Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[Loudmouth]

Does that mean you're not going to accept the dare?

Why would I try to defend a position that I don't hold?

 

[justlookinla]

Why would I try to defend a position that I don't hold?

Humanity is the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago....

or....

Humanity isn't the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

Dance away!

 

[Loudmouth]

Humanity is the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago....

or....

Humanity isn't the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

Dance away!

We don't have to know if it is only naturalistic mechanisms or if there are additional mechanisms in order to conclude that the evidence is consistent with naturalistic mechanisms. You are the one who keeps dancing.

Keep running away from the evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

 

[justlookinla]

We don't have to know if it is only naturalistic mechanisms or if there are additional mechanisms in order to conclude that the evidence is consistent with naturalistic mechanisms. You are the one who keeps dancing.

Keep running away from the evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

What I expected.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I expected.

You still won't discuss the evidence?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

 

[justlookinla]

You still won't discuss the evidence?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

There is no evidence for only naturalistic mechanisms producing the complexity of a human from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence for only naturalistic mechanisms producing the complexity of a human from a single life form of long long ago.

Please go to the following thread and show me where I say anything of the sort.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

You wanted to discuss the evidence. Go discuss it.

 

[justlookinla]

Please go to the following thread and show me where I say anything of the sort.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

You wanted to discuss the evidence. Go discuss it.

There is nothing in the thread which would indicate that the complex human is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. It does show just a very small piece of the complexity of humanity though.

I'm really not interested in your faith based Godless creation-ist views.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is nothing in the thread which would indicate that the complex human is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

I'm really not interested in your faith based Godless creation-ist views.

You never showed that they are faith based. Perhaps you should do that first.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

 

[justlookinla]

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

Stop dancing and actually answer. Humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago....

or....

Humanity is not the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

You never showed that they are faith based. Perhaps you should do that first.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

There is no evidence that humanity was created by only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That's your personal Godless philosophy of scienceism/evolutionism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Stop dancing and actually answer. Humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago....

or....

Humanity is not the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

My answer is that I don't know if it was only naturalistic mechanisms. What I do know is that the evidence is consistent with evolutionary mechanisms.

There is no evidence that humanity was created by only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I never claimed that there was any such evidence. What I am claiming is that there is ample evidence that humans evolved from a group of hominids in the recent past.

You refuse to address this evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

You said that you would discuss the evidence if I presented it, and now you are running away from the evidence. Why can't you keep your word?

 

[DerelictJunction]

You really don't know what 'scientific lies' you're believing today, do you?

You haven't shown them to be lies. Even if the scientists were wrong, their conclusions wouldn't be lies. Lies require intent.

Are you accusing all 99% of all biologists in the world of lying? Is this the way you were taught to treat people? I guess you read a different Bible than I do.

Maybe you should actually provide evidence of wrongdoing before you judge others.

 

[dad]

Why would I try to defend a position that I don't hold?

Too busy holding positions you can't defend?

 

[dad]

Have you tried any of these things? I guarantee you haven't. For one, the first step is frowned upon by your dogma. No asking questions, right?

Ask a spiritual question. Go ahead. Then research it, come up with a hypothesis, and test it... But I doubt you'll even go that far. Don't take the Lord to task, right? Thought so.

I incorporate the spiritual into all science. I include it in history. I detect it in music. I understand it is involved in mental health. (sorry evos)

 

[justlookinla]

My answer is that I don't know if it was only naturalistic mechanisms. What I do know is that the evidence is consistent with evolutionary mechanisms.

How can you know that the evidence is consistent with evolutionary mechanisms when there is absolutely no evidence for only evolutionary mechanisms producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

I never claimed that there was any such evidence. What I am claiming is that there is ample evidence that humans evolved from a group of hominids in the recent past.

You refuse to address this evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

You said that you would discuss the evidence if I presented it, and now you are running away from the evidence. Why can't you keep your word?

You've presented not a single bit of evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity from a single life form of long long ago. That's the evidence I asked you, and others, for.

Now, you're attempting to dismiss your total failure to provide such evidence by presenting ERVs as proof of common ancestry, which isn't addressing the issue at all. I have no confidence in your opinion nor the opinion of 'scientists' who make wild claims, only to later retract those claims. Junk DNA is one example of the 'science' of true today, lie tomorrow.

Embrace and follow the path of scienceism/evolutionism if you wish, but I'm not interested in the wishy washy 'truths' of that particular philosophy of life.

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't shown them to be lies. Even if the scientists were wrong, their conclusions wouldn't be lies. Lies require intent.

Are you accusing all 99% of all biologists in the world of lying? Is this the way you were taught to treat people? I guess you read a different Bible than I do.

Maybe you should actually provide evidence of wrongdoing before you judge others.

How did the junk DNA of the 60s turn out. Not very well, did it?

You're placing your faith in the ever changing shifting sands of scienceism/evolutionism. Just don't expect me to do it.

 

[dad]

That's rather like the drunk man saying he can feel and see things you can't.

Never had a drunk say that to me actually. Work on that parable thing.

I don't see atoms, but I do not find it is needed to claim they do not exist. I do not see love, but I see it reflected in the creatures of God. I do not see you, but I do not feel I need to send a drone to your place and take pictures.

 

[dad]

Please supply any evidence you have for the change in natural laws that you claimed happened. I have yet to see you do that in any thread.

Why do you say change IN the natural laws? What if they ARE what was left after the change? It would not have been THEM that changed!

 

[dad]

In all my years of looking at science, I have yet to see a single paper that required you to become a christian in order to do an experiment.

Look where it got you.

 

[dad]

I just showed you that this is not true. The patterns were predicted BEFORE they were measured.

Nothing is predicted except that which is based on patterns already observed. If you notice that the ratios of creation tend to be such as that there is more of the one material than the other (what is now daughter and parent isotopes) it is no great feat to 'predict that we will see more parent isotope in several different materials!!!!!!!!! That has nothing to do with your zombie religion that many still call science.

Even more, you can't explain how these patterns could be produced by a different state past, while these patterns are exactly what we would expect to see with a same state past.

False. Creation produced the earth and universe complete with many rocks, water, and etc. No one can explain why. You simply thought you could sneak by with trying to attribute all that exists to present day laws and processes like radioactivity and decay. That is silly.

Why are the ratios of these 3 different independent isotope pairs (Rb/Sr, K/Ar, U/Pb) consistent with 65 million years of decay at current rates in rocks found at the K/T boundary? A same state past explains it. A different state past does not. Therefore, the consilience between these ratios is evidence for a same state past.

Why not? Why would God not create stuff the way He did?? Try to grow intelligent questions.

Since they work in this state, then the ratios were made in this state. That's the whole point. Thanks for proving my point.

Absurd!!! Noah worked in this state but he was born in the other! Reality does not obey your religion.

The consilience between different isotope pairs demonstrates that they are real dates. That is the evidence you can't explain, and continue to run from.

False. The ratio pattern does no such thing. Only when one obsesses over the ratios with their godless religion, and insists that God did not create, does one get so goofed up.


Far better that the dead so called science, that is zombified nonsense, is real science of the Living God.