• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What a load.

Makes perfect sense you would think it OK for your side to evade questions, but when I refuse to answer due to the imbalance, it's a load. Do you really think it fair for one side to answer questions while the other skips past them?

That's as ridiculous as the recent excuses on the subject of "Science does prove", but in reality, with some of those bizarre replies, probably a smart move to just stop addressing my questions to their comments altogether, and comment no more on it. ;)

What a delightful mess.
 
Upvote 0

Snappy1

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2018
858
601
34
Arkansas
✟45,041.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Makes perfect sense you would think it OK for your side to evade questions, but when I refuse to answer due to the imbalance, it's a load.

.

My "side" doesn't exist. There's just individuals that understand very basic biology and individuals that don't. You are an individual that does not. It's a load, because people have asked you questions hundreds of times at this point that you refuse to answer. You're not fooling anybody. You're a troll that the mods take pity on and that's all.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My "side" doesn't exist. There's just individuals that understand very basic biology and individuals that don't. You are an individual that does not. It's a load, because people have asked you questions hundreds of times at this point that you refuse to answer. You're not fooling anybody. You're a troll that the mods take pity on and that's all.

Clearly I'm doing something right.

Thank you, that's very encouraging...really. :)
 
Upvote 0

Roseonathorn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 27, 2017
1,311
695
48
Finland
✟176,729.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thats nice.

How much of the science are you actually familiar with?
I am a gardener. I am curious but I do not believe everything I read and I have experienced miracles. So I also believe God can do miracles.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
here is a simple way to detect design in most cases: the chance of that object to be the result of a natural process.

How do you calculate such a chance, if the question literally is if the object is natural or artificial????

By definition, you'ld have unknowns which would prevent you from doing such a calculation..............

we know for instance that the chance for a car to be the result of a natural process is radically low.

It's exactly zero, since it has parts made up of manufactured materials that don't occur naturally, like plastic.

therefore we can detect design when we see a car since a natural procoess cant explain how such a car can evolve naturally.

So, that's it? That's your "objective" method?

No wonder you are so confused about biological life, manufactured vehicles and imaginary car-animals.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
That was not my experiment, you do your own in a vacuum.

I know it wasn't the experiment that YOU (hypothetically) conducted.
That's exactly the point. OTHER experiments, show that your theory isn't as robust as you thought it was. So, how "factual" is your theory, really?

But still, in even stating that, you are saying that "proves" it's not factual...how can that be when your particular science proves nothing?

Note the word "not" there.
That means that it's a disprove of your "theory".

Also: nobody ever said that "science proves nothing". Rather, what is said is that "science doesn't prove scientific theories".

This has only been explained to you a few hundred times.

No it is neither,

Except that it is. Your "theory" was that paper will burn when put into a torch. I just showed you one specific circumstance (and I can show you MANY others as well, btw) where that is simply not correct.

Therefor, your "theory" isn't robust, complete, accurate,....

So you're saying I have to do every experiment possible on the paper in order for the one that I chose to do to be complete?
I'm saying that, if you wish to take a scientific approach, then you need to change a few things. I told you that your approach here wasn't scientific.

You made up a rather superficial theory and then conducted an experiment designed specifically to confirm that superficial theory.

That's not how science is done.
First, you build a hypothesis. Then you indeed conduct experiments. Here's the thing.... when you do experiments to test a hypothesis, you don't just seek to confirm it. Instead, you actively try to refute it. You don't design tests to validate your idea. Rather, you design your test in such a way that you try to DEBUNK your idea.

So if your idea is that "paper will burn in a torch", you should design your experiment in such a way to try and find circumstances where exactly that WILL NOT happen.

If all your attempts at debunking your idea fail, and the paper indeed burns every single time no matter what, THEN you have a strong and well-supported (NOT proven!) idea.

It's not a fact that the paper burns?

Apparantly not. It doesn't burn in a vacuum.

You know, I expected a laugh but this is so bizarre it's not even funny.

Maybe if you would open up your mind for just an inch and read up a tiny bit on how science is done, you wouldn't find this so bizarre....
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
so even after billions of years of such a proceoss the cat will still be a cat?

Sub-species of cats, which would still be cats, yes.
Or extinct, off course.

what can i say: maybe the ignorance isnt from my side after all.

Ow, I guarantee you that it is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well this is one subject that always drags on. But for my contribution;
Agreed.
Higher life forms require 2 sexes to reproduce.
Depends what you mean by "higher life."
This provides a self repair mechanism where any variation that can be considered a mutation is repaired at the conception of the next generation.

We have another one....


Wrong on many levels.

While it is true that sexual recombination allows for an increased removal of deleterious mutations and hastens the fixation of beneficial ones. both are considered mutations. And I think when you write 'variation' you are referring to phenotypic, not genotypic, variation.
Thus preventing any traits from a mutation from being passed along.

Simply false.
Natural selection may explain which species will survive but evolution itself is a none starter.

And you concluded this via your obvious years of study on the subject (i.e., reading creationist websites), yes? Clearly, you rank among the multitude of creationists that have never taken anything beyond high school biology yet fancies him/herself expert on the matter.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well... you know you're running out of good scientific explanations when you start using words like "stupid" and "ignorance."
That could be the case, were those negatives written in response to good scientific explanations - sort of like writing bible verses as a means of blowing off science?

But you've not given such a thing, nor even tried as best I can tell. And since you have offered no science, why demand it of others?

