Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[RickG]

why?

Because I asked if you had any science to contribute and you said you already had. Where?

 

[RickG]

So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

By Evolutionist, I gather you are using the term from a lay perspective. I mention that because when I see one referred to as an evolutionist I view them as a practicing professional studying and researching the biological and physical aspects pertaining to the theory of evolution. Thus, I do not consider myself an evolutionist from a professional point of view. However, I have obtained and reviewed quite a bit of the mainstream scientific literature pertaining to evolution and I find that I have no problem with the theory of evolution. In fact I support it. So, from a lay position, I guess I could be considered an evolutionist.

 

[newhopeinHim]

Okay RickG I do not consider myself an evolutionist though, sorry

 

[newhopeinHim]

sorry, maybe you were not talking to me.

 

[RickG]

Okay RickG I do not consider myself an evolutionist though, sorry

I don't have a problem with that. The only problem I have is when people who do not wish to understand the theory of evolution do it for the wrong reasons; that is presenting deliberately misrepresented science to explain it away. I hope you understand the difference. Looking back on your posts I don't see any of that. God bless.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

I am not an evolutionist because I refuse to ignore the evidence.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. White-tail deer mate with White-Tail deer and produce only White-tail deer. Brown bears mate with brown bears and produce only brown bears.

You have only observed variation in the species when two infraspecific taxa within the species mate. Asian and African, Husky and Mastiff, etc, etc....

I think it's you that does not want to accept the evidence - and is why you will now run from attempting to show me how your theory matches what we observe and claim it happens differently, but only when we are not there to observe it.

If evolutionist's had never seen a dog in life nor knew anything about them and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff and then found fossils of the Chinook in a later layer, they would claim the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook simply because the Chinook appears at a later time in the record. Yet we know from observational fact that this is not what has occurred, even if the Chinook appeared at a later date. The Husky remained a Husky, the Mastiff remained a Mastiff.

Only by ignoring the observational data and refusing to apply it to the fossil record do they come up with claims that can not be supported by direct empirical observations. Claims that are in direct conflict with every observation of the natural world. Which is why we only get claims and no observational data when it comes to evolution.

I say the Asian remained an Asian and the African remained an African - and neither evolved into the Afro-Asian. I say the Mastiff remained a Mastiff and the Husky remained a Husky and neither evolved into the Chinook. Prove me wrong and prove yourself right. Match your beliefs to the observational data. Well, I am waiting????

 

[Black Dog]

TV is TV. One of my disabled clients I lifted into bed every night worked for the coroner's office.
They avoided the lab techs as much as possible because "Old fashioned foot work" was much
more reliable. If fact, as an investigator for the coroner, the police would depend on his investigation
even more than police work, because he had no air of authority or uniform or shiny badge.
He would just be inquisitive and friendly, and people would tell him what really happened.

Yeah, because DNA evidence hasn't been used to prove many people innocent. I honestly don't care what stories you have heard from people. Especially those who judge others based on "an air of authority, their uniform, and their shiny badge." Science wins over uninformed boobs like this every time.

 

[crjmurray]

Yeah, because DNA evidence hasn't been used to prove many people innocent. I honestly don't care what stories you have heard from people. Especially those who judge others based on "an air of authority, their uniform, and their shiny badge." Science wins over uninformed boobs like this every time.

I think skywriting lives in the Andy Griffith universe.

 

[stevevw]

"However, Richard Carrier has suggested that the line mentioning Christ by name is a Christian interpolation."

Got anything else?

Yes he has suggested but that doesn't mean he is correct. So it cant be that easily dismissed. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus commonly known as Suetonius also mentions the name Chrestus referring to Jesus Christ.
Pliny The Younger mentions Christ in his writings around the 1st century.
http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
Some of Paul's letters are said to be authentic by most scholars. They are written very soon after the events of Jesus and mention Him as Christ on many occasions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles
The other books of the bible have been proven that they were written within the first century. Whether you believe they are true about the supernal Jesus still all mention the man Jesus Christ. They couldn't have all collaborated being separated by time and place and all got the name right.
Some of the earliest manuscript fragments of the New Testament are the John Rylands Fragment, Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodmer Papyrus which were written between 50-100AD.
http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are we now arguing whether Jesus existed?

