Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Patriottechsan]

So let's assume we just dropped the very beginning. We really can't if one is completely academically honest about how we get to evolution of mankind. You have to have a starting point. That's unavoidable. Yet you guys avoid it like the plague. Probably because you already realize that starts exposing the unadmitted but necessary use of Faith & Supernatural with or without common sense & logic or illogic.

But for discussions sake. Let's just go with Scientist Dissent List. Why? Because it first destroys evolutionist claims all top credentialed scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution. T here are in fact many top credentialed scientist that don't believe based on the Darwinian science that it can correctly explain from or arrival of chemical through Darwinianism to mankind. They aren't basing that belief on Christian Faith but on the bad science of Darwinian evolution itself. They rebel despite the risk it puts their career in & receiving grants & publishing of their own good research. That's due to the Gestapo silencing tactics of evolution strangle hold of presenting that theory which in & of itself has so many discrepancies & battles within itself. Yet is taught as a fact when it's not. They refuse open exchange of the problems & free open discussion.

It appears to me you think creationist teach a totally different science when teaching about photosynthesis & other such scientific processes. Nothing is further from the truth. That part is completely the same.
.The problem is how that process came to be like it is, which is fully known & described by both sides.

Scientist Dissent List & ID & creationist both happen to agree both on the fact Darwinian Evolution doesn't have the correct ability to describe how it came to be so complex & functionally designed. Evolutionist claim it was totally Naturalistic. Other side clearly acknowledges to come up the complex Functional Design in the universe, solar system, all science processes & steps you have to acknowledge the absolute must requirement & need for ID.

Evolutions explanations for how those came to be just ignores too many problems & issues & avoids them by using just so stories & w/o true & proper science demonstration.

They want full open discussion of problems with Darwinian evolution science. To do that scares the Heck out of Darwinian evolution because then they'll know the whole story of the science good & bad both sides.

You've proven on this thread you are too afraid to read or hear the other side. You haven't heard it. They way they taught it built a brainwashing fence around you to keep you in the dark about the truth.

I've given you options to choose or offer me one & we start there. But one condition is an absolute must. You must read what I present in links for you. Goes both ways.

For times sake don't make it too long & too complex so it losses some on here. We allow rebuttals etc & replies but again those too must all be read.

I'm still uncomfortable today. I'll always be somewhat limited to time I can spend on here due to pain it causes.

Go for it & you guys come together & decide where we start but must agree to fair ground rules. Otherwise I know you aren't interested in real truth only bashing other opinions. Ironically the credentials of those on that list would dwarf most if not everyone on this thread or board.

Ball in your court. Surrender or take the challenge since its totally fair. Debates with debate teams have to allow each side to make their points & rebuttals etc. So should we.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to have to break this up since it is sooooooooooo long.

So let's assume we just dropped the very beginning. We really can't if one is completely academically honest about how we get to evolution of mankind. You have to have a starting point. That's unavoidable. Yet you guys avoid it like the plague. Probably because you already realize that starts exposing the unadmitted but necessary use of Faith & Supernatural with or without common sense & logic or illogic.

We are not avoiding it. They are different topics and this tells us that you do not understand how science works. Not all questions have to be answered at once. Scientists solve the problem they can solve today and that helps in solving the problems that we have not solved yet. We do not need to know the entire history of the universe to understand that life is the product of evolution. In fact your constant attempts to shift the goal posts is the same as you admitting that you are wrong about evolution. I will have to repeat this:

We know that once life existed that it evolved. The source of that life does not matter.

But for discussions sake. Let's just go with Scientist Dissent List. Why? Because it first destroys evolutionist claims all top credentialed scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution. T here are in fact many top credentialed scientist that don't believe based on the Darwinian science that it can correctly explain from or arrival of chemical through Darwinianism to mankind. They aren't basing that belief on Christian Faith but on the bad science of Darwinian evolution itself. They rebel despite the risk it puts their career in & receiving grants & publishing of their own good research. That's due to the Gestapo silencing tactics of evolution strangle hold of presenting that theory which in & of itself has so many discrepancies & battles within itself. Yet is taught as a fact when it's not. They refuse open exchange of the problems & free open discussion.

Actually there aren't. First off the so called list is artificial Very few of the actual scientists in the field. The language of the list was very misleading. To someone with a high school level of scientific literacy it may appear that they oppose evolution. If you actually understood what they asked it amounted to "Show we keep an open mind" and the scientists that were fooled said "Yes, we should keep an open mind". When many of these scientists realized what was happening they requested that their names be taken off the list due to its dishonest use. Of course dishonest people will not do that.

It appears to me you think creationist teach a totally different science when teaching about photosynthesis & other such scientific processes. Nothing is further from the truth. That part is completely the same.
.The problem is how that process came to be like it is, which is fully known & described by both sides.

Nope, this is a stawman, try again.

Scientist Dissent List & ID & creationist both happen to agree both on the fact Darwinian Evolution doesn't have the correct ability to describe how it came to be so complex & functionally designed. Evolutionist claim it was totally Naturalistic. Other side clearly acknowledges to come up the complex Functional Design in the universe, solar system, all science processes & steps you have to acknowledge the absolute must requirement & need for ID.

No, this is not a fact. If you understood the sciences it would be a lie. And as proven in the Dove Trial, "ID" is merely creationism in a cheap labcoat. An idea that was refuted over 100 years ago.

Evolutions explanations for how those came to be just ignores too many problems & issues & avoids them by using just so stories & w/o true & proper science demonstration.

Really? Name some. Please support your claims with valid sources.

They want full open discussion of problems with Darwinian evolution science. To do that scares the Heck out of Darwinian evolution because then they'll know the whole story of the science good & bad both sides.

Now this is a lie and you have to know that. It is the creationists that are afraid of the scientific method. So much so that to work at almost any creationist site one must swear not to use the scientific method.

You've proven on this thread you are too afraid to read or hear the other side. You haven't heard it. They way they taught it built a brainwashing fence around you to keep you in the dark about the truth.

This is another lie. We are more than happy to discuss the sciences with you. You have to do so properly, and that you have failed to do so far. You need to bring up one claim at a time in a post and we can gladly discuss it. You are overly fond of the Gish Gallop, posting a long series of lies and errors knowing that it takes longer to refute a lie than it does to day it.

Are you bold enough to debate properly?

I've given you options to choose or offer me one & we start there. But one condition is an absolute must. You must read what I present in links for you. Goes both ways.

For times sake don't make it too long & too complex so it losses some on here. We allow rebuttals etc & replies but again those too must all be read.

I'm still uncomfortable today. I'll always be somewhat limited to time I can spend on here due to pain it causes.

If you use bogus sources they can be quickly dismissed. But if you debate properly I will read your links.

Go for it & you guys come together & decide where we start but must agree to fair ground rules. Otherwise I know you aren't interested in real truth only bashing other opinions. Ironically the credentials of those on that list would dwarf most if not everyone on this thread or board.

Ball in your court. Surrender or take the challenge since its totally fair. Debates with debate teams have to allow each side to make their points & rebuttals etc. So should we.

One thing that you need to do is to quit trying to claim that those that accept reality are not interested in the truth. And if you rely on idiots and liars we will quickly point that out to you.

So provide proper links, don't get to made when we laugh at links from sources where people have to swear not to use the scientific method. And read ours too. You might learn something. And I am shocked. I was going to swear that I would have to use the following phrase again and again so I copied it:

We know that once life existed that it evolved. The source of that life does not matter.

 

[John53]

To illustrate this. Answer this question Evolutionist, Darwin or Theistic, Do you believe in eternal existence?

Not really because I have seen no evidence to support it but like others have said, I have no idea what that has to do with ToE.

We know Creationist do already due to belief in eternal God, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

Not correct, there are many types of creationists with belief in various different Gods.

I read the entirety of this thread before responding and have some advice, learn how to use the forum software and quote what you are responding to because at the moment it is almost impossible to understand your responses. I wish you luck with your pain management.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So let's assume we just dropped the very beginning. We really can't if one is completely academically honest about how we get to evolution of mankind. You have to have a starting point. That's unavoidable. Yet you guys avoid it like the plague. Probably because you already realize that starts exposing the unadmitted but necessary use of Faith & Supernatural with or without common sense & logic or illogic.

Conflating the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life and biological evolution as one single topic is dishonest, impractical, unrealistic and nonsensical.

You, yourself, have mentioned how Darwin speculated on the origin of life and clearly he had no answer on how it originated, yet managed to formulate a theory of evolution that forms the basis of our modern theory. As for as cosmological origins, there was nothing of substance to consider in Darwin's time. From a practical standpoint, the theory is not dependent on either of those two concepts and you have no valid reason from any scientific source to say they are.

But for discussions sake. Let's just go with Scientist Dissent List. Why? Because it first destroys evolutionist claims all top credentialed scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution.

