Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Why not?? You have no facts. Your studies are not based on facts. What's left except theory dishonestly advanced as fact.
And you know it all as a fact?? I don't think so.

2. So when did the "fact" of any "variation" happen/occur in a much needed timely fashion, you can't say or even if it did at all, regardless of any time factor. So why the fiction as fact??

You have no "facts". Though you seem to have plenty of misinformation.

Science has evidence (facts) which indicates the likelihood of any conclusion.

So again, if you claim you truly understand what is proposed in the development of sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction, then please share it with us now.

Otherwise have the courage to honestly admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[seehigh]

Does anybody else here get the feeling that Michael is just having fun and playing with everybody?

I can't imagine anybody being in that obtuse unless its on purpose.

 

[Hedshaker]

Does anybody else here get the feeling that Michael is just having fun and playing with everybody?

I can't imagine anybody being in that obtuse unless its on purpose.

I'm pretty sure that Michael is not a Poe, but I see your point

 

[noguru]

Does anybody else here get the feeling that Michael is just having fun and playing with everybody?

I can't imagine anybody being in that obtuse unless its on purpose.

I think Michael is one of the more courageous (in regard to admitting his errors) YECs/OECs that I have seen so far on this site. He might be woefully misinformed on a lot of issues, and he might be excessively naive and gullible. But he seems to have more courage in admitting his errors than any other YEC/OEC I have seen on this site so far.

 

[Cross Reference]

[Delete]

 

[Cross Reference]

You have no "facts".

Science has evidence (facts) which indicates the likelihood of any conclusion.

So again, if you claim you truly understand what is proposed in the development of sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction, then please share it with us now.

Otherwise have the courage to honestly admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry to inform you but, true science fully supports the facts of creation. On the other hand, pseudo science, upon which the theory of evolution rests it's case, can be made to support any idea that originates in the imagination of man. [imagination obviously being something else 'birthed' by evolution ].

Fact: For procreation to happen, both contributing sexes must be biologically/anatomically perfect, as in complete, at the outset of any attempt to make happen an offspring of it's kind that will be able to repeat the action when mature. Science understands that, pseudo science doesn't want to. Everything must be in place including the desire to perform the act which, of itself is not of something that can be seen to be touched but an imputation from God. You should know that if you are human. However, you may need to re-examine yourself to prove me wrong. Go for it. I trust you will submit your findings?

 

[Cross Reference]

Either evolution happened or God is a malicious liar. I prefer to believe God is good and beneficient, so I accept the truth of evolution.

If evolution was of God then Jesus died in vain.

 

[seehigh]

Sorry to inform you but, true science fully supports the facts of creation. On the other hand, pseudo science, upon which the theory of evolution rests it's case, can be made to support any idea that originates in the imagination of man. [imagination obviously being something else 'birthed' by evolution ].

Fact: For procreation to happen, both contributing sexes must be biologically/anatomically perfect, as in complete, at the outset of any attempt to make happen an offspring of it's kind that will be able to repeat the action when mature. Science understands that, pseudo science doesn't want to. Everything must be in place including the desire to perform the act which, of itself is not of something that can be seen to be touched but an imputation from God. You should know that if you are human. However, you may need to re-examine yourself to prove me wrong. Go for it. I trust you will submit your findings?

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, do you? You just proven it by the statements you made in the above post.

 

[Cross Reference]

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, do you? You just proven it by the statements you made in the above post.

Point them out.

 

[Jonahdog]

Fact: For procreation to happen, both contributing sexes must be biologically/anatomically perfect, as in complete, at the outset of any attempt to make happen an offspring of it's kind that will be able to repeat the action when mature. Science understands that, pseudo science doesn't want to. Everything must be in place including the desire to perform the act which, of itself is not of something that can be seen to be touched but an imputation from God. You should know that if you are human. However, you may need to re-examine yourself to prove me wrong. Go for it. I trust you will submit your findings?

Ah, have you been listening to Ray Comfort?

If you have, I can sell you this bridge...

 

[Cross Reference]

Ah, have you been listening to Ray Comfort?

If you have, I can sell you this bridge...

No. I don't need additional understanding in this, regardless of who it is.

 

[seehigh]

Point them out.

Your first two sentences.

 

[noguru]

Sorry to inform you but, true science fully supports the facts of creation. On the other hand, pseudo science, upon which the theory of evolution rests it's case, can be made to support any idea that originates in the imagination of man. [imagination obviously being something else 'birthed' by evolution ].

