Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

No, the explanation "explains the evidence". Are you really this stupid? It is the best explanation we have in science. That is why objections by oblivious morons like you, Daft_Dave, and 0Mind100Spirits are just laughed at by people who actually have the courage and honesty to face reality squarely. You guys are just whiny little children. Or annoying little gnats that are easily swatted with reason.

:angrymob: Swat Daft_Dave :angrymob: Swat 0Mind100Spirits :angrymob: Swat MichaelCadry :angrymob: Swat all oblivious morons

 

[noguru]

:angrymob: Get Daft_Dave :angrymob: Get 0Mind100Spirit :angrymob: Get MichaelCadry :angrymob: Get all oblivious morons

:chuckle:

We do not have to get you. You expose yourselves with the content of your posts. You do yourself a disservice. If you really had anything to offer science, you would be putting it together for peer review. Rather than preaching to the choir of YECs here.

 

[noguru]

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both.

Thesis: Evolution is a fact. Antithesis: Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Here we see again how evolutionists avoid the possibility of the falsification of the theory of evolution. The theory keeps changing each time it is confronted with a contradiction that nullifies it--cell entropy, with and explanation, another unproven theory, that explains away the contradiction--"material and energy are transferred from one hierarchical level to another" in cells.

--Dave

Scientific theories are subject to change or falsification depending on the facts.

A theory that has not been falsified by the facts, is built on the facts. What do you think the logical implications of that reality are?

Do you try to be this dense? Or does it just come natural?

:chuckle:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Scientific theories are subject to change or falsification depending on the facts.

A theory that has not been falsified by the facts, is built on the facts. What do you think the logical implications of that reality are?

Do you try to be this dense? Or does it just come natural?

:chuckle:

I'm evolving naturally, oops, forgot I'm not a population, I can't evolve so I guess I was just born dense.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

OK, captain obvious. Do you have anything to offer that we did not know?

We can test the theory by trying to falsify it. With evolution that has not been done yet. Though falsification has occurred with the YEC model. That falsification happened over 150 years ago. I am sorry for you that you are not up to date on the current state of science.

A fact that is also a theory cannot be falsified.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

:chuckle:

We do not have to get you. You expose yourselves with the content of your posts. You do yourself a disservice. If you really had anything to offer science, you would be putting it together for peer review. Rather than preaching to the choir of YECs here.

A God who is not a "physical Being" is not to be discovered by physical science and peer reviews.

The evolutionists give "unintelligent finite nature" gradual (millions of years), unintended/purposeless, unseen powers to create an "apparently designed" universe.

Creationists give unseen "intelligent infinite Being" immediate (six days) with intent/purpose, the power to create an "actually designed" universe.

Who's the moron now? :angrymob: Get noguru!

--Dave

 

[Stuu]

A God who is not a "physical Being" is not to be discovered by physical science and peer reviews.

Why not? After all, you would allege in the case of your god it has the ability to interact materially.

It is just special pleading for you to claim your god belongs in some category invisible to science. How does it, and if you can't explain exactly how, then on what grounds do you expect to be taken seriously?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."--Wiki

Populations are made up of individuals.

If the population evolves the individuals evolve.

The population evolves but the individuals do not???

--Dave

Evolution is characterised by changes of gene frequency in populations. How can your own personal gene frequency change? That would be a nonsense concept.

Perhaps you could try it on other creationists. They like nonsense concepts.

Stuart

 

[DFT_Dave]

Why not? After all, you would allege in the case of your god it has the ability to interact materially.

It is just special pleading for you to claim your god belongs in some category invisible to science. How does it, and if you can't explain exactly how, then on what grounds do you expect to be taken seriously?

Stuart

The evolutionists give "unintelligent finite nature" gradual (millions of years), unintended/purposeless, unseen powers to create an "apparently designed" universe.

Creationists give unseen "intelligent infinite Being" immediate (six days) with intent/purpose, the power to create an "actually designed" universe.

