What you aren't being told about astronomy

juvenissun · Jan 12, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Then you need to explain how it can, Juvenissun. Otherwise, you are wasting our time here. This is your turn at the mike. If you have nothing to say, no way to support your argument's, then you shod stand down and try and learn from others.

No one asked me to do that.

And, I might have done that.

RickG · Jan 12, 2016

juvenissun said:
No one asked me to do that.

Oh yes they did. Warden-of-the Storm gave you a challenge to show that evolution was invalid. You accepted and agreed to do it with science and logic.

And, I might have done that.

No, we are still waiting.

Hoghead1 · Jan 12, 2016

You have definitely been asked more than once Juvenissun. Again, you turn at the mike goes with the responsibility to back your claims. However, I think the real problem is that you really don't know how to. And I am gong to continue to assume you are simply bluffing and wasting time here until you get busy and offer some proof for your position.

DogmaHunter · Jan 13, 2016

Astrophile said:
On the other hand, perhaps you're right and I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Perhaps I should try to learn about cladistics. Still, the essential point is that we share common ancestors with monkeys, whatever we call those ancestors.

Aside from the "cladistically correct terminology" issue, however, I certainly agree with you that if that common ancestor of 10 million years ago would be transported to the present day, we would most likely refer to it as a "monkey" in day-to-day speech.

Much like we would call any elongated sea-creature with fins and a tail a "fish".

juvenissun · Jan 13, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
You have definitely been asked more than once Juvenissun. Again, you turn at the mike goes with the responsibility to back your claims. However, I think the real problem is that you really don't know how to. And I am gong to continue to assume you are simply bluffing and wasting time here until you get busy and offer some proof for your position.

Without using evolution, how would one explain the fossil record in a scientific way?
I have answered that. If evolution is wrong, then by default, the creation is right. There is no alternative.
So, they are asking me to support creation by science without using the Scripture? I think they must be nuts.
Am I clear to you? They are confused and totally missed the target.

RickG · Jan 13, 2016

juvenissun said:
Without using evolution, how would one explain the fossil record in a scientific way? I have answered that.

No you have not. You have presented absolutely no science.

If evolution is wrong, then by default, the creation is right.

Case in point. That's a non scientific opinion. Absolutely no science and 100% opinion.

There is no alternative.

That's the whole point. There is absolutely no way to view the fossil record without evolution. There are no scientific explanations that can describe the fossil record without recognizing evolution.

So, they are asking me to support creation by science without using the Scripture?

Absolutely not, the challenge has nothing to do with creation. You agreed to a challenge where you were to describe the fossil record without evolution using science and logic. You have not even attempted to meet the agreed upon challenge. Remember, it was you who stated that you would use science and logic.

I think they must be nuts.

What is nuts is describing the fossil record without evolution.

Am I clear to you? They are confused and totally missed the target.

You know, there is a point in which one can no longer shovel dirt out of a hole from which they have dug because it is too deep.

AV1611VET · Jan 13, 2016

RickG said:
No you have not. You have presented absolutely no science.

Some people drink Tequila Sunrises just for the orange juice.

The Cadet · Jan 13, 2016

juvenissun said:
If evolution is wrong, then by default, the creation is right. There is no alternative.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma

Unless you can demonstrate that the entire set of explanations for the origin of the fossil record is only "Creation", then your claim has no merit.

juvenissun · Jan 13, 2016

The Cadet said:
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma

Unless you can demonstrate that the entire set of explanations for the origin of the fossil record is only "Creation", then your claim has no merit.

Alternatively, I can argue that evolution will NOT explain any of the fossil sequence.
What option is left in that case?

The key is on the creation/evolution dichotomy. I still think it is true. There is no other option for it. You are extremely welcome (and I will thank you a bunch) if you could provide an idea of alternatives.

juvenissun · Jan 13, 2016

RickG said:
No you have not. You have presented absolutely no science.
Case in point. That's a non scientific opinion. Absolutely no science and 100% opinion.

That's the whole point. There is absolutely no way to view the fossil record without evolution. There are no scientific explanations that can describe the fossil record without recognizing evolution.
Absolutely not, the challenge has nothing to do with creation. You agreed to a challenge where you were to describe the fossil record without evolution using science and logic. You have not even attempted to meet the agreed upon challenge. Remember, it was you who stated that you would use science and logic.
What is nuts is describing the fossil record without evolution.
You know, there is a point in which one can no longer shovel dirt out of a hole from which they have dug because it is too deep.

You repeat things like a parrot. I will wait to see if anything new could come out of you.
You should read what others are saying in this thread.

The Cadet · Jan 13, 2016

juvenissun said:
Alternatively, I can argue that evolution will NOT explain any of the fossil sequence.
What option is left in that case?

I don't know. But it's not my job to provide an alternative, it's your job to prove that there are no alternatives. After all, people wondering what the alternative to Newtonian Physics when it failed to explain the orbit of Mercury did not have an answer for quite a long time - but that didn't mean the options were "Newtonian Physics" or "God".

juvenissun · Jan 13, 2016

The Cadet said:
I don't know. But it's not my job to provide an alternative, it's your job to prove that there are no alternatives. After all, people wondering what the alternative to Newtonian Physics when it failed to explain the orbit of Mercury did not have an answer for quite a long time - but that didn't mean the options were "Newtonian Physics" or "God".

Good. But I am not able to do that. I do not know any alternative. That is why I believe it is a true dichotomy.
This issue is not a scientific one. It won't progress through time.

The Cadet · Jan 13, 2016

juvenissun said:
Good. But I am not able to do that.

Then you have no business claiming that it is a true dichotomy.

juvenissun said:
I do not know any alternative.

And neither do I. And before Einstein, nobody knew a viable alternative to Newton's theory. That doesn't mean there was some true dichotomy between Newtonian mechanics and "Angels pull things down"-ism.

RickG · Jan 13, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Some people drink Tequila Sunrises just for the orange juice.

I don't care much for the sweet alcoholic drinks. Scotch on the rocks is a favorite of mine.

AV1611VET · Jan 13, 2016

RickG said:
Scotch on the rocks is a favorite of mine.

-- Nice play on words!

RickG · Jan 13, 2016

juvenissun said:
You repeat things like a parrot. I will wait to see if anything new could come out of you.

You should read what others are saying in this thread.[/QUOTE]

You were issued a challenge, you not only accepted that challenge but you stated that you would pursue that challenge with science and logic. My posts have only been a reminder that you have not done so. We are all still waiting for you to explain the fossil record as you said you would without without evolution using science and logic. I gather you concede the challenge?

RickG · Jan 13, 2016

AV1611VET said:
-- Nice play on words!

Ha! I wasn't even thinking about that and it took me a minute to realize what you were saying. Yeah, I guess so.

Jimmy D · Jan 13, 2016

juvenissun said:
Without using evolution, how would one explain the fossil record in a scientific way?
I have answered that.

No you can't, it's the one thing you have demonstrated in this thread. It's quite sad to see the lengths some people will go to to avoid admitting they spoke in error.

Justatruthseeker · Jan 13, 2016

What you aren't being told about astronomy is that cosmological redshift is wrong and they don't have a clue as to the distances to anything.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

But if they accept the truth then all their Fairie Dust falls.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2016

juvenissun said:
No one asked me to do that.

And, I might have done that.

That is a flat out lie. I have asked you, at least twice, to show how evolution is wrong, using the fossil record as an example. And the only thing you have done is say "creation explains it" and left it at that.

What you aren't being told about astronomy

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SO COOL

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

SO COOL

... and God saw that it was good.

SO COOL

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency