What you aren't being told about astronomy

[juvenissun]

Biblical creation is not science. You said you would show evolution invalid through "science and logic". No does the biblical creation support the fossil record. Not in the least.

In science and logic, I don't see any possibility for a monkey changed into a human.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, plants. Plants on planets.

Yeah, but here's the thing: still doesn't support the Genesis story!

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. It is actually the most critical problem in evolution.
Do not mix the Noah's Flood in this issue. It does not belong.

Noah's flood doesn't belong with creationism?

Is not the basis of creationism the belief that God creatred in accordance with the Book of Genesis?

 

[RickG]

The model lacks the support of evidence. So it is only a scientific idea, not a science.

Rubbish! There is more physical evidence described in the scientific literature supporting evolution than in any other scientific theory. Name one physical scientific discipline that does not contribute to the theory of evolution. Just one.

 

[RickG]

In science and logic, I don't see any possibility for a monkey changed into a human.

Neither does science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why not?

Because several distinct events of creation would not result in the logical hierarchies we observe in life.

It's like saying that your dad is not your biological dad, eventhough every DNA paternity test comes out positive.

It makes no sense.

If you were created from scratch and thus didn't have a biological father, then why would you expect a paternity test to come out positive?

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, but here's the thing: still doesn't support the Genesis story!

It does it exactly. Plants exist before animals.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't see how. The fossil sequence is not a convincing feature. The Creation story can explain that too.

No, it can't.

 

[juvenissun]

Noah's flood doesn't belong with creationism?

Is not the basis of creationism the belief that God creatred in accordance with the Book of Genesis?

At Noah's time, the Creation is DONE.

 

[juvenissun]

Rubbish! There is more physical evidence described in the scientific literature supporting evolution than in any other scientific theory. Name one physical scientific discipline that does not contribute to the theory of evolution. Just one.

They contributed. But there is still no evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It does it exactly. Plants exist before animals.

No it doesn't. You're adding an unsupportable variable to the mix so that you can claim you're right.

 

[RickG]

It does it exactly. Plants exist before animals.

Not the biblical description of plants. Flowering fruit? And for that mater the earliest marine life is not plant either.

 

[RickG]

They contributed. But there is still no evidence.

What they contributed is evidence. Your denial of it does not support your position. What you need to do is show scientifically and logically what the how the fossil record suddenly popped into existence in such a way as to demonstrate evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Not the biblical description of plants. Flowering fruit? And for that mater the earliest marine life is not plant either.

It is not early enough.

 

[RickG]

It is not early enough.

???????????? What is not early enough?

 

[juvenissun]

What they contributed is evidence. Your denial of it does not support your position. What you need to do is show scientifically and logically what the how the fossil record suddenly popped into existence in such a way as to demonstrate evolution.

For example, a paper showed two similar bones, and said one evolved into another.
What kind of evidence is that? It is not scientific at all.

 

[juvenissun]

???????????? What is not early enough?

The quality is not good enough.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The quality is not good enough.

You're in no position to say something like that.

 

[RickG]

For example, a paper showed two similar bones, and said one evolved into another.
What kind of evidence is that? It is not scientific at all.

Why not cite that specific paper and let's see what the content and context is rather than making an unsupported opinion.

 

[RickG]

The quality is not good enough.

By what scientific evidence do you base that on, other than your opinion? Remember, you have already shared with us that you have no science background in biology.