About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

I personally don't feel it is your place to be the spokes person for anyone other than yourself.

How long have evolutionists been promoting macro evolution and Abiogenesis without any definitive proof. Extinct ancient species doesn't prove ancestry. And DNA being promoted to thousands of years let alone millions of years is highly suspect even in secular circles. Please note:

How Long Does DNA Last?

The body of Richard III has been found beneath a parking lot in Leicester, England, according to experts from the University of Leicester. DNA testing...

slate.com

Secular Scientists follow each other and promote themselves.

NO we are not! We can barely create half the DNA data necessary, and have no clue how the matched the DNA chain began.

GOD did it! The supernatural is not magic(which is slight of hand or a trick).

Orthodox! And you believe your view of science isn't "RELIGION".

Maybe ---- we shall see.

First off scientists do not use the word "proof". Science is based upon evidence. And they started out with almost no evidence for abiogenesis. Your statement would have been correct about abiogenesis, in the 1950's. We have come a long way since then.

And macro evolution is better supported than the theory of gravity when it comes to evidence. You will not find a concept that is better supported in the sciences so you are flat out wrong there. But then, you do not even know what macro evolution is and you have probably admitted that it does happen. Scientists have observed macro evolution in the field and in the lab. It is also a rather pointless term and is not used much these days.

 

[Valjean]

No they would not. They reject GOD and want nothing to do with HIS existence.

What?! -- Where'd you get that idea?
For most of us the idea of God never enters our minds, unless someone brings it up in a forum like, say... RF. Science doesn't actively reject God, any more than it rejects unicorns or Vogons. There is simply no evidence for God or Vogons, and no reason such would be expected or necessary. An investigative modality like science has no investigative tools to work with, nor any reason to try to develop such tools.
Science "rejects" God for the same reason you "reject" leprechauns.

A return to normalcy without any mention of GOD.

The West Coast is presently experiencing a MAJOR Hurricane after well over 25 years with a preponderance of rain after a year of rain and years of devastating droughts. At the very same time they have an earthquake with major aftershocks. Century old landmark Stores in LA and San Francisco are beginning to close after marauding gangs rampage smash'n grab -- stealing everything. To top it off the northwest is burning and creating the most unhealthy air conditions in literally ages. Canada's wildfires show no sign of ending anytime soon with the City of Yellowknife being evacuated. Over 100 citizens of Maui burned to a crisp. The war between Russia and the Ukraine proceeds, and the Russians provide North Korea with the capacity to launch nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States. Giant Food Store loses over $500,000 after it takes extraordinary precautions to stop theft in the only supermarket in Washington DC. The store likely will close. All of this is happening all at once and is growing exponentially especially in LIBERAL areas that seem oblivious to GOD or HIS influence--- yet seen to be entirely without control over anything. However, the gays can marry, drag queens can read to kindergarten children, women may get all the abortions that they wish, the transgender may use any bathroom or participate in any gender sport or be called "IT," as they so wish. All is so right with the world....

I firmly believe Creation's GOD is providing warning after warning, but the liberal mind just is oblivious to anything and everything not connected with personal fun and enjoyment regardless of the consequences. Their mantra remains, "There's not proof of GOD. Duh!!!" What will be will be ---- it's spelled out in the Bible for those who care to read it.

You're imputing intentionality and theological meaning to natural or human generated events. People have been seeing God's work in natural events for thousands of years. People have always seen change as existential threat. We're an insecure and apophenic species.


Instead of trying to shoehorn current events into your personal theological narrative, why not consider other, natural mechanisms?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And @Little Nipper , all of your claims about abiogenesis appear to be wrong too. I will discuss thee concept but no Gish Gallops. One point at a time. If you bring up several point refuting one refutes them all. Okay?

 

[Little Nipper]

First off scientists do not use the word "proof". Science is based upon evidence. And they started out with almost no evidence for abiogenesis. Your statement would have been correct about abiogenesis, in the 1950's. We have come a long way since then.

Wrong, they avoid using the term. So, they can NOW make biological life in a test tube filled with only inert substances-- when they couldn't in 1950?

And macro evolution is better supported than the theory of gravity when it comes to evidence. You will not find a concept that is better supported in the sciences so you are flat out wrong there. But then, you do not even know what macro evolution is and you have probably admitted that it does happen. Scientists have observed macro evolution in the field and in the lab. It is also a rather pointless term and is not used much these days.

Writing that "it's better supported than the theory of gravity," really doesn't tell me anything except that the "theory of gravity" is unsupported even more.

 

[Little Nipper]

What?! -- Where'd you get that idea?
For most of us the idea of God never enters our minds, unless someone brings it up in a forum like, say... RF. Science doesn't actively reject God, any more than it rejects unicorns or Vogons. There is simply no evidence for God or Vogons, and no reason such would be expected or necessary. An investigative modality like science has no investigative tools to work with, nor any reason to try to develop such tools.
Science "rejects" God for the same reason you "reject" leprechauns.

So, that means that you don't intend to change your closed mind. You're only digging a hole for yourself and proving my Creationist viewpoint that you see science as purely belonging to you and your views and opinions...

You're imputing intentionality and theological meaning to natural or human generated events. People have been seeing God's work in natural events for thousands of years. People have always seen change as existential threat. We're an insecure and apophenic species.


Instead of trying to shoehorn current events into your personal theological narrative, why not consider other, natural mechanisms?

Why do your presuppositions count and my considerations are unworthy of any regard whatsoever. Bias, it would appear so. In fact I'd say that your club is rather exclusive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, they avoid using the term. So, they can NOW make biological life in a test tube filled with only inert substances-- when they couldn't in 1950?

No, seriously they do not use the term because they want to stay open minded. Even though the fact of evolution, and yes it is fact, has been "proved" in your parlance more surely than any convicted murderer has ever been convicted, they still use the term "evidence'.

And why would they need to make life in a test tube? Do you not know how silly that is as demands go?

Writing that "it's better supported than the theory of gravity," really doesn't tell me anything except that the "theory of gravity" is unsupported even more.

No, gravity is very well supported too. You just have no clue as to what is and what is evidence.

I went over the concept very lightly, would you care to learn more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, that means that you don't intend to change your closed mind. You're only digging a hole for yourself and proving my Creationist viewpoint that you see science as purely belonging to you and your views and opinions...

You should never accuse others of having a close mind when yours is shut tight against reason. He is innocent of the false charges that you raise and worse yet do you remember the parable about the man picking at the mote in his neighbor's eye? You are the one with a beam in yours.

Why do your presuppositions count and my considerations are unworthy of any regard whatsoever. Bias, it would appear so. In fact I'd say that your club is rather exclusive.

What presuppositions do you think that he has? But if you want a reason why, when it comes to the sciences his work and yours do not.

 

[Valjean]

Baloney, baloney, baloney! You don't believe in Jesus Christ because to you HE was/is nothing but a myth.

"...to you HE was/is nothing but a myth?"
He either objectively is or is not a myth. It's not a matter of personal opinion.
So what evidence do you have for him, or for his deeds? Unlike other historical figures, all we have about him are the stories in the Hebrew Tanakh itself. His historicity is questionable.

You are corrupt and you are judging people not with GOD's Word but with YOUR opinion, values, and the opinions of scientists who seek only to gratify their own views to satisfy their own accomplishments and that of their colleagues. You are nothing but a modern version of a Sadducee.

How are you defining corrupt, and how does it apply to Subduction zone? Do you know him?

How do you know what God's word is? What evidence is your belief based on?

Scientists only seek to gratify their own views? You clearly know nothing about science; what it is or how it works. Scientists are their own worst critics, but they criticize ideas, not each others' characters; ideas you apparently can't counter yourself and find annoying. Your petulant ad homs don't further your case.

YOU don't believe Moses existed. YOU don't believe the FLOOD happened. YOU call the Bible at best an allegory and at worse a myth! Then YOU have the audacity to label me a blasphemer, an idolater, and a liar. You are digging your own grave. I'm certainly on the LORD's side and not yours. And theories have and do change but the GOD's Holy Word remains the same.

There is no objective evidence existed, just tribal stories. It's reasonable to question them.
The Flood would have left massive amounts of evidence. There is none. It would have been impossible, given the known laws of physics. Yet you believe it -- 'cause a book tells a story about it.

Do you understand the criticisms SZ has leveled? If so, answer them. Vitriol and ad homs just make you look foolish.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I

I cite a portfolio of books accepted by JESUS CHRIST and for which many approximately 2000 years ago gave their lives for. I cannot imagine Darwin would have died for his book THE DECENT OF MAN. And I know of no evolutionist scientists today who would give up their lives on Darwin's behalf. However, there are still Christians today who willingly die because they will not recant their faith in CHRIST JESUS.

Don't expect me to respond too much - I know what a brick wall is.

 

[Valjean]

Jesus said this nearly 2000 years ago. He has not returned yet.

This was written more than 1850 years ago, and 'this "coming" he promised' has not happened yet.

So did Pythagoras (ca. 580-500 BC), who lived at the same time as the author of Isaiah 40. Perhaps Pythagoras and deutero-Isaiah got their information about the sphericity of the Earth from the same source (Babylonian astronomers?).

Jesus also said he would return within the lifetime of some of his auditors, did he not?

 

[John53]

No they would not. They reject GOD and want nothing to do with HIS existence.

Who elected you spokesperson of all evolutionists?

The West Coast is presently experiencing a MAJOR Hurricane after well over 25 years with a preponderance of rain after a year of rain and years of devastating droughts. At the very same time they have an earthquake with major aftershocks. Century old landmark Stores in LA and San Francisco are beginning to close after marauding gangs rampage smash'n grab -- stealing everything. To top it off the northwest is burning and creating the most unhealthy air conditions in literally ages. Canada's wildfires show no sign of ending anytime soon with the City of Yellowknife is being evacuated. Over 100 citizens of Maui burned to a crisp. The war between Russia and the Ukraine proceeds, and the Russians provide North Korea with the capacity to launch nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States. Giant Food Store loses over $500,000 after it takes extraordinary precautions to stop theft in the only supermarket in Washington DC. The store likely will close. All of this is happening all at once and is growing exponentially especially in LIBERAL areas that seem oblivious to GOD or HIS influence--- yet seen to be entirely without control over anything. However, the gays can marry, drag queens can read to kindergarten children, women may get all the abortions that they wish, the transgender may use any bathroom or participate in any gender sport or be called "IT," as they so wish. All is so right with the world....

I firmly believe Creation's GOD is providing warning after warning, but the liberal mind just is oblivious to anything and everything not connected with personal fun and enjoyment regardless of the consequences. Their mantra remains, "There's not proof of GOD. Duh!!!" What will be will be ---- it's spelled out in the Bible for those who care to read it.

So gay liberals marrying drag queens caused a hurricane. Ummm ok

 

[Valjean]

So, I challenge you to read/study through the ENTIRE BIBLE.

I'd suggest you try your own medicine.
A careful reading of the entire Bible is a good way to loose your faith. Those who do read it carefully and critically discover a wealth of contradictions, falsehoods, chicanery, cruelty, injustice, and divinely sanctioned atrocities.
Some have been pointed out to you, yet you ignore, deny, rationalize or defend them.

Science is no more scientific than the scientists involved.

??? -- Could you clarify that, por favor?
.

 

[Valjean]

Israel needed to become a country first, and that didn't occur until 1948

Clever rationalization, that. Did you think of it yourself?

Does it matter --- As long as it's true!

By their fruits shall ye know them.
A prophet or prophecy may be judged by their accuracy.

 

[Valjean]

I personally don't feel it is your place to be the spokes person for anyone other than yourself.

At least those I cite actually exist.
You're getting the same criticisms from a half dozen or more different posters, in this thread alone.

How long have evolutionists been promoting macro evolution and Abiogenesis without any definitive proof.