If you are going to be honest, it does not destroy the theory of evolution. You are making a faith-based claim that you cannot support, except with more faith-based claims. The list itself is a phenomenal fabrication and fraud. People were placed on that list by subterfuge.

T here are in fact many top credentialed scientist that don't believe based on the Darwinian science that it can correctly explain from or arrival of chemical through Darwinianism to mankind.

You need to come to grips with the fact that biological evolution requires living organisms for it to occur. Dishonestly including the chemical synthesis prior to and leading up to an hypothesized origin of life is a false paradigm.

If we were to ignore the fraudulent nature of the claims about 'top credentialed' scientists and consider the numbers that really are rejecting science based on faith, it is only a few thousand at best. Even if we were to assign an unrealistically high number of 10,000 dissenters, that is out of some 7 million scientists for the US alone or about .14%. That is nothing. The actual percentage would be less than that and less than nothing, since the bulk of those are rejecting science on religious grounds.

They aren't basing that belief on Christian Faith but on the bad science of Darwinian evolution itself. They rebel despite the risk it puts their career in & receiving grants & publishing of their own good research. That's due to the Gestapo silencing tactics of evolution strangle hold of presenting that theory which in & of itself has so many discrepancies & battles within itself.

Wow! Just emotional reliance on conspiracy thinking. What does that list really state? It says that the people on the list are skeptical. That is all it says. It does not state their opinion that the theory is wrong, fraudulent or can be rejected. It does not present evidence leading to a conclusion that it is fraudulent or can be rejected. All statements to that effect are false and applied by you.

The majority of those in dissent are basing their rejection of science on religious grounds. To say otherwise, means you are either being fooled or are being dishonest. Neither are very good positions to be in.

Yet is taught as a fact when it's not. They refuse open exchange of the problems & free open discussion.

The change in populations over time and the relationships of living things is established, observed and based on evidence. Your refusal to look at that evidence and deny its existence is not a test of science and your own fault for wanting to remain ignorant.

It appears to me you think creationist teach a totally different science when teaching about photosynthesis & other such scientific processes. Nothing is further from the truth. That part is completely the same.
.The problem is how that process came to be like it is, which is fully known & described by both sides.

The process evolved. This is recognized by scientists that are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, etc., etc., etc.

Scientist Dissent List & ID & creationist both happen to agree both on the fact Darwinian Evolution doesn't have the correct ability to describe how it came to be so complex & functionally designed.

Of course the theory of evolution does not describe and predict the claims of religion. It is science.

Evolutionist claim it was totally Naturalistic. Other side clearly acknowledges to come up the complex Functional Design in the universe, solar system, all science processes & steps you have to acknowledge the absolute must requirement & need for ID.

There is no evidence to support the hand of a designer in nature, so science is left to explain things based on what is observable. Just because you do not like that does not mean that scientists should suddenly all become dishonest and start reporting the observation of things they have not seen and just make up. You are supporting the proliferation of academic and moral dishonesty.

Evolutions explanations for how those came to be just ignores too many problems & issues & avoids them by using just so stories & w/o true & proper science demonstration.

So you assert, but assertions are not absolutes and they are not evidence. Anyone can make the same kinds of fake news you are making. Especially, since you do not bother to provide any evidence to back up your assertions, except more assertions and speculation.

They want full open discussion of problems with Darwinian evolution science. To do that scares the Heck out of Darwinian evolution because then they'll know the whole story of the science good & bad both sides.

There is full and open discussion of science, biology and the theory of evolution. That science does not recognize your favorite brand of religious view is not a cover up, it is logical and sensible and what is within the scope of science.

You've proven on this thread you are too afraid to read or hear the other side. You haven't heard it. They way they taught it built a brainwashing fence around you to keep you in the dark about the truth.

No such thing has been proven. In fact, the opposite, since we respond to you. You do not respond to us. That seems like you are avoiding direct debate. It seems like a trick. A lie.

Do you really think that falsely presenting people who have been trying to actively engage you while you avoid us, as afraid is a good way to encourage our interest?

I've given you options to choose or offer me one & we start there. But one condition is an absolute must. You must read what I present in links for you. Goes both ways.

Here is what you have. You make your assertions. You supply the evidence. You make your argument. Those are your options. All you have done so far is make assertions. If you want to show us something, it is up to you to do the work.

For times sake don't make it too long & too complex so it losses some on here. We allow rebuttals etc & replies but again those too must all be read.

How ironic. Don't you think the miles of posting you have done so far, fits in that category. Of course, you just repeat every erroneous statement you post from one to the next. Maybe you do not consider that sort of propaganda technique as contributing to "too long & too complex".

