subjective science

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Genetics,...evolution,.......morality.

You seemed to argue that the Bible was quite clear about Noah being a righteous man.

What changed so that now its "vague" on the subject ?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
On certain topics, I find scripture extremely vague.

Ask

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Does that fall under answer A or answer B?

Because as I am pointing out to you there is nothing to dispute, because you cannot give me answers to talk about only possibilities. The thing is everyone has a possible this or that. Disprove one does not mean there isn't another, no one knows, they assume, someone somewhere has it right or about to.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Because as I am pointing out to you there is nothing to dispute, because you cannot give me answers to talk about only possibilities. The thing is everyone has a possible this or that. Disprove one does not mean there isn't another, no one knows, they assume, someone somewhere has it right or about to.

Right. So you are not aware of any evidence not consistent with the notion that life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. To give you a hint, evidence consistent with evolution from simple lifeforms includes the oldest fossils of lifeforms only being of simple lifeforms, and homology.

Originally posted by @sonship
You seemed to argue that the Bible was quite clear about Noah being a righteous man.

What changed so that now its "vague" on the subject ?

In the bible, Noah is indeed described as righteous. Where's the ambiguity there?

The bible also describes God as being jealous. Where's the ambiguity there?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Right. So you are not aware of any evidence not consistent with the notion that life on Earth evolved from simple lifeforms. To give you a hint, evidence consistent with evolution from simple lifeforms includes the oldest fossils of lifeforms only being of simple lifeforms, and homology.

I have a few issues and I have repeatedly voiced them. Since they have gone unanswered why should I repeat them? You are asking for evidence about an event you can not describe with specifics, that supposedly occurred millions of years ago, so I can show it didn't happen!?

Just asking that makes me think you don't grasp the issues!

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If building an entire ape man around the tooth of an extinct pig was passed off as science and remained under the radar for so long, how much other 'evidence' could have been fabricated by those so desperate to have their theory accepted?

If building an entire god around the spell of theoplacia was passed off as divine apocalypse long before the evolution of the Abrahamic religions and persists until today, how much other “evidence” could have been fabricated by creationists so desperate to have their religious dogma accepted?
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Can you tell me what was needed, the qualities of each requirement, the state each needed to be in, what had to be avoided during this time? Can you describe the necessary environment, what made it good, what could have made it bad?

It is difficult to dispute a process that can not be described. So when statements about evidence, without a clear process ...[text shortened]... ng to do wirh anything we should care about. Yet so called evidence strengthens the case anyway.

What is your opinion as regards the finding that Creationism has statistically far less chance than the theory of evolution to be a viable theory of reality? The link is

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
If building an entire god around the spell of theoplacia was passed off as divine apocalypse long before the evolution of the Abrahamic religions and persists until today, how much other “evidence” could have been fabricated by creationists so desperate to have their religious dogma accepted?
😵

Seriously, you said that...your whole world of science is looking at things and coming up
with possible reasons, that sound good? There is nothing desperate about the God of the
Bible with man, it doesn't paint us with a good light, and it offers us nothing in the light of
scripture outside of God, it tells us it isn't this world or its riches that matter, but the
righteousness of God. It also isn't desperate, it is accept or not, all on you.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
If building an entire god around the spell of theoplacia was passed off as divine apocalypse long before the evolution of the Abrahamic religions and persists until today, how much other “evidence” could have been fabricated by creationists so desperate to have their religious dogma accepted?
😵

If you have any evidence that creationists have fabricated feel free to present it. 😵

We all know who the cheats are 😉

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Seriously, you said that...your whole world of science is looking at things and coming up
with possible reasons, that sound good? There is nothing desperate about the God of the
Bible with man, it doesn't paint us with a good light, and it offers us nothing in the light of
scripture outside of God, it tells us it isn't this world or its riches that matter, but the
righteousness of God. It also isn't desperate, it is accept or not, all on you.

Sure thing, I said it, and correct me if I am wrong. The scientific community must look up constantly at whatever and must conduct scientific analyses and evaluations in order to come up with viable theories of reality regarding everything has to do with the physical world that surrounds us, our inner world and the world of our ideas. This is exactly what the scientists are supposed to do.

I think there are some extremely desperate and ugly aspects as regards all the religions. Lack of deep compassion for the other, rigid dogma firmly grounded on blind beliefs mistaken as divine apocalypse, fundamentalism, politicization of science, proselytism, intolerance of everything different, racism, lack of critical thought, cultivation of pseudoscience, lack of the ability to stand corrected...
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
What is your opinion as regards the finding that Creationism has statistically far less chance than the theory of evolution to be a viable theory of reality? The link is

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

😵

I am a Creationist for me I accept God created the universe. It isn't a matter of debate or discussion, but one of accepting. Since I believe God created everything He also holds it all together by the power of His Word. So it is not a matter of odds for me.

The ones that have to worry about odds are those that think the only thing in play are chance, and probability.

I told you I believe in evolution just not abiogenesis and all life springing from a single life form. I am drinking coffee before I start work, I will try to remember to check out your link after the Cub game tonight. 😉

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you have any evidence that creationists have fabricated feel free to present it. 😵

We all know who the cheats are 😉

You reject even the facts that neither ICR is a scientific institute, nor J.D. Morris a person whose "scientific" theories of reality are peer reviewed. As regards this matter, who do you think the cheat is? Me or you?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Sure thing, I said it, and correct me if I am wrong. The scientific community must look up constantly at whatever and must conduct scientific analyses and evaluations in order to come up with viable theories of reality regarding everything has to do with the physical world that surrounds us, our inner world and the world of our ideas. This is exactly w ...[text shortened]... of critical thought, cultivation of pseudoscience, lack of the ability to stand corrected...
😵

You have to change with new info, because we keep getting things wrong.

Religion like everything man is involved in gets ugly, because this is man.

Truth doesn't depend on us. We will like we do with most things change them to suit us. Even in religion, but God does not change when we run into Him our sinful nature hates Him, so He gets rejected in favor of one we can make up.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I am a Creationist for me I accept God created the universe. It isn't a matter of debate or discussion, but one of accepting. Since I believe God created everything He also holds it all together by the power of His Word. So it is not a matter of odds for me.

The ones that have to worry about odds are those that think the only thing in play are chance, a ...[text shortened]... efore I start work, I will try to remember to check out your link after the Cub game tonight. 😉

I do not question your religious beliefs. You are free to cultivate your thoughts according to your personal evaluations. I merely wanted to include the calculation of the probabilities too, because the probabilities are also an interesting aspect.
Of course, we both don't worry about the odds per se; You, because you are a creationist, and me because I am not😵