Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Skeeter]

Science can philosophize about the supernatural but it cannot speak authoritatively about things of which it has no evidence or knowledge.

Science is a method. There is a philosophy of science, but science does not philosophize per se. Supernatural claims are assessed in the same manner as usual. ESP bears no fruit. Astrology is a circus act. Prayer does not help the sick. Creation "science" has been debunked.

Faith is based on a feeling rather than logic or evidence as far as I can tell. I have no problem with faith. I do have a problem when faith is treated as if it is like science.

 

[Right Divider]

Science is a method.

What are the requirements?

Creation "science" has been debunked.

False.

Faith is based on a feeling rather than logic or evidence as far as I can tell.

No, faith is based on facts.

I have no problem with faith.

So generous of you.

I do have a problem when faith is treated as if it is like science.

If that were true, you would not be an evolutionist.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Science is a method. There is a philosophy of science, but science does not philosophize per se.

We agree, even if only on this point.

Supernatural claims are assessed in the same manner as usual.

Physical science cannot address the supernatural, simply because it is beyond its scope. That's where reason comes in handy.

ESP bears no fruit. Astrology is a circus act.

Agreed.

Prayer does not help the sick.

This begs the question that a supernatural being doesn't exist to hear such prayers and therefore cannot act in response to them.

Had you said, "Prayers do not directly help the sick," I would have agreed with you.

Creations "science" has been debunked.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Faith is based on a feeling rather than logic or evidence as far as I can tell.

Unfortunately, this is simply wrong.

Faith is evidence. That I have faith in a Creator is evidence for His existence.

Our faith is not a blind faith, where we believe something despite the facts and evidence, but BECAUSE of it.

I have no problem with faith. I do have a problem when faith is treated as if it science.

Which, as far as I can tell, no one here does.

 

[marke]

Science is a method. There is a philosophy of science, but science does not philosophize per se. Supernatural claims are assessed in the same manner as usual. ESP bears no fruit. Astrology is a circus act. Prayer does not help the sick. Creation "science" has been debunked.

Faith is based on a feeling rather than logic or evidence as far as I can tell. I have no problem with faith. I do have a problem when faith is treated as if it is like science.

Science mixed with myths and assumptions is not pure science, but science speculation.

 

[Right Divider]

Physical science cannot address the supernatural, simply because it is beyond its scope. That's where reason comes in handy.

It's funny how many non-physical things that atheists and evolutionists must use to make any argument whatsoever.

 

[Yorzhik]

I do have a problem when faith is treated as if it is like science.

So funny of you to mention this just when you admit to blind faith in OOL against the evidence. At least the faith I have is consistent with the evidence.

 

[Skeeter]

So funny of you to mention this just when you admit to blind faith in OOL against the evidence. At least the faith I have is consistent with the evidence.

I did not buy for a second, your contention that evolution has not been observed. Change of characteristic of a species over generations is observed all the time. Furthermore, speciation can be inferred from a clear evidentiary basis. We cannot directly observe atoms, black holes, or the earth's core, but science helps us understand them and make accurate predictions about them. Same deal with evolution. Common descent has more evidence for it than practically any other scientific idea ever. The fact that you can splice genes across species and get a predicted effect is just one example.

 

[Yorzhik]

I did not buy for a second, your contention that evolution has not been observed. Change of characteristic of a species over generations is observed all the time. Furthermore, speciation can be inferred from a clear evidentiary basis. We cannot directly observe atoms, black holes, or the earth's core, but science helps us understand them and make accurate predictions about them. Same deal with evolution. Common descent has more evidence for it than practically any other scientific idea ever. The fact that you can splice genes across species and get a predicted effect is just one example.

You still have an irrational faith in OOL.

 

[Skeeter]

What replacement term would satisfy you? "The simple single cell"?

How about common descent? And, maybe bring that up only when appropriate as in when we are discussing the big picture and NOT when we are discussing shorter-term evolution of traits?

 

[Skeeter]

Macroevolution has never happened.

Yes, it has. They documented it flowers, and can be easily inferred from the fossil record. Why do you accept virgin birth but not speciation?

Microevoltuion is a term intentionally used to confuse. It's just variations easily explained without the need for GtY.

Maybe we should always call evolution evolution. It has confused you so much. Do you doubt continental drift but believe in microshifting. Why is direct evidence of some change over a small duration not suggestive at bigger change over more time?

Evolutionists lack sense of humor. That is why they look so stupid then they try to "be funny".

Try not to generalize. And, does it work in reverse? Are creationists all funny? Or just funny looking?

It is actually a FALSE theory that has had many damaging effects on society.

Please expand.

That is silly and untrue. No doctor, for example, uses any part of "evolution" to do his/her job.

Sure they do. Ever hear of comparative biology? Pig parts to save human lives. Animal studies on drugs help predict risk to humans, right?

Why would sexual reproduction "evolve" in the first place?

It gives a great advantage because it increases population variability mixing genes and carrying recessive traits.

Actually, the problem is babbling fools like yourself.

I know nuance sounds like static to you. Details confuse you. It's okay. There is a simple concrete story for you to latch on to, but do not think about it too deeply. It might unravel.

There is no "absence of evidence of a designer", but there self-induced blindness on the part of atheist evolutionists.

Do tell. There is no concomitant evidence. No explanation how the creator creates.

Of course you "suspect that there was/is such life". If life was just a "lucky accident" on earth, why not elsewhere?

Goldy Locks conditions existed here. We do not know if life sprang up elsewhere. There certainly is the vastness and variety of planets, chemicals and temperatures in the universe. Life is a rare occurrence, but there is the exact playing field we would expect for random genesis to occur.

 

[Right Divider]

How about common descent?

What about it?

Already existing creatures reproduce after their own kind. No big deal, that's what the Bible says.

What we don't have ANY evidence for is that all life descended from a single common ancestor or that life began many times in the distant past.

And, maybe bring that up only when appropriate as in when we are discussing the big picture and NOT when we are discussing shorter-term evolution of traits?

Again, you evolutionists love to try to BLUR the picture with vague and ambiguous "definitions".

The Creation Model is perfectly fine with "micro-evolution" (i.e., variation within the already existing kinds, including what you call "speciation").

What science shows us is that there are limits on this variation and that there is no "upward" path anywhere to be found (i.e., "macro-evolution" is a myth).

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, it has.

No, it hasn't.

They documented it flowers,

Nope.

and can be easily inferred from the fossil record.

Nope again. Or should I say, only if you already believe it to be true.

Why do you accept virgin birth but not speciation?

I accept both. The Creation Model has no problem whatsoever with what you call "speciation".

Maybe we should always call evolution evolution.

Nothing like evolutionist silliness.

It has confused you so much.

I'm not confused at all, but you most certainly are.

Do you doubt continental drift but believe in microshifting.

I have no idea what you're getting at. How about you be clear for a change?

Why is direct evidence of some change over a small duration not suggestive at bigger change over more time?

Because it is an invalid extrapolation not supported by scientific fact.

Try not to generalize. And, does it work in reverse? Are creationists all funny? Or just funny looking?

It's hilarious when you TRY to be funny.

Please expand.

A great deal of racism is caused by a belief in evolution. The full title of Origin of Species was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Sure they do. Ever hear of comparative biology?

Yes, I have and it's quite subjective.

Pig parts to save human lives. Animal studies on drugs help predict risk to humans, right?

So? There are similarities among the created kinds. This is NOT ipso facto evidence that they ALL have a single common ancestor.

It gives a great advantage because it increases population variability mixing genes and carrying recessive traits.

Only once it ALREADY EXISTS.

 

[Skeeter]

How about common descent? What about it?

Use the phrase common decent instead of goo-goo to you. Please try to track the discussion better.

Already existing creatures reproduce after their own kind. No big deal, that's what the Bible says.

They adapt so is really NOT a precise reproduction -- new attributes are created by natural selection, and over time kinds are more and more varied so much so it become more helpful to discuss the distinction.

What we don't have ANY evidence for is that all life descended from a single common ancestor or that life began many times in the distant past.

The fact that some genes are held in common by all life forms is evidence of a common origin, among many other things.

Again, you evolutionists love to try to BLUR the picture with vague and ambiguous "definitions".

Nope. Definitions are clear and operationalized. You just do not like them. You change them when proven wrong. You ask for and experiment at shows evolution and you are shown one, but then change the definition of evolution.

What science shows us that there are limits on this variation and that there is no "upward" path anywhere to be found (i.e., "macro-evolution" is a myth).

Lets hear the proof and rationale. It seems flatly just wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

Use the phrase common decent instead of goo-goo to you. Please try to track the discussion better.

Common descent from a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR is purely imaginary and I will call it goo to you if I like (and I do).

They adapt so is really NOT a precise reproduction

No one ever made the claim of exact duplication

-- new attributes are created by natural selection,

No, they are NOT. Natural selection eliminates the less fit. It does not make anything MORE fit.

and over time kinds are more and more varied so much so it become more helpful to discuss the distinction.

Again, you are telling fairy tales.

The fact that some genes are held in common by all life forms is evidence of a common origin, among many other things.

No, it's NOT "evidence of common origin" in the sense of common descent from a single common ancestor.
It is common origin in that God created all living things.

Nope. Definitions are clear and operationalized.

Nope... this is why evolutionists love to BLUR micro-evolution (observed variation with limits) and macro-evolution (the myth of ever improving life from goo to you) by simply saying "evolution" (implying that both are the same).

You just do not like them.

I like facts and properly understood evidence.

You change them when proven wrong.

Nonsense.

You ask for and experiment at shows evolution and you are shown one, but then change the definition of evolution.

Baloney.

Lets hear the proof and rationale. It seems flatly just wrong.

It seems wrong to you because you don't want to hear the truth.

 

[Clete]

Science is a method. There is a philosophy of science, but science does not philosophize per se. Supernatural claims are assessed in the same manner as usual. ESP bears no fruit. Astrology is a circus act. Prayer does not help the sick. Creation "science" has been debunked.

Faith is based on a feeling rather than logic or evidence as far as I can tell. I have no problem with faith. I do have a problem when faith is treated as if it is like science.

Atheists almost always have a conception of faith that is not biblical. Indeed, most Christians share the same unbiblical understanding of faith, which is pathetic and sad.

Many think that faith is about believing something IN SPITE of either evidence to the contrary or simply a lack of evidence, and the word "faith" can certainly be used to mean that but that isn't the biblical understanding of what it means to have faith. Biblically speaking, faith is about being sufficiently convinced that a particular claim is true that you take actions that are in keeping with that claim. The term does not imply a lack of evidence but what it often does entail is a willingness to go against the conventional wisdom.

When Abraham believed God's promise to give him a son. His trust in God wasn't based on nothing but rather both he and his wife "judged Him faithful who had promised." In other words, Abraham and his wife had good reason to trust that God was able to do that which He had promised to do in spite of their old age. It wasn't blind belief but a reasonable belief.

Likewise, when Abraham was sent to sacrifice that same promised son, Abraham had a whole lifetime's worth of experience that had taught him that God was trustworthy, no matter the circumstances and that it was riskier to disobey God than not. Abraham's expectation was that God would raise Isaac from the dead which was a completely reasonable expectation.

Thus, biblically speaking, it isn't whether one is willing to believe blindly but quite the contrary, its about whether you are willing to accept the testimony of the evidence placed before you and act on it? The biblical principle is that the truth is established on the basis of two or three witnesses (i.e. pieces of evidence) which is why God put three things in the Ark of the Covenant. He placed the ten commandments, Arron's rod the budded, and a jar of manna as testimony to Israel of God's justice, power and provision. This principle is caried on consistently throughout the scripture. Nowhere are we taught to turn off our minds and to believe blindly.

Clete

 

[Skeeter]

Common descent from a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR is purely imaginary and I will call it goo to you if I like (and I do).

You are a trip. I see you do this a lot. You need to read what a poster has written within the thread of the immediate discussion before responding, Get the context firmly in mind before hitting reply . Just replying as if the words in front of you are all that matters is hella lazy. Here, YOU asked me for a term I liked better. I answered directly. You misunderstood. It was clarified. You respond like I am telling you what to use?

No one ever make the claim of exact duplication

What is a kind then other than a commonality?
And it's not just a random change. It is an altered characteristic that helps survival and chance for reproduction.

No, they are NOT. Natural selection eliminated the less fit. It does not make anything MORE fit.

It may do both. Fit members reproduce more. The population now has a higher proportion of membe with new trait.

Again, you are telling fairy tales.

No reference to fairy tales should be made in this thread as per the rules OR we will compare your explanation and my explanation with actual fairy tales to see which is similar.

No, it's NOT "evidence of common origin" in the sense of common descent from a single common ancestor.
It is common origin in the God created all living things.

We are talking about whether the principles of evolution helps the field of medicine. You are INSERTING your ultimate fear about common origin AGAIN.

 

[Right Divider]

What is a kind then other than a commonality?

Again, no clue what you're talking about.

And it's not just a random change.

So it's a directed change? Who's directing this change?

It is an altered characteristic that helps survival and chance for reproduction.

Again, the "altered characteristic" is always within a very limited set of already existing characteristics.

It may do both. Fit members reproduce more. The population now has a higher proportion of membe with new trait.

Natural SELECTION only SELECTS that which ALREADY EXIST. It is NOT a creative force.

No reference to fairy tales should be made in this thread as per the rules OR we will compare your explanation and my explanation with actual fairy tales to see which is similar.

That's easy... YOURS.

We are talking about whether the principles of evolution helps the field of medicine.

Again, the principles of evolution (goo to you) do nothing to help the field of medicine.

You are INSERTING your ultimate fear about common origin AGAIN.

Again, you are talking nonsense.

 

[Skeeter]

Again, no clue what you're talking about.

As per usual.

So it's a directed change? Who's directing this change?

The environment in conjunction with pressures relative to other forms. Think how not who.

Again, the "altered characteristic" is always within a very limited set of already existing characteristics.

True enough -- you have to take your first few steps to eventually travel a 100 miles. The set expands gradually over time. No step is ginormous.

Natural SELECTION only SELECTS that which ALREADY EXIST. It is NOT a creative force.

Cumulatively creative. This is a bottom up process.

Again, the principles of evolution (goo goo to gaa gaa) do nothing to help the field of medicine.

Are you daft? Covid 19 variants are all about the virus evolving.

Stop bringing up early stage evolution unnecessarily. Makes you look like a dolt.

 

[Right Divider]

As per usual.

The issue is you and not me.

The environment in conjunction with pressures relative to other forms. Think how not who.

Again, already existing plants and animals adapt to their environment based on their EXITING genetic makeup.
Nothing NEW is created "by the environment".

True enough -- you have to take your first few steps to eventually travel a 100 miles. The set expands gradually over time. No step is ginormous.

WITHIN LIMITS... there is no gradual improvement nor any gradual NEW features that did not already exist.

Cumulatively creative. This is a bottom up process.

Again, that is complete fantasy... but it's all that you have.

Are you daft? Covid 19 variants are all about the virus evolving.

Guess what.... all Covid 19 VARIANTS are still .... wait for it.... COVID 19!!

Stop bringing up early stage evolution unnecessarily. Makes you look like a dolt.

The only dolt between us is you.

 

[Idolater]

...Do you doubt continental drift but believe in microshifting. Why is direct evidence of some change over a small duration not suggestive at bigger change over more time?....

It is, when the thing under consideration is believed to be 'continuous' and 'quantitative' instead of 'qualitative' and 'categorical'. I believe that the generation of new species is categorical and so no amount of 'continuous' change along a continuous spectrum is going to convince me that 'evolution' can turn continuous change into categorical change. And the evidence doesn't require that I believe that evolution generated the species, it merely doesn't conflict with evolution, you would need to see true 'macro' evolution to positively demonstrate that evolution is capable of making categorical genetic changes where new species are generated.

And even then, even that wouldn't rule out a six day creation occurring within the past ten thousand years.