The Applications of LUCA

[Frank Robert]

See the difference now, Frank?

God cleaned up His mess.

He didn't "hide the evidence."

Noah had a world to repopulate in a very short time.

And dead and decaying animals everywhere would have been unsanitary, to say the least.

It is obvious you like to tease out word meanings to support your beliefs. Whether a omni-deity hide or removed evidence of a flood comes down to a deception. Isn't it strange that at the same time of removing or hiding evidence for a worldwide flood that same deity would plant overwhelming evidence for evolution?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nup, don't buy any of it. I've been over this subject too many times.

Just one of a number of resources I refer to. CEH – Creation Evolution Headlines

What are your other resources? Would you consider this one?

Lines of Evidence - Understanding Evolution

 

[Frank Robert]

Nup, don't buy any of it. I've been over this subject too many times.

There is nothing to buy the evidence stands on its own.

Just one of a number of resources I refer to. CEH – Creation Evolution Headlines

There is no argument that the ToE is not complete. It has been noted by many scientists that the best thing coming from creationists is there pressure on the scientists to generate scientific hypotheses.

The major problem with creationists is not their skepticism but their inability to differentiate between belief and scientific evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is obvious you like to tease out word meanings to support your beliefs. Whether a omni-deity hide or removed evidence of a flood comes down to a deception. Isn't it strange that at the same time of removing or hiding evidence for a worldwide flood that same deity would plant overwhelming evidence for evolution?

Wow -- just wow.

Can we get the mess cleaned up, before we change the subject to something else?

Which one is it you don't understand and want to talk about?

The absence of evidence for the Flood, or the presence of evidence for evolution?

 

[Aussie Pete]

No, it's not.

What it is, is a response to you simply asserting that you have already made your case against the evidence for evolution.

How do I even format a scientific refutation to "It's not true! Cause I already said so!"?

The Elephant in the Living Room
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular
biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific detectives, working with
DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”
S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”
G: “Try me.”
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of
Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know
for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or
a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”
G: “So how do you do it?”
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some typos. It
should get easier as time goes by.”
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such
information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know,
it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
S: “No. It all just evolved.”
G: “What? You just told me —?”
S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it
would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you
don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would
stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in
the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”
G: “What elephant?”
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly
trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear
it isn’t there!”
I have posted a fair amount about evolution. It's pointless. And there is no point trying to convince me that evolution is true.

 

[Aussie Pete]

There is nothing to buy the evidence stands on its own.


There is no argument that the ToE is not complete. It has been noted by many scientists that the best thing coming from creationists is there pressure on the scientists to generate scientific hypotheses.

The major problem with creationists is not their skepticism but their inability to differentiate between belief and scientific evidence.

If evolution was based on true science, you would have a point. It is patently not.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It is obvious you like to tease out word meanings to support your beliefs. Whether a omni-deity hide or removed evidence of a flood comes down to a deception. Isn't it strange that at the same time of removing or hiding evidence for a worldwide flood that same deity would plant overwhelming evidence for evolution?

Since your are such an expert, you will know how difficult it is to form a fossil. The vast majority of the creatures and people that perished would have decayed. The flood waters did not recede until a year after the flood. It's not deception, it's a natural consequence of the flood

 

[Frank Robert]

Wow -- just wow.

Can we get the mess cleaned up, before we change the subject to something else?

Which one is it you don't understand and want to talk about?

The absence of evidence for the Flood, or the presence of evidence for evolution?

You believe there is evidence for the flood and none for evolution. It is your failure to differentiate between scientific evidence and religious belief that is at fault.

Why do you think that the majority of Christians do not have a problem with evolution?

 

[Frank Robert]

If evolution was based on true science, you would have a point. It is patently not.

Ah! We are getting someplace now. You misapprehend the nature of science which takes us full circle to the creationists' failure to differentiate between religious belief and scientific evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

You believe there is evidence for the flood and none for evolution.

I believe white cliffs and meandering rivers are evidence of the Flood.

White cliffs are evidence of the clean-up; and meandering rivers are evidence of the waters being evacuated off the earth.

