subjective science

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Rightly so. Evolutionists know everything that is currently known about evolution. Trust them.

Well clearly your trust in them is based upon your ignorance in the matter.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Rightly so. Evolutionists know everything that is currently known about evolution. Trust them.

Yes, why they know things that cannot be shown true, and if you deny the possibility they
have internal knowledge that if they are shown it cannot be done, why given time they
will be able to answer later, so no one can tell them anything, because they know!

Its like magic!

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What's "outside of the nature (sic) world" is outside the realm of empirical science. We cannot measure it. The theory of evolution makes no statement about, nor addresses in any way the supernatural. It is not an attack on your God, it's just not consistent with your claims about what we can measure.

Oh, yes, because if we cannot see something and measure it, it must not be true or there
in your opinion, you think we are that smart that if it doesn't pass in front of us so we can
do those things it must not be.

Yet, abiogenesis is acceptable, life forming from non-life this is acceptable, neither have
we seen or measured.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Oh, yes, because if we cannot see something and measure it, it must not be true or there
in your opinion, you think we are that smart that if it doesn't pass in front of us so we can
do those things it must not be.

Yet, abiogenesis is acceptable, life forming from non-life this is acceptable, neither have
we seen or measured.

You don't understand. If we can't measure it, it doesn't mean that it's not there. It means that empirical science cannot address it. Empirical science does not, can not, and never will address the supernatural.

The theory of evolution does not address how the simplest lifeforms arose, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. It does imply that all lifeforms today evolved from simple lifeforms. It is the latter statement, supported by overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence and a compelling overarching theoretical understanding, that contradicts your claims about the diversity of life.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You don't understand. If we can't measure it, it doesn't mean that it's not there. It means that empirical science cannot address it. Empirical science does not, can not, and never will address the supernatural.

The theory of evolution does not address how the simplest lifeforms arose, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. It does imply that al ...[text shortened]... overarching theoretical understanding, that contradicts your claims about the diversity of life.

How can you 'observe' or 'measure' how current life came from simple life if the process takes millions of years?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You don't understand. If we can't measure it, it doesn't mean that it's not there. It means that empirical science cannot address it. Empirical science does not, can not, and never will address the supernatural.

The theory of evolution does not address how the simplest lifeforms arose, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. It does imply that al ...[text shortened]... overarching theoretical understanding, that contradicts your claims about the diversity of life.

True, it cannot, and when it is clear the natural world cannot give us the answers, it is
clear that something more is there, quite beyond us. It isn't a matter of me not
understanding it, I find it sad that once we reach the limits of our abilities, we still refuse to
acknowledge what was made (everything) had to have been made by what we cannot
see.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How can you 'observe' or 'measure' how current life came from simple life if the process takes millions of years?

Evolutionist know, they don't have to live by the demands they place on other schools of
thought, they just know.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How can you 'observe' or 'measure' how current life came from simple life if the process takes millions of years?

Among other things, you can examine the fossil record. From this we know that the earliest animals emerged billions of years after the first life.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
True, it cannot, and when it is clear the natural world cannot give us the answers, it is
clear that something more is there, quite beyond us. It isn't a matter of me not
understanding it, I find it sad that once we reach the limits of our abilities, we still refuse to
acknowledge what was made (everything) had to have been made by what we cannot
see.

I don't object to your claims about the supernatural.

I object to your claims about the natural, and your erroneous claims about the diversity of life.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I don't object to your claims about the supernatural.

I object to your claims about the natural, and your erroneous claims about the diversity of life.

My erroneous claims about the diversity of life pale compared to what is required for life
to start from non-life, then after that evolve throughout time into the diversity of life we see
today. There is nothing erroneous about my claims, at least with mine we can test and see
them today, yours not so much.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
My erroneous claims about the diversity of life pale compared to what is required for life
to start from non-life, then after that evolve throughout time into the diversity of life we see
today. There is nothing erroneous about my claims, at least with mine we can test and see
them today, yours not so much.

You claim that humans, for instance, did not evolve from simple lifeforms.

This claim contradicts the evidence.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You claim that humans, for instance, did not evolve from simple lifeforms.

This claim contradicts the evidence.

Not evolution, just what people think evolution means, evolution is a process, the
simple life form is a conclusion people have drawn from looking at that process.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Not evolution, just what people think evolution means, evolution is a process, the
simple life form is a conclusion people have drawn from looking at that process.

It's a conclusion people have drawn by examining the evidence.

I suggest you do too.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Among other things, you can examine the fossil record. From this we know that the earliest animals emerged billions of years after the first life.

Do you agree that certain unprovable assumptions are made when analyzing a fossil and that this often involves circular reasoning, a lot of speculation, guess work, and a creative imagination?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you're evolving into something worse? Good to know.

So you are not good with logic. Good to know. djbecker has poor logic skills.