Why evolution isn't scientific

[AV1611VET]

As do you.

My heart's not in it though.

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

an out of place fossil.

Example?

 

[Kylie]

@xianghua are you going to post your out of place fossil evidence anytime soon?

 

[xianghua]

Quite a few from someone like yourself who can't explain why in-place fossils are where they are.

by ignoring out of place fossils any fossil will be in the correct place.

 

[xianghua]

Of course I want to deal with facts. It's why I'm no longer a YEC, after all.

you said that if a creature has a similar morphology it will have a similar genome too. right? but as we seen- its not always true.

 

[xianghua]

Example?

see in my first comment.

 

[xianghua]

@xianghua are you going to post your out of place fossil evidence anytime soon?

i will do it when you will answer my simple question about your prediction. again: if i will show you a case of 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false or not? why its so hard for you to answer?

 

[xianghua]

A watch looks like it was designed, compared to what looks _______. (fill in the blank)

what?

 

[Heissonear]

I have made my position clear already.

Now post your evidence.

Honestly, it seems like you are trying to get me to agree that any irregularity will result in me abandoning my opinion that evolution is a powerful explanatory tool. I'm not going to do that. If your evidence is valid evidence against evolution, then I promise I will consider it.

Now will you PLEASE stop blustering about it and POST IT.

Many have grown their mind to exclude Spiritual Higher Life and only accept what comes from nature and natural processes.

These types of people are godless: living without God in this world.

The godless have raised their voice over the past 200 years, setting aside input from God, setting aside what possibly is because of God, and try to explain everything through natural processes. Natural sciences have harbored godless people.

This is how I grew up, as a godless geologist.

I have found trying to live godless still required faith. Some hardliners try to exclude their faith as a godless person, but the faith is still present.

Conjecture-based conclusions is one of prominent excerise use of faith.

As most, anything that seems to challenge their godless mindset and beliefs they may often lash out with disapproval and counter facts or statements of correction.

Being without God in this world is a fantasy. Try as they may the godless have serious ignorance that others have found Him and His input before them.

 

[Heissonear]

Coming from creationists, that means little.

Some learn that there knowledge-base is superior to select others.

Their posts eventually speak down to lowly others, in their mindset and thinking.

Those who are godless (without God in this world) are in reality very simple, natural processes orientated, and think they do not need faith, it is useless. But in reality they make many conclusions based on conjecture, which shows their faith as they post. They have used faith and walk by faith.

When their faith is pointed out, they like to excuse it away, as minute and of little need.

But their mindset of faith is askewed. Favorable for them and dramatically of ill recourse select others have.

Askewed in mind. Explaining away. Not seeing proper perspective. ..............

 

[Heissonear]

I watched a video about the fallacy ....................... The anti-science crowd has trouble with the distinction.

Anti-science scientists. Hummmmmm.

You made a fallacy in your mind.

I take it those who do not line up with you and "the crowd" in science are deserving to have their science junked.

No, having an academically acquired science degree and occupation as a scientist is a scientist.

The issue is if they line up to the group-think crowd's points of view, from minor to possibly what is viewed as major ways of using and concluding aspects in life.

 

[Speedwell]

The issue is if they line up to the group-think crowd's points of view, from minor to possibly what is viewed as major ways of using and concluding aspects in life.

Which is exactly what creation "scientists" do. They take the position that nothing they can discover or conclude will contradict a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories no matter what the evidence is. Group-think.

 

[Heissonear]

Which is exactly what creation "scientists" do. They take the position that nothing they can discover or conclude will contradict a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories no matter what the evidence is. Group-think.

The Bible and the Holy Spirit enlighting verses in the Bible within people produces Christians. People who have attained God's intention in His present Creation. Kids. Kids of God. Give Christians a "group-think" title if you want. I do not mind.

There are many group-think groups existing in the world.

Naturalists/godless scientists is a group which has no need for a god to explain the natural realm and processes around them.

Christians and godless scientists have major differences, possibly the foremost is: a) the godless has no need for a god to explain things; verses b) Christians have the Bible and Holy Spirit enlightenment of Scriptures from the Bible, meaning they have encountered input from God in their days, weeks, and months during this life.

To Christians, God uses the Bible in their life, even input from above enlightenment of verses in the Bible. God teaches and guides them by Divine input and enlightenment of Scriptures.

To Christians the Bible becomes reality via God's input from above. To the godless the Bible is an ancient book written by men.

Through Holy Spirit input Christians learn the God of the Bible Created the physical realm, and with great purpose.

The godless do not see a Creator Being that produced this physical realm. For reasons still to be determined it just happened and exists. No divine being needed. No divine being discernable by their intellect.

Creationists is a bit of a spectrum of ideas of how and when the physical realm was Created. But Genesis at face value shows it was produced in 6 Days. Some read alot into Genesis 1:1-3, and state as the godless scientists that the physical realm is billions of years old, by radiometric dating and thought of how long galaxies and solar systems would take to physically develop in time.

So Creationists are most related to a young Earth and physical realm. With a Creator central to its age, design, and purpose.

I grew up and was academically educated as a godless geologist. The Bible was a book produced by men containing ancient myths and man created stories of supernatural events.

But I am a Creationist now, though still fully educated in natural sciences and know what the godless scientists know about the Earth.

The differentiation stated above is the reason why I no longer see this Earth as billions of years old. It is because of input from His Holy Spirit, that include decades of the Holy Spirit enlightening select Scriptures. I have tasted Power from Above, and see the physical realm as limiting people to be only naturalistic and Earthly.

 

[Speedwell]

The Bible and the Holy Spirit enlighting verses in the Bible within people produces Christians. People who have attained God's intention in His present Creation. Kids. Kids of God. Give Christians a "group-think" title if you want. I do not mind.

There are many group-think groups existing in the world.

Naturalists/godless scientists is a group which has no need for a god to explain the natural realm and processes around them.

Christians and godless scientists have major differences, possibly the foremost is: a) the godless has no need for a god to explain things; verses b) Christians have the Bible and Holy Spirit enlightenment of Scriptures from the Bible, meaning they have encountered input from God in their days, weeks, and months during this life.

To Christians, God uses the Bible in their life, even input from above enlightenment of verses in the Bible. God teaches and guides them by Divine input and enlightenment of Scriptures.

To Christians the Bible becomes reality via God's input from above. To the godless the Bible is an ancient book written by men.

Through Holy Spirit input Christians learn the God of the Bible Created the physical realm, and with great purpose.

The godless do not see a Creator Being that produced this physical realm. For reasons still to be determined it just happened and exists. No divine being needed. No divine being discernable by their intellect.

Creationists is a bit of a spectrum of ideas of how and when the physical realm was Created. But Genesis at face value shows it was produced in 6 Days. Some read alot into Genesis 1:1-3, and state as the godless scientists that the physical realm is billions of years old, by radiometric dating and thought of how long galaxies and solar systems would take to physically develop in time.

So Creationists are most related to a young Earth and physical realm. With a Creator central to its age, design, and purpose.

I grew up and was academically educated as a godless geologist. The Bible was a book produced by men containing ancient myths and man created stories of supernatural events.

But I am a Creationist now, though still fully educated in natural sciences and know what the godless scientists know about the Earth.

The differentiation stated above is the reason why I no longer see this Earth as billions of years old. It is because of input from His Holy Spirit, that include decades of the Holy Spirit enlightening select Scriptures. I have tasted Power from Above, and see the physical realm as limiting people to be only naturalistic and Earthly.

So those enlightened by the Holy Spirit realize the literal historicity of the Genesis creation stories and the rest of us are Godless?

 

[Kylie]

i will do it when you will answer my simple question about your prediction. again: if i will show you a case of 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false or not? why its so hard for you to answer?

If you have been paying attention, you will see that I have answered this question in post 401 where I said, "If your evidence is valid evidence against evolution, then I promise I will consider it."

I also answered it in post 387 where I said, "if you show me a fossil horse that was found in pre-Cambrian rocks, I will completely agree that it is impossible according to evolutionary theory."

Now stop your blustering and post your evidence or admit you don't have any.

 

[Kylie]

Many have grown their mind to exclude Spiritual Higher Life and only accept what comes from nature and natural processes.

These types of people are godless: living without God in this world.

The godless have raised their voice over the past 200 years, setting aside input from God, setting aside what possibly is because of God, and try to explain everything through natural processes. Natural sciences have harbored godless people.

This is how I grew up, as a godless geologist.

I have found trying to live godless still required faith. Some hardliners try to exclude their faith as a godless person, but the faith is still present.

Conjecture-based conclusions is one of prominent excerise use of faith.

As most, anything that seems to challenge their godless mindset and beliefs they may often lash out with disapproval and counter facts or statements of correction.

Being without God in this world is a fantasy. Try as they may the godless have serious ignorance that others have found Him and His input before them.

As hard as I try, I am unable to see what the point of you posting this was.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

see in my first comment.

So, how is it out of place? What does it come before that it couldn't have? All this article is saying, is that we've learnt something new that we didn't know before. and Now we know. You know this is how science works, right?

 

[tas8831]

Anti-science scientists.

And anti-science people that embellish thier supposed educational brackground to try to impress people, then fail miserably by running away every time science is discussed.

Like you.

No, having an academically acquired science degree and occupation as a scientist is a scientist.

Not necessarily - especially when the claimed degree is a fabrication.

The issue is if they line up to the group-think crowd's points of view, from minor to possibly what is viewed as major ways of using and concluding aspects in life.

Projection noted.

Still waiting for you to admit that you are clueless when it comes to phylogenetics.
Your words have already done so, I just want to see if you have the integrity and backbone to admit it.

 

[Kylie]

@xianghua I am still waiting for you to post your example of an out of place fossil.

 

[AV1611VET]

@xianghua I am still waiting for you to post your example of an out of place fossil.

Nebraska Man