I'm still uncomfortable today. I'll always be somewhat limited to time I can spend on here due to pain it causes.

Sorry to hear that. I hope you get better.

Perhaps if you cut out all the erroneous assertions, logical fallacies and repetition, you would have more time.

Go for it & you guys come together & decide where we start but must agree to fair ground rules. Otherwise I know you aren't interested in real truth only bashing other opinions. Ironically the credentials of those on that list would dwarf most if not everyone on this thread or board.

The rules of debate are well established. We have been waiting for pages for you to start in using them.

Ball in your court. Surrender or take the challenge since its totally fair. Debates with debate teams have to allow each side to make their points & rebuttals etc. So should we.

The ball is in your court. Make an argument or surrender.

There are already so many reasons to ignore you and drop even reading this thread. Many of these things have been explained to you. One of those things is the fact that you ignore us and just repeat while acting as if we have not responded. It is one of the reasons that I still wonder if this is a joke.

Either do something or we are done.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Since you can't or refuse to recognize the obvious point that upon seeing a cell phone you instantly recognize you are seeing proof of ID.

That tells me you are so blinded by your bias you can't & refuse to even attempt to look outside that box.
.
Why the ID Scientist Dissent movement. They too in their vastly superior science & other more specific fields see the science evidence of ID everywhere they look & what they study.

Suddenly what was nagging at them becomes full fledged issue. Then they find by expressing that honest science doubt. It brings down the wrath of science establishment against them because they don't have the freedom to express those doubts. If they officially do then Gestapo tactics are applied to them to ruin them like Dems do to any differing thoughts. They use their own thought police.

That's not science or honest academic science.

Those scientist could & would destroy you in a science debate. Many have happened & if judged independently & fairly evolutionist lose all the time.. Yet mainstream media won't tell the real truth but their agendized version of it.

I've even given you the chance to name that starting point with just a few conditions. Yet you aren't confident enough in your proven fact to take that offer & let's start.

As I explained. Every textbook I've read teaches science this way. It teaches evolution starting from Big Bang & then moves forward through certain steps to where you finally get to inanimate objects somehow producing or forming the chemicals exactly needed for life. The exact proportions needed & somehow they formed life. Despite man's extreme advacements since we still can't produce it by our own ID.

Then interestingly all these processes we have studied & can explain explicitly. That are complex & yet highly functional design.

Those processes aren't any point of disagreement.

The point is the evolutionist, naturalistic only, have to sell the idea all those developed, evolved on their own by evolutionary means w/o any ID involved.

Yet mankind uses Biomimicry to study nature's design which our own ID can't match, so we have to learn from a non thinking reasoning brain of evolution by pure random chance trial & error w/o it knowing its end game.

Man has tried devising artificial hearts, lungs & robots & yet they can't surpass a transplanted real one. Plus it proves the need & work of ID to even try & attempt it.

Books start w/evolution & then go all the other science which the science, sequences etc is correct. By teaching it after using evolution its inferring evolution is the reason & cause.

There's nothing further from the truth. Those processes those scientist are protesting against. Is that Dawinian evolution isn't capable of producing what it's being given credit for. Plus it's never allowed to present problems as Dr Singham tells in his article & so many quotes I have I've not shown you. Ironically some are from Dawkins & Hawking themselves.

Just give me a simple but straightforward article you guys can agree on. I read & reply with my thoughts & then you read any rebuttals I post from highly credentialed scientist that were trained as evolutionist until the problems got too big to ignore & it caused them to actually finally read others explanations. Then it made sense & they were not leaving their brains at the door.

Apparently you can't handle doing this academically honest so you back away.
.That says so much. Later tomorrow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you can't or refuse to recognize the obvious point that upon seeing a cell phone you instantly recognize you are seeing proof of ID.

What? Where did this crazy argument come from? I can see from your post that you still are not debating properly. You can't demand respect when you go out of your way to earn disrespect. Yes, a phone is obviously designed. So what? But it is not a product of IDiocy.

That tells me you are so blinded by your bias you can't & refuse to even attempt to look outside that box.

Making false claims about others will not win you any friends. It is a losing debating technique.

.
Why the ID Sari Ian Scientist Dissent movement. They too in their vastly superior science & other more specific fields see the science evidence of ID everywhere they look & what they study.

Oh my!! It is to laugh!

Suddenly what was nagging at them becomes full fledged issue. Then they find by expressing that honest science doubt. It brings down the wrath of science establishment against them because they don't have the freedom to express those doubts. If they officially do then Gestapo tactics are applied to them to ruin them like Dems do to any differing thoughts. They use their own thought police.

