The tip of the ice berg

[Hans Blaster]

ToE has already been demonstrated to be false. Evolutionist refuse to accept any evidence that refutes evolution. You are just as unwilling to accept the fact that the scientific community is biased against those who reject evolution. It's not my opinion. You obviously are ignorant of the problems facing researchers who (justifiably) reject evolution.

Did you intend for us to laugh at your "opinion", or is this unintentional humor?

 

[Shemjaza]

ToE has already been demonstrated to be false. Evolutionist refuse to accept any evidence that refutes evolution. You are just as unwilling to accept the fact that the scientific community is biased against those who reject evolution. It's not my opinion. You obviously are ignorant of the problems facing researchers who (justifiably) reject evolution.

Again and again you have been asked to present this evidence...

Your personal religious conviction is not evidence.

The personal religious conviction of an intelligent, educated, even celebrated scientist is also not evidence.


But please, if it truly does exist, present the evidence that disproves evolution.

 

[Astrid]

ToE has already been demonstrated to be false. Evolutionist refuse to accept any evidence that refutes evolution. You are just as unwilling to accept the fact that the scientific community is biased against those who reject evolution. It's not my opinion. You obviously are ignorant of the problems facing researchers who (justifiably) reject evolution.

I kind of wonder if its simply that so many
"theists" feel completely at ease
making things up and labelling
them " fact", or if its that many find
it hard to distinguiish fantasy from
whats real and reasonable.

Its clear enough that believers in
each and every reliligion can be utterly in
earnest-it takes real conviction to
commit suicide so as to head for the
afterlife on a passing comet.

Christians in my experience tend to
be solidly level headed and would
consider making things up to be
morally wrong.

 

[ottawak]

ToE has already been demonstrated to be false. Evolutionist refuse to accept any evidence that refutes evolution.

When are you going to show us that evidence?

You are just as unwilling to accept the fact that the scientific community is biased against those who reject evolution.

The science community is biased against anyone who rejects the scientific method.

You obviously are ignorant of the problems facing researchers who (justifiably) reject evolution.

Researchers who justify rejecting evolution on the basis of an unconvincing interpretation of an ancient Hebrew religious text will no doubt have trouble convincing others that they are still doing science.

 

[Astrid]

When are you going to show us that evidence? The science community is biased against anyone who rejects the scientific method. Researchers who justify rejecting evolution on the basis of an unconvincing interpretation of an ancient Hebrew religious text will no doubt have trouble convincing others that they are still doing science.

" Evolitionists" are not some small cult of scuence deniers,
though if the existrd those who cling despite disproof wouo be the
laughing stock. As creationists are today.

Few in the international science dont accept evolution.
If anyone could disprove it, there a Nobel awaiting them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I kind of wonder if its simply that so many
"theists" feel completely at ease making things up and labeling them " fact",

Doesn't even science teach you that you can study something inside and out, test it under controlled conditions, and cross-reference it to like discoveries, only to find out later you were wrong -- sometimes horribly wrong?

 

[ruthiesea]

Whoever made those rules can take a hike: a long one on a short pier.

What rules?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What rules?

The basic principles of scientific inquiry. He just doesn't like them. (Or those of us who practice them.)

 

[Mr Laurier]

ToE has already been demonstrated to be false.

How so?
Please do support your claim.

Given that the theory of evolution, has never been demonstrated to be false...

 

[eleos1954]

By what authority do you interpret the Bible to me?

The bible interprets itself

 

[eleos1954]

By your standards, ID dismisses Genesis. Why do you support it?

no ... if one believes in macro evolution it dismisses Genesis. I do not dismiss creation in 6 days and neither does His word.

 

[BPPLEE]

So, if you don’t accept a valid scientific theory then you won’t have a career in science? Until a theory is scientifically invalidated then a scientist must accept it with the condition that science continually questions the validity of theories. There is no 100% certainty in science except that we don’t know everything. We don’t know what might be discovered tomorrow. Theories cannot be proven but they are testable and, if wrong, can be invalidated.

No theories can be proven?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The bible interprets itself

Is it sentient?

 

[ottawak]

No theories can be proven?

No, they cannot. "Proof" is the conclusion of a discourse of deductive logic. Science is a discourse in inductive logic. Scientific conclusions are said to be confirmed, not proven, and can always be invalidated by new evidence.

 

[ottawak]

no ... if one believes in macro evolution it dismisses Genesis. I do not dismiss creation in 6 days and neither does His word.

ID supports macroevolution.

 

[ottawak]

The bible interprets itself

Which proposition is an interpretation.

 

[eleos1954]

Is it sentient?

Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others.

so in that regard I'd say yes ... the awareness of who we are as created beings, our relationship with the Lord and how we should relate to one another. That awareness is revealed through His Word.

Certainly not limited to that ... contains a lot of history and prophecy about the future.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, they cannot. "Proof" is the conclusion of a discourse of deductive logic. Science is a discourse in inductive logic. Scientific conclusions are said to be confirmed, not proven, and can always be invalidated by new evidence.

Then no scientific theories can be proven.

 

[eleos1954]

ID supports macroevolution.

It does not ....

Microevolution - variation within the Biblical kind.

Macroevolution - the changing of one Biblical kind into another kind.

The difference in the meaning of the term microevolution as used by an evolutionist in contrast to a creationist is that an evolutionist thinks microevolution requires the addition of new genetic information to a species' genome, but a creationist thinks microevolution requires the expression of genetic information already present.

 

[ottawak]

Then no scientific theories can be proven.

No. They can only be confirmed pending new evidence. There is some confusion about this. Theology is an exercise in deductive logic, so its conclusions are generally regarded as proven (true or not--it depends on the premises) so that if we offer a different and contrary scientific conclusion it is easy for the creationist to assume that it is being offered as "proven" in the same sense as a theological proposition--say, the age of the Earth..