Why evolution isn't scientific

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Why do you people expect things in the past to be the same as they are now?
That is not what anyone says, Justatruthseeker.
A rational, logical, working assumption made in science is that the same processes that exist today existed in the past. We people expect and find that things were different in the past.

Read about the global temperature record
Even longer term records exist for few sites: the recent Antarctic EPICA core reaches 800 kyr; many others reach more than 100,000 years. The EPICA core covers eight glacial/interglacial cycles. The NGRIP core from Greenland stretches back more than 100 kyr, with 5 kyr in the Eemian interglacial. Whilst the large-scale signals from the cores are clear, there are problems interpreting the detail, and connecting the isotopic variation to the temperature signal.
Or climate in general (Ice Ages!).
Read about plate tectonics. Even what looks like the simple process of gravity gives changes in the past - Milankovitch cycles. Apply GR to the universe and the universe undergoes changes as has been known since 1927 - Hubble–Lemaître law. Read about solar physics and see that the Sun increases in brightness as the same processes burn hydrogen to produce helium "ash".
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Trying to deflect the burden of proof for science claims on a science forum eh?
Wrong. There is no burden of proof on people stating textbook science because the "proof" is in the textbooks :doh:!
However this is Creation & Evolution with a statement of purpose
The Creation & Evolution Forum is a discussion and debate forum and is open to non-believers to address the similarities and differences of creation and evolution. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.

Discussions here should be on the nature of creation and evolution, not focused on bashing or uplifting those who are proponents of these beliefs
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, just trying to get you to provide some proof for your DSP claims. As I've always done.
If you could prove science knew what nature existed on earth in very ancient times, you would have more than religion. Your quest was not to look at other beliefs, but to defend the beliefs you thought were science. In every post you have ever posted so far, you have failed to do that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wrong. There is no burden of proof on people stating textbook science because the "proof" is in the textbooks :doh:!
However this is Creation & Evolution with a statement of purpose
If science claims a certain nature and laws and uses them for models of the past, it must solidly evidence the claim.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
More nonsense not addressing my post: The dating of fossils is science producing real dates.
Maybe deep ignorance that Christians and other theists do accept the dating of fossils?
Rather than a mere statement of faith you need to show how your religious nonsense dates are 'real'. They are based on a belief in a same nature in the past. Or, if you want to try and include cosmology 'dates' that is based on a belief that the fishbowl represents all the universe in regards to what time and space are like. I can see why you avoid the issues and spam false bravado posts.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,674
5,236
✟301,750.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If you could prove science knew what nature existed on earth in very ancient times, you would have more than religion. Your quest was not to look at other beliefs, but to defend the beliefs you thought were science. In every post you have ever posted so far, you have failed to do that.

If you could prove you knew what nature existed on earth in very ancient times, you would have more than just a DSP idea. Your quest was not to look at other beliefs, but to defend the beliefs you thought were real. In every post you have ever posted so far, you have failed to do that.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, that was before homo sapiens so you're ok there . . .
In science time, no. They place the time of the flood at 70 million years ago! Of course they have no clue there even was a flood, but the geologic area where the flood probably was (KT) is dated something like 65 or 70 million years.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you could prove you knew what nature existed on earth in very ancient times, you would have more than just a DSP idea. Your quest was not to look at other beliefs, but to defend the beliefs you thought were real. In every post you have ever posted so far, you have failed to do that.
If mine was the science claim, your plagiarized claim might apply.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.