Again, let's not make false claims about others.

That's not science or honest academic science.

Those scientist could & would destroy you in a science debate. Many have happened & if judged independently & fairly evolutionist loss all the time.. Yet mainstream media won't tell the real truth but their agendized version of it.

You have to be kidding. Please don't make up fanciful stories.

I've even given you the chance to name that starting point with just a few conditions. Yet you aren't confident enough in your proven fact to take that offer & let's start.

You are back to admitting that you are wrong about evolution. Why do you do this?

As I explained. Every textbook I've read teaches science this way. It teaches evolution starting from Big Bang & then moves forward through certain steps to where you finally get to inanimate objects somehow producing or forming the chemicals exactly needed for life. The exact proportions needed & somehow they formed life. Despite man's extreme advacements since we still can't produce it by our own ID.

I am sorry, but this is not the case. Maybe from very simple high school textbooks do, but more advanced ones focus on specific parts of the process. But go ahead. Link some well used textbooks that do this. Or is this just another empty claim of yours?

Then interestingly all these processes we have studied & can explain explicitly. That are complex & yet highly functional design.

You must first properly define these terms. Creationists do not seem to be able to do so.

Those processes aren't any point of disagreement.

Since they are not properly defined how could they be?

The point is the evolutionist, naturalistic only, have to sell the idea all those developed, evolved on their own by evolutionary means w/o any ID involved.

Because ID believers have not shown any need for a "designer:'

Yet mankind uses Biomimicry to study nature's design which our own ID can't match, so we have to learn from a non thinking reasoning brain of evolution by pure random chance trial & error w/o it knowing its end game.

Man has tried devising artificial hearts, lungs & robots & yet they can't surpass a transplanted real one. Plus it proves the need & work of ID to even try & attempt it.

Books start w/evolution & then go all the other science which the science, sequences etc is correct. By teaching it after using evolution its inferring evolution is the reason & cause.

There's nothing further from the truth. Those processes those scientist are protesting against. Is that Dawinian evolution isn't capable of producing what it's being given credit for. Plus it's never allowed to present problems as Dr Singham tells in his article & so many quotes I have I've not shown you. Ironically some are from Dawkins & Hawking themselves.

Just give me a simple but straightforward article you guys can agree on. I read & reply with my thoughts & then you read any rebuttals I post from highly credentialed scientist that were trained as evolutionist until the problems got too big to ignore & it caused them to actually finally read others explanations. Then it made sense & they were not leaving their brains at the door.

Apparently you can't handle doing this academically honest so you back away.
.That says so much. Later tomorrow.

I grow tired. Once again, can you not debate properly? By posting this sort of unsupported nonsense you are only screaming to any thinking person that you are wrong.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Why are you guys making this hard? It's a simple thing.

All you get together & agree on one article about Evolution. For brevity sake don't make it huge for everyone's sake.

The article must be about Evolution & then describe how one (species, animal etc) evolved from its lower form to another higher form. Should be easy since you claim its proven fact.

It should be like science when it describes photosynthesis & how it came into being from nothing to what it is now.

A Finch to a higher order species of whatever it became. Or same with Moths etc.

Just pick the topic & article you guys agree is the best for explaining evolution. I then get to reply. But since we are going to try & be an open & honest academic discussion. We all MUST agree to read the others links & rebuttals fully. Me all of yours & you all of mine.

That's only fair.

Why is this so hard & scary for you guys? You claim you have proven truth on your side. Now you have a chance to prove it or possibly learn something yourself. How is more knowledge bad?

See you tomorrow!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you guys making this hard? It's a simple thing.

All you get together & agree on one article about Evolution. For brevity sake don't make it huge for everyone's sake.

The article must be about Evolution & then describe how one (species, animal etc) evolved from its lower form to another higher form. Should be easy since you claim its proven fact.

It should be like science when it describes photosynthesis & how it came into being from nothing to what it is now.

A Finch to a higher order species of whatever it became. Or same with Moths etc.

Just pick the topic & article you guys agree is the best for explaining evolution. I then get to reply. But since we are going to try & be an open & honest academic discussion. We all MUST agree to read the others links & rebuttals fully. Me all of yours & you all of mine.

That's only fair.

Why is this so hard & scary for you guys? You claim you have proven truth on your side. Now you have a chance to prove it or possibly learn something yourself. How is more knowledge bad?

See you tomorrow!

