subjective science

Originally posted by @kellyjay
BS
Please address the points directly!
The discussion is revolving around could it happen, your answer is yes I believe it is true is a statement of faith not an argument!

Read again Kelly. It is very much an argument.

Apologies if your BS stands for 'brilliantly spoken.'

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What does that have to do with the evidence that I presented? Are you by any chance hoping that the refutation of your evidence refutes mine?

What it has to do with each other is that both are fictional stories by fiction writers, and there is no relation to real world evidence and their stories even if the fictional stories are inspired by real-world events.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Easy to insult, but the case is simply this, if any event has 0 chance of occurring! Adding more time doesn't change anything.

Of course if an event cannot occur, time doesn't help. You've said that before.

But if an event occurs, clearly it was possible. Given enough time of course a possible event will occur, no matter how unlikely it may seem. You know, like a bridge hand.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What it has to do with each other is that both are fictional stories by fiction writers, and there is no relation to real world evidence and their stories even if the fictional stories are inspired by real-world events.

You mean no relation that you are willing to consider.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
The universe is so big it is beyond comprehension. It is this immensity that makes life on Earth not only probable, but likely.

I agree that having all the macro stuff like gravity, or distance from the Sun etc in place is extremely unlikely (and seemingly impossible) but it is this immensity of the universe that means every now and then all the ...[text shortened]... Still rare by our understanding of time and distance, but common in the great scheme of things).

The size of the universe doesn't give me answers to my questions. Unless you can show me how every possible condition required is some how represented throughout the universe. If you can not you are assuming truth that may not be.

I want to remind you to what we are talking about has strict conditions all the proper ingredients must be available and in both proper amounts and conditions. Lacking any the rest doesn't matter!

If ingredients get spoiled due to any reason the window of opportunity is lost! It is only about the window of opportunity, and so many things can cause it to never happen or close completely.

Science fiction shows us life every where in space, but beyond the imagination of man we are not dealing with facts but hopeful assumptions.

So telling me you believe is not an argument.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ah yes the idea of 'older to more recent strata' which is based upon assumptions that firstly cannot be verified using the scientific method and secondly is the epitome of circular reasoning whereby the layer is given a date based upon the fossil that is found in it and the fossil is given a date based upon the layer it is found in. Rock solid evidence indeed. 😵

I know you strongly believe that the "idea of older to more recent strata" is false. What You don't know, is the way to prove it. KazetNagorra asked you earlier to cite some example of a fossil that by scientific consensus has a certain age but which according to your view has a very different age (with some substantiation). It’s a simple question. You are unable to give a fair answer, simply because your religious subjectivism fails when the conversation is conducted on a scientific basis; you are aware of these facts and you know your opinions are non-tenable in a scientific context, but you keep up preaching;

You give a link of an article, and we see it is written by Dr. J.D. Morris, the president of ICR. You should know that ICR has nothing to do with science. You should also already know that Morris has not the slightest idea of what he tries to bubble about. And you decide to ignore these facts and keep up preaching;

You have the impression that the modern geology is all about uniformitarianism. Not only this is not the case as I told you earlier, but you in person know zilch about both uniformitarianism and the essence of the main Christian apologetics as regards this matter. However you don’t try to conduct an educated research, evaluate critically your sources, make up your mind remembering that nothing in science is written in stone, and come up with decent key points. Instead, you keep up preaching
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The size of the universe doesn't give me answers to my questions. Unless you can show me how every possible condition required is some how represented throughout the universe.

What are the conditions required? In what way are those conditions not available throughout the galaxies?

You argue from incredulity. We have built amino acids from a natural chemical soup all zapped with sunshine. What reason do you have for thinking that natural processes cannot build proteins?

Everything needed is present, without faith belief. No reason to invent demons and angels. Let go of the indoctrination: the parts worth keeping will show up.

Originally posted by @apathist
What are the conditions required? In what way are those conditions not available throughout the galaxies?

You argue from incredulity. We have built amino acids from a natural chemical soup all zapped with sunshine. What reason do you have for thinking that natural processes cannot build proteins?

Everything needed is present, without faith belief. N ...[text shortened]... to invent demons and angels. Let go of the indoctrination: the parts worth keeping will show up.

An acid and a life form are not the same thing. I have listed a handful of requirements look them up do the math on each than do it on all I listed. When you do just know that there are many more besides.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I know you strongly believe that the "idea of older to more recent strata" is false. What You don't know, is the way to prove it. KazetNagorra asked you earlier to cite some example of a fossil that by scientific consensus has a certain age but which according to your view has a very different age (with some substantiation). It’s a simple question. You ...[text shortened]... ence is written in stone, and come up with decent key points. Instead, you keep up preaching
😵

It seems you stopped reading when you saw CSR. How does modern geology explain:

1. A clam fossilized in the closed position
2. A fish fossilized in the process of eating another fish.
3. Rapid fossils such as an ichthyosaur trapped in sediment at the moment of giving birth.
4. Fossilized jellyfish
5. Polystrate fossils that cross several geologic layers and cannot be explained by processes that require millions of years of deposition.
6. A hat fossilized in a mine in less than 100 years?

I'll get some popcorn.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It seems you stopped reading when you saw CSR. How does modern geology explain:

1. A clam fossilized in the closed position
2. A fish fossilized in the process of eating another fish.
3. Rapid fossils such as an ichthyosaur trapped in sediment at the moment of giving birth.
4. Fossilized jellyfish
5. Polystrate fossils that cross several geologic ...[text shortened]... of deposition.
6. A hat fossilized in a mine in less than 100 years?

I'll get some popcorn.

You attempt to make a case, so explain the points you noted on your own and cite your sources. Then I will evaluate your case.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
You attempt to make a case, so explain the points you noted on your own and cite your sources. Then I will evaluate your case.
😵

I cited my source earlier. Do you think these examples and the images of the fossils were fabricated?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I cited my source earlier. Do you think these examples and the images of the fossils were fabricated?

Your "sources" are a joke. ICR and its president have nothing to do with science. I do not comment on pseudoscientific articles😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Your "sources" are a joke. ICR and its president have nothing to do with science. I do not comment on pseudoscientific articles😵

As anticipated you will label any evidence that contradicts mainstream science as pseudoscience. So much for falsifiability.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
As anticipated you will label any evidence that contradicts mainstream science as pseudoscience. So much for falsifiability.

You are wrong.

When one wants to back up scientifically one's view, one simply has to make a case grounded on peer reviewed scientific papers. ICR is not a scientific institute; J.D. Morris, the president of ICR, has never ever peer reviewed any article of his, therefore his articles are not papers and thus they are not considered as "evidence" of a falsifiable theory of reality; you, along with the likes of pseudoscientists such as Henry Morris, Gish, Wysong, Parker etc., etc., keep up attempting to equalize the scientific facts and evidence to the superstitions promoted by your religious beliefs. Well, it does not work.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
You are wrong.

When one wants to back up scientifically one's view, one simply has to make a case grounded on peer reviewed scientific papers. ICR is not a scientific institute; J.D. Morris, the president of ICR, has never ever peer reviewed any article of his, therefore his articles are not papers and thus they are not considered as "evidence" of a ...[text shortened]... nd evidence to the superstitions promoted by your religious beliefs. Well, it does not work.
😵

Ok let's just focus on specific evidence then. Do you deny the existence of clam fossils that were found in the closed position? Yes or No?