• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

How is it possible to prove creation simply by finding issues with evolution? How can problems with theory of evolution have any relevance to whether creation is true? Shouldn't there be a time when evidence for creation needs to be submitted?

That's why I usually stay out of these threads. They make my head hurt.
 
Pahu said:
I would like to see evolution replaced with the truth. When the two models of origins--evolution and creation--are examined by the known laws of physics, the evidence supports creation rather than evolution. One example is the fossil record. Evolution predicts evidence of gradual change from simple to more complex life forms over millions of years. Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms. The fossil record supports the creation rather than the evolution prediction.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the process of deposition of fossils, why should there be a continuous preservation of all living creatures?
 
154 said:
and ever refusing to yield or make any concession, admit any error, denounce any of their own blatant falsehood, and hold none of their own so accountble, but simply move on to another avenue of attack, without any apparent hesitation, reconsideration or reflection.
Click to expand...

What evidence would you like to present for consideration?
 
154 said:
Nonsense. You can't separate and distinguish between today's philosophy of science from "scientists" and Science itself. In the name of science, and against great currents, some credentialed examiners challenge some current precepts of science. They are not "anti-science."
Click to expand...
So present the data , evidence and trains of thought and we can discuss it.
 
154 said:
Of course it is. In common understanding, it is both. Absolutely no need here for more semantical jousting. Of course science is a method, ideally. Scientists, however, just like you and just like me, are often less than ideal or pure in their practice. Nobody's perfect, not even the science priests.
Click to expand...

Nope science is a method, it is only a noun in corse descriptions.

So present your evidence and alternative theories, lets talk.
 
154 said:
[...]
This is more Orwellian wordsmith semantical games from Leftists. Disagreement, objection and challenging is not a pursuit of science in itself, no, but rather it is antithetical to science, it is anti-science and to be only derided and dismissed. Why do I say "Leftists" you say? Who do you say are the "anti-science" "anti-education" "anti-intellectuals"?
Click to expand...

You have given no evidence that you understand the discipline of science. Additionally, you have been passive-agressively resistent to stating your position on many things you seem to criticize.

This very diatribe against Leftists is about the most self-exposing comment you have ever made.

You typically ask why we hate christ, and ignore every reply.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
It is a religion in that it is a competing belief system,

and Darwinists/evolutionists/atheists are among the most faithful of believers in their own belief system,

and ever refusing to yield or make any concession, admit any error, denounce any of their own blatant falsehood, and hold none of their own so accountble, but simply move on to another avenue of attack, without any apparent hesitation, reconsideration or reflection.

It is ultimately only a question of the Will. Some refuse. Some Will Not.
Click to expand...

You're not describing the discipline and process of science. You're describing your own conduct.
 
154 said:
No, actually I didn't, but I will take your word for it. I don't really doubt it. It's probably safe to say that many or most "Christians" are really just more of a "cultural Christian" rather than any sincere and serious believer in Jesus Christ. These evolution-believing Christians probably aren't very serious about and don't talk much about Jesus either, is my guess.
Click to expand...

Simon39759 said:
Nicely condescending here... I'll keep that in mind for the next time you rage against the arrogance of atheists...
Click to expand...
Simon, where's the condescension in what I said? With what there do you specifically disagree?
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
Even if the things you say are true, if you cannot provide a rational basis for your beliefs, then it is rational to reject them.
Click to expand...
Not true. I wish you could see that that is not true. It is fine, honest and intellectually legitimate to remain skeptically unpersuaded as an agnostic. "I don't know." is a good, honest and fair answer. At the same time, ardently arguing therefore that God is Not True is not logically and rationally justified. That is where your bias takes over and argues and advocates that which it desires.
 
154 said:
Simon, where's the condescension in what I said? With what there do you specifically disagree?
Click to expand...

I'm not Simon, but maybe he was talking about all those Catholics, starting with the Pope. Then there are the Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and basically any of them except for your small sect of ignorant Fundamentalists.
 
154 said:
Simon, where's the condescension in what I said? With what there do you specifically disagree?
Click to expand...


Assuming that the Christians that accept the finding of science are insincere and lack seriousness in their faith?
 
Tubbythin said:
That is true of some credentialed scientists. But it is unequivocally not true of "creation scientists" who seek to find evidence of the conclusion they want to draw and deny anything that disagrees with there predetermined beliefs. These people are immaculate examples of anti-science.
Click to expand...
I guess it can fairly be called a matter of perspective and I therefore call this your projection.
Talk about "predetermined beliefs," the Evolutionary Orthodoxy is enforced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom