Evolution? How?

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

On what empirical grounds do you base evolution? Have you or anyone else observed it? If not, why do you try to hold creation to a standard that you cannot meet yourself with evolution?

Neither creation nor evolution has been observed. Both draw largely from inferential interpretation of circumstantial evidence.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

Hey, your god said man can eat meat. ha ha ha

Quote:

On what empirical grounds do you base evolution? Have you or anyone else observed it? If not, why do you try to hold creation to a standard that you cannot meet yourself with evolution?

Neither creation nor evolution has been observed. Both draw largely from inferential interpretation of circumstantial evidence.

On what empirical grounds? On the empirical ground of the fossil records, of embryological comparison, of bacterial mutation, of shared genes, of different