Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

Eyes support nothing but vision, and without post processing by neural tissue behind the optic charisma, even vision is not possible. It is not your ability to focus an image on your retina that is in question, it your substitution of limbic post processing for prefrontal post processing that leads you astray.

This is good! I do not care if I know what it means or not.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, what I am saying is that acceptance of evolution is spread across all branches of science and that all will look for validation of their conclusions within the parameters created by their theory.

So you are leveling your accusations "across all branches of science". I hope you appreciate just how sweeping and serious such an accusation is.

I have no problem with science or scientists, but I disagree strongly on their promotion of evolution as scientific fact, especially to children.

Can you provide a specific example?

Do I need a background in science to see that it has no actual proof for any of its claims? I can read its papers and articles.

I'm going to take your evasive answer as an indication that you have no background or experience in the sciences. So what we have here is a person (you) with no background or experience in the sciences...let alone evolutionary biology....leveling a set of very serious accusations against scientists.

Do you understand just how dishonest that makes you look?

If you scan this thread, I have demonstrated how science gets away with its claims without actually needing to provide any real proof that its interpretation of the evidence is accurate. It is all suggestion and conjecture....the papers are littered with "could have"....."might have"...."it is suggested that"...."leads us to the conclusion that".....this is not the language of facts....but supposition.

Wait....I thought you were complaining that scientists were presenting everything as fact, but here you are complaining that they present their conclusions tentatively.

Could it be that your real issue isn't with how they're presenting their conclusions, but rather is with the conclusions themselves (i.e., that they conflict with your religious beliefs)?

But that is just the point...science doesn't have actual evidence that microbes evolved into dinosaurs.

No, you either dodged the point again or you missed it entirely.

Again, the point is that you have leveled a set of very serious accusations against a large group of people, yet you have no evidence to back up those accusations.

I guess it depends upon "how" they stick their neck out. It is one thing to debate realities within the parameters of the theory, ( I am assuming that this might take place all the time with scientists challenging one another and to be the first to write a paper about it and get published in one of the journals) but I am guessing that it is something else entirely to step outside of that boundary altogether.

Ah, see....there's the problem. In a total absence of background and experience in the sciences, and without any supporting evidence, you "guess" and "assume" how scientists operate and interact, and then from that basis alone go on to accuse scientists of all sorts of things.

If you don't appreciate how immoral and dishonest that is, you might want to stop and give it a think.

My posts are not intended to evaluate scientific data, but to challenge what is commonly believed about it.

So you want to challenge the conclusions of science, while ignoring the data from which those conclusions are generated. I guess I have to say, that's pretty much the pattern with just about every creationist I've ever met.....not interested in the data, not interested in the empirical basis for conclusions, but solely focused on the conclusions themselves simply because they conflict with their religious beliefs.

It's sad.

I want to show people that it isn't as conclusive as science makes it out to be.

Without referring to the actual data from which the conclusions are drawn. If you don't see the problem there.......

I have no problem with evolution being taught for what it is...a theory, but I do object to it being regarded and taught as established fact, when it is no such thing.

Ah, the old "evolution is a theory not a fact" canard. FYI, all that talking point does is expose you as being quite ignorant in the fundamentals of science.

My aim is not to convince scientists of anything because I know better than to try.

Why not?

My aim is to create a more level playing field where people can use their common sense as well as other faculties to determine their own truth about how life originated, rather than just how it changed. The existence of a Creator is a game changer.

And that's what this is all about, isn't it? It's not that you've poured over stacks and stacks of scientific papers, evaluated their methods and analyses, and found their conclusions to be empirically unfounded. No, it's nothing more than you not liking that their conclusion wasn't "God did it".

I think most people have an exaggerated opinion of science and its capabilities. I want to explode that myth.

Then I suggest you take the time to gain some background and experience in science. Otherwise your arguments will always come across as your posts here....nothing more than rants against science from another ignorant internet creationist.

What I am doing is something you do not consider reasonable from your viewpoint, but you have to appreciate that what science teaches regarding life on this planet is unreasonable to people like me. Who is to say that you must be right and I must be wrong? Don't we each have the capacity to make that choice for ourselves? But the choice must be based on truth, not just one side's version of it.
Informed choice is the only one worth making.

If you truly believe that, then why not take the time to inform yourself?

I have backed up my claims with logical reasoning and common sense, which will appeal to people of faith

So in accusing scientists the world over of anti-God bias, you rely on the pro-God bias of "people of faith" to accept your accusations as true, even though you can't substantiate those accusations at all.

That's quite hypocritical.

if you can back up your arguments with actual proof that evolution ever happened, that would be adding balance to the discussion.

Of course I can.

Name calling and put downs accomplish nothing and add nothing of value to an interesting topic. But so far we have seen that many of those who support the sciences, also support character assassination as their weapon of choice.

I would just like the plain unadulterated truth to be told.

Look at my signature. What I've found over about 20 years of doing this is that creationists will engage in all sorts of dishonest tactics and say some extremely ridiculous and ignorant things about science, but then get extremely sensitive and upset if anyone calls them on it. Like here, even though you have no background or experience in science and have no supporting evidence, you nevertheless have deemed yourself qualified to cast broad, serious accusations against almost the entire scientific community.

If you did all that in person, I'd probably call you some names.....and honestly, I think you would deserve it. Personally I try and be more careful about the accusations I throw around, but I guess you don't feel that sort of moral obligation.

 

[Sapiens]

No, what I am saying is that acceptance of evolution is spread across all branches of science and that all will look for validation of their conclusions within the parameters created by their theory. I have no problem with science or scientists, but I disagree strongly on their promotion of evolution as scientific fact, especially to children.

Once again. The ToE is not fact, it is probable.

Do I need a background in science to see that it has no actual proof for any of its claims? I can read its papers and articles.