DEFINITIVE PROOF?! What are you talking about? Science doesn't prove things, it accumulates and interprets objective evidence. Proof is for mathematics.
Heliocentism -- not proven. Spherical Earth -- not proven. Germ theory of disease -- not proven.

Macro-evolution is just accumulated micro-evolution. They're essentially the same process.
Abiogenesis and evolution are different things. One does not necessarily rely on the other.

Extinct ancient species doesn't prove ancestry. And DNA being promoted to thousands of years let alone millions of years is highly suspect even in secular circles. Please note:

How Long Does DNA Last?

The body of Richard III has been found beneath a parking lot in Leicester, England, according to experts from the University of Leicester. DNA testing...

slate.com

[link doesn't work] Fix, please?
Extinct species are strong evidence for ancestry. Fossils often show a clear progression of small changes over time, eventually leading to modern forms we know today.

DNA's not being used to date truly ancient life, it does, however, last quite a while, and old fragments could be pieced together to yield meaningful data from >1m years under good conditions. After that various types of radiometric and chemical dating is used.

DNA has a 521-year half-life - Nature

Genetic material can't be recovered from dinosaurs — but it lasts longer than thought.

www.nature.com

Secular Scientists follow each other and promote themselves.

Scientists follow the evidence, and attack each other. A scientist whose research is not criticized would feel insulted. Science works because research is never uncritically accepted.
Q: What would be the point of scientists promoting each other? Cui bono?

NO we are not! We can barely create half the DNA data necessary, and have no clue how the matched the DNA chain began.

??? -- Half the DNA necessary for what? You don't need DNA to assemble most of the components of life -- cell membranes, amino acids/simple proteins, nucleotides, &c. These assemble themselves. Nor is DNA likely the first coding molecule. RNA is both simpler and more versatile -- it can do more.
Do some research on the latest discoveries in 'chemical evolution'.

Keep in mind, life didn't just pop into existence as a complex, fully-formed organism. It occurred as a series of steps, each becoming more and more lifelike. There was no clear line between life and non-life.

GOD did it! The supernatural is not magic(which is slight of hand or a trick).

So how would you define magic, then?
"Goddidit" explains nothing. It's not a mechanism. It's only an assertion of agency. Science doesn't concern itself with who?, only with how?

Orthodox! And you believe your view of science isn't "RELIGION"

In what way is it even remotely religious? It has no doctrine or dogma, no clergy, no rituals, no holy books, no churches. It's an evidence-based research modality. It eschews faith. It welcomes questioning, dissent and unorthodox new ideas
Religion is not a research modality, it's not evidence-based, it discourages research or dissent. It relies on faith. It's a belief system.

Science's purview is fact and mechanism. It answers how?
Religion's purview is meaning, purpose, value, propriety and moral behavior. When it ventures into assertions of fact or mechanism it's out of its depth.

. Maybe ---- we shall see.

LOL! Well, we're both still here, along with flat-earthers, mathematicians, Fascists, communists, conspiracy supporters and deniers and quite a few different religions.

 

[Audie]

Don't expect me to respond too much - I know what a brick wall is.

And I know how to recognize another of those
who breeze in with dump truck full of attitude
and garbage from AiG.

If true to pattern its to dislodge pratts n sneers,
then after a time return to creoland with tales
of talking a roomful of atheist evolutionists to
a standstill.

Its ill advised is to provide what they are looking for.

 

[Valjean]

Don't expect me to respond too much - I know what a brick wall is.

What? Not interested in Jesus' recommended reading list?
You must one of those NY Times bestseller list blokes.

 

[Valjean]

Wrong, they avoid using the term. So, they can NOW make biological life in a test tube filled with only inert substances-- when they couldn't in 1950?

As I said, they're getting closer all the time. They're working on various possible mechanisms.
So far though, you're right. They've only managed crude, bumbling little critters that die out after a dozen generations.
Keep in mind, almost every bit of technology and insight we have today was declared impossible at one time. They said man would never fly.....

Writing that "it's better supported than the theory of gravity," really doesn't tell me anything except that the "theory of gravity" is unsupported even more.

The point is, do you now understand the difference between proof and a high level of confidence based on massed, consilient evidence?

 

[Valjean]

No they would not. They reject GOD and want nothing to do with HIS existence.

Now who's speaking for the masses?
Where do you get these ideas? I don't reject God, and I doubt most "evolutionists" do either. Generally I, and most evolutionists I know, simply ignore God, much as I presume you do unicorns.

A return to normalcy without any mention of GOD.

People have wished this for thousands of years. Society's alway's been going to Hell in a handbasket. Youth's always been running riot. There have always been wars and rumors of war. There have always been storms, floods, eruptions, and earthquakes; signs and portents. The end of the world is predicted every generation.
Today it seems worse than ever, 'cause we're apprised of everything, everywhere, all at once.

The West Coast is presently experiencing a MAJOR Hurricane after well over 25 years with a preponderance of rain after a year of rain and years of devastating droughts. At the very same time they have an earthquake with major aftershocks. Century old landmark Stores in LA and San Francisco are beginning to close after marauding gangs rampage smash'n grab -- stealing everything. To top it off the northwest is burning and creating the most unhealthy air conditions in literally ages. Canada's wildfires show no sign of ending anytime soon with the City of Yellowknife is being evacuated. Over 100 citizens of Maui burned to a crisp. The war between Russia and the Ukraine proceeds, and the Russians provide North Korea with the capacity to launch nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States. Giant Food Store loses over $500,000 after it takes extraordinary precautions to stop theft in the only supermarket in Washington DC. The store likely will close. All of this is happening all at once and is growing exponentially especially in LIBERAL areas that seem oblivious to GOD or HIS influence--- yet seen to be entirely without control over anything. However, the gays can marry, drag queens can read to kindergarten children, women may get all the abortions that they wish, the transgender may use any bathroom or participate in any gender sport or be called "IT," as they so wish. All is so right with the world....

See above reply.

I firmly believe Creation's GOD is providing warning after warning, but the liberal mind just is oblivious to anything and everything not connected with personal fun and enjoyment regardless of the consequences. Their mantra remains, "There's not proof of GOD. Duh!!!" What will be will be ---- it's spelled out in the Bible for those who care to read it.

The Bible proves nothing. It tells stories and makes claims, like a million other books. Claims are only as good as the evidence supporting them.

The liberals are concerned with human prosperity and real, long-term problems -- Housing, healthcare, pollution, climate change, human rights, &c. What freedom and prosperity we have is due overwhelmingly to liberal policies.

Prosperity, happiness, safety and security, health, crime rates, lifespan, &al do track religiosity and liberalism -- They're worst in the most religious and conservative societies; best in the most liberal and least religious societies. Just google the various world prosperity indices.

 

[Valjean]

So, that means that you don't intend to change your closed mind. You're only digging a hole for yourself and proving my Creationist viewpoint that you see science as purely belonging to you and your views and opinions...

It means nothing of the sort. It means I will believe what I have evidence for, and withhold belief for unevidenced claims.
Science believes nothing without evidence. The most celebrated scientists in the world could all make a claim, but it would be rejected if it were no objective evidence supporting it.
Science is all about evidence; not opinion, authority, common sense, comfort or convenience.

Why do your presuppositions count and my considerations are unworthy of any regard whatsoever. Bias, it would appear so. In fact I'd say that your club is rather exclusive.

What counts is what's backed up by empirical evidence and reason. I can show evidence for my opinions. I can show logical reasons for my assessments.
Your 'considerations' often have no empirical support. Your opinions are not based on research or testing, they're arguments from authority, tradition and incredulity. Your reasoning often does not follow, logically. You refuse to acknowledge strong, well supported, contrary evidence and reasoning. You even admit some of your opinions are unfalsifiable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wrong, they avoid using the term. So, they can NOW make biological life in a test tube filled with only inert substances-- when they couldn't in 1950?

Writing that "it's better supported than the theory of gravity," really doesn't tell me anything except that the "theory of gravity" is unsupported even more.

So you should be able to fly, right?