Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Same old failed arguments. You really should try to learn a thing or two.The dishonesty is blatantly with the evangelists for evolution promoting it as proven fact.
The dishonesty is in not admitting that the Cambrian explosion falsifies the phyletic gradualism of Darwinism, as complex life with eyes very similar to the human eye, and vertebrates appear, with zero precursors in the fossil record.
The dishonesty is in not admitting the known fact that organic compounds and amino acids that appear naturally in every conceivable prebiotic environment, are too weak to bond together - researchers have to use concentrations 100 times stronger than appear in nature.
Or that in every possible prebiotic scenario the weak amino acids always consist of equal amounts of L and R handed molecules, and even one R handed molecule in a protein of amino acids, would inactivate the protein.
The dishonesty is in telling the public that the fossil evidence is well developed, instead of the truth that transitional fossils are missing in all the important places, and promoting fossils such as Lucy as being anything more than an unusual tree climbing chimpanzee.
No.This is like a guy honestly admits ro being a back robber. But won't rob yours?
No trust is needed .. if he injects his beliefs in his work, the method will highlight them and side-step them/him.Estrid said:Open about being intellectually dishonest, how could you trust anything he says. Anyway if he has gone to work for a creationist boiler room, all traces of professionsl integrity are gone.
Not 'weird' to them though ..Estrid said:With God, the angels and all creation on their side it's just weird the creationists
have only such as that to support their claims.
The dishonesty...
I am always amazed that creationists constantly accuse others of the wrongs that they are guilty of.I'm still waiting for a comment from you in regard to a highly placed and well-qualified creationists who has admitted that he will ignore the science if it doesn't align with his beliefs.
Here we have the very director of the Research Centre for creationism itself telling you explicitly that he will not accept any science that contradicts his version of scripture.
And these are the people you rely on for what you think are genuine arguments. I mean, the guy just admitted that he would lie to you. What is the point in presenting scientific arguments that refute what you say when one of creationist's head honchos tells you to discount it even if it is proved to be true.
This needs a response, Chad. Your credibility is on the line.
No.
Philosophically held beliefs are part of who we are.
The aim in science is to keep them visible throughout the process so they don't 'clutter things up'.
This dude may be capable of doing that .. I don't know anything about him .. (Just demonstrating benefit of doubt here).
No trust is needed .. if he injects his beliefs in his work, the method will highlight them and side-step them/him.
Not 'weird' to them though ..
Wow!They are withal an uneducated and
unsophisticated lot.
Their use of fallacious, illogical and childish
arguments is to be expected.
Psychological projection such as you mention,
what else would you expect? That they are so
clueless of how embarrassingly revealing it is
Is tho consistent with the general lack of
sophistication.
We are amused by the outrage when it is suggested
that creationism is the religion of the low rungs
of society, in education and income. Even as they
proudly announce their disdain for book learnin'.
Pew or other resesrch on the negative correlation..
betseen education and creationism is denounced
as false and bigoted.
Anyway, yeah, of course they try to put
their faults onto others.
They are withal an uneducated and
unsophisticated lot.
Their use of fallacious, illogical and childish
arguments is to be expected.
Psychological projection such as you mention,
what else would you expect? That they are so
clueless of how embarrassingly revealing it is
Is tho consistent with the general lack of
sophistication.
We are amused by the outrage when it is suggested
that creationism is the religion of the low rungs
of society, in education and income. Even as they
proudly announce their disdain for book learnin'.
Pew or other resesrch on the negative correlation..
betseen education and creationism is denounced
as false and bigoted.
Anyway, yeah, of course they try to put
their faults onto others.
I hope so.Is the term 'fundamentalist' considered acceptable in these parts?
the Cambrian explosion falsifies the phyletic gradualism of Darwinism,
as complex life with eyes very similar to the human eye, and vertebrates appear, with zero precursors in the fossil record.
Also, being wrong about phylectic gradualism doesn't falisfy evolution - it just falsifies one concept of the process of speciation. Thus, the development of the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.
Additionally, the Cambrian Explosion doesn't falsify phyletic gradualism. Adaptive radiations - of which the Cambrian Explosion is just one example - just demonstrate that phyletic gradualism is not the sole model of speciation. It turns out that BOTH phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are correct - its just that one occurs in some conditions and one occurs in others.
No you can't. And again this is a meme that creationists use many times, that fails every time.That’s a completely wrong claim.
They don’t use the presupposition of naturalistic materialism to interpret the data.
And there are some honest evolutionists who admit science today indeed uses biased interpretation of the facts.
