Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

My claim is nothing more than "I don't know." I'm not even sure that "before" the big bang makes any sense, given that time came into existence at the big bang.

Fine, you don't know.

No it isn't, not when it's demonstrable.

Demonstrate then already.

Circular reasoning is "The Bible is true because the Bible says its true."

False. The prophesies prove it true.

Can you provide some demonstration that processes operated differently in the past than they do now?

Can you provide some demonstration that processes operated the same in the past as they do now? No. You can't. So you believe.

And you think belief in a god is the same type of belief that says the sun will rise tomorrow?

Except far far far far far more certain.

Or that belief in a demonstrable process is the same as belief that the Bible is an actual recording of the words of a god?

If there is a process now, so what? That has nothing demonstrable to do with the creation evolution debate.

 

[dad1]

Science is soooooo not religion. I'm curious to know why you think it is though.

You believe without being able to prove. With no observation or testing. Tested the state of the past lately?

 

[dad1]

No, YOU claim there was a global flood

No God does! YOU claim there was none. I say, "Can you demonstrate that?" It's on you to back it up your own claims. God backed up His by raising Jesus from being truly very dead.

We don't just have to all believe anything anybody says unless we can prove it wrong. Sorry.

So we should believe in your fantasy same state past because it can't be supported?? Gong!

 

[dad1]

Which clearly indicates that you really don't know even basic science and how it's conducted.

I do. You don't. It is conducted by believing real hard. At least as far as the origins sciences. Period.

religion: faith

science: evidence

False. ALL models of the past and origin claims rest on ONE premise and only one. That the past was the same. There is not the tiniest smidgen of evidence for that belief.

 

[metis]

Which clearly indicates that you really don't know even basic science and how it's conducted.

I do. You don't. It is conducted by believing real hard. At least as far as the origins sciences. Period.

Oh, so that's why I taught science (anthropology) for roughly 30 years.

False. ALL models of the past and origin claims rest on ONE premise and only one. That the past was the same. There is not the tiniest smidgen of evidence for that belief.

What you are doing is using what you've been brainwashed to believe, probably by your denomination and/or church, and I can relate to that as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught the same anti-science nonsense. Fortunately, when doing my under-grad work I realized I was being sold a bill-of-goods by my church, which also defied any sound theology plus even basic common sense. With the latter, all material things appear to change over time, and genes are material things. To not understand that is to not even understand what we see happening every day of the week right in front of our eyes.

Needless to say, I left that anti-science church and later converted to a church that didn't each such theological blindness. And then, about two decades later, I began to also teach theology, including a comparative-religions course.

Anyone who understands even basic theological approaches well knows that beliefs about God or Gods are not formed through objectively-derived evidence because it simply isn't there, but on faith, often intuitive. Science, otoh, cannot use that same process because it all too often leads to unsubstantiated bias, which is why the "scientific method" was devised to try and eliminate such bias as much as possible.

Therefore, back to the formula:

religion: faith

science: evidence

If one doesn't understand and accept that, then they do not really understand religion nor science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fine, you don't know.

Great.

Demonstrate then already.

It’s done. Plenty of evidence has been provided for you by other posters who are much more knowledgable than I.

False. The prophesies prove it true.

Except that they don't. Vague pronouncements that can be made to fit multiple occasions and events long after the fact in history are not remarkable at all to me. They're about on par with Nostradamus prophecies. Never mind that you have to ignore the "prophecies" that didn't come true for this stuff to make any sense.

Can you provide some demonstration that processes operated the same in the past as they do now? No. You can't. So you believe.

You’re really not understanding this burden of proof thing, are you? You claim that processes operated differently in the past than they do now, which contradicts the available evidence.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Except far far far far far more certain.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating the veracity of all of your claim. Instead you fall back on faith claims.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing in things, when they don’t have a good reason.

-Matt Dillahunty

If there is a process now, so what? That has nothing demonstrable to do with the creation evolution debate.

In fact there is. The ToE has mountains of evidence behind it. You avoid the point.

The ToE is demonstrable and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. Your god beliefs are not demonstrable, or you would have demonstrated them by now. The former requires no blind faith. The latter requires all blind faith. Faith is not a reliable path to truth, as one can believe anything on faith.

You believe without being able to prove. With no observation or testing. Tested the state of the past lately?

Utter nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No God does! YOU claim there was none. I say, "Can you demonstrate that?" It's on you to back it up your own claims.

You claim it, and people who wrote a book thousands of years ago claim it. In this discussion, it's your claim. Your burden of proof. This isn't rocket science here.

I don't believe in things for which I have seen no evidence.

God backed up His by raising Jesus from being truly very dead.

And now you've thrown yet another claim into the mix.

You believe without being able to prove. With no observation or testing. Tested the state of the past lately?

It is you that believes that processes on earth behaved differently in the past than they do in the present, without being able to demonstrate it.

So we should believe in your fantasy same state past because it can't be supported?? Gong!

Yours is the fantasy. Unless you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You believe without being able to prove. With no observation or testing. Tested the state of the past lately?

