In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Herman Hedning]

In a word... Vostok.

Please use more words.

 

[The Cadet]

Please use more words.

Less would also be okay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you're showing your fear now, but here is what one Nobel Prize Laureate said;

“Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.”

Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
(Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, p. 147.)

Some Nobel prize winners have said some really stupid things. Wasn't the inventor of the transistor just a tad racist?

So what does some person speaking ignorantly outside of his area of expertise have to do with the theory of evolution?

 

[StanJ]

Haha, no.
In your own words, what does the theory of evolution entails?
Further, explain your own main scientific gripes with the theory.

I don't know what it's fully entails but it basically eliminates got out of the process of creation based on Genesis 1 and that is all the gripe I need.
As far as the theory is concerned it cannot be observed from the beginning and despite the fact that some experiments have been observed they still haven't confirmed the theory, unlike The Germ Theory which really has not been a theory for many many years.

 

[StanJ]

Does his comment get weighed, or just accepted if it fits "the paradigm in place"?
Even if he had a point when he said it, he said it at least 35 years ago, if not a decade or more before that.
And awful lot has changed in that time.
Apart from it being long enough to see short-lifespan lifeforms evolve.
And even spot a species of two dividing, though that's a slow and prolonged event on the scale of a human lifetime.

I gave an example that I thought was suitable and to the point. Darwin said what he did over a hundred years ago so do you want me to take the same tact as you are here with him?
I could post all day long about examples that just don't work. The giraffe would be one example.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't know what it's fully entails but it basically eliminates got out of the process of creation based on Genesis 1 and that is all the gripe I need.
As far as the theory is concerned it cannot be observed from the beginning and despite the fact that some experiments have been observed they still haven't confirmed the theory, unlike The Germ Theory which really has not been a theory for many many years.

I see. You dont understand what a scientific theory is.

As your only argument against the ToE is nonsceientific we can just ignore it as it has no weight nor relevance.

 

[The Cadet]

I don't know what it's fully entails but it basically eliminates got out of the process of creation based on Genesis 1 and that is all the gripe I need.

In other words, when observation goes against what stands in your book, the thing you throw out is... the observation.

Okay.

Look, arguing against a scientific theory when you don't even understand what that theory is is weaksauce.

As far as the theory is concerned it cannot be observed from the beginning and despite the fact that some experiments have been observed they still haven't confirmed the theory, unlike The Germ Theory which really has not been a theory for many many years.

No, it's still the germ theory of disease.

 

[StanJ]

You didn't answer the question. What is the problem you see in annual layers contained in ice core chronology? We see exactly the same information in all ice cores from annual snow accumulation today back through time before man. If you think they are not reliable, then please explain why.

I'm sure you are well aware of the issues with Vostok, but if not then I'm sure you can find a lot of them online.

 

[StanJ]

I see. You dont understand what a scientific theory is.
As your only argument against the ToE is nonsceientific we can just ignore it as it has no weight nor relevance.

On the contrary, I know what science is and I know what a theory is I just don't know how people in your particular science justify making special dispensations for what is commonly called a theory. From where I sit an awful lot of that Science is based on faith in the people proposing what they do. In any event as far as I am concerned the word of God is true and any science that depicts it as being false is wrong.
I don't need to understand how fires occur scientifically or put my hand in them to experience them, to know I shouldn't put my hand in there.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm sure you are well aware of the issues with Vostok, but if not then I'm sure you can find a lot of them online.

Nope, absolutely nothing to do with ice cores. Which is pretty as I expected.

 

[VirOptimus]

On the contrary, I know what science is and I know what a theory is I just don't know how people in your particular science justify making special dispensations for what is commonly called a theory. From where I sit an awful lot of that Science is based on faith in the people proposing what they do. In any event as far as I am concerned the word of God is true and any science that depicts it as being false is wrong.
I don't need to understand how fires occur scientifically or put my hand in them to experience them, to know I shouldn't put my hand in there.

....

You only reinforces my points.

 

[StanJ]

No, it's still the germ theory of disease.

That's exactly my point... Why is it still a germ Theory when it's been proven, and why is evolution considered factual when it is still called a theory and hasn't been proven?

 

[StanJ]

Nope, absolutely nothing to do with ice cores. Which is pretty as I expected.

Well if that's how you do science so I'm surprised you've learned anything.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's exactly my point... Why is it still a germ Theory when it's been proven, and why is evolution considered factual when it is still called a theory and hasn't been proven?

Theorys are never proven.

They stand as long as they arent disproven.

 

[StanJ]

....
You only reinforces my points.

All I've seen from you so far are questions not points.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well if that's how you do science so I'm surprised you've learned anything.

I've learned what a creationist with nothing to contribute sounds like.

 

[RickG]

I'm sure you are well aware of the issues with Vostok, but if not then I'm sure you can find a lot of them online.

There are no issues with Vostok? Ice cores show your "no one was there" comment to be unfounded.

 

[StanJ]

Theorys are never proven.
They stand as long as they arent disproven.

Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? There are just so many inconsistencies in this area.

 

[VirOptimus]

Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? There are just so many inconsistencies in this area.

As I said earlier, you dont understand what a scientific theory is. You need science 101 knowledge.

 

[StanJ]

There are no issues with Vostok? Ice cores show your "no one was there" comment to be unfounded.

Is this an example of how you do scientific research? I know for a fact that the information is out there because I read it of course I was hoping that you would be genuous enough to do the same thing. I'm sure you know the old saying about how you can only 'lead' a horse to water...?