Why evolution isn't scientific

[Ophiolite]

Your opinion of what 'properly' is frankly irrelevant.

Magic mirror on the wall, who is the Daddy of them all?
Whose distorted views are those, who strikes a patronising pose?
Who distorts each basic fact, who has never heard of tact?
Who denies the evidence, who's on the wrong side of the fence?

Whose arguments are past their prime, who rejects the depth of time?
Whose assertions fall quite flat, relying as they do on chat?
Who can't spot a metaphor, (non-literal readings does ahbor)?
Whose delusional grandiloquence, never, ever can make sense?

Regretably the answer's sad.
Reflect on this, the answer's dad.

 

[dad]

You have been given evidence and reasons for why it makes sense to think that nature was the same in the past.

Actually all that has been offered is beliefs. That is not evidences. The bible does not support your beliefs and neither does history.

Your claim IS NOT that science doesn't know this - your claim IS that nature in the past was different to now.

God told us what the past was like, as well as ancient history. I see no reason to dismiss all that due to unsupported claims and beliefs from false phony ignorant so called sciences. I claim science doesn't know. I believe that nature according to the bible both in the future and past are very different than what we know it to be today. Everything I ever saw from science supports that view also. The fossil record, etc etc. It is all a matter of how we chose to interpret and look at evidence. There is nothing you have evidence for that is not also evidence I have.

 

[dad]

Demanding that I support my beliefs does not count as you supporting your beliefs. You make this mistake often, and considering that you have been corrected on this many times yet you still make the same mistake, I can only conclude you are trolling.

If you do not support your beliefs, you have no real science claim. For me, science is just one added element to the bible and history, and logic and reason. When you hols science too close to your eyes, you miss everything else.

 

[Speedwell]

If you do not support your beliefs, you have no real science claim. For me, science is just one added element to the bible and history, and logic and reason. When you hols science too close to your eyes, you miss everything else.

But you don't support your claim that Genesis is accurate historical fact. You just assert it.

 

[dad]

Magic mirror on the wall, who is the Daddy of them all?
Whose distorted views are those, who strikes a patronising pose?
Who distorts each basic fact, who has never heard of tact?
Who denies the evidence, who's on the wrong side of the fence?

Who denies things spiritual, and shoehorns all into their box? Who swallows anything but truth, which is what he only mocks?

Whose arguments are past their prime, who rejects the depth of time?
Whose assertions fall quite flat, relying as they do on chat?

Who thinks that God must fit their cult, and little fishbowl dreams?
And reinvents the universe to fit their godless themes?

Who can't spot a metaphor, (non-literal readings does ahbor)?
Whose delusional grandiloquence, never, ever can make sense?

If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of our creator
Eventually he could even be a fairly good debater.

Regretably the answer's sad.
Reflect on this, the answer's dad.

And maybe we could add to the myriad of skills he would attain
The ability to turn a phrase, to spare us all some pain.

 

[dad]

But you don't support your claim that Genesis is accurate historical fact. You just assert it.

Science cannot deal with Genesis. What other sort of support would you like? Apparently the stamp of authenticity Jesus placed on Scripture doesn't do it for you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually all that has been offered is beliefs. That is not evidences. The bible does not support your beliefs and neither does history.

I love how things with actual physical evidence are dismissed as being merely beliefs, but your faith in the unevidenced supernatural is not deemed to be a belief. The cognitive dissonance is huge.

God told us what the past was like, as well as ancient history. I see no reason to dismiss all that due to unsupported claims and beliefs from false phony ignorant so called sciences. I claim science doesn't know. I believe that nature according to the bible both in the future and past are very different than what we know it to be today. Everything I ever saw from science supports that view also. The fossil record, etc etc. It is all a matter of how we chose to interpret and look at evidence. There is nothing you have evidence for that is not also evidence I have.

Funny. Evidence for an old Earth is also evidence for a young Earth? Do you ever stop and think about the utter nonsense you assert?

