Missing link found by Norwegian scientist

[Hespera]

Praisej sez

riginally Posted by Hespera

That would be a zero on physical evidence for creationism.

Zero on any piece of data that contradicts / falsifies ToE
​

You have posted a lot here yet still havent learnt anything about the opposing point of view.Ive made it quite clear that evolution is true only to a certain degree,i find your view that there is nothing that supports design in nature very very strange.Even Dawkins admits to design in nature.

Originally Posted by Hespera

I must say theos require proof of a sort that would falsify the entire bible!
​

Apart from the fact that the God i worship is very much alive..you forgot about him.
Originally Posted by Hespera

its not at all clear what is meant by 'aquatic lungs" but, once a fish has started relying on air and lungs... as some do today...the the problem of breathing out of water is solved isnt it?
​

No,and im sure you dont understand your own beliefs.I get that impression.QUOTE///////////////



Hespera sez..............................


Well i said that nobody has a single piece of data that would contradict evolution, and that creationism has not one piece of data to support it.

So your response is to say I dont understand either "opposing pint of view" or evolution.

To tell me that i forget about something.

That i said something that i didnt say (about design in nature)

That my views are very very strange.

Why is it all guesses about me instead of the issue?

You said nothing that addresses the simple fact that evolution has a vast body of data to support it and creationism has zero. That is the issue, not me.

"Design" btw, would really have to be defined.

Like a snowflake has "design"? Or like a person does?
Does "design' automatically mean there was an intelligent designer?

I doubt any Dawkins said there is "intelligent design' in nature. No that it matters what he, uh "admitted', what he says has no effect on the facts.

Score remains at evolution, lots of data, creationism, zero.

Im curoius how one would explain that, in view of the assumption that biblical creationism is real and has god on its side. Seems it should be the other way around.
Any ideas why that is as it is?

 

[praisejahupeople]

You said nothing that addresses the simple fact that evolution has a vast body of data to support it and creationism has zero. That is the issue, not me.

The issue is your lack of understanding of the subject,and your claim that "creationism"(which im not exactly a creationist anyway) has no proof at all.Im amazed you have posted thousands of times here yet still hold that view.

"Design" btw, would really have to be defined.

Why dont you know what im talking about?

Like a snowflake has "design"? Or like a person does?

im talking about biological systems which are far superior to what man can come up with.

Does "design' automatically mean there was an intelligent designer?

I think if you are honest hearted,you would have to say yes,yes its an indication theres an intelligent designer.Herein is the problem.People like you would rather look for any other option except the obvious one.Its so obvious to me,yet people like you cant/wont see the answer.
It then isnt an academic exercise ,but more a moral problem..

I doubt any Dawkins said there is "intelligent design' in nature.

The Blind watchmaker is one of his books,he most certainly says their is design in nature.However no designer except the forces of natural selection.Who programmed natural selection?

No that it matters what he, uh "admitted',

Hey you just said you doubted he admitted anything,lol make your mind up already.

what he says has no effect on the facts.

Of course.You know better.

Score remains at evolution, lots of data, creationism, zero.

Well the score is probably going to stay at "creationism zero",oh well i tried.Can lead to water,cant make them drink.

Im curoius how one would explain that, in view of the assumption that biblical creationism is real and has god on its side.

I give praise to Jehovah for creating the heavens and the earth.He is someone who deserves honor and glory.His intelligence and power is far far superior to ours.At least i know the purpose of the human race,im glad i know who God is.That is all.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The issue is your lack of understanding of the subject,and your claim that "creationism"(which im not exactly a creationist anyway) has no proof at all.Im amazed you have posted thousands of times here yet still hold that view.

Why dont you know what im talking about?

im talking about biological systems which are far superior to what man can come up with.

I think if you are honest hearted,you would have to say yes,yes its an indication theres an intelligent designer.Herein is the problem.People like you would rather look for any other option except the obvious one.Its so obvious to me,yet people like you cant/wont see the answer.
It then isnt an academic exercise ,but more a moral problem..

The Blind watchmaker is one of his books,he most certainly says their is design in nature.However no designer except the forces of natural selection.Who programmed natural selection?

