Originally posted by sonhouseEvolutionary "science" is different from sciences that use repeatable and verifiable experimental methods. Evolution is "a story" that attempts to reconstruct unseen past events.
Magically? Show me the link to whatever evolution scientist who said that. Magical is reserved for the religious set, not science.
Actually, "Evolution" is a magic word that replaces creation with absolute chance as an explanation for design in nature. Using magic words such as "appeared, arose, derived, emerged, evolved, and lucky" are not very persuasive when explaining that complex animals only "appear" to be designed, but is only an illusion, another magic word.
You may enjoy this religious propaganda from Richard Dawkins:
The Magic of Reality - an inside look at Richard Dawkins first children's book
The Illusion of Design
By Richard Dawkins
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1105/1105_feature1_lowres.html
To be sure, the biological community admits that biological systems appear to be designed. For instance, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins writes, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Likewise, Nobel laureate Francis Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
http://www.designinference.com/documents/02.02.POISK_article.htm
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not?
26 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are your own worse enemy. You are so steeped in fantasy you can;t tell the real world when you see it. You look at the Grand Canyon and see the wold wide flood whatever time frame you think it, 5000 years ago. whatever, and totally poo pooing what we DO know about fast VS slow flows, that doesn't bother you a bit, but you ignore or twist evidence of the underlying sediment under the DC and all the sediment in all the oceans, some places miles deep and you come up with a BS tale that time flowed differently back then, exponential growth, I think you called it.
I don't see any deception by God. God told Moses to write down the information so that we can know the approximate age of the earth. Man has not always believed the earth was 4 billion years old. That only came about after the theory of evolution when longer periods of past time was needed.
One can not tell the difference by just looking between a 6,00 ...[text shortened]... The same goes for a 60 million year old dinosaur bone and a 4 thousand year old dinosaur bone.
You are so far from reality it boggles MY mind and a bunch more here for sure. Where are your converts if you are so sure about all this creationist BS?
27 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou continue to ignore what is in front of your face.
Evolutionary "science" is different from sciences that use repeatable and verifiable experimental methods. Evolution is "a story" that attempts to reconstruct unseen past events.
Actually, "Evolution" is a magic word that replaces creation with absolute chance as an explanation for design in nature. Using magic words such as "appeared, arose, derived, eme ...[text shortened]... so how do evolutionists know that they were not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyeSmjxAiEw
Evolution IS design.
27 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonhouseHere is an article from 2009:
You are your own worse enemy. You are so steeped in fantasy you can;t tell the real world when you see it. You look at the Grand Canyon and see the wold wide flood whatever time frame you think it, 5000 years ago. whatever, and totally poo pooing what we DO know about fast VS slow flows, that doesn't bother you a bit, but you ignore or twist evidence of th ...[text shortened]... ch more here for sure. Where are your converts if you are so sure about all this creationist BS?
Growing list of scientists who consider young earth creationism (YEC) a fact and evolution as bunk
http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
27 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsEven if all of those are real scientists with peer-reviewed papers relevant to evolution (which I doubt), and even if ad populum were somehow considered a convincing argument (which it isn't), that amount of people don't even come close to making a dent - that's like less than 0.000{lots of zeroes here}001% of the entire scientific community.
Here is an article from 2009:
Growing list of scientists who consider young earth creationism (YEC) a fact and evolution as bunk
http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk
27 Oct 14
Originally posted by C Hess% does not matter because I was not concentrating on numbers. I presented this to sonhouse just to show him there were scientist that agree with the YEC position. So he does not have to feel like he is a dummy if he accepts the truth of YEC. Actually, I believe he should feel like a dummy by believing the myth of evolution magic.
Even if all of those are real scientists with peer-reviewed papers relevant to evolution (which I doubt), and even if ad populum were somehow considered a convincing argument (which it isn't), that amount of people don't even come close to making a dent - that's like less than 0.000{lots of zeroes here}001% of the entire scientific community.
27 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich of course makes you agree with those scientists who disavow evolution. Even if it was only ONE such scientist. I pity you because you have no choice in the matter, like someone gay, they are deeply programmed by genetics and environment to be gay but unlike them, you have no genetic excuse, only the horrible programming of your religious sect.
% does not matter because I was not concentrating on numbers. I presented this to sonhouse just to show him there were scientist that agree with the YEC position. So he does not have to feel like he is a dummy if he accepts the truth of YEC. Actually, I believe he should feel like a dummy by believing the myth of evolution magic.
27 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have a choice, but it appears you continue to make the wrong choice.
Which of course makes you agree with those scientists who disavow evolution. Even if it was only ONE such scientist. I pity you because you have no choice in the matter, like someone gay, they are deeply programmed by genetics and environment to be gay but unlike them, you have no genetic excuse, only the horrible programming of your religious sect.
27 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI just praise the Lord that I have a brain left.
At least I have a choice. You, on the other hand have ZERO choice, your fantasy future is laid out for you till you die. I feel sorry for your brain, what's left of it.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
28 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Evolutionists have control of the science journals now and attempt to prevent YEC scientists from publishing anything that contradicts their worldview. They do not have to prove it wrong. They only claim it is a religious view and therefore not science and it is prohibited from publication.
You really do ignore real data from real scientists. Where are the papers telling about creationism in the journals?