Of course, your post also implies that they have provided at least some good scientific explanations - and it appears that you have not accepted them. Why?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That could be the case, were those negatives written in response to good scientific explanations - sort of like writing bible verses as a means of blowing off science?

But you've not given such a thing, nor even tried as best I can tell. And since you have offered no science, why demand it of others?

Of course, your post also implies that they have provided at least some good scientific explanations - and it appears that you have not accepted them. Why?

Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
54
✟258,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.

Mixing science with metaphysics is bad science and bad theology.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
54
✟258,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.

Mixing science with metaphysics like you try to do is bad science and bad theology.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
54
✟258,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.

Mixing science with metaphysics like you do is bad science and bad theology.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I know it wasn't the experiment that YOU (hypothetically) conducted.
That's exactly the point. OTHER experiments, show that your theory isn't as robust as you thought it was. So, how "factual" is your theory, really?



Note the word "not" there.
That means that it's a disprove of your "theory".

Also: nobody ever said that "science proves nothing". Rather, what is said is that "science doesn't prove scientific theories".

This has only been explained to you a few hundred times.



Except that it is. Your "theory" was that paper will burn when put into a torch. I just showed you one specific circumstance (and I can show you MANY others as well, btw) where that is simply not correct.

Therefor, your "theory" isn't robust, complete, accurate,....


I'm saying that, if you wish to take a scientific approach, then you need to change a few things. I told you that your approach here wasn't scientific.

You made up a rather superficial theory and then conducted an experiment designed specifically to confirm that superficial theory.

That's not how science is done.
First, you build a hypothesis. Then you indeed conduct experiments. Here's the thing.... when you do experiments to test a hypothesis, you don't just seek to confirm it. Instead, you actively try to refute it. You don't design tests to validate your idea. Rather, you design your test in such a way that you try to DEBUNK your idea.

So if your idea is that "paper will burn in a torch", you should design your experiment in such a way to try and find circumstances where exactly that WILL NOT happen.

If all your attempts at debunking your idea fail, and the paper indeed burns every single time no matter what, THEN you have a strong and well-supported (NOT proven!) idea.



Apparantly not. It doesn't burn in a vacuum.



Maybe if you would open up your mind for just an inch and read up a tiny bit on how science is done, you wouldn't find this so bizarre....

I stopped paying much attention to your opinion when you said the experiment was incomplete. You people will spout anything when you get backed into a corner. It goes to show, a lot of what you use to defend your evolution is not really fact, it's made up on the spot, just like the "incomplete" experiment comment.

Empty words is all you have for the proof. Proof that you need to stop pretending can't be provided due to some mysterious law or whatever you call the nonsense logic that brings you to that conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I know it wasn't the experiment that YOU (hypothetically) conducted.
That's exactly the point. OTHER experiments, show that your theory isn't as robust as you thought it was. So, how "factual" is your theory, really?



Note the word "not" there.
That means that it's a disprove of your "theory".

Also: nobody ever said that "science proves nothing". Rather, what is said is that "science doesn't prove scientific theories".

This has only been explained to you a few hundred times.



Except that it is. Your "theory" was that paper will burn when put into a torch. I just showed you one specific circumstance (and I can show you MANY others as well, btw) where that is simply not correct.

Therefor, your "theory" isn't robust, complete, accurate,....


I'm saying that, if you wish to take a scientific approach, then you need to change a few things. I told you that your approach here wasn't scientific.

You made up a rather superficial theory and then conducted an experiment designed specifically to confirm that superficial theory.

That's not how science is done.
First, you build a hypothesis. Then you indeed conduct experiments. Here's the thing.... when you do experiments to test a hypothesis, you don't just seek to confirm it. Instead, you actively try to refute it. You don't design tests to validate your idea. Rather, you design your test in such a way that you try to DEBUNK your idea.

So if your idea is that "paper will burn in a torch", you should design your experiment in such a way to try and find circumstances where exactly that WILL NOT happen.

If all your attempts at debunking your idea fail, and the paper indeed burns every single time no matter what, THEN you have a strong and well-supported (NOT proven!) idea.



Apparantly not. It doesn't burn in a vacuum.



Maybe if you would open up your mind for just an inch and read up a tiny bit on how science is done, you wouldn't find this so bizarre....

I stopped paying much attention to your opinion when you said the experiment was incomplete. You people will spout anything when you get backed into a corner. It goes to show, a lot of what you use to defend your evolution is not really fact, it's made up on the spot, just like the "incomplete" experiment comment.

Empty words is all you have for the proof. Proof that you need to stop pretending can't be provided due to some mysterious law or whatever you call the nonsense logic that brings you to that conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I stopped paying much attention to your opinion when you said the experiment was incomplete. You people will spout anything when you get backed into a corner. It goes to show, a lot of what you use to defend your evolution is not really fact, it's made up on the spot, just like the "incomplete" experiment comment.

Empty words is all you have for the proof. Proof that you need to stop pretending can't be provided due to some mysterious law or whatever you call the nonsense logic that brings you to that conclusion.
your experiment was incomplete. You made a blanket statement that the ( admittedly silly) experiment you proposed covered only part of . This is why modern scientists don’t make blanket statements about the stuff they’re testing in professional periodicals . Explaining things to laymen who might draw the wrong conclusion from the careful hedging is a little tricky sometimes. So here goes- based on every bit of data that we have about evolution we can consider it a fact of nature. There is NO evidence that refutes any of the theories of evolution . Creationists claim that they have some but over 20 years all I’ve EVER seen are silly mistakes , deliberate obfuscation, and Orwellian newspeak
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.