Even the experts believe that - they just dismiss the rest - the miracles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,... and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
"Nevertheless there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,"

But they do have his name wrong.

http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php

 

[newhopeinHim]

I just don't believe in mixing God with science. Something man made. I will stick with MY beliefs and you have yours Its just how I feel, I don't want to be wrong before God. He understands all things even when we think we understand something... in Gods eyes its wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

I just don't believe in mixing God with science. Something man made. I will stick with MY beliefs and you have yours Its just how I feel, I don't want to be wrong before God. He understands all things even when we think we understand something... in Gods eyes its wrong.

How do you see through God's eyes?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I just don't believe in mixing God with science. Something man made. I will stick with MY beliefs and you have yours Its just how I feel, I don't want to be wrong before God. He understands all things even when we think we understand something... in Gods eyes its wrong.

Do you not believe that God penned both the Word and the Works?

That by understanding the things made we come to an understanding of those invisible qualities of God?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

There is nothing wrong with science - just that people have a tendency to twist the data to fit their beliefs - instead of fitting their beliefs to the data.

Evolution is a prime example of this. They "CLAIM" to be following science, but must ignore all observational evidence in order to promote their belief - the exact opposite of science. Just because they "CLAIM" to promote science does not mean they do.

The observational empirical data falsifies their belief - which is why they refuse to look at it.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. White-tail deer mate with White-Tail deer and produce only White-tail deer. Brown bears mate with brown bears and produce only brown bears.

We have only observed variation in the species when two infraspecific taxa within the species mate. Asian and African, Husky and Mastiff, etc, etc....

It is they that do not want to accept the evidence - and is why they will always run from attempting to show me how their theory matches what we observe and claim it happens differently, but only when we are not there to observe it.

If evolutionist's had never seen a dog in life nor knew anything about them and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff and then found fossils of the Chinook in a later layer, they would claim the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook simply because the Chinook appears at a later time in the record. Yet we know from observational fact that this is not what has occurred, even if the Chinook appeared at a later date. The Husky remained a Husky, the Mastiff remained a Mastiff.

Only by ignoring the observational data and refusing to apply it to the fossil record do they come up with claims that can not be supported by direct empirical observations. Claims that are in direct conflict with every observation of the natural world. Which is why we only get claims and no observational data when it comes to evolution.

The only thing scientific about evolution are their "CLAIMS" that it is scientific. Don't confuse claims made by people that refuse to accept the observational evidence as actually being science. There is a difference. You have simply been indoctrinated into believing science is wrong - because for years they have claimed to be following science when in reality they have not. So of course what they claim is science does not match the Works or the Word - because it is not science.

 

[toLiJC]

I started a perfectly good thread entitled: Why Are You An Evolutionist? and by page 7 it had been hijacked by something I see in everyday life. People who ignore the evidence. (refer post 123)

In legal proceedings the object is to present evidence and in the case of Evolution the evidence in favor of it is already piled to the ceiling.

I am not a biologist but I do love the good old fashioned who-dun-nit.

So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

(please let's not start with an argument about whether the word 'evolutionist' is relevant, as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould (rip) and others have used the name to describe themselves)

to wait for something good to happen in your life is not a good thing, especially when it has to be for a long time as the process of evolution takes not-so-short time, that is also why there's no evolution in the true Lord God

Blessings

 

[RickG]

I just don't believe in mixing God with science.

Amen!

 

[bhsmte]

I just don't believe in mixing God with science. Something man made. I will stick with MY beliefs and you have yours Its just how I feel, I don't want to be wrong before God. He understands all things even when we think we understand something... in Gods eyes its wrong.

Nothing wrong with that.

Quick question though; do you find you must deny well evidenced science, to protect your personal faith belief?

 

[Davian]

...

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Invisible things that are clearly seen? Is that like Wonder Woman's jet plane?

 

[Davian]

Yes he has suggested but that doesn't mean he is correct.

Or that he is wrong. I was simply answering the question as asked.

 

[Davian]

Are we now arguing whether Jesus existed?

That he didn't exist is a very parsimonious explanation for why there is no body, and so little evidence for his existence, is it not?

Even the experts believe that - they just dismiss the rest - the miracles.

Do I go with the experts, or with the non-experts like yourself?

Hmmmm.

I'll go with the experts, thanks.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Invisible things that are clearly seen? Is that like Wonder Woman's jet plane?

Since we are discussing the things made, could you at least be honest with others if you wont be honest with yourself? Why don't you tell us all what invisible thing all things are made of???? IOr are you afraid where that might go so you decided to throw in childish distraction tactics? Sorry, won't work with me. So tell us all what invisible power all things are made of and what makes this conversation possible. Or is it you don;t know, so instead of asking you thought a stupid response was mandated?