 

[Kylie]

If you do not support your beliefs, you have no real science claim. For me, science is just one added element to the bible and history, and logic and reason. When you hols science too close to your eyes, you miss everything else.

Considering that you make all sorts of claims: Science doesn't know! The laws of the universe were different in the past! - you are hardly one to complain that it's not a legitimate claim without support. You have never provided any support at all for your position.

 

[dad]

I love how things with actual physical evidence are dismissed as being merely beliefs,

In your mind that may be the case. However since you post nothing of the kind here, and ignore the fact that all that has been offered so far is belief splattered evidence spinning, and sleight of hand, the situation is as follows: no physical evidence on earth or in the created universe supports your religion you have tried to pawn off as science.

but your faith in the unevidenced supernatural is not deemed to be a belief.

My belief in the highly evidenced supernatural is a ridiculously well supported belief.

Funny. Evidence for an old Earth is also evidence for a young Earth?

Of course it is. Just divest your religion from the evidence and bingo.

 

[dad]

Considering that you make all sorts of claims: Science doesn't know! The laws of the universe were different in the past! - you are hardly one to complain that it's not a legitimate claim without support. You have never provided any support at all for your position.

I guess you are free to offer empty blabber instead of debate honestly and try to support your defeated religion. I must confess it grew boring some time ago though.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In your mind that may be the case. However since you post nothing of the kind here, and ignore the fact that all that has been offered so far is belief splattered evidence spinning, and sleight of hand, the situation is as follows: no physical evidence on earth or in the created universe supports your religion you have tried to pawn off as science.

My belief in the highly evidenced supernatural is a ridiculously well supported belief.

Of course it is. Just divest your religion from the evidence and bingo.

See how you just did exactly what I said you were doing? You dismiss actual evidence as "sleight of hand" and assert the supernatural (which pretty much by definition cannot be evidenced) as "highly evidenced" - but you cannot point to a single piece of evidence for the supernatural, can you? It's quite laughable, really.

 

[Kylie]

I guess you are free to offer empty blabber instead of debate honestly and try to support your defeated religion. I must confess it grew boring some time ago though.

More of the same baseless assertions.

Come back to me when you have some actual evidence instead of meaningless name calling and insults.

 

[dad]

See how you just did exactly what I said you were doing? You dismiss actual evidence as "sleight of hand" and assert the supernatural (which pretty much by definition cannot be evidenced) as "highly evidenced" - but you cannot point to a single piece of evidence for the supernatural, can you? It's quite laughable, really.

The slight of hand comes in imposing beliefs of a same nature in the past onto all evidences. That loses you the right to claim evidence. You can only claim belief.

As for the proven word of God, that is totally evidenced. Jesus clenched that deal. Don't think that because science is incapable of recognizing anything to do with more than the present natural world, that that makes it the be all end all criteria for what is evidence! Evidence is NOT just what little mice of science can fit into their little cages.

 

[dad]

More of the same baseless assertions.

Come back to me when you have some actual evidence instead of meaningless name calling and insults.

Not sure why all you seem to want to do is argue and tongue wag. It would be better to address issues and defend your religion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is just becoming like a painfully bad game of ping-pong between one good player (anyone that's not Dad) and one very bad player (Dad).

 

[dad]

This is just becoming like a painfully bad game of ping-pong between one good player (anyone that's not Dad) and one very bad player (Dad).

Sometimes the attitude of posters here reminds me of this pic

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you admit that you have a god complex.

 

[Kylie]

Not sure why all you seem to want to do is argue and tongue wag. It would be better to address issues and defend your religion.

You've provided no support for your claims at all.

 

[dad]

You've provided no support for your claims at all.

I suggest the bible is supported. Your beliefs about how the past was are not. Yet you thought they were science. Ha.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I suggest the bible is supported. Your beliefs about how the past was are not. Yet you thought they were science. Ha.

No, you don't suggest that the Bible is supported. You outright state it's supported but when people ask you for the evidence for your claim, you just start saying that they're wrong, without any evidence.