The Creationist Explanaton

[pitabread]

Like: science is myopic?

I realize this is your bumper sticker catch-phrase, but what is your actual intent behind this saying?

 

[DaveDavids]

Science in Mesopotamian times would have been myopicer.

Fascinating, where do you study pre-Biblical literature, in specific " science " ?

 

[AV1611VET]

I realize this is your bumper sticker catch-phrase, but what is your actual intent behind this saying?

Science can only see so far.

Yes, they can build a bigger telescope or more powerful microscope, but that lets them only see a little further.

But no matter how powerful their equipment is, they can't see such things as:

1. Heaven
2. Hell
3. Jacob's ladder
4. Angels
5. Jesus' footprints on the sea
6. Our sin nature, which resides in our flesh
7. In short, the spiritual world

I guess I should be saying: science is blind.

But I give them too much credit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fascinating, where do you study pre-Biblical literature, in specific " science " ?

Are you insinuating that science in Mesopotamian times was as accurate as it is today?

Have you seen the scientific artwork associated with Babylon's version of Genesis 1?

A solid dome with stars in it, etc.?

I realize academians fall for that today; but they'll defend ANYTHNG, so long as it's against the Bible.

 

[DaveDavids]

Are you insinuating that science in Mesopotamian times was as accurate as it is today?

Have you seen the scientific artwork associated with Babylon's version of Genesis 1?

A solid dome with stars in it, etc.?

I realize academians fall for that today; but they'll defend ANYTHNG, so long as it's against the Bible.

Lol

That's neo-babylonian, they used a pendulum to establish the nadir for the purpose of recording local horizontal coordinate systems

Don't play like you actually have any study in these topics

 

[pitabread]

But no matter how powerful their equipment is, they can't see such things as:

1. Heaven
2. Hell
3. Jacob's ladder
4. Angels
5. Jesus' footprints on the sea
6. Our sin nature, which resides in our flesh
7. In short, the spiritual world

I guess I should be saying: science is blind.

Science can only examine what resides within the natural world. If you're arguing for things outside the natural world, it's a bit silly to repeatedly point out that science can't address those things.

Again, what is your intent by saying this over and over?

But I give them too much credit.

You still enjoy the fruits of scientific endeavours though. For all the people slagging on science and scientific inquiry, I don't see any willing to give up the benefits.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's neo-babylonian, they used a pendulum to establish the nadir for the purpose of recording local horizontal coordinate systems.

Oooooo … and aboriginals built an aerodynamically structured hunting tool that can return back to them if it misses its target.

What's your point?

That a pendulum gets Babylon off the hook for college students, who prefer Babylon's version of how Adam wrote about the beginning of the universe?

Don't play like you actually have any study in these topics

I never have, and I don't intend to start now.

Science is myopic.

If you disagree, then are you saying it is omniscient?

And if so, then how did we get a generation of Thalidomites, or seven astronauts served up as impact victims?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, what is the intent being saying this over and over?

I honestly believe this is outside your realm of understanding for some reason, pitabread.

Science is either blind, myopic, or omniscient.

I'll give them credit and say "myopic," since it seems to [empirically] improve as time goes on.

 

[pitabread]

I honestly believe this is outside your realm of understanding for some reason, pitabread.

Then I'm left thinking that you don't know why you do the things you do. Honestly.

Science is either myopic, blind, or omniscient.

Yes, you can repeat things. So can a parrot.

I'm asking you why you feel the need to keep repeating that.

 

[DaveDavids]

What's your point?

My point is that you pretend to be knowledgeable, but your knowledge is very dilettante

 

[AV1611VET]

My point is that you pretend to be knowledgeable, but your knowledge is very dilettante

LOL

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The question is, what is there to prove?

Oh, are we moving back to proof is now an acceptable means here?? So confusing, especially after all that, and finally moving from "prove" to "confirm evidence".

Truth is, it never really mattered at all what the terminology was.

Anyway the answer to your question is prove evolution. I have even given you example of how to prove something, actually more than one over the months. It really is a simple concept. If it's involved as you claim, that's fine, but it still needs to be proven, confirmed a fact, or whatever you want to call it.

I'll speak slow for those of you with PHD's, can you prove/confirm evolution as fact or can you not?

I feel just like Denzel Washington in the "Is she alive or is she dead" scene, but he only had to listen to the waffling for a minute.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, are we moving back to proof is now an acceptable means here?? So confusing, especially after all that, and finally moving from "prove" to "confirm evidence".

Truth is, it never really mattered at all what the terminology was.

Anyway the answer to your question is prove evolution. I have even given you example of how to prove something, actually more than one over the months. It really is a simple concept. If it's involved as you claim, that's fine, but it still needs to be proven, confirmed a fact, or whatever you want to call it.

I'll speak slow for those of you with PHD's, can you prove/confirm evolution as fact or can you not?

I feel just like Denzel Washington in the "Is she alive or is she dead" scene, but he only had to listen to the waffling for a minute.

So do you accept that randomly distributed reproductive variation occurs, or should we start there?

 

[Kenny'sID]

"I demand proof of evolution, but I refuse to read anything about it! See, you evolutionists can't prove anything to me! Mwahahahahahaha!"

"yup, we done proven our evolution at this link, but you won't read it, end of conversation, we're off the hook now because we "said" we proved it."

You've been told why I don't do links several times, but I do understand you are getting desperate here now that I have taken away your shield so you have to defend with whatever you can, just like that last little thing about me being the one to make a big deal over proof when it was you all all along, and anyone can see that.

