I have yet to see a creationist that understands this topic. Of course that is because once one understands the concept one cannot deny the evidence for evolution without openly lying.

 

[inquiring mind]

If you point out that someone has accepted the fact of evolution that would be fine. But this is a personal attack:

"Why don't you just admit that you have swallowed macroevolution hook, line and sinker?"

We can demonstrate how we know evolution to be a fact, but you would have a lot of learning to do. You would first have to learn what is and what is not evidence. I have yet to see a creationist that understands this topic. Of course that is because once one understands the concept one cannot deny the evidence for evolution without openly lying.

It's only a personal attack if you want it to be one. I only asked a question.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin

QUOTING ~~~~"Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.

Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.” ~~~~ End of quote

More to be read at that link where references have been given to verify certain reports & not just from "LiveScience".

In Darwin's time, palaeontology was in its infancy; since then tens of thousands of transitional fossils have been discovered, and the evolution of feathers from scales has been established.

But seriously, what do you expect from a site whose publically declared 'core scientific principles' involve denying evolution? Give me a break...

• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's only a personal attack if you want it to be one. I only asked a question.

No, it had a false assumption in the question. This is an example of the sort of question that you just asked:

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Do you see the false assumption? Do you understand how that would be a personal attack if I asked it seriously? There is no difference between what you asked and asking the question that I just wrote.