I rather doubt that you can and I am quite sure that you don't. Much of the literature strains my level of knowledge and utterly looses my wife (who has a Masters in Nursing).

If you scan this thread, I have demonstrated how science gets away with its claims without actually needing to provide any real proof that its interpretation of the evidence is accurate. It is all suggestion and conjecture....the papers are littered with "could have"....."might have"...."it is suggested that"...."leads us to the conclusion that".....this is not the language of facts....but supposition.

It has been repeately explained to you why scientific papers are worded hesitantly and in the passive voice. That does not mean that the authors are not rater sure of thier results.

But that is just the point...science doesn't have actual evidence that microbes evolved into dinosaurs.

Lots and lots of evidence, you are simply not familiar with it and are disinterested in learning about it.

They have evidence for adaptation and then take that to unprovable extremes.

Not provable, just very highly probable. Your take, however, is not probable, it is very highly unlikely.

All the fossils tell us is that these creatures once existed, but there is not a shred of real evidence that one evolved into another...that is where the supposition and interpretation of the evidence comes in.

Immunology and genomics are not supposition and interpretation.

You cannot prove that it ever happened though you can "suggest" it till the cows come home.

Again, no one ever claims "proof" just very high probability. Why you stick with hypothesis that have been shown to be very improbable is beyond reason.

I guess it depends upon "how" they stick their neck out. It is one thing to debate realities within the parameters of the theory, ( I am assuming that this might take place all the time with scientists challenging one another and to be the first to write a paper about it and get published in one of the journals) but I am guessing that it is something else entirely to step outside of that boundary altogether.

Not if that is where the evidence leads.

My posts are not intended to evaluate scientific data, but to challenge what is commonly believed about it.

Then stop trying to make pronouncements that require scientific acumen, you are not up to the task.

I want to show people that it isn't as conclusive as science makes it out to be.

No, you are trying to say that the ToE is false because scientists only maintain that it is very highly probable. You pretend that our failure to not advance the ToE on an unequivocal basis somehow validates your dismissal of it.

That is why I present things the way I do.

You present things the way you do because you are (by your own admission) ignorant of the sciences and perfer to worship at the Golden Calf of "common sense."

Most people are not educated in the sciences to any great degree, but have come to believe what they say without question. But science can be wrong about many things, as it has been demonstrated through decades of discovery.

What has been demonstrated is that when science is wrong it is self correcting. If science is wrong concerning the ToE, you needn't worry, we'll fix it.

I have no problem with evolution being taught for what it is...a theory, but I do object to it being regarded and taught as established fact, when it is no such thing.

That's a pedagogical problem, that you have repeatedly demonstrated repeatedly (in this thread, nay, this post alone) that you have little or no grasp of.

My aim is not to convince scientists of anything because I know better than to try. My aim is to create a more level playing field where people can use their common sense as well as other faculties to determine their own truth about how life originated, rather than just how it changed. The existence of a Creator is a game changer.

Then take the bull by the horns and prove the existance of a "game changer," 'cause ... if there is no "game changer" you have no argument.

I appreciate that, but at the same time, I think most people have an exaggerated opinion of science and its capabilities. I want to explode that myth.

Don't you think you should learn a bit more about it first? Would you undertake the repair of of helicopter's collective before you learned the theory behind how it works and how a helicopter flies?

For example, we can examine what science has contributed to the world and balance that out with the damage that it has done as well....atomic power plants and weapons come to mind.....

I don't know a single biological scientist who was employed in the design or production of either atomic power plants and weapons, so why are you so hot after the ToE. Similarly the contribution of Nuclear Physicists to the ToE is passing small.

What I am doing is something you do not consider reasonable from your viewpoint, but you have to appreciate that what science teaches regarding life on this planet is unreasonable to people like me.

Just as you have to appreciate that most people on earth think that people like you are unreasoning. I remind you that you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

Who is to say that you must be right and I must be wrong?

That, I fear, is a majority rules issue. You lost.

Don't we each have the capacity to make that choice for ourselves?

No, we don't.

But the choice must be based on truth, not just one side's version of it.
Informed choice is the only one worth making.

By your own admission you are proud that you are uninformed. How do you square that circle?

I have backed up my claims with logical reasoning and common sense, which will appeal to people of faith

Rather, you have backed up your claims with pretenses of logical reasoning and common sense, which require ann extreme variety of faith to be believed because they fly in the face of the majorities actual logical reasoning and common sense.

.....if you can back up your arguments with actual proof that evolution ever happened, that would be adding balance to the discussion.

There you go, looking for proof. All I can offer you is very high probability. Why do you insist on taking the low probability sucker bet?

There is much that has already been presented and dealt with at this stage however.

Not really, you have a hobby horse named "Proof" that you keep rocking back and forth on while you put your money on the sucker bet.

Name calling and put downs accomplish nothing and add nothing of value to an interesting topic. But so far we have seen that many of those who support the sciences, also support character assassination as their weapon of choice.

I would just like the plain unadulterated truth to be told.

The plain unadulterated truth is that you state that you are proud to be ignorant and that you quote mine. Most people describe quote mining as a form of lying. How do you come up with the unadulterated truth when you put those two vile ingredients into your concoction?

 

[Sapiens]

It was somebody. I am not sure if it was you and I am not going to check out who it actually was. We are any people who are paying some attention to the thread. Is who said it going to confess? I think not.

ps thank you for talking to me. <3

It was someone, somewhere, sometime, but you're happy to make the accusation but are unwilling to do the work to support your claim. That sort of the light motif of this thread.

P.S. Thanks for the clear example.

 

[Deeje]

So you are leveling your accusations "across all branches of science". I hope you appreciate just how sweeping and serious such an accusation is.

It isn't sweeping and it isn't an accusation...it is simply a statement about the situation I see in the scientific community. Who among you is game to defend ID, even if they believe it?

Can you provide a specific example?