Hey you just said you doubted he admitted anything,lol make your mind up already.

Of course.You know better.

Well the score is probably going to stay at "creationism zero",oh well i tried.Can lead to water,cant make them drink.

I give praise to Jehovah for creating the heavens and the earth.He is someone who deserves honor and glory.His intelligence and power is far far superior to ours.At least i know the purpose of the human race,im glad i know who God is.That is all.

What about DNA, protein, and amino acid sequences that serve as DIRECT physical evidence that we are related to other species, most closely chimpanzees?
If we can prove people are related with DNA (paternity test), why does that not apply across species? the only difference is the number of generations.

 

[Hespera]

Well ok praisej. We ask for some data, we get a string of personal remarks, put down attempts and snarkies.

Not one data item. Not that i expect any, but a person could be polite about just saying so instead of trying to insult me.

 

[dad]

What about DNA, protein, and amino acid sequences that serve as DIRECT physical evidence that we are related to other species, most closely chimpanzees?
If we can prove people are related with DNA (paternity test), why does that not apply across species? the only difference is the number of generations.

The only difference is the number of generations? That could be the answer rigtht there. There were,'t that many, if the earth is 6000 years old! The evidence mounts. That is quite a difference.

Besides. If you want to put on the table right here and now, the reason that a generation matters, I think we might get somewhere. Is it because evolving noow happens by generation?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only difference is the number of generations? That could be the answer rigtht there. There were,'t that many, if the earth is 6000 years old! The evidence mounts. That is quite a difference.

Besides. If you want to put on the table right here and now, the reason that a generation matters, I think we might get somewhere. Is it because evolving noow happens by generation?

That's how it always happens (except, perhaps, for lateral gene transfer between bacteria).

 

[dad]

What about DNA, protein, and amino acid sequences that serve as DIRECT physical evidence that we are related to other species, most closely chimpanzees?
If we can prove people are related with DNA (paternity test), why does that not apply across species? the only difference is the number of generations.

It is a creation relation. Not a birth relation. Big difference. That relationship you look at exclusively through present state eyes. How it now works. But retro viruses and etc were not limited by the present state transfer methods, and life processes we know. That is your mistake. It leads you to believe that the relation is something other than a creation relation, later affected by the hyper evolution of the day.

There is no proof that this world and life processes and laws were in effect, only that they are now. Therefore superimposing by faith, these things, into the deep and unknown past is purely an act of faith. A leap of faith. The relation is not what you assumed. Nor can it ever be proved to be. That kills your case.

 

[dad]

That's how it always happens (except, perhaps, for lateral gene transfer between bacteria).

Yes, it is how it happens. But creation does not happen here. That was a long time ago. The issue is not how it happens, but how it happened. No getting around it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, it is how it happens. But creation does not happen here. That was a long time ago. The issue is not how it happens, but how it happened. No getting around it.

True, but since you reject empirical deduction (at least, with regards to the distant past), I don't see how you can have any position other than "I don't know". The past is completely unknowable since, in your eyes, there is nothing in the present that tells us about the past (except the Bible, but even that doesn't count once empiricism is thrown out).

 

[dad]

True, but since you reject empirical deduction (at least, with regards to the distant past), I don't see how you can have any position other than "I don't know".

No, that would be the position of science. Not me. I know plenty. They know squat about creation. It is not observable by the senses!

" dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses"

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing to reject there at all. Be honest.

The past is completely unknowable since, in your eyes, there is nothing in the present that tells us about the past (except the Bible, but even that doesn't count once empiricism is thrown out).

Observation need not be thrown out, just because neither you nor science has any for creation.The observations of people observing stuff in the bible, for example, are fine.

If science had observations of the creation state, they would not be thrown out at all. They don't. All that is chucked, therefore are disturbing death dreams of the uninformed, and ungodly. Nothing empirical about them at all.

The bible counts, because it is a sacred and real record by real people, that really works in the lives of real people today. It does not count because pitiful physical only science can verify it all. No need to get rid of the bible baby, with the so called science bathwater at all.