1. The fossil record, stasis and sudden appearance, is evidence of creation by God.

2. DNA as information that has function with purpose is evidence of creation by God.

3. A temporal universe and temporal life require a beginning that neither can give themselves and are evidence of creation by God.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Evolution is characterised by changes of gene frequency in populations. How can your own personal gene frequency change? That would be a nonsense concept.

Perhaps you could try it on other creationists. They like nonsense concepts.

Stuart

"Evolution is characterised by changes of gene frequency in populations" that changed some individual fish into individual amphibians, some individual amphibians into individual reptiles, some individual reptiles into individual mammals, etc.

--Dave

 

[Tyrathca]

1. The fossil record, stasis and sudden appearance, is evidence of creation by God.

2. DNA as information that has function with purpose is evidence of creation by God.

3. A temporal universe and temporal life require a beginning that neither can give themselves and are evidence of creation by God.

--Dave

1. What of evidence of gradual change? Not everything is punctuated equilibrium and even that still has much gradual elements (just faster, not just "sudden")

2. What is the purpose of DNA? How did you determine it's purpose?

3. Non sequitur. "We don't have an explanation therefore we have an explanation". I'd be as justified in claiming the universe was created accidentally by leprechauns in a magical brewing accident.

 

[Stuu]

"Evolution is characterised by changes of gene frequency in populations" that changed some individual fish into individual amphibians, some individual amphibians into individual reptiles, some individual reptiles into individual mammals, etc.

--Dave

I admire your courage in being so willing to broadcast to the world both your ignorance and inability at basic logic.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

1. The fossil record, stasis and sudden appearance, is evidence of creation by God.

What stasis and sudden appearance do you mean? Also, which god do you mean?

2. DNA as information that has function with purpose is evidence of creation by God.

That is a circular argument. The purpose can only be derived from something capable of intent, and the purpose implies the god you seek to confirm. Got any arguments that are logically sound?

3. A temporal universe and temporal life require a beginning that neither can give themselves

Who says there is any giving required? You?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

the universe was created accidentally by leprechauns in a magical brewing accident.

Finally someone is starting to make sense in this thread.

Stuart

 

[doloresistere]

Why not? After all, you would allege in the case of your god it has the ability to interact materially.

It is just special pleading for you to claim your god belongs in some category invisible to science. How does it, and if you can't explain exactly how, then on what grounds do you expect to be taken seriously?

Stuart

If someone told you they were going to call down lightning from heaven and a bolt appears close to them an instant after it was summoned, how would you subject that to peer review?

 

[MichaelCadry]

If someone told you they were going to call down lightning from heaven and a bolt appears close to them an instant after it was summoned, how would you subject that to peer review?

Finally someone is starting to make sense in this thread.

Michael

:chuckle:

 

[Stuu]

If someone told you they were going to call down lightning from heaven and a bolt appears close to them an instant after it was summoned, how would you subject that to peer review?

Why would I subject it to peer review?

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."--Wiki

Populations are made up of individuals.

If the population evolves the individuals evolve.

The population evolves but the individuals do not???

--Dave

Have you ever seen a Mexican Wave around a sports stadium?

The wave moves around the stadium, but the individuals that comprise the wave do not. The individuals, just like in evolving populations, are just transient, static members of the pattern.

Individuals do not evolve, because evolution is a descendants effect.

 

[gcthomas]

A fact that is also a theory cannot be falsified.

--Dave

Yes. That is the case with evolution, i suspect. It is falsifiable, in that there are plenty of predictions that could have been found wrong, but they were not. the predictions were correct. So it is falsifiable in principle but, I believe, cannot be falsified in practice since it is most likely a true fact of nature.

:idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

"Evolution is characterised by changes of gene frequency in populations" that changed some individual fish into individual amphibians, some individual amphibians into individual reptiles, some individual reptiles into individual mammals, etc.

--Dave

Noooooo! How can you think that's what the ToE says! Don't you read any of the posts others write, and sometimes research what has been said to verify/refute? You just reject all comers, and that is so sad. You cannot improve yourself like that, only paying attention to yourself.