Teaching evolution as fact in public schools as if there is no option for another opinion. I believe there is a very valid option for belief in a Creator. So stop penalizing students for holding what is a another equally valid opinion in their estimations.

I'm going to take your evasive answer as an indication that you have no background or experience in the sciences. So what we have here is a person (you) with no background or experience in the sciences...let alone evolutionary biology....leveling a set of very serious accusations against scientists.

Do you understand just how dishonest that makes you look?

....about as dishonest as someone in the scientific community debunking the Creator. What do they really know about him and what has done?

I have never claimed any scientific credentials but I have much knowledge and experience with the Bible and its author.
Scientific credentials don't automatically translate to truth, any more than religious ones do. I would like to allow the readers here to see how reasonable the arguments are for the existence of an Intelligent Designer and I post vivid images of his creation to demonstrate my point. What have scientists got to demonstrate their points? Artists illustrations and diagrams that are solely based on someone's imagination.....or long winded arguments full of jargon that mean nothing at all to the average person.

Wait....I thought you were complaining that scientists were presenting everything as fact, but here you are complaining that they present their conclusions tentatively.

Ah, but that is just the point...unless you see that they are presented tentatively, you can gloss over the language and assume that it is a proven fact. Its a ploy to make something tentative appear to be factual. Smoke and mirrors.

Could it be that your real issue isn't with how they're presenting their conclusions, but rather is with the conclusions themselves (i.e., that they conflict with your religious beliefs)?

I can only give you examples of what I mean.....here are a couple of quotes from an article in Scientific American entitled..."15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"....even the title is designed to make creationists feel stupid, so its off to a good start with an attitude that lingers.....

"In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."

Can the NAS's definition of the theory of evolution really be unbiased?....."for all practical purposes"....what does that even mean? How can "indirect evidence" be "clear, unambiguous and compelling"....and to whom are they so? To people who already believe them.

So what?

"This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related."

Microevolution is adaptation, which is clearly seen in what science has been able to test. But to suggest that it went way beyond that is pure supposition. The fossil record didn't speak a language at all until science gave it one. The language of conjecture, supposition and educated guessing....but no real testable facts.

"The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries."

Inference rather than actual observation means.....'fill in the blanks with what you want to see there'.
Are predictions facts? I don't think so.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

This was published in 2002 but nothing has changed in the language of science to make inference appear to be fact. You guys see what you want to see.

See also Just Accidental?

Again, the point is that you have leveled a set of very serious accusations against a large group of people, yet you have no evidence to back up those accusations.

All I have done is expose science for not being quite truthful in the way it presents its "evidence". I have furnished quite a bit of evidence from science's own writings...they don't really say anything that they can back up with any verifiable proof. There are lots of "might have"s and "could have"s, but they cannot state a single thing with any certainty.

All science can say is "I think" it "might have" happened like this because the way we have "interpreted" the evidence "leads us to believe" that it "must have" happened this way...because our theory "suggests" that it did.

Ah, see....there's the problem. In a total absence of background and experience in the sciences, and without any supporting evidence, you "guess" and "assume" how scientists operate and interact, and then from that basis alone go on to accuse scientists of all sorts of things.

If you don't appreciate how immoral and dishonest that is, you might want to stop and give it a think.

I see science as guilty of the same "immoral and dishonest" conduct. People are free to decide for themselves who has the more compelling argument.

So you want to challenge the conclusions of science, while ignoring the data from which those conclusions are generated. I guess I have to say, that's pretty much the pattern with just about every creationist I've ever met.....not interested in the data, not interested in the empirical basis for conclusions, but solely focused on the conclusions themselves simply because they conflict with their religious beliefs.

No, I don't want to challenge the conclusions of science....I just want to expose the fact that their conclusions are not facts and that they have to "assume" a lot to arrive at their conclusions.

It's sad.

If there is a Creator who says he will bring his human creation to an accounting in the future, then yes, it is sad indeed.

Without referring to the actual data from which the conclusions are drawn. If you don't see the problem there.......

You want to go through this thread and see what I have presented? Be my guest...you are a late arrival.

Why not?

Irresistible force.....meet immovable object.

And that's what this is all about, isn't it? It's not that you've poured over stacks and stacks of scientific papers, evaluated their methods and analyses, and found their conclusions to be empirically unfounded. No, it's nothing more than you not liking that their conclusion wasn't "God did it".

On the contrary, I find that the scientific papers I have read destroy themselves with their own words.

Then I suggest you take the time to gain some background and experience in science.

You mean learn to speak your language, when you have no interest in learning mine?

What makes you think that science has the high ground here? Presenting biased interpretations of your own evidence doesn't make science more believable except to those who believe in the inerrancy of science in the first place. I don't.

Otherwise your arguments will always come across as your posts here....nothing more than rants against science from another ignorant internet creationist.

Or conversely your rants against ID with absolutely no understanding of the subject you are decrying.

So in accusing scientists the world over of anti-God bias, you rely on the pro-God bias of "people of faith" to accept your accusations as true, even though you can't substantiate those accusations at all.

No, I simply accuse scientists of all belonging to the same club with the same criteria for membership. Isn't that what you guys do to us?

Look at my signature.

Ah, Mr Scientist, apply it to yourself.

What I've found over about 20 years of doing this is that creationists will engage in all sorts of dishonest tactics and say some extremely ridiculous and ignorant things about science, but then get extremely sensitive and upset if anyone calls them on it. Like here, even though you have no background or experience in science and have no supporting evidence, you nevertheless have deemed yourself qualified to cast broad, serious accusations against almost the entire scientific community.

If you did all that in person, I'd probably call you some names.....and honestly, I think you would deserve it. Personally I try and be more careful about the accusations I throw around, but I guess you don't feel that sort of moral obligation.

Thank you for your patience in not calling me names, as it appears to be a common fault among those in the scientific community.

