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.
No, yes, no and no (at least in the way you mean "no").Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.
It simply was a fact of history -- nothing more, nothing less.
Whereas evolution is considered an ongoing process.
Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.
It simply was a fact of history -- nothing more, nothing less.
Whereas evolution is considered an ongoing process.
Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.
It simply was a fact of history -- nothing more, nothing less.
Whereas evolution is considered an ongoing process.
That's ok bro, he's got his kjv. Plus he gets bonus points for being "persecuted" while on this earth.If it makes no predictions and has no evidence supporting it, then you have no reason to claim it as true- unless you're deluded.
Evolution, on the other hand, does have evidence supporting it, and it does have predictive power, therefore it's reasonable to claim it as true.
Thus far in this thread, AV, you've happily admitted that you believe in something with no proof, no hope for proof, nor any reason to think there's proof. This is a state that I pity- humans are better than such mental squalor.
You go with both, until one contradicts the other, then you jettison the right one.But evolution DOES have predictive power! So which should we got with - the theory that helps us better understand the world or an idea that has no predictive power that seeks to impede legitimate scientific pursuit?
That's ok bro, he's got his kjv. Plus he gets bonus points for being "persecuted" while on this earth.
And you can keep your pity -- until you learn the difference between 'mental squalor' and 'faith'.If it makes no predictions and has no evidence supporting it, then you have no reason to claim it as true- unless you're deluded.
Evolution, on the other hand, does have evidence supporting it, and it does have predictive power, therefore it's reasonable to claim it as true.
Thus far in this thread, AV, you've happily admitted that you believe in something with no proof, no hope for proof, nor any reason to think there's proof. This is a state that I pity- humans are better than such mental squalor.
You go with both, until one contradicts the other, then you jettison the right one.
That's what I call Boolean standards.
So you predicted Tiktaalik -- big deal.
Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power.
I know challenging you guys to stack your predictions up to God's predictions will just bring out you "experts" hooting & hollering that all these predictions were done after-the-fact.
For every prediction evolution makes, there are probably 10 or more in the Bible that have a much greater probability of failure (yet didn't) than your predictions.
I hope you can see that I'm not impressed with having Tiktaalik being touted as an example of evolution's predictive power.
That's right.That's ok bro, he's got his kjv.
Those 'bonus points' -- we call the martyr's crown.Plus he gets bonus points for being "persecuted" while on this earth.
That's ok, neither does he."Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power."
I still don't understand what it is you're asking for here.
Falsifying a claim by a false claim is not legitimate falsification.It's unsourced and makes claims that have been well falsified.
Predicting a Tiktaalik -- meh."Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power."
I still don't understand what it is you're asking for here.
And you can keep your pity -- until you learn the difference between 'mental squalor' and 'faith'.
This is what you guys don't understand at all -- our faith; and you're getting a good dose of it on this website.
And frankly, you sanctimonious scientists come across as being disgusted by it; and that's just too bad.
I'm not as impressed as you.Predicting a Tiktaalik -- meh.
Predicting the return of Israel to her homeland -- now that's a prediction!
(Okay, "experts" -- let's hear it.)
Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.Sorry if you feel I'm adding to your persecution complex, but the fact is science by its very nature has the facts on its side.
Says you.Creationism is thoroughly debunked, god is not.
Sure you can. Google "PRATTS."Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.
You might claim you have the facts on your side, but you don't have enough of the facts to call it 'truth'.
What is 'factual' today, will be 'wrong' tomorrow.
Says you.
By you guys' own admission, there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism; so please don't think I'm going to accept it when you tell me it's been 'thoroughly debunked'.
You can't 'thoroughly debunk' something you can't analyze.
Falsifying a claim by a false claim is not legitimate falsification.
Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.
You might claim you have the facts on your side, but you don't have enough of the facts to call it 'truth'.
What is 'factual' today, will be 'wrong' tomorrow.
Says you.
By you guys' own admission, there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism; so please don't think I'm going to accept it when you tell me it's been 'thoroughly debunked'.
You can't 'thoroughly debunk' something you can't analyze.
So?Creationists have made claims regarding creationism, these claims have been debunked.
No, it doesn't, kharisym.Further, creationism is a proposal that has real world consequences...
Bologna.... therefore it has an amount of predictive capacity-
Good.-predictions made with it have been proven false.
Ya -- given that -- and again I say: big deal.Given this, creationism has been debunked.
And you don't have any facts on your side at all... yet you claim to know "The Truth!"Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.
You might claim you have the facts on your side, but you don't have enough of the facts to call it 'truth'.
What is 'factual' today, will be 'wrong' tomorrow.
Certain aspects of creationism have been debunked:By you guys' own admission, there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism; so please don't think I'm going to accept it when you tell me it's been 'thoroughly debunked'.
You can't 'thoroughly debunk' something you can't analyze.
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?