Can you please write proper posts? When you make claims as you have a mere wave of the hands refutes them since you hand waved them in. You need to support your claims.

Once again Do not use Gish Gallops, it is almost always a form of lying.

Right now we have noting to defend sine you have not made a valid attack. Can you write a post where you do not demonstrate utter ignorance?


But if you ask one question per post I will gladly try to answer it for you. If you post a mish mash mess of nonsense you will only get general corrections.

 

[John53]

Why are you guys making this hard? It's a simple thing.

All you get together & agree on one article about Evolution. For brevity sake don't make it huge for everyone's sake.

The article must be about Evolution & then describe how one (species, animal etc) evolved from its lower form to another higher form. Should be easy since you claim its proven fact.

It should be like science when it describes photosynthesis & how it came into being from nothing to what it is now.

A Finch to a higher order species of whatever it became. Or same with Moths etc.

Just pick the topic & article you guys agree is the best for explaining evolution. I then get to reply. But since we are going to try & be an open & honest academic discussion. We all MUST agree to read the others links & rebuttals fully. Me all of yours & you all of mine.

That's only fair.

Why is this so hard & scary for you guys? You claim you have proven truth on your side. Now you have a chance to prove it or possibly learn something yourself. How is more knowledge bad?

See you tomorrow!

It's a complete waste of time until you learn how to use the forum, nobody has any idea as to what you are responding to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a complete waste of time until you learn how to use the forum, nobody has any idea as to what you are responding to.

It does not even look as if he is talking to anyone. I think he may be preaching and pretending to respond since all he has are a point series of PRATT's.

 

[John53]

It does not even look as if he is talking to anyone. I think he may be preaching and pretending to respond since all he has are a point series of PRATT's.

Then there's starting a thread and demanding others provide the information to be discussed, it's all a little odd........

 

[Polymath257]

Why are you guys making this hard? It's a simple thing.

All you get together & agree on one article about Evolution. For brevity sake don't make it huge for everyone's sake.

So yu want a complete treatment, but you don't want it to have too many details or be too long? Do you see the contradiction in that?

The article must be about Evolution & then describe how one (species, animal etc) evolved from its lower form to another higher form. Should be easy since you claim its proven fact.

Well, there is a problem with the terms 'lower' and 'higher'. Are reptiles higher or lower than amphibians? than mammals?

The transition between lobed-fin fish and land-dwelling amphibians is quite well documented. Would that be goo enough for you? Or, perhaps, the transition between reptiles and mammals?

How detailed do you want the information to be? Do you want specific discussion of the changes in the bone structures step by step? Or do you want the generalities at the level of a high school text?

It should be like science when it describes photosynthesis & how it came into being from nothing to what it is now.

Again with the 'from nothing'. Evolution does NOT proceed from 'nothing'. It proceeds from previously existing life and considers what changes happen in populations. Are you willing to discuss this? Or do you want to talk about cosmology instead?

A Finch to a higher order species of whatever it became. Or same with Moths etc.

This is another misunderstanding of what evolution says. For example, when mammals evolved out of a population of reptiles, the mammals are technically still a branch of reptiles. Do you understand that?

Just pick the topic & article you guys agree is the best for explaining evolution. I then get to reply. But since we are going to try & be an open & honest academic discussion. We all MUST agree to read the others links & rebuttals fully. Me all of yours & you all of mine.

That's only fair.

Why is this so hard & scary for you guys? You claim you have proven truth on your side. Now you have a chance to prove it or possibly learn something yourself. How is more knowledge bad?

See you tomorrow!

Well, one problem is that we have to deal with your extensive misunderstandings of what evolution actually says and is about. You jump back and forth between cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution. If you want to discuss evolution, stick with evolution. Isn't that fair?

If, however, you want to discuss cosmology and the Big Bang, stick to cosmology and the Big Bang. Isn't that fair?

And even there, we need to first establish that you understand what the actual scientific position is. That way we aren't debating something that is not the actual scientific position. Isn't that fair?

So, which do you want to discuss? Evolution in general? Evolution of some particular line (amphibians from fish, reptiles from amphibians, mammals from reptiles, birds from reptiles, humans from other apes)? Or do you want to discuss abiogenesis (which everyone admits we don't fully understand)? Or do you want to discuss the origin of the sun and Earth? Or do you want to discuss the Big Bang (I can discuss this in detail if you want)? Or do you want to discuss the 'Dissident List' and where it came from and how it is used?

Can you pick a topic and stick to it?

 

[ecco]

But for discussions sake. Let's just go with Scientist Dissent List. Because it first destroys evolutionist claims all top credentialed scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution.