I just wish that scientists could see the same dishonesty with which they present their "facts" to the rest of the uneducated world....otherwise they just preach to the converted.

 

[metis]

Teaching evolution as fact in public schools as if there is no option for another opinion. I believe there is a very valid option for belief in a Creator. So stop penalizing students for holding what is a another equally valid opinion in their estimations.

Who's penalizing the students? I certainly didn't in my anthropology course.

And how can we teach i.d. as part of science when there's no objective evidence that such a creator-god actually exists? Even a scientific hypothesis needs some verifiable evidence that it could be true.

 

[Deeje]

Who's penalizing the students? I certainly didn't in my anthropology course.

In Australia, when high school students do science exams, they are expected to answer questions on evolution according to what is taught in class. It is taught as fact and answers are supposed to conform with their teaching, whether the student believes it or not.
This places our kids in a predicament.....their conscience is telling them one thing but if they do not answer the questions in accord with evolutionary teaching, they have marks deducted. Our kids sometimes qualify their answers with the preface "evolutionary teaching says that...." or "according to evolutionary teaching....."

And how can we teach i.d. as part of science when there's no objective evidence that such a creator-god actually exists? Even a scientific hypothesis needs some verifiable evidence that it could be true.

Religious education belongs in church or at home, not in public schools. I am not advocating for ID to be taught in a science class....what I am asking for is that dispensation be given to those who have belief in a Creator without penalising them at exam time.
We believe that we have verifiable evidence for our Creator everywhere we look, so just because other people are blind to it, is no reason to discount our beliefs. Surely there is room for both views? We are not asking that you accept them, but to accommodate them. Is that asking too much?

 

[metis]

In Australia, when high school students do science exams, they are expected to answer questions on evolution according to what is taught in class. It is taught as fact and answers are supposed to conform with their teaching, whether the student believes it or not.

I can't speak in regards to what may take place in Australian schools but I can speak from my experience in U.S. schools, and that is simply that exams generally reflect facts, not opinions. If I say that the Austrolopithecines came before the Homo forms, that is a fact that could show up on an exam-- not an opinion.

And if a student is taught in his/her church that the Earth is flat, does that mean an exam in the public schools cannot have a question on the shape of Earth? Instead, I would suggest that it is the religious institution's role to "correct" any of these "mistakes".

We believe that we have verifiable evidence for our Creator everywhere we look, so just because other people are blind to it, is no reason to discount our beliefs. Surely there is room for both views? We are not asking that you accept them, but to accommodate them. Is that asking too much?

I don't discount your believes, but I don't want your religious beliefs to be ramrodded as facts into our public school system.

BTW, did you ever stop to think that the "blind" accusation could be turned against you and your J.W.'s? The words "fact" and "belief" are not synonymous, and you have persistently conflated the two. I don't have a problem with you having the faith that you do-- quite the opposite as I feel it's quite commendable, but I do have a problem with those who do not respect the rights of others or who may believe differently or not at all.

Between atheists pushing their agenda, and theists pushing their agenda, it's by far the latter that I've overwhelmingly run across over my many years in education-- not the former.

 

[Deeje]

I can't speak in regards to what may take place in Australian schools but I can speak from my experience in U.S. schools, and that is simply that exams generally reflect facts, not opinions. If I say that the Austrolopithecines came before the Homo forms, that is a fact that could show up on an exam-- not an opinion.

And if a student is taught in his/her church that the Earth is flat, does that mean an exam in the public schools cannot have a question on the shape of Earth? Instead, I would suggest that it is the religious institution's role to "correct" any of these "mistakes".

I couldn't agree more. It is the role of parents to educate their children in religious matters, especially where they contradict what is taught in school. When a child comes of age they are then free to exercise their own mind in all things. As parents, we can only hope that we have done enough to offset the influences of the world that Jesus told us to be 'no part of'. But we cannot, and do not, force our children to accept our beliefs.
God doesn't so we shouldn't either. As a parent, he is a role model.

I don't discount your believes, but I don't want your religious beliefs to be ramrodded as facts into our public school system.

Neither do I. Jesus never ramrodded anything down anyone's throat.....he simply told the truth and allowed his audience to make their own decisions about it. We adopt the same attitude. But education needs to be well rounded, exploring all avenues.

BTW, did you ever stop to think that the "blind" accusation could be turned against you and your J.W.'s? The words "fact" and "belief" are not synonymous, and you have persistently conflated the two. I don't have a problem with you having the faith that you do-- quite the opposite as I feel it's quite commendable, but I do have a problem with those who do not respect the rights of others or who may believe differently or not at all.

All I have ever asked is that people tell the truth. When I see science fudging things by assuming way more than their "evidence" is suggesting, it makes me mad that people hang off their every word like it must be 100% true. When does science ever really tell the public that its a best guess, not actual fact?

Between atheists pushing their agenda, and theists pushing their agenda, it's by far the latter that I've overwhelmingly run across over my many years in education-- not the former.

If you look at the comments on this thread, who are the ones name calling and accusing others of lying? Who are really pushing their agenda on this thread? The ones who accept ID are just telling things as they see them...we don't have to resort to slander in order to get our point across. Attack is a very weak form of defense, so why do it?.....why betray your intelligence in what appears to be a desperate attempt to be right? I am not referring to you metis as I have always found you to be very fair minded.

 

[gnostic]

I am not a creationist. I support ID. Did I not make that clear?

No, you are not clear at all.

ID and creationism, whether it be here in Australia, or in the US, are one and same.

ID = creationism, whether you follow Discovery Institute or not. To them, ID is creationism, just as you believe JW that God is both creator and designer. I don't see how your JW any different from Discovery Institute.

So you don't follow Discovery Institute. It just a follower of JW.

BUT, you are contradicting yourself when you are saying you are not a "creationist". You say that you follow ID, but here...

