Creation vs. Evolution

[seehigh]

Peer review, schmeer review. I don't recognize your peers anymore than you recognize mine. So forget it. Either you possess common sense that speaks of rational thinking or uncommon sense that speaks of irrational mumbo jumbo. I say common to point the difference that exists between life and death.



You present nothing that would be expectable to any true scientist.



You could only wish for that from me. Forget it.



Bull! <more of the obstuse>

You have doubled down on your complete ignorance of science. You will continue making assertions that cannot be substantiated, and you will continue believing that you are correct.

There's no sense discussing anything with you, as there's no rational basis of your assertions. Perhaps Ray Comfort or Matt Slick are more your type of authorities.

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course science has limits, but that doesn't mean that the gap is God done it. The beauty about science is that it consistently questions itself, and as it refines itself, strengthens the underlying assumptions. Religion starts from the premise that they already know all the answers, and then try and find substantiation for those answers.

Science never says it has hundred percent of the answer. Only religion says that. Science keeps improving, religion

So why the absoluteness in your evolution theory thinking?

 

[seehigh]

So why the absoluteness in your evolution theory thinking?

There's no absoluteness, however the preponderance of all scientific evidence points toward the veracity of the theory, and no scientific evidence points against it.

The same goes for the theory of electricity, this theory of the speed of light, this theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and any other theories you may choose.

Unlike religion, science consistently and constantly test itself.

 

[seehigh]

On the other hand, science itself doesn't deny God. "Gap" is an arrogant human term. As what's said by Isaac Newton, human knowledge is like walking in the beach wondering what the sea is. The "Gap" can be bigger than the total we currently acquired.



On the other hand, a religion is explicitly known as a faith, but not the claimed "science" which actually demand faith to believe.

Science never asks for faith, it asks for facts the backup hypotheses. Repeatable and testable facts.

 

[alwight]

Peer review, schmeer review. I don't recognize your peers anymore than you recognize mine. So forget it. Either you possess common sense that speaks of rational thinking or uncommon sense that speaks of irrational mumbo jumbo. I say common to point the difference that exists between life and death.

Actually peer review is an evaluation of scientific work by others with scientific competency in the same field, where previous conclusions are put to the test and perhaps falsified, if they are shown to be wrong, by the evidence, but not by bald assertion or someone's however worthy opinion.
IOW scientific conclusions are testable and falsifiable, therefore, should they in fact be wrong, they will be demonstrably wrong if they are, not just someone's esteemed opinion.

YEC claims otoh are simply bald assertions based on the pre-conclusions of those, for their own reasons, who adhere to Genesis as being literally true, and quite regardless of any genuine rigorous science that may tend to conflict with it.
Unfortunately such bald assertions cannot be put to the test.

Genesis of course cannot be falsified, not because it is actually literally true but because it can't be put to the test. It is simply ancient scripture presupposed to be the literal truth by YECs, whatever science may otherwise indicate, come err... hell or high water. :angel:

 

[Cross Reference]

Actually peer review is an evaluation of scientific work by others with scientific competency in the same field, where previous conclusions are put to the test and perhaps falsified, if they are shown to be wrong, by the evidence, but not by bald assertion or someone's however worthy opinion.
IOW scientific conclusions are testable and falsifiable, therefore, should they in fact be wrong, they will be demonstrably wrong if they are, not just someone's esteemed opinion.

YEC claims otoh are simply bald assertions based on the pre-conclusions of those, for their own reasons, who adhere to Genesis as being literally true, and quite regardless of any genuine rigorous science that may tend to conflict with it.
Unfortunately such bald assertions cannot be put to the test.

Genesis of course cannot be falsified, not because it is actually literally true but because it can't be put to the test. It is simply ancient scripture presupposed to be the literal truth by YECs, whatever science may otherwise indicate, come err... hell or high water. :angel:

They don't need a test.

 

[Cross Reference]

Science never asks for faith, it asks for facts the backup hypotheses. Repeatable and testable facts.

So when pseudo science doesn't receive any, it makes them up. I believe that is accurate ___ based on the "facts."

 

[seehigh]

They don't need a test.

Again with the assertions, as opposed to discussing any facts.