I looked at links at first, there was no explanation on how they proved evolution, you just wanted me to see what you do as proof. So a nice little trick to say "yup, we done proven our evolution at this here link but you won't read it, end of conversation, we off the hook now" but it holds no water as actual proof...just another stall/excuse. A funny thing, the first link put out here as proof for me, even an evolutionist said that wasn't very good proof lol. Seriously, I looked at it and saw nothing, but I really think he saw it as proof. See it takes little to nothing for those that want to believe it and the very reason you need to get in here, present your proof and discuss it...is that not proper enough? Would you believe in God if I tossed you a link, and left it at that?...tell the truth now.

Links alone, are a cop out as in "go here and see what we see is proof" (I'm using the term "proof" freely again because you all have now shown me there never was an issue with it, as well as a few other things about your sincerity.

You all are losing ground a mile a minute now, and it shows.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So do you accept that randomly distributed reproductive variation occurs, or should we start there?

Start wherever you like, it's your presentation. Please stop making me repeat myself, I already told you what to do if you had something to present.

 

[pitabread]

I looked at links at first, there was no explanation on how they proved evolution, you just wanted me to see what you do as proof.

Understanding the evidence for evolution requires understanding the theory of evolution. That is a requirement to bridge the gap between what the theory says and how the evidence supports that theory.

You've shown no inclination of attempting to understand either.

So yes, everyone can see exactly what is going on here: an insincere request followed by stone-walling.

Would you believe in God if I tossed you a link, and left it at that?...tell the truth now.

If I am interested in a topic, I would read linked articles on the subject matter and have done so on many occasions. Especially if I was the person demanding people "prove" things to me. I'm not afraid of a little knowledge.

Also, I asked you this before but didn't get a straight answer. Imagine I said to you:

"Christianity is a lie and nobody can prove otherwise. Btw, I've never read the Bible, I won't look at any material related to Christianity and don't know who this 'Jesus' guy is."​

What would you say to me? Would you think that is a reasonable position to hold?

 

[Speedwell]

Start wherever you like, it's your presentation. Please stop making me repeat myself, I already told you what to do if you had something to present.

I offer the following observations:

Among the offspring produced by any given species, there is a range of values for any trait; in other words there is variation. For example, some goldfish have golden scales, some have orange scales, some have brownish scales, and some have a mixture. If you have ever observed a litter of puppies or kittens you will have noticed that while they resemble one another, they are not identical. The same thing can be observed in a large family. Although they are the offspring of the same parents and may resemble one another, the siblings are not identical.

This variation extends to all traits, even those vital for the survival of the individual. An eagle, which depends on superior eyesight to locate its prey, can still be born shortsighted. All variations are, therefore, random and not specifically directed toward any preferential adaptation.

Are you with me so far?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You mean the link to the thread that says right in the link, "The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread"? That link? To a thread you posted a bunch of nonsense to, but never actually addressed the evidence that was posted? That link?

Yet you don't mention one word of what that "bunch of nonsense was" Maybe that's because it wasn't nonsense?

Question:

So show me, what was the nonsense? I don't recall any, and think this is just another of your many, let's put bogus claims out there and hope we get by with it. And we all know what we call bogus claims. And no, I'm not going to get off of the "lies"comments, I'm going to make my point come heck or high water. If this subject makes you so desperate you have to do that to defend it, then go find something truthful to defend.

Right. That's what that link was. It was right in the text of the hyperlink, "The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread".

You completely skipped what I mentioned in a recent post where you said the same thing, you have changed my request of wanting proof, or confirming evidence, evolution is a fact to mere "evidence for evolution" is all I require. You are now not telling the truth...again. I'm not going to waste a lot of time explaining anyones spin and lies, I've already said it's too time consuming and they add nothing to the subject, it's just spin, designed to confuse the issue and win dishonestly, or do some of you not understand the concept of, if one wins with a lie they win nothing, the win is not real? So keep it up and I'll waste no more time with you.

And don't say I haven't been patient or don't have a legit reason for my comments or wanting it to stop..

I did. My giving you a link to a thread with a hyperlink that clearly labeled the content of the thread when I called it, "The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread".

LOL, but is that what I asked for? Have I not made myself clear on that several times? "Either Proof, or confirming evidence evolution is a fact", and don't drop ANY of those words.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I offer the following observations:

Among the offspring produced by any given species, there is a range of values for any trait; in other words there is variation. For example, some goldfish have golden scales, some have orange scales, some have brownish scales, and some have a mixture. If you have ever observed a litter of puppies or kittens you will have noticed that while they resemble one another, they are not identical. The same thing can be observed in a large family. Although they are the offspring of the same parents and may resemble one another, the siblings are not identical.

This variation extends to all traits, even those vital for the survival of the individual. An eagle, which depends on superior eyesight to locate its prey, can still be born shortsighted. All variations are, therefore, random and not specifically directed toward any preferential adaptation.

Are you with me so far?

I'll get to you when I can Speedwell, I'm way too busy trying to straighten things out constantly here plus get to non evolution posts, but I will get to it.

 

[Brightmoon]

Even the evidence that creationists accept- microevolution, is evidence of evolution . Creationists STILL have NO verifiable evidence for any of their conjectures and stories and willful ignorance of what evolution actually is, isn’t going to change that . Where’s YOUR creationist evidence/proof ?!?!