Science IS religion

[dad]

No genetic bottleneck in living things dating to the same period.
Boom. Done. Tale disproven.

Completely false! There is no evidence DNA worked the same way in the former nature and times. So we cannot use modern DNA to trace back! You see the forces and laws that exist in nature govern HOW atoms and molecules/cells/DNA work! Not only that, but the 'same period' is some 70 million so called science years ago and more! Please show a good and complete usable sample of DNA from that time?

 

[Earthtank]

Please, only creationists make such ignorant arguments.

Clearly you have no idea what is and what is not evidence. There is a clear definition of the concept when it comes to the sciences. The definition exists regardless of the theory of evolution.

And the only "gaping holes" that you can find in evolution will be in your own understanding of the concept.

Nah bruh, the problem with you is that you take the theory of evolution as truth regardless of the evidence against it. You are taking your "faith" and "blind belief" from your Darwinian "Prophets"

 

[dad]

NO they don't.. Do you comprehend the symbolism behind Yam Suf?

Look, if you claim there is evidence against events of the bible in history then just post it. Ha.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To save time here, you need to prove that the Yucatan crater was an impact from above rather than one from below upwards. Can you do that? Also, if you claim the iridium came only from that impact and could not also have been deposited by water, show the proof! Ha.

You meant to say "find evidence for" and yes we can. Science does not "prove" things. It can only find evidence.

So when the facts meet the evidence, you claim conspiracy. Ha.

Where did he claim conspiracy?

You seem to be assuming that beliefs are not also assumed?

Assumptions are your sin.

All the 'paleo' fraud so called sciences. Much of what is enshrined into geology, and cosmology, and theoretical astrophysics, dendrochronology, etc.
Thermodynamics as we know it is a feature of this nature. Light theory, color, and physics are all limited to the solar system and area.
In your dreams. You do not know distances to any of them, therefore sizes. Yes something of some size is orbiting something else also at unknown distance. What other forces or realities out there also might exist that we have no clue about here, we do not know. What time is like there (therefore how much time any orbit or movement actually takes) we do not know!

Not understanding what is and what is not evidence does not mean that it does not exist. But then you employ the Ostrich Defense when it comes to that topic.

You admit being ignorant of what they were so no one would ask you what possible spiritual connection may or may not exist.
No, His word!
Child sacrifice and murder.
Of course babies are from both parents. As for your chapter, there was a command for a nation long ago to come before God (His priest at the time) and see if they had disobeyed or not. A test of drinking some water was given. Nothing to do with sacrificing people.

You keep babbling about 'Child sacrifice and murder'. When has that ever happened?

Samuel's mom sacrificed her son to God also. In the case of the foolish rash mouthed king, there are a few opinions as to what happened. I suspect the opinion that she was not killed is the best. In any case the bible abounds with bad examples of sinners, that are included in the record. The commands of God and Scripture are what they were disobeying! God clearly loves kids and hated people sacrificing them to pagan idols.

Wait, are you claiming that characters of the Bible were involved in child sacrifice? Doesn't that harm your own beliefs?

By the way, nowhere does it say God accepted the sacrifice! Knowing Jesus, He would not do so, if the guy actually tried. Now in the sacrifice of Solomon at the temple, God did send fire for the sacrifice. Not in any sacrifice of some sinner with a big yap.

The acceptance was in giving J the victory that he sought. It is in the Bible. You should try to read it some day.

No evidence of the theory of evolution exists actually. None whatsoever. The mere ability in this nature to e able to slowly evolve and adapt is not evidence we came from worms or bacteria or...whatever! As for the old earth that depends how we look at it. Sciences uses belief. To them it looks old therefore!

Wrong, but then you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and you are afraid to learn. You are actually lying at this time since you have been given evidence countless times and what is evidence has been explained to you countless times.

Tell me, how does lying for Jesus advance your faith?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah bruh, the problem with you is that you take the theory of evolution as truth regardless of the evidence against it. You are taking your "faith" and "blind belief" from your Darwinian "Prophets"

Nope, that is most likely your sin. First off you clearly do not know what scientific evidence is. Scientists have a clear definition since they are human too and will deny evidence at times. So for your education:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

You claimed "gaping holes". Let's see if you can find any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, if you claim there is evidence against events of the bible in history then just post it. Ha.

There are events that should have left massive evidence. For example a worldwide flood would have left massive evidence for it and yet there is no scientific evidence for the flood of Noah to be found. In a case where evidence is expected a lack of evidence is evidence against the claim.

 

[Earthtank]

Nope, that is most likely your sin. First off you clearly do not know what scientific evidence is. Scientists have a clear definition since they are human too and will deny evidence at times. So for your education:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

You claimed "gaping holes". Let's see if you can find any.

Nice, you can copy and paste, go ahead and thank evolution lol.

The gaping holes aren't in the definition you pasted, its in the theory you seem to blindly believe in regards of its holes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice, you can copy and paste, go ahead and thank evolution lol.

The gaping holes aren't in the definition you pasted, its in the theory you seem to blindly believe in regards of its holes.

The definition is there to help you to understand the concept of evidence. Since you are a denier of reality it was necessary. I am still waiting for these supposed "gaping holes".

 

[Earthtank]

The definition is there to help you to understand the concept of evidence. Since you are a denier of reality it was necessary. I am still waiting for these supposed "gaping holes".

Not going to do your homework for you. Youtube and Google will help you. I've done it in the past and have no desire to try and prove you wrong. Either you can be honest with yourself and do the research or continue being a "blind believer"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not going to do your homework for you. Youtube and Google will help you. I've done it in the past and have no desire to try and prove you wrong. Either you can be honest with yourself and do the research or continue being a "blind believer"

LOL! You made the claim. That makes it your homework. Once again you act like a creationist. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

Come on, show us those "gaping holes".

 

[sooda]

Look, if you claim there is evidence against events of the bible in history then just post it. Ha.

Here's a starting point... and there's lots and lots more ...

The Exodus. The traditions behind the Exodus story can be traced in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets, beyond which their history is obscured by centuries of transmission. No historical basis for the biblical Exodus story exists; instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.
The Exodus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

 

[metis]

So we cannot use modern DNA to trace back!

False, as it is used in comparisons dealing with genetic similarities that can be used to establish or deny relationships, and this has been known and used within the genetic field for many decades now.

 

[Polymath257]

Not going to do your homework for you. Youtube and Google will help you. I've done it in the past and have no desire to try and prove you wrong. Either you can be honest with yourself and do the research or continue being a "blind believer"

What I have found is that YouTube and Google have a LOT of misinformation about this topic, typically promoted by those with a religious agenda. This is a continuance of previous misinformation campaigns in a variety of books.

Every single criticism I have seen based on creationist ideas either misunderstands what the theory of evolution says, deliberately misquotes well-respected scientists, or deliberately distorts the evidence.

That is why we are asking you to provide the 'holes' that you think exist. The one proposed in every Google search or video I have ever seen have been ill-informed and wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Oh and people that believe in evolution and want to call it "evidence" why ignoring all of its glaring and gaping holes are worst and more intellectually dishonest than theists.

What gaping holes are you referring to? Can yo be more specific?

Btw, it is apparently you don’t understand the concept of what is “Scientific Theory”.

A theory in the context of science is different to everyday use of this word. Unless you understand the actual and correct science vocabulary, I am afraid you are seriously misinformed.

In science, a scientific theory is a former hypothesis that would include explanation and predictions (that would or might include a mathematical model, such as equations or formulas), that have been accepted as science because it has passed the following requirements:

1. Falsifiability, which is the ability to potentially test or refute any statement.
2. The testing stage of Scientific Method, which required some forms of observations, eg evidences, experiments and data.
3. And Peer Review, in which the scientists of related fields will examine

The scientific theory is similar to hypothesis, except that unlike scientific theory, a hypothesis is a proposed theory, either to be tested or still undergoing testing. Hypothesis will have explanation and predictions that at the very least, is falsifiable.

All hypotheses must at the very least be falsifiable.

Failing the first requirement (ie falsifiability), would mean it will never get to stage 2 or 3, because it will immediately be disqualified, as being unfalsifiable. Any concept that are unfalsifiable will not even consider to be a hypothesis.

A perfect example of failing the falsifiability, is Irreducible Complexity (IC), by Michael Behe. IC is unfalsifiable because he has failed to formulate a hypothesis that is testable. So Irreducible Complexity isn’t even a hypothesis.

So basically, Irreducible Complexity is a unfalsifiable propositions or concept, hence pseudoscience.

Michael Behe admitted during his cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial, that he had no evidences for Irreducible Complexity, nor devise any experiment to test his work. The only things he presented in IC and in his book, Darwin’s Black Box (which was his explanation for IC and Intelligent Design for general readers), was some computer simulations.

Computer simulations are not deemed as evidences, because anyone can rig a computer simulation in favour of any proposed report/paper/book.

Behe was also caught in a lie, when he claimed a fellow biochemist, Michael Atchison, was one of his critical reviewers of his book (Darwin’s Black Box), when a letter by Atchison, showed that he never read Behe’s manuscript, let alone review it, critically.

If Behe wanted to have his IC published in the scientific journal, then he must present verifiable evidences and reviewable data for IC, not his negative argument against evolution.

You don’t understand that scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation; “well-substantiated” there are verifiable evidences or has been rigorously tested.

Anyway unless you can provide evidences against evolution, with your claim that are gaping holes in evolution, I will have to say you don’t understand what is scientific theory.

It is funny how you’ve claimed you are not creationist, and yet reading your replies so far, you have presented pretty much use the same lame tactics that creationists frequently used.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

To save time here, you need to prove that the Yucatan crater was an impact from above rather than one from below upwards. Can you do that?

What makes you think that it came from below upwards?

Also, if you claim the iridium came only from that impact and could not also have been deposited by water, show the proof!

That's putting the cart before the horse. First you have to show that there was a worldwide flood to begin with. Without a worldwide flood evidence, the reason the explanation of the presence of iridium must necessarily defer to the explanation with the most evidence supporting it.

Ha.

You claim victory for creationism and unsubstantiated beliefs long after they have been soundly pummeled and defeated.

So when the facts meet the evidence, you claim conspiracy.

Huh? No, I claim the limits of human imagination; they told stories according to that which they knew, and they knew salt.

You seem to be assuming that beliefs are not also assumed?

Goalpost shifting, There are some aspects of beliefs that have a basis in assumption; but an assumption is not necessarily a belief in itself.

Thermodynamics as we know it is a feature of this nature. Light theory, color, and physics are all limited to the solar system and area.

You have no good reason to believe these statements to be true.

You do not know distances to any of them, therefore sizes. Yes something of some size is orbiting something else also at unknown distance.

If you understood astronomy, you would understand why this claim is utterly ridiculous.

No, His word!

As you interpreted it.

I suspect the opinion that she was not killed is the best.

Judges 11:30-31 clearly show Jephthah making a promise to render a "burnt offering" of the first thing he saw unto the Lord upon his triumphant return.
Judges 11:39 clearly states that Jephthah did as he had vowed.

It is very clear that she was killed and burned upon an alter to the Lord.

God clearly loves kids and hated people sacrificing them to pagan idols.

But its okay to sacrifice them to Him?

No evidence of the theory of evolution exists actually.

Wrong.

Nah bruh, the problem with you is that you take the theory of evolution as truth regardless of the evidence against it.

There is no evidence against it.

Look, if you claim there is evidence against events of the bible in history then just post it.

Already did. You ignored it and dismissed it.

The gaping holes aren't in the definition you pasted, its in the theory you seem to blindly believe in regards of its holes.

Having gaps in our understanding does not mean that what we do actually know is wrong. Creationists have tried desperately to show that what we know is actually wrong, and have dramatically failed. Gaps in our knowledge just means that we have more to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think that it came from below upwards?



That's putting the cart before the horse. First you have to show that there was a worldwide flood to begin with. Without a worldwide flood evidence, the reason the explanation of the presence of iridium must necessarily defer to the explanation with the most evidence supporting it.



You claim victory for creationism and unsubstantiated beliefs long after they have been soundly pummeled and defeated.



Huh? No, I claim the limits of human imagination; they told stories according to that which they knew, and they knew salt.



Goalpost shifting, There are some aspects of beliefs that have a basis in assumption; but an assumption is not necessarily a belief in itself.



You have no good reason to believe these statements to be true.



If you understood astronomy, you would understand why this claim is utterly ridiculous.



As you interpreted it.



Judges 11:30-31 clearly show Jephthah making a promise to render a "burnt offering" of the first thing he saw unto the Lord upon his triumphant return.
Judges 11:39 clearly states that Jephthah did as he had vowed.

It is very clear that she was killed and burned upon an alter to the Lord.



But its okay to sacrifice them to Him?



Wrong.



There is no evidence against it.



Already did. You ignored it and dismissed it.



Having gaps in our understanding does not mean that what we do actually know is wrong. Creationists have tried desperately to show that what we know is actually wrong, and have dramatically failed. Gaps in our knowledge just means that we have more to learn.

Creationist "logic":

I can prove there is a conspiracy. All of the evidence is against me!! Explain that.

 

[dad]

We can add logic to the list of things you don't understand. Nobody needs a reason to not believe a story for which there is no evidence

- My point precisely. No one needs needs a reason not to believe in a same state past, for which there is no evidence. They need reasons to accept them.

Work on that.

 

[dad]

Here's a starting point... and there's lots and lots more ...

The Exodus. The traditions behind the Exodus story can be traced in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets, beyond which their history is obscured by centuries of transmission. No historical basis for the biblical Exodus story exists; instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.
The Exodus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Your link offers no support, and just claims scholars have a consensus of doubt. Jesus affirmed Scripture was true. When the unnamed so called scholars rise up from the dead, we can talk.

 

[dad]

False, as it is used in comparisons dealing with genetic similarities that can be used to establish or deny relationships, and this has been known and used within the genetic field for many decades now.

False. That is still believing DNA was the same! Prove it.

 

[Polymath257]

False. That is still believing DNA was the same! Prove it.

I will once you prove it was the same yesterday.

It is a completely equivalent chore.