Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

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.

 

[Snappy1]

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.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

 

[Roseonathorn]

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.

 

[Jimmy D]

Clearly I'm doing something right.

Thank you, that's very encouraging...really.

What do you mean doing something right?

Why exactly are you posting on this thread?

This seems to be an admission that you are just trolling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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....

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

a spinning motor isnt evidence for design? so why a car is?

Equivocation fallacy.

 

[tas8831]

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.

 

[tas8831]

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?

 

[inquiring mind]

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

 

[xianghua]

Did you miss the word "support"? Or did you misread it as "prove"?

if you call it a fact it means that we can prove it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if you call it a fact it means that we can prove it.

ow I see. So the words you missed were actually "...we might as well..."

It can support that the earth is round to a ridiculous degree. So much so, that we might as well call it a fact.

​

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

 

[Brightmoon]

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

 

[Brightmoon]

Oops