Psalm 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
Psalm 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

It is your failure to differentiate between scientific evidence and religious belief that is at fault.

Here's my "failure to differentiate," as you call it:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted

Why do you think that the majority of Christians do not have a problem with evolution?

No comment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah! We are getting someplace now. You misapprehend the nature of science which takes us full circle to the creationists' failure to differentiate between religious belief and scientific evidence.

What's your religious belief on the Flood (or evolution, or whatever it is you're harping about)?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The Elephant in the Living Room
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular
biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific detectives, working with
DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”
S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”
G: “Try me.”
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of
Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know
for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or
a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”
G: “So how do you do it?”
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some typos. It
should get easier as time goes by.”
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such
information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know,
it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
S: “No. It all just evolved.”
G: “What? You just told me —?”
S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it
would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you
don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would
stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in
the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”
G: “What elephant?”
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly
trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear
it isn’t there!”
I have posted a fair amount about evolution. It's pointless. And there is no point trying to convince me that evolution is true.

Sam the biologist huh. Where is the actual interview recorded?

 

[Frank Robert]

Since your are such an expert, you will know how difficult it is to form a fossil. The vast majority of the creatures and people that perished would have decayed. The flood waters did not recede until a year after the flood. It's not deception, it's a natural consequence of the flood

I agree that fossilization is rare. What is non-existent is scientific evidence for a worldwide flood.

Why do think we consistently find fossils in their appropriate geographical strata?

 

[Estrid]

Since your are such an expert, you will know how difficult it is to form a fossil. The vast majority of the creatures and people that perished would have decayed. The flood waters did not recede until a year after the flood. It's not deception, it's a natural consequence of the flood

Its super easy to make fossils.
There was no flood.

 

[Estrid]

I agree that fossilization is rare. What is non-existent is scientific evidence for a worldwide flood.

Why do think we consistently find fossils in their appropriate geographical strata?

The billions of tons of coal prove its rsre

 

[Frank Robert]

What's your religious belief on the Flood (or evolution, or whatever it is you're harping about)?

I have no religious belief about Noah's flood, however, I do have knowledge of the absence of evidence for a worldwide flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do think we consistently find fossils in their appropriate geographical strata?

Because anything that doesn't fit gets reclassified, renamed, or the boundaries of "their appropriate geographical strata" get changed?

As I said before, if they ever found rabbits in the Precambrian, they'd just either reclassify them, rename them, or extend the boundaries of the Precambrian.

I like the PR they use to explain polystrate fossils.

That's worldly science in action.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was no flood.

The Bible says otherwise.

 

[Estrid]

The Elephant in the Living Room
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular
biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific detectives, working with
DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”
S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”
G: “Try me.”
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of
Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know
for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or
a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”
G: “So how do you do it?”
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some typos. It
should get easier as time goes by.”
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such
information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know,
it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
S: “No. It all just evolved.”
G: “What? You just told me —?”
S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it
would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you
don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would
stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in
the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”
G: “What elephant?”
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly
trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear
it isn’t there!”
I have posted a fair amount about evolution. It's pointless. And there is no point trying to convince me that evolution is true.

One guy offers an opinion, and that proves it.
Super good demo of scientific thinking, that is not.
Or any thought, at all. Better hope you are not on trial
with a jury that " thinks" that way

Are you aware that " i know i am right, no evidence could
change my mind" is intellectual dishonesty?

Seems like the " Truth" could stand on its own and not
require such mental sloppiness and self deception
to prop it up.

 

[Frank Robert]

Because anything that doesn't fit gets reclassified, renamed, or the boundaries of "their appropriate geographical strata" get changed?

As I said before, if they ever found rabbits in the Precambrian, they'd just either reclassify them, rename them, or extend the boundaries of the Precambrian.

I like the PR they use to explain polystrate fossils.

That's worldly science in action.

You are simply repeating creationists' nonsense. You can easily look up polystrate fossils but your beliefs in creationists' nonsense will prevent you from accepting that the evidence is honest.