Should we be surprised that someone trots out the old Scientist Dissent List?

Should we be surprised that someone asserts that "evolutionist claims all top credentialed scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution"? No one claims that all top credentialed scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution. So, should we be surprised that someone intentionally posted something that is just dishonest?

Should we be surprised that someone feels that 1000 Phd's has any meaning? That's about 1/10th of 1% of PhDs.


Should we be surprised that someone feels that a PhD holder like Ben Stuart is qualified to discuss the finer points of evolution?

Dr. Stuart's current research interests include biofuels production from waste and renewable feedstocks, and nutrient cycling in algae biomass processing systems.
​

Should we be surprised that someone believes that he is the first person to come into this forum touting the "Scientist Dissent List"?

 

[HonestJoe]

So let's assume we just dropped the very beginning.

No, I won't drop that. You have asserted that nobody is permitted to proposed evolutionary theory without proving the origins of the entire universe. I have asked you whether you apply the same principle to any other proposed theory (which would include any one involving a creator) and you have failed to answer. You've entirely failed to prove your core argument or address any of the logical issues with it so now you just want to drop it.

But for discussions sake. Let's just go with Scientist Dissent List. Why? Because it first destroys evolutionist claims all top credentialed scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution.

I've never heard that claim and certainly never made it. Disagreement and dissent is part of science but it needs to be done on a basis of logic and evidence, not just seeing who can produce the longest list of unvalidated names.

The problem is how that process came to be like it is, which is fully known & described by both sides.

There aren't two sides. There are several different ideas about how life developed (and indeed about how life came to be), many of which have cross-overs or are variations of each other. All sorts of aspects have been studied and tested or considered logically. Creationism and Intelligent Design are somewhat aspects of that, though neither are hypotheses themselves, merely abstract concepts and as far as I'm aware, nobody has presented any kind of detailed formal hypothesis based upon them.

Evolutions explanations for how those came to be just ignores too many problems & issues & avoids them by using just so stories & w/o true & proper science demonstration.

Some people think so, some people don't. I'm not convinced you have the technical knowledge and understanding to properly address that and I know I don't. You've been told there are problems with evolutionary theory and you've taken that on faith but you don't really know.

You've certainly not presented anything here supporting the idea that you do understand those technical details but if you want to discuss them, a religious forum isn't the best choice. Find one of the scientific forums, where you're more likely to find people who do understand the technical details and can discuss them with you.

 

[Patriottechsan]

I came back to check this before I leave for the day & most of the night. I find it truly amazing how you avoid at all costs doing the simple thing I ask. Despite all the bravado of you guys maybe gals too. You keep claiming its so proven by observation yet evolutionist usually say it's so slow that's why we can't see it in action.

You claim all these other things but won't post ONE article that validates you. That I can critically analyze. Why is that. You say its not necessary because it's proven. Yet refuse to post any article proving your point. I'm getting impatient

Until you do then you are conceding you can't do it. Sad really. So all you have is you words you can't back up

 

[Polymath257]

I came back to check this before I leave for the day & most of the night. I find it truly amazing how you avoid at all costs doing the simple thing I ask. Despite all the bravado of you guys maybe gals too. You keep claiming its so proven by observation yet evolutionist usually say it's so slow that's why we can't see it in action.

You claim all these other things but won't post ONE article that validates you. That I can critically analyze. Why is that. You say its not necessary because it's proven. Yet refuse to post any article proving your point. I'm getting impatient

Until you do then you are conceding you can't do it. Sad really. So all you have is you words you can't back up

Let's start with the basics: Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia

Does this give you what you want? If not, why not?

Or do you prefer this one? The Evolution of Mammals

 

[Subduction Zone]

I came back to check this before I leave for the day & most of the night. I find it truly amazing how you avoid at all costs doing the simple thing I ask. Despite all the bravado of you guys maybe gals too. You keep claiming its so proven by observation yet evolutionist usually say it's so slow that's why we can't see it in action.

You claim all these other things but won't post ONE article that validates you. That I can critically analyze. Why is that. You say its not necessary because it's proven. Yet refuse to post any article proving your point. I'm getting impatient

Until you do then you are conceding you can't do it. Sad really. So all you have is you words you can't back up

Learn how to debate properly if you want a debate. You have only been preaching, and preaching nonsense that tells us that you have almost no education in any of the sciences.

