Why evolution isn't scientific

[Kylie]

Trying to deflect the burden of proof for science claims on a science forum eh?

No, just trying to get you to provide some proof for your DSP claims. As I've always done.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Your religious interpretation of the fossil record is a cross between an old wives tales and yesterdays news.

A lie that science is a religion and that there is a "religious interpretation of the fossil record"

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, we know the religious story....

A lie that science is a religion and more gibberish in reply to A spate of nonsense from dad.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You accept imaginary godless ....

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?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The only thing basically against it is the religious dating schemes and dreams of same nature past based so called dating methods.
...

A spate of "godless" nonsense starting with abysmal ignorance of not knowing what fossil dating is (science not religion).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Gong! ...

Nonsense in reply to dictionary meanings !

A lie that evolution is a religion, dad. Evolution is a scientific theory based on empirical evidence. It is believed in because it proves evidence.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Evolution is not knowledge, it is contrived blasphemy.

An insult of the Christians who have worked on or trusts in evolution .

 

[RealityCheck01]

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".

 

[RealityCheck01]

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 !
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

 

[dad]

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.

 

[dad]

A lie that science is a religion and that there is a "religious interpretation of the fossil record"

No, that is true.

 

[dad]

Wrong. There is no burden of proof on people stating textbook science because the "proof" is in the textbooks !
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.

 

[dad]

An insult of the Christians who have worked on or trusts in evolution .

If the truth insults people, don't blame me. I trust God, thanks. The theory of evolution has no creator.

 

[dad]

Nonsense in reply to dictionary meanings !

Show me the definition of whatever you are talking about?

 

[dad]

A spate of "godless" nonsense starting with abysmal ignorance of not knowing what fossil dating is (science not religion).

I know what fossil dating is. Religion.

 

[dad]

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.

 

[Kylie]

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I was born of people who were born ...from Adam and Eve who were created.


No more than I could believe Noah was 45,000,000 years old.

Well, that was before homo sapiens so you're ok there . . .

 

[dad]

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.

 

[dad]

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.