The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

I’m going to make another mark in my “internet arguments won column” on my white board. Getting pretty full now.

a reply to: strongfp

Speciation is a misnomer the real term is hybridization...
Evolutionists always Laying claim under false pretences thinking they have that eureka moment...
Smoke and mirrors...

Modern "Science" is a created method to study God's Creation, in degrees of human certainty, but not its truth.

It is a common mistake of man to build up stories and deceive themselves based on Meditations of First Philosophy, while missing the forest for the trees. Having autonomous thought and reasoning does not grant truth, just an approximation of truth based on imperfect observations.

sorted

René Descartes said that Meditations of First Philosophy were given to him by God in a dream.

a reply to: edmc^2

Its best not to get involved. You an never get anyone to change long held beliefs.

Evolution still many gaps.

Creationists - no consensus anyway, many gods many creation myths.

What do I gain by playing in these debates?

Whatever happened thousands of years ago doesn't really impact on me.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I bet you, every time you drop a turd, you turn around to see if Jesus’s face

Gee, your hatred for religion must really keep you awake at night. What stares back at you in the mirror?

a reply to: edmc^2

your list

4. Majority of journals and studies are from "evolution scientist" and accepted as facts (without any question).

Care to point me to some "authorities" on Creationism that aren't self referential?

a reply to: Woodcarver

You really need to get a grip - if you're so easily affected why play?

Anything to add other than name calling?

a reply to: TerryDon79

You can't prove evolution either so what a ignorant comment,the truth in history,man has devolved,we are stupider and much smaller,true recorded history proves this

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Woodcarver

Come on Woodie, enough childish insults I would say it’s beneath you but, well it seems all you have is insults

Enough, let’s work on real science and real evidence, let’s search for empirical evidence for evolution

I will hold your hand and lead you, see that door 😁

But seriously, you are so easily ridiculed and dismissed because you havnt offered any real science, just faith statements

Get the evidence Woodie, you can do it

Raggedy, please allow me to run this by you. I've asked this question so many times to evolutionists and can't get a straight answer.

Evolutionists keep asking for an alternative to evolution, but if I say:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

I get attacked.

We are never going to get an intelligent and reasoned conversation from most atheists, they can’t give an inch of ground or they will lose their faith, it’s to easily corrupted

None will ever try and reason abiogenesis, it’s a dirty word that can’t be broached, can’t be acknowledged in any way shape or form.
Life from non life, it’s a faith statement but with a scientific beant, a special gift only those faithful atheists can discern

Big Bang, that’s something else again

a reply to: Oldtimer2

You are a wise individual
the basic truth of this entire argument is that neither evolution or creation can be true scientific theory...
Neither can be observed repeated nor falsified so both fail the requirements to be true scientific theory...
Therefore Evolutionists are just as much basing their beliefs on faith as those believing in a creator...
And that Is entirely factual...

Yet all life in existence is created this is what is observable, but if we try to go backwards upon that we come then to a point where everything had to have an origin. And for that to be possible we have to acknowledge that supernatural process would have had have occurred. That would mean creating from nothing in other words, or if you prefer creating all things from nothing. That would make them the creator of the Universe. And that is the very definition of God...

a reply to: Woodcarver

You do that woodie, you do that, hope you feel better for it, you are the winner after all, you do that
There there, we like you
😚

a reply to: Raggedyman

Woodcarver is just doing what evolutionists do best, making false claims of victory patting themselves on their backs...
We shouldn’t fault him for practicing his faith, poor lil fellow needs to reassure himself all those evil creationists shaking his belief system is hard on his psyche...

What difference does it even make?

If religion plays an important role in your life that makes you believe in creation, great.
But don't try convince others they need to adhere to the same beliefs.
Religion creating life is just an fyi, it's not up for debate or needs explanation.

Same goes for science, you'll never convince believers with processes and experiments.
That just not how religions work.
In science everything is up for debate, if you mastered the scientific method that is

originally posted by: Jubei42
What difference does it even make?

If religion plays an important role in your life that makes you believe in creation, great.
But don't try convince others they need to adhere to the same beliefs.
Religion creating life is just an fyi, it's not up for debate or needs explanation.

Same goes for science, you'll never convince believers with processes and experiments.
That just not how religions work.
In science everything is up for debate, if you mastered the scientific method that is

It makes a lot of difference evidently, have a look at the forum and the threads.
People are tribal
Religion didn’t create anything and science didn’t either

And yes, with empirical scientific evidence ie process and experiments, I will fully embrace evolution, so, your opinion is a little silly, a lot silly in fact

a reply to: Jubei42

Same goes for science, you'll never convince believers with processes and experiments.

That's not true. The problem like someone else above pointed out is that there are too many gaps in the information that isn't capable of getting to the root of the matter.

Take Raggedyman for example, he believes in God and evolution, as he obviously believes God started evolution.

Everything about life shows that there is a pattern, cycle, and order to things. We're born, we grow, we change, and then we deteriorate, but science can't tell us why we have this pattern and why we only live to max out by the time we're 100 years old. Science hasn't proven that our material universe has an intelligence all of it's own to be able to determine these things.

Definition:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

So basically, an accepted scientific theory is an idea that after multiple investigations still has zero evidence against it.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

No it really isnt. Hybridization means something completely different.

a reply to: wheresthebody

So basically, an accepted scientific theory is an idea that after multiple investigations still has zero evidence against it.

It's called Mueller doublespeak. While they don't have enough evidence to claim it as certainty, what little evidence they have can't rule it out.

a reply to: Deetermined

Are you proposing proving a negative?

I was just trying to clarify things, like what words actually mean vs what you feel they should mean, but it feels like I'm showing card tricks to a dog.

Good luck.

a reply to: wheresthebody

I'm just being more specific than you are in my wording. There's no such thing as "zero evidence against".