Fact: For procreation to happen, both contributing sexes must be biologically/anatomically perfect, as in complete, at the outset of any attempt to make happen an offspring of it's kind that will be able to repeat the action when mature. Science understands that, pseudo science doesn't want to. Everything must be in place including the desire to perform the act which, of itself is not of something that can be seen to be touched but an imputation from God. You should know that if you are human. However, you may need to re-examine yourself to prove me wrong. Go for it. I trust you will submit your findings?

As i pointed out earlier you do not understand what sciences proposes in regard to the development of sexual reproduction from the pre-existing asexual reproduction. Perhaps you should review the relevant material if you would really like understand.

Both genders were in place when the first form of sexual reproduction appeared. Hermaphroditic organism sexual reproduction would have predated gender specific organism sexual reproduction.

Now please stop making yourself look like a fool.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your first two sentences.

In what way? I said point them out and you are demonstrating you can't.

 

[noguru]

No. I don't need additional understanding in this, regardless of who it is.

No. But i bet it does wonders for your level of confidence in an idea when some other idiot echoes your inaccurate thinking.

 

[seehigh]

In what way? I said point them out and you are demonstrating you can't.

Sorry to inform you but, true science fully supports the facts of creation.

You can show no peer reviewed and generally accepted by the scientific community studies that support the facts of creation. If you have any, please reference them or you're just making an assertion which is unsubstantiated.

On the other hand, pseudo science, upon which the theory of evolution rests it's case, can be made to support any idea that originates in the imagination of man.

You make the assertion that the theory of evolution is pseudo science. As such your discounting geology, biology, chemistry, and other sciences. Are you telling us that all of these are pseudo science?

You do realize do you not, that evolution says nothing about how life started, but discusses speciation. Creation is the only concept that discusses how life started. You did know that right?

 

[Hawkins]

You can show no peer reviewed and generally accepted by the scientific community studies that support the facts of creation. If you have any, please reference them or you're just making an assertion which is unsubstantiated.

Science has limits. Scientists work under those limits to deliver an answer. What limits ToE is that we cannot establish an experiment to predictably go through the process of evolution from a single cell organism till a full grown, say, mammal.

Instead of building such a predictable model, scientists built another model to try to re-construct what happened. To put it another way, ToE is more about "the past" while other science are about the "future" (predictability of science).

You make the assertion that the theory of evolution is pseudo science. As such your discounting geology, biology, chemistry, and other sciences. Are you telling us that all of these are pseudo science?

You do realize do you not, that evolution says nothing about how life started, but discusses speciation. Creation is the only concept that discusses how life started. You did know that right?

Scientists adapted a completely different approach in the research of evolution instead of the traditional approach which relies on a 100% or nearly 100% predictability to identify a scientific truth.

For an example, water = hydrogen + oxygen, when given water you can always predict the result before any lab experiment, and your prediction will never fail (100%), or should it fail you deserve a Nobel Prize.

On the other hand, single cell organism + time/environment = mammal, when given a single cell organism you can never predict how the result can be delivered predictably.


A formal pseudo science is an attempt to set up a predictable model, such as weather forecast, earthquake, and so forth. A predictable model reflects a set of governing rules behind the scene. Science is the discovery of such a set of governing rules. Strictly speaking, ToE is not even a pseudo science as building a predictable model is not what it's intended to achieve.

 

[seehigh]

Science has limits. Scientists work under those limits to deliver an answer. What limits ToE is that we cannot establish an experiment to predictably go through the process of evolution from a single cell organism till a full grown, say, mammal.

Instead of building such a predictable model, scientists built another model to try to re-construct what happened. To put it another way, ToE is more about "the past" while other science are about the "future" (predictability of science).



Scientists adapted a completely different approach in the research of evolution instead of the traditional approach which relies on a 100% or nearly 100% predictability to identify a scientific truth.

For an example, water = hydrogen + oxygen, when given water you can always predict the result before any lab experiment, and your prediction will never fail (100%), or you deserve a Nobel Prize.

On the other hand, single cell organism + time/environment = mammal, when given a single cell organism you can never predict how the result will be delivered predictably.

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

 

[Cross Reference]

You can show no peer reviewed and generally accepted by the scientific community studies that support the facts of creation. If you have any, please reference them or you're just making an assertion which is unsubstantiated.

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 make the assertion that the theory of evolution is pseudo science.

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

As such your discounting geology, biology, chemistry, and other sciences. Are you telling us that all of these are pseudo science?

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

You do realize do you not, that evolution says nothing about how life started, but discusses speciation. Creation is the only concept that discusses how life started. You did know that right?

Bull! <more of the obstuse>

 

[Hawkins]

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.

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.

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

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