I can prove by using a presupposition of naturalism to interpret the facts, that bicycles and motorcycles weren’t created, they evolved
The unicycle is the common ancestor, then it branches out from there to the two wheeled bicycles with the pedal on the front wheel, with another branch adding a third wheel to become a tricycle- then branching out to the modern two wheel bicycle with the pedal in the middle of the bike and adding a driver chain - then the simple one cylinder engine evolved, and replaced the pedals, while keeping the drive chain, and continued branching out with bigger motorcycles with more complex multi cylinder engines.
I can build an entire evolutionary tree that proves bicycles and motorcycles evolved from the common ancestor of the single wheel unicycle - the equivalent of a single cell - by using the same presupposition that there is no creator that built them but they arrived by completely natural processes.
And that’s exactly how evolutionists interpret the data, with the bias of naturalism and materialism.
A common creator fits the facts better than evolving from a common ancestor.
I'm still waiting for a comment from you in regard to a highly placed and well-qualified creationists who has admitted that he will ignore the science if it doesn't align with his beliefs.
Here we have the very director of the Research Centre for creationism itself telling you explicitly that he will not accept any science that contradicts his version of scripture.
And these are the people you rely on for what you think are genuine arguments. I mean, the guy just admitted that he would lie to you. What is the point in presenting scientific arguments that refute what you say when one of creationist's head honchos tells you to discount it even if it is proved to be true.
This needs a response, Chad. Your credibility is on the line.
Same old failed arguments. You really should try to learn a thing or two.
So the evolutionist honest enough to admit the Cambrian explosion is incredibly problematic, don’t understand science either?Same old failed arguments. You really should try to learn a thing or two.
I'll try to demonstrate why you are mistaken.
There isn't actually a presupposition of naturalistic materialism.
What there is only relying on testable evidence. The problem with supernatural evidence is that it can't be checked or falsified.
Literally anything is possible with miracles... which means that literally any evidence can be from a miracle... which means that you can't demonstrate that anything is, or is not from a miracles.
I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting a need for verifyable evidence as an unjustified rejection of supernatural claims.
This is blatantly wrong.
The first problem is that bicycles do not in anyway reproduce and pass on genetic material, so there's not even a mechanism for your story.
The second problem is that bicycles do not form a nested hierarchy based on material use and structure.
For every supposed branch of your tree traits from changing makeup and construction techniques can appear and disappear on any particular branch, not permanently independent variations like we find of the trees of life.
So, given that your defense of the idea that creationists actually understand science involved you demonstrating that you fundamentally don't understand science.... I think you should really do a little more study.
What exactly has "been proven by science"? And who makes that claim? Go come with some specifics.Gee, could it be because the claim is constantly made that it’s all been proven by science, when it’s light years away from being proven.
What exactly has been falsified? Show us that faslification? Don't be shy on specifics, don't be shy on details.The truth is it’s all been falsified, but that fact is ignored.
You mean, "the Voyage of the Beagle"? Which was way before "On the Origin of Species"?Per Darwin’s first book, the fossil record has falsified phyletic gradualism: the many fine gradations of transitional fossils Darwin admitted must exist for His theory to be proven, are non existent.
But that doesn't negate all the ones found. Which is an embarrassment to your ilk.Transitional fossils remain lacking in the all most important places.
You mean like when the science claimed there was junk DNA because the function of those segments of DNA were not readily apparent, and I stated from the get go that their evolutionary assumptions were wrong, and would eventually be found to have a function, and I was right, and the science was wrong - because I know life and DNA was created and did not evolve and leave vestigial DNA segments behind?
Forgive me. There's another option, they are deliberately misleading their ignorant audience about science.Yes, you’re right - they just hand out PhDs in the sciences like candy, they don’t have to understand science att all.
I'll try to demonstrate why you are mistaken.
There isn't actually a presupposition of naturalistic materialism.
What there is only relying on testable evidence. The problem with supernatural evidence is that it can't be checked or falsified.
Literally anything is possible with miracles... which means that literally any evidence can be from a miracle... which means that you can't demonstrate that anything is, or is not from a miracles.
I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting a need for verifyable evidence as an unjustified rejection of supernatural claims.
This is blatantly wrong.
The first problem is that bicycles do not in anyway reproduce and pass on genetic material, so there's not even a mechanism for your story.
The second problem is that bicycles do not form a nested hierarchy based on material use and structure.
For every supposed branch of your tree traits from changing makeup and construction techniques can appear and disappear on any particular branch, not permanently independent variations like we find of the trees of life.
So, given that your defense of the idea that creationists actually understand science involved you demonstrating that you fundamentally don't understand science.... I think you should really do a little more study.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?