Are you up to a proper debate or discussion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What? Where did this crazy argument come from? I can see from your post that you still are not debating properly. You can't demand respect when you go out of your way to earn disrespect. Yes, a phone is obviously designed. So what? But it is not a product of IDiocy.



Making false claims about others will not win you any friends. It is a losing debating technique.



Oh my!! It is to laugh!



Again, let's not make false claims about others.



You have to be kidding. Please don't make up fanciful stories.




You are back to admitting that you are wrong about evolution. Why do you do this?



I am sorry, but this is not the case. Maybe from very simple high school textbooks do, but more advanced ones focus on specific parts of the process. But go ahead. Link some well used textbooks that do this. Or is this just another empty claim of yours?



You must first properly define these terms. Creationists do not seem to be able to do so.



Since they are not properly defined how could they be?



Because ID believers have not shown any need for a "designer:'



I grow tired. Once again, can you not debate properly? By posting this sort of unsupported nonsense you are only screaming to any thinking person that you are wrong.

Hey SZ. I am with you. I have gotten tired. The lack of respect. It is clear that the intent is to jerk everyone else around. For me personally, I am done here. I see no point to it. At least the other creationists will respond to you and address what a person posts.

 

[night912]

Since you can't or refuse to recognize the obvious point that upon seeing a cell phone you instantly recognize you are seeing proof of ID.

That tells me you are so blinded by your bias you can't & refuse to even attempt to look outside that box.
.
Why the ID Scientist Dissent movement. They too in their vastly superior science & other more specific fields see the science evidence of ID everywhere they look & what they study.

Suddenly what was nagging at them becomes full fledged issue. Then they find by expressing that honest science doubt. It brings down the wrath of science establishment against them because they don't have the freedom to express those doubts. If they officially do then Gestapo tactics are applied to them to ruin them like Dems do to any differing thoughts. They use their own thought police.

That's not science or honest academic science.

Those scientist could & would destroy you in a science debate. Many have happened & if judged independently & fairly evolutionist lose all the time.. Yet mainstream media won't tell the real truth but their agendized version of it.

I've even given you the chance to name that starting point with just a few conditions. Yet you aren't confident enough in your proven fact to take that offer & let's start.

As I explained. Every textbook I've read teaches science this way. It teaches evolution starting from Big Bang & then moves forward through certain steps to where you finally get to inanimate objects somehow producing or forming the chemicals exactly needed for life. The exact proportions needed & somehow they formed life. Despite man's extreme advacements since we still can't produce it by our own ID.

Then interestingly all these processes we have studied & can explain explicitly. That are complex & yet highly functional design.

Those processes aren't any point of disagreement.

The point is the evolutionist, naturalistic only, have to sell the idea all those developed, evolved on their own by evolutionary means w/o any ID involved.

Yet mankind uses Biomimicry to study nature's design which our own ID can't match, so we have to learn from a non thinking reasoning brain of evolution by pure random chance trial & error w/o it knowing its end game.

Man has tried devising artificial hearts, lungs & robots & yet they can't surpass a transplanted real one. Plus it proves the need & work of ID to even try & attempt it.

Books start w/evolution & then go all the other science which the science, sequences etc is correct. By teaching it after using evolution its inferring evolution is the reason & cause.

There's nothing further from the truth. Those processes those scientist are protesting against. Is that Dawinian evolution isn't capable of producing what it's being given credit for. Plus it's never allowed to present problems as Dr Singham tells in his article & so many quotes I have I've not shown you. Ironically some are from Dawkins & Hawking themselves.

Just give me a simple but straightforward article you guys can agree on. I read & reply with my thoughts & then you read any rebuttals I post from highly credentialed scientist that were trained as evolutionist until the problems got too big to ignore & it caused them to actually finally read others explanations. Then it made sense & they were not leaving their brains at the door.

Apparently you can't handle doing this academically honest so you back away.
.That says so much. Later tomorrow.

You actually refuted yourself with the first paragraph. I agree that we as humans recognize things which are designed. This is why the argument designed by you failed. By your logic, there isn't an intelligent designer because the world wasn't designed. We recognized the cell phone on the beach because we have knowledge that a cell phone was designed. But here's the thing, you recognised the cell phone as designed but you didn't recognize that the sand was designed. So the universe wasn't designed. You honestly know that the universe wasn't designed, you just mistakenly forgot to lie about it being "obviously designed."

 

[ecco]

I'm getting impatient

Perhaps, if you get impatient enough, you'll leave.

Then you can go back to your NoAtheistsAllowed.com and tell all your fellow Fundies how you slayed the big bad atheist dragon.

Bye, bye.