I am not one bit interested in the Discovery Institute....I am interested in the Bible and what it says about creation and the one who created it.

The part in red clearly indicate, you are a creationist?

Why are you denying that you are not a creationist, but then say that you believe in the bible about creation?

Do you or do you not believe that God created this world?

If you do, then you are a creationist.

 

[Jose Fly]

It isn't sweeping and it isn't an accusation..

Um, yes it is. You go on to make several more accusations in this post alone, and given that you previously claimed these issues extend across all branches of science, that's about as sweeping as it gets.

it is simply a statement about the situation I see in the scientific community.

How do you see anything in the scientific community? Do you subscribe to any journals? Attend conferences?

Who among you is game to defend ID, even if they believe it?

You shouldn't mistake the scarcity of ID creationists as being due to some sort of persecution, when the reality is that it's due to ID creationism being just plain wrong.

Teaching evolution as fact in public schools as if there is no option for another opinion. I believe there is a very valid option for belief in a Creator. So stop penalizing students for holding what is a another equally valid opinion in their estimations.

That's not what I asked for. I asked for a specific example of some educational material in evolution that you object to. Try again.

....about as dishonest as someone in the scientific community debunking the Creator. What do they really know about him and what has done?

That's what this is really all about for you, isn't it? Like I noticed earlier, the root of all this is merely that the scientific community has reached conclusions that conflict with your religious beliefs, which creates a conflict. So you deal with this conflict by assuming and guessing that scientists are perpetrating (either knowingly or unknowingly) an anti-God agenda. That settles the conflict quite easily for you and doesn't require very much effort, introspection, or knowledge on your part...just assume the worst, believe it as a fact, and you're done!

What you don't realize is not only is that ridiculously intellectually lazy, it's also very dishonest.

I have never claimed any scientific credentials but I have much knowledge and experience with the Bible and its author.

So you have no scientific credentials or experience, and can't understand the jargon of the fields you're critiquing, yet you've anointed yourself qualified to evaluate and pass judgment on the conclusions?

Ah, but that is just the point...unless you see that they are presented tentatively, you can gloss over the language and assume that it is a proven fact. Its a ploy to make something tentative appear to be factual. Smoke and mirrors.

More accusations.

I wonder if you appreciate just how bizarre the above is. Scientists present conclusions tentatively to make them appear factual? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.....at all.

Not only that, but you've set up a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario, where you get to complain no matter what. When scientists present their conclusions as solid, you complain they're overselling, but when they present their conclusions tentatively, you (bizarrely) complain they're tricking people into thinking the conclusions are factual.

Again, not very honest of you.

I can only give you examples of what I mean.....here are a couple of quotes from an article in Scientific American entitled..."15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"....even the title is designed to make creationists feel stupid, so its off to a good start with an attitude that lingers.....

I know you'll never accept this, but the reason they use the word "nonsense" is because the creationist talking points they're addressing are nonsense.

Can the NAS's definition of the theory of evolution really be unbiased?....."for all practical purposes"....what does that even mean? How can "indirect evidence" be "clear, unambiguous and compelling"....and to whom are they so? To people who already believe them.

So what?

Why are you accusing the NAS of being biased?

"For all practical purposes" is something like "beyond all reasonable doubt" in law. They both basically mean that the conclusion/verdict is so well supported by the evidence and agreed to by the relevant parties, it is considered to be a fact.

Indirect evidence can be clear, unambiguous, and compelling in all sorts of cases. It's how we convict people of crimes for which there were no eyewitnesses. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA, etc. are all indirect evidence that can lead to a clear, unambiguous, and compelling conclusion.

Microevolution is adaptation, which is clearly seen in what science has been able to test. But to suggest that it went way beyond that is pure supposition. The fossil record didn't speak a language at all until science gave it one. The language of conjecture, supposition and educated guessing....but no real testable facts.

Again, how do you know what is "pure supposition"? You have no background or experience in science, and you admit that the jargon is over your head. So what do you think that means in terms of the value of your opinions on evolutionary biology and paleontology?

Inference rather than actual observation means.....'fill in the blanks with what you want to see there'.
Are predictions facts? I don't think so.

Again, all you're doing is further demonstrating what I stated earlier, i.e., that you really are ignorant of the basics of science, and your real issue here isn't with how scientists are doing their work, but is nothing more than how they've reached conclusions that conflict with your religious beliefs.

Like I said, it's not like you've poured over stacks of scientific journals, attended conferences, and after evaluating the data and methods found their conclusions lacking. No, this is simply "their conclusions conflict with my religious beliefs, therefore their conclusions must be wrong", and the rest is you just trying to justify that position ("they're biased", "they're using smoke and mirrors", etc.).

See also Just Accidental?

Thanks for linking to that, because it again confirms what I said earlier. Throughout that post your response to the conclusions of scientists is basically "The Bible says/I believe....", thereby exposing the root issue here....your beliefs being in conflict with the conclusions of science.

All I have done is expose science for not being quite truthful in the way it presents its "evidence".

Another accusation.

Not to me you haven't. All I've seen you do is make a series of unsubstantiated accusations against a lot of scientists, via a constant stream of "because I say so" assertions.

I have furnished quite a bit of evidence from science's own writings...they don't really say anything that they can back up with any verifiable proof. There are lots of "might have"s and "could have"s, but they cannot state a single thing with any certainty.

Another accusation.

I see science as guilty of the same "immoral and dishonest" conduct. People are free to decide for themselves who has the more compelling argument.

More accusations.

So when caught engaging in dishonest behavior, your response is to broadly accuse whole swaths of people of your own sins. That's terrible. You should be ashamed.

No, I don't want to challenge the conclusions of science....I just want to expose the fact that their conclusions are not facts and that they have to "assume" a lot to arrive at their conclusions.

But you don't want to learn the jargon, examine the data, understand their methods, and empirically test the conclusions...that would entail work and effort. No, you're far lazier. You want to just declare it all to be biased and flawed, and have people just accept your say-so as unquestioned gospel.

You want to go through this thread and see what I have presented? Be my guest...you are a late arrival.

No thanks. So far, you're pretty much just like every other creationist I've encountered. If you have something you think is unique and fresh, by all means....

On the contrary, I find that the scientific papers I have read destroy themselves with their own words.

Another accusation.

How about a specific example?

You mean learn to speak your language, when you have no interest in learning mine?

First of all, quit making excuses. If you aren't going to bother to learn the subjects that you've deemed yourself an expert in, then just say so. No need to try and accuse me of your faults.

Second, what jargon do you think I need to learn before I can understand your posts?

What makes you think that science has the high ground here?

Productive, useful results.

Presenting biased interpretations of your own evidence doesn't make science more believable except to those who believe in the inerrancy of science in the first place. I don't.

More accusations.

Or conversely your rants against ID with absolutely no understanding of the subject you are decrying.

First, again don't accuse me of your own faults.

Second, I'm very, very, very familiar with ID creationism, its advocates, and its arguments. So by all means, get as technical as you like.

No, I simply accuse scientists of all belonging to the same club with the same criteria for membership. Isn't that what you guys do to us?

More accusations.

And what "club" do you think all scientists belong to, and what do you think are the criteria for membership in it?

Ah, Mr Scientist, apply it to yourself.

I get the feeling this is going to be a recurring them with you, where whenever you're called out on your own dishonest behaviors, your response will be to childishly try and accuse me of them. IOW, your tactic is nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I?"

Thank you for your patience in not calling me names, as it appears to be a common fault among those in the scientific community.

I think you should consider the possibility that the reason you get called names so frequently is because you deserve it. The number of times you've tried to accuse me of your own sins in just this post would warrant some pretty choice name-calling in a lot of forums.

I just wish that scientists could see the same dishonesty with which they present their "facts" to the rest of the uneducated world....otherwise they just preach to the converted.

And you end your post with more accusations against scientists as a whole.

So you accuse the community of professional scientists of all sorts of terrible things, even though you have no background or experience in science, you don't understand their jargon, you don't understand their work, and you have no interest in gaining such experience or understanding.

And then you're perplexed at why people call you names.

You should really take some time for serious self-reflection.

 

[Deeje]

No, you are not clear at all.

ID and creationism, whether it be here in Australia, or in the US, are one and same.

ID = creationism, whether you follow Discovery Institute or not. To them, ID is creationism, just as you believe JW that God is both creator and designer. I don't see how your JW any different from Discovery Institute.

ID proponents are not necessarily "creationists"...there are different viewpoints on this.

From my perspective, the position I hold is that the earth is very ancient and the creative "days" were not literal 24 hr days, but thousands or even millions of years in length.
I believe that there is sufficient evidence for one Almighty, all powerful, highly intelligent entity who directed the creation of all things through his chosen agency.

So you don't follow Discovery Institute. It just a follower of JW.

I had never even heard of the Discovery Institute till you mentioned it. JW's have all the information they need to make decisions about creation, and the Creator. No one is making you believe in him. He will not force himself on anyone who does not want him.

I am interested in the Bible and what it says about creation and the one who created it.

The part in red clearly indicate, you are a creationist?

No it doesn't. I believe in a Creator who is an Intelligent Designer....that does not make me a Creationist.

Why are you denying that you are not a creationist, but then say that you believe in the bible about creation?

Do you or do you not believe that God created this world?

If you do, then you are a creationist.

Do you even listen?

 

[Deeje]

See also Just Accidental?

Thanks for linking to that, because it again confirms what I said earlier. Throughout that post your response to the conclusions of scientists is basically "The Bible says/I believe....", thereby exposing the root issue here....your beliefs being in conflict with the conclusions of science.

Let me just refresh my memory.....and we will see who is exposing who....I chose this site because the majority of people who don't have university degrees will glean their basic knowledge from sites like this.....

"From Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
It begins with.....

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution. (I will put my own commentary in red.)

"At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time."

The Bible supports the view that we are living on an old earth and that life has existed on this planet for eons of time.
Evolution does not want to touch abiogenesis for very good reasons......its not their problem. They somehow assume that how life changed is so much more important than how it first appeared. But if the first cause of all life on Earth is an intelligent and powerful Creator, then they pretend that it doesn't matter.....but the whole theory would be rendered baseless if that was the case. Saying I don't know if there is a God, or I don't believe in him, doesn't necessarily make him non-existent.

"Overwhelming evidence supports this fact.

If "interpreted evidence" is "overwhelming", it is only so to those who believe that it ever happened. It is a suggestion with lots of conjecture and assumption however, not proven facts. The "evidence" just as easily points to Intelligent Design.

Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago."

Yes, just two short centuries ago, man came to the conclusion that he was too intelligent to believe in God. That probably had more to do with the ignorance of 'the church' than the intelligence of scientists. But what an evolutionary triumph! Or perhaps it was an exercise of pure human imagination of the kind that they accuse ID'ers of inventing?

I find that the Bible attests to a long history of life...just not a long history of human life. There is no real evidence for a slow evolution of life from amoeba to huge land and aquatic animals, it's just that science interprets its "evidence" to fit its pet theory. It has fossil evidence that these creatures existed at some time, but not not a shred of evidence that one evolved from another. The evolution part is pure guesswork.There is not a single thing that links evolution's "chain" but wishful thinking.

"The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story."

The "multiple lines of evidence" are all produced by a system with the same pre-conceived idea about how they "think" life appeared to evolve down through time.
All evidence is judged by how well it fits with the notion of organic evolution.....a Creator cannot even be mentioned in the scenario because......he is...well...unscientific! "Reconstruction" is done with much license.


"Fossil evidence

"Nicholas Steno's anatomical drawing of an extant shark (left) and a fossil shark tooth (right). Steno made the leap and declared that the fossil teeth indeed came from the mouths of once-living sharks."

Wow! what a leap! Sharks teeth came from the mouths of once living sharks.....!! Very scientific.

"The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time."

There is no panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years.....there is however, loads of speculation about what might have happened when no one was there to document any of it. The "smudges" and "bits missing" are filled in by nothing more than imagination backed up by diagrams and illustrations. Guesswork and preconceived ideas are not the same as facts. If snapshots are out of focus, the detail remains a mystery.

"Early fossil discoveries

Two centuries later, Mary Ann Mantell picked up a tooth, which her husband Gideon thought to be of a large iguana, but it turned out to be the tooth of a dinosaur, Iguanodon. This discovery sent the powerful message that many fossils represented forms of life that are no longer with us today."

Wow again! The large iguana turned out to be a dinosaur! So extinction was discovered two hundred years after Nicholas Steno's fossil shark tooth. Does the Bible say that extinction of previous animal species is not possible? NO! It doesn't mention them at all since they were long gone when history began to be recorded. But it does focus on the creatures that share the planet with humans......like the ones we see today. They are not evolving but are presented as fully designed and made to thrive in an environment created for them.

Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

There are no proven transitional forms at all. It is speculated that some "may be" a transitional form, but there is no proof of one species evolving into another. It is nothing more substantial than a suggestion.

"Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull."

This is pure speculation. The existence of a number of similar earbones is not clear evidence that Pakicetus is related to whales and dolphins. What good are these earbones to a land dweller?

"A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms."

The location of the nostrils is not necessarily an indication of evolution, but can as easily be the product of intelligent design. Why can't these just be two different species. One lived on land and the other in the water. Who said Pakicetus was a whale ancestor? Where is the skull of an amphibious creature with the nostrils half way up? I notice that the transitional form is one of the smudges. Funny that.....

"Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist."

"As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time."

Is this what we are really seeing? Or is this what scientists are "suggesting" that we see? Where is the evidence that these are not separate species that existed at different times and simply had different shaped feet? There is no evidence for an evolutionary line of decent in any of them.....it is a suggestion. What was "predicted" by evolution is just as easily explained by ID.

Now tell me what I said that wasn't true?

 

[gnostic]

ID proponents are not necessarily "creationists"...there are different viewpoints on this.

Of course, there are those who believe that some advanced alien civilisation are the "Designers", but there are no evidences for that. And that form of ID also fall under the pseudoscience, just like those in the Discovery Institute that say God is the "Intelligent Designer".

There are no evidences to support either groups; just a lot of empty assumptions and wishful-thinking superstitions.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence for one Almighty, all powerful, highly intelligent entity who directed the creation of all things through his chosen agency.

If there were sufficient evidences for God, would it be available for all to see, both theists and non-theists, without relying on faith and belief?

You don't even know what "scientific evidence" or "empirical evidence" mean, Deeje. You use the word "evidence", but really don't understand why science require evidence.

Evidence for science is something that observable, measurable, quantifiable. Evidences can be used debunk a hypothesis or a theory, OR they can verify the hypothesis or theory is true.

And when scientist mean "observable", they don't just mean what a person "see" with their eyes.

For instance, radio wave. We cannot see radio wave (radio frequency or radio signal), nor hear it, but we have device that can measure it, use those frequencies to communicate over distance, where one would transmit the signal and the other receive the signal. That's all evidences to the existence of radio signals.

There are multiple applications for radio waves, such as listening to radio, watch tv, remote control, telecommunication, wi-fi network, satellite, radio telescope, etc.

So there are some equipment or tools that can be used to detect, measure or use anything that we cannot see or hear.

Do you understand what I am getting at, about "observable" evidence?

Evidence should be independent of what anyone believe, whether that person is a qualified scientist or not.

Can you observe or detect God? Can you measure or quantify God?

We know that radio frequencies exist, because of those application that I have listed, plus we can measure the signals.

The same thing cannot said about God, or angels or demons, afterlife (heaven and hell), etc. All these are based on a person's belief and faith that they exist. And your belief in God, is relying on a book, written by person, who had no understanding of science and only rudimentary understanding of nature.

The belief in the Almighty, as you said, rely on merely on your conviction. That's not evidence; that's simply your faith.

 

[ArtieE]

No it doesn't. I believe in a Creator who is an Intelligent Designer....that does not make me a Creationist.

You are per definition a creationist. "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4]"
Creationism - Wikipedia
If you believe in a Creator you are a creationist. You are just not a Young Earth Creationist.

 

[savagewind]

All I have ever asked is that people tell the truth. When I see science fudging things by assuming way more than their "evidence" is suggesting, it makes me mad that people hang off their every word like it must be 100% true.

And when "apostates" get mad when they see you hanging off the Governing Body's every word as though it must be true you call them what? Apostate?

 

[savagewind]

You are per definition a creationist. "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4]"
Creationism - Wikipedia
If you believe in a Creator you are a creationist. You are just not a Young Earth Creationist.

This is not correct. People who believe The Creator is the reason for it all do not have to believe God created everything specifically. I believe in God as per Genesis 1:1 but I assume most things are like they are due to natural processes. I imagine that there is something wonderful in everything and that something obeys the likes of The Creator, but not perfectly.

If I believed it all originated from the specific Act of God, it would all be perfect. It isn't.

 

[Sapiens]

If you look at the comments on this thread, who are the ones name calling and accusing others of lying? Who are really pushing their agenda on this thread? The ones who accept ID are just telling things as they see them...we don't have to resort to slander in order to get our point across. Attack is a very weak form of defense, so why do it?.....why betray your intelligence in what appears to be a desperate attempt to be right? I am not referring to you metis as I have always found you to be very fair minded.