So what's your definition of religion? Believing something that you aren't able to "prove?"

 

[dad1]

Oh, so that's why I taught science (anthropology) for roughly 30 years.

Teaching regurgitated bad religion eh?

What you are doing is using what you've been brainwashed to believe, probably by your denomination and/or church, and I can relate to that as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught the same anti-science nonsense. Fortunately, when doing my under-grad work I realized I was being sold a bill-of-goods by my church, which also defied any sound theology plus even basic common sense.

No, you chose to believe lies.

With the latter, all material things appear to change over time, and genes are material things

We don't even know if there was any genes as we now know them in Noah's day.

. To not understand that is to not even understand what we see happening every day of the week right in front of our eyes.

What we see now is not relevant to what Adam saw.

Needless to say, I left that anti-science church and later converted to a church that didn't each such theological blindness. And then, about two decades later, I began to also teach theology, including a comparative-religions course.

One can make a good living growing mushrooms in the dark I guess.

Anyone who understands even basic theological approaches well knows that beliefs about God or Gods are not formed through objectively-derived evidence because it simply isn't there, but on faith, often intuitive. Science, otoh, cannot use that same process because it all too often leads to unsubstantiated bias, which is why the "scientific method" was devised to try and eliminate such bias as much as possible.

Science is pagan bias and belief. Their methods reflect their religious bend.

Therefore, back to the formula:

religion: faith

science: evidence

Science has no evidence for a same state past, yet they build all models on that. Sp science is faith. 100%.

 

[dad1]

Great.



It’s done. Plenty of evidence has been provided for you by other posters who are much more knowledgable than I

False. None has been presented at all. Your inability to realize that reflects a desire to believe a certain way.

Except that they don't. Vague pronouncements that can be made to fit multiple occasions and events long after the fact in history are not remarkable at all to me. They're about on par with Nostradamus prophecies. Never mind that you have to ignore the "prophecies" that didn't come true for this stuff to make any sense.

Ignorance.

You’re really not understanding this burden of proof thing, are you? You claim that processes operated differently in the past than they do now, which contradicts the available evidence.

You’re really not understanding this burden of proof thing, are you? You claim that processes operated the same in the past as they do now, for which contradicts the bible and history, and for which there is no available evidence.

In fact there is. The ToE has mountains of evidence behind it. You avoid the point.

Take the fossil record for example. If man and most animals could not leave remains, there would not be fossils of them. There aren't! So when you look at that fossil record and assume it is evidence that man and most animals were not alive, that is nothing but a belief in a same state past. ALL your supposed evidences likewise are religious rubbish.

Your god beliefs are not demonstrable,

First of all, who asked you about my beliefs?? You should be defending your beliefs that were peddled off as science here. Secondly, Jesus demonstrated He was God.

 

[dad1]

You claim it, and people who wrote a book thousands of years ago claim it. In this discussion, it's your claim. Your burden of proof. This isn't rocket science here.

I believe they were right. You believe they were wrong but have no proof.

I don't believe in things for which I have seen no evidence.

You believe nature was the same in the far past on earth? Evidence?


It is you that believes that processes on earth behaved the same in the past than they do in the present, without being able to demonstrate it.


Yours is the fantasy. Unless you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

False. None has been presented at all. Your inability to realize that reflects a desire to believe a certain way.

See:

Post #472
Post #484
Post #489
Post #803
Post #812
Post #862
Post #870

Yeah, you’re right. At least seven posts on the subject is equal to “none has been presented.” In Bizarro World.

What’s that you were saying about my desire to believe a certain way?

Sorry but ignoring stuff doesn’t make it disappear.

Ignorance.

Great non-answer. Total avoidance of the point. You’re good at that.

You’re really not understanding this burden of proof thing, are you? You claim that processes operated the same in the past as they do now, for which contradicts the bible and history, and for which there is no available evidence.

I claim what is demonstrable. You claim that which you have failed to demonstrate.

I don’t rely on what old books written by people who knew far less about the world we live in than we do now. Whether something contradicts Bible stories or not has no bearing on reality.

Once again, you claim that natural processes were different in the past than they are now. Such an assertion flies in the face of the available evidence. The burden of proof is yours.

Take the fossil record for example. If man and most animals could not leave remains, there would not be fossils of them. There aren't! So when you look at that fossil record and assume it is evidence that man and most animals were not alive, that is nothing but a belief in a same state past. ALL your supposed evidences likewise are religious rubbish.

I have no idea what you’re saying here.

But you do know that there is much more evidence for the ToE than just the fossil record, right? I pointed out genetics/genomics as further evidence, like 20 pages ago.

First of all, who asked you about my beliefs?? You should be defending your beliefs that were peddled off as science here.

You seem to think your beliefs are facts. I’m pointing out that they’re not.

Secondly, Jesus demonstrated He was God.

Another unverifiable claim. Ho hum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe they were right.

On what basis do you hold that belief?

You believe they were wrong but have no proof.

Once again, burden of proof. You need to understand it. The burden is on the person MAKING THE CLAIM. You claim that everything in the Bible is true and accurate. Your burden of proof.

You believe nature was the same in the far past on earth? Evidence?
It is you that believes that processes on earth behaved the same in the past than they do in the present, without being able to demonstrate it.

Yes, I believe that based on the available evidence. Some of which has been provided on this thread, despite your claims to the contrary.

Yours is the fantasy. Unless you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence and I'M the only living in a fantasy? LOL Whatever you say.

 

[metis]

Teaching regurgitated bad religion eh?
No, you chose to believe lies.

We don't even know if there was any genes as we now know them in Noah's day.

What we see now is not relevant to what Adam saw.

One can make a good living growing mushrooms in the dark I guess.
Science is pagan bias and belief. Their methods reflect their religious bend.
Science has no evidence for a same state past, yet they build all models on that. Sp science is faith. 100%.

 

[dad1]

We don't even know if there was any genes as we now know them in Noah's day. In fact I doubt it.
What we see now is not relevant to what Adam saw. Not unless you prove the same nature existed.

Science is pagan bias and belief. Their methods reflect their religious bend.
Science has no evidence for a same state past, yet they build all models on that. So clearly science is faith. 100%.

 

[dad1]

See:

Post #472
Post #484
Post #489
Post #803
Post #812
Post #862
Post #870

In EVERY case I reponded. Name anything in those responses you think you have some point about. Instead you post numbers. Ha.

What’s that you were saying about my desire to believe a certain way?

Rather than cite defeated posts without the responses and some point, you demonstrate nothing but a choice of beliefs.

I claim what is demonstrable. You claim that which you have failed to demonstrate.

All you demo is a vague and blind and zealous religious bias.

I don’t rely on what old books written by people who knew far less about the world we live in than we do now. Whether something contradicts Bible stories or not has no bearing on reality.

Better tan making stuff up, I would suggest.

Once again, you claim that natural processes were different in the past than they are now. Such an assertion flies in the face of the available evidence. The burden of proof is yours.

Once again, you claim that natural processes were the same in the past as they are now. Such an assertion flies in the face history and has zero available evidence. The burden of proof is yours.
.

But you do know that there is much more evidence for the ToE than just the fossil record, right? I pointed out genetics/genomics as further evidence, like 20 pages ago.

There were only genetics as we know them if there was a same state past. You cannot just claim there was cause you feel like it to support your little pagan stories.


Hoo ha

 

[dad1]

On what basis do you hold that belief?

On the available facts.

Yes, I believe that based on the available evidence. Some of which has been provided on this thread, despite your claims to the contrary.

No evidence for your same state past yet eh?

 

[SkepticThinker]

In EVERY case I reponded. Name anything in those responses you think you have some point about. Instead you post numbers. Ha.

You said, and I quote, “False. None has been presented at all. Your inability to realize that reflects a desire to believe a certain way.” So did you just forget about them, or were you being dishonest just then?

You responded to some of them with more of your baseless claims.

Ha.

Rather than cite defeated posts without the responses and some point, you demonstrate nothing but a choice of beliefs.

First of all, the idea that you think you “defeated” those posts with your baseless and unverified claims is pretty funny.

Secondly, you said no evidence was provided. Lots of evidence was provided. You have provided ZERO evidence for your claims and beliefs.

All you demo is a vague and blind and zealous religious bias.

You’re the one with the unverified and preconceived religious beliefs that you don’t seem to be able to deviate from, no matter the evidence presented to you.

The scientific method is about as far from religious belief as it can get.

Better tan making stuff up, I would suggest.

All you’ve done up to this point is make things up. And now you’re trying to project that onto others.

Once again, you claim that natural processes were the same in the past as they are now. Such an assertion flies in the face history and has zero available evidence. The burden of proof is yours.

All available evidence indicates that is the case. Since you have failed to provide any evidence backing up YOUR claims that natural processes were quite different in the past, you’ve provided no reason for me or anybody else to change their view on the subject.

There were only genetics as we know them if there was a same state past.

We can trace genetic lineage into the past and across species. Explain how that is possible in your view where natural processes were different in the past than they are now. You can do that after you’ve presented any evidence whatsoever indicating that natural processes were very different in the past from what they are now. Quit shirking your burden of proof. And hey, if you're right there could be a Nobel Prize in it for you!

You cannot just claim there was cause you feel like it to support your little pagan stories.

You seem to think you can claim whatever you want, based on stories in some old book.

Pagan stories? You’re a riot.

Hoo ha

Blah!

 

[SkepticThinker]

On the available facts.


No evidence for your same state past yet eh?

Honestly, you look like a joke to me, at this point. You're one of those posters who demands that others present evidence and then turns around and pretends like none was ever presented. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

 

[gnostic]

Honestly, you look like a joke to me, at this point. You're one of those posters who demands that others present evidence and then turns around and pretends like none was ever presented. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

No one take him seriously since after this 1st day was over when he started this thread. He has shown that he is scientifically illiterate, becoming increasingly illogical.

You are right, he continued to demand evidences from others, and ignore every single ones of them when presented, and completely ignored presenting evidences himself when requested by others.