Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Once again you are not remotely honest about science.

Accepting some science and rejecting science selectively based on an ancient religious mythical agenda is rejecting science. Also making arrogant foolish statements about Fact and Theory compounds your intentional ignorance in science.

So sorry, but what you call "ancient religious mythical agenda," etc. has nothing to do with the sheer fact that science cannot say exactly how life started on the earth and where living matter came from.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again you are not remotely honest about science.

Accepting some science and rejecting science selectively based on an ancient religious mythical agenda is rejecting science. Also making arrogant foolish statements about Fact and Theory compounds your intentional ignorance in science.

But now that you mention it, I have a question of you. Do you believe everything a scientist may say presently and has said in the past?

 

[blü 2]

Do you really believe that science will find a "real" path from non-life to life? I go no further with that now, leaving the matter not in my hands or scientists' hands.

We know such a path exists ─ you and I are proof of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know such a path exists ─ you and I are proof of it.

I don't think that was my question. Nevertheless, I "believe" in the procreative process and DNA. I do not believe we evolved by magic or what some might call natural physical forces (where they come from anyway) stemming from one cell in the long distant past which supposedly evolved to become plants and animals any more. I used to believe that. I see no proof or signal of that. Do I believe humans did not always exist? Yes, I do. Do I believe that there was very, very early plant life? Yes, I do. Anyway, take it from there. Do I believe I may need to go to sleep soon? (You may have guessed it...)

 

[shunyadragon]

But now that you mention it, I have a question of you. Do you believe everything a scientist may say presently and has said in the past?

No of course not. The knowledge of science changes and advances over time with new discoveries. Today's sciences of evolution are on a sound foundation of all the basic sciences, and all major academic universities believe the sciences of evolution have been demonstrate beyond any doubt.

At one time scientists believed in a geocentric universe based on the Bible. today no, except for a few that believe in a literal Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

all major academic universities believe the sciences of evolution have been demonstrate beyond any doubt.

I believe that may be true as to what many academic universities believe. That still does not make the theory true or -- a fact beyond doubt as it stands. No matter how you pose it right now, because of the lack of precise and exact evidence showing transitional changes from one form to another as well as exact and precise knowledge as to what the first living matter that began supposedly evolving on the earth was, I no longer believe the theoretical viewpoint as it stands. If I don't keep answering you now, perhaps I will get to your posts another time because -- it is getting late.

 

[McBell]

I believe that may be true as to what many academic universities believe. That still does not make the theory true or -- a fact beyond doubt as it stands. No matter how you pose it right now, because of the lack of precise and exact evidence showing transitional changes from one form to another as well as exact and precise knowledge as to what the first living matter that began supposedly evolving on the earth was, I no longer believe the theoretical viewpoint as it stands. If I don't keep answering you now, perhaps I will get to your posts another time because -- it is getting late.

"precise and exact ... exact and precise"

Please show the "precise and exact evidence" as well as the "exact and precise knowledge" as to creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe that may be true as to what many academic universities believe. That still does not make the theory true or -- a fact beyond doubt as it stands. No matter how you pose it right now, because of the lack of precise and exact evidence showing transitional changes from one form to another as well as exact and precise knowledge as to what the first living matter that began supposedly evolving on the earth was, I no longer believe the theoretical viewpoint as it stands. If I don't keep answering you now, perhaps I will get to your posts another time because -- it is getting late.

Yes it is getting late, the above remains a problem of the misuse of terminology and deliberate misrepresentation of how Methodological Naturalism and knowledge of the physical work in science. Terrible misuse of "exact and precise" work in science. They are standards in measurement in terms of scientific methods.