 

[alwight]

They don't need a test.

YECs clearly have no need for any peer review since they have pre-concluded that Genesis is literally true whatever science may otherwise indicate.

 

[Cross Reference]

There's no absoluteness, however the preponderance of all scientific evidence points toward the veracity of the theory, and no scientific evidence points against it.

The same goes for the theory of electricity, this theory of the speed of light, this theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and any other theories you may choose.

Unlike religion, science consistently and constantly test itself.

OK, as long we're not speaking the veracity of the facts and only theory.

 

[seehigh]

OK, as long we're not speaking the veracity of the facts and only theory.

Err.... You're showing your ignorance again in the way use the word theory. Please educate yourself what it takes to be a theory in science before throwing the word out as if it is just a guess.

 

[Cross Reference]

Err.... You're showing your ignorance again in the way use the word theory. Please educate yourself what it takes to be a theory in science before throwing the word out as if it is just a guess.

Err, so it really is fact and not theory? Why don't you make up your mind?

 

[Cross Reference]

On the other hand, science itself doesn't deny God. "Gap" is an arrogant human term. As what's said by Isaac Newton, human knowledge is like walking in the beach wondering what the sea is. The "Gap" can be bigger than the total we currently acquired.



On the other hand, a religion is explicitly known as a faith, but not the claimed "science" which actually demand faith to believe.

Sure. And faith is but believing in the facts.
Pseudo science has no facts in which to place faith and yet, there it is, unfounded faith run amuck.

 

[alwight]

Ah, so it really is fact and not theory? Why don't you make up your mind?

If Darwinian evolution is factual then it cannot be shown to be wrong, but if it is wrong then why can't YECs show where it is wrong?
Is it from lack of trying? :nono:
Scientific theories are never formally proven as fact, that's for mathematics, but if they remain unfalsified then as explanations they are the state of the art.

 

[Cross Reference]

If Darwinian evolution is factual then it cannot be shown to be wrong, but if it is wrong then why can't YECs show where it is wrong?
Is it from lack of trying? :nono:
Scientific theories are never formally proven as fact, that's for mathematics, but if they remain unfalsified then as explanations they are the state of the art.

Absolutely, they are state of the art irrational conclusions readi-made for pinheads.

Question: Do you believe a Christian for Christ can be sucked into their nonsense? I don't.

 

[noguru]

So when pseudo science doesn't receive any, it makes them up. I believe that is accurate ___ based on the "facts."

You keep using that nomenclature "pseudo science". How do you determine that something is indeed "pseudo science"?

 

[noguru]

Absolutely, they are state of the art irrational conclusions readi-made for pinheads.

Question: Do you believe a Christian for Christ can be sucked into their nonsense? I don't.

You have no respect for honest courageous people, then in your adolescent addled mind you have the audacity to call them "pinheads".

 

[alwight]

Absolutely, they are state of the art irrational conclusions readi-made for pinheads.

It's of course your right to make your own conclusions and to have an opinion about those whose beliefs are swayed more by facts and evidence rather than blind adherence to an ancient scripture's presumed literal accuracy.

Question: Do you believe a Christian for Christ can be sucked into their nonsense? I don't.

Most Christians are not YECs and many if not most will be swayed toward the arguments for Darwinian evolution and by the unfalsified conclusions and rigour of rational scientific explanations, just as I am.
Like many Christians I also consider Darwinian evolution to be a virtual fact even if not a formally proven one.

 

[Hedshaker]

A simple explanation for the dimwitted........

What is a Scientific Theory?

 

[Cross Reference]

It's of course your right to make your own conclusions and to have an opinion about those whose beliefs are swayed more by facts and evidence rather than blind adherence to an ancient scripture's presumed literal accuracy.

Most Christians are not YECs and many if not most will be swayed toward the arguments for Darwinian evolution and by the unfalsified conclusions and rigour of rational scientific explanations, just as I am.
Like many Christians I also consider Darwinian evolution to be a virtual fact even if not a formally proven one.

No Christ centered Christian I know agrees with you, an agnostic/willful ignorant.

Why?, because a Christ centered Christian knows that the Life of Jesus Christ would be rendered, meaningless and of course that is your quest in all of this.