Excuse me, but no one has called you names or accused you of lying. They have, rather, documented precisely where you lied (quote mined). You have provided no defense, because none is possible in the face of the clear evidence.

You, on the other hand, resort to slander (making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation, another form of lying) in the very act of accusing others of slandering you, since no slander was ever committed.

 

[Deeje]

Excuse me, but no one has called you names or accused you of lying. They have, rather, documented precisely where you lied (quote mined). You have provided no defense, because none is possible in the face of the clear evidence.

You, on the other hand, resort to slander (making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation, another form of lying) in the very act of accusing others of slandering you, since no slander was ever committed.

Sapiens, instead of whining like a child about people lying and damaged reputations (egos) how about you address what was re-posted above in #1974 from berkeley.edu, (a site obviously designed to educate non-degree-possessing individuals) and tell me where I am lying? This is quoted verbatim and interspersed only with my own comments.
The world of science speaks its own language and needs translation for us uneducated morons....

So, what did I say that was not true? Is something lost in the translation? Or is this what science is really trying to promote as if it is indisputable truth?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let me just refresh my memory.....and we will see who is exposing who....I chose this site because the majority of people who don't have university degrees will glean their basic knowledge from sites like this.....

"From Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
It begins with.....

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution. (I will put my own commentary in red.)

"At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time."

The Bible supports the view that we are living on an old earth and that life has existed on this planet for eons of time.
Evolution does not want to touch abiogenesis for very good reasons......its not their problem. They somehow assume that how life changed is so much more important than how it first appeared. But if the first cause of all life on Earth is an intelligent and powerful Creator, then they pretend that it doesn't matter.....but the whole theory would be rendered baseless if that was the case. Saying I don't know if there is a God, or I don't believe in him, doesn't necessarily make him non-existent.

"Overwhelming evidence supports this fact.

If "interpreted evidence" is "overwhelming", it is only so to those who believe that it ever happened. It is a suggestion with lots of conjecture and assumption however, not proven facts. The "evidence" just as easily points to Intelligent Design.

Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago."

Yes, just two short centuries ago, man came to the conclusion that he was too intelligent to believe in God. That probably had more to do with the ignorance of 'the church' than the intelligence of scientists. But what an evolutionary triumph! Or perhaps it was an exercise of pure human imagination of the kind that they accuse ID'ers of inventing?

I find that the Bible attests to a long history of life...just not a long history of human life. There is no real evidence for a slow evolution of life from amoeba to huge land and aquatic animals, it's just that science interprets its "evidence" to fit its pet theory. It has fossil evidence that these creatures existed at some time, but not not a shred of evidence that one evolved from another. The evolution part is pure guesswork.There is not a single thing that links evolution's "chain" but wishful thinking.

"The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story."

The "multiple lines of evidence" are all produced by a system with the same pre-conceived idea about how they "think" life appeared to evolve down through time.
All evidence is judged by how well it fits with the notion of organic evolution.....a Creator cannot even be mentioned in the scenario because......he is...well...unscientific! "Reconstruction" is done with much license.


"Fossil evidence

"Nicholas Steno's anatomical drawing of an extant shark (left) and a fossil shark tooth (right). Steno made the leap and declared that the fossil teeth indeed came from the mouths of once-living sharks."

Wow! what a leap! Sharks teeth came from the mouths of once living sharks.....!! Very scientific.

"The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time."

There is no panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years.....there is however, loads of speculation about what might have happened when no one was there to document any of it. The "smudges" and "bits missing" are filled in by nothing more than imagination backed up by diagrams and illustrations. Guesswork and preconceived ideas are not the same as facts. If snapshots are out of focus, the detail remains a mystery.

"Early fossil discoveries

Two centuries later, Mary Ann Mantell picked up a tooth, which her husband Gideon thought to be of a large iguana, but it turned out to be the tooth of a dinosaur, Iguanodon. This discovery sent the powerful message that many fossils represented forms of life that are no longer with us today."

Wow again! The large iguana turned out to be a dinosaur! So extinction was discovered two hundred years after Nicholas Steno's fossil shark tooth. Does the Bible say that extinction of previous animal species is not possible? NO! It doesn't mention them at all since they were long gone when history began to be recorded. But it does focus on the creatures that share the planet with humans......like the ones we see today. They are not evolving but are presented as fully designed and made to thrive in an environment created for them.

Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

There are no proven transitional forms at all. It is speculated that some "may be" a transitional form, but there is no proof of one species evolving into another. It is nothing more substantial than a suggestion.

"Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull."

This is pure speculation. The existence of a number of similar earbones is not clear evidence that Pakicetus is related to whales and dolphins. What good are these earbones to a land dweller?

"A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms."

The location of the nostrils is not necessarily an indication of evolution, but can as easily be the product of intelligent design. Why can't these just be two different species. One lived on land and the other in the water. Who said Pakicetus was a whale ancestor? Where is the skull of an amphibious creature with the nostrils half way up? I notice that the transitional form is one of the smudges. Funny that.....

"Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist."

"As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time."

Is this what we are really seeing? Or is this what scientists are "suggesting" that we see? Where is the evidence that these are not separate species that existed at different times and simply had different shaped feet? There is no evidence for an evolutionary line of decent in any of them.....it is a suggestion. What was "predicted" by evolution is just as easily explained by ID.

Now tell me what I said that wasn't true?

Pretty much all of your commentary was meaningless. Nothing was counter pointed. You claimed a lot of false things and mostly made derogatory comments to the science but really at the end your didn't say much of anything. You kind of remind me of that crazy lady who was a creationist that made an *** of herself as she attempted to debunk a musuem with her snapchats.

It takes some real something to look at something square in the face and pretend it isn't there.

Could you watch a video I link to you and give me play by play feedback? Like in a video or recording? I won't lie its mostly for my entertainment but I swear I will post it on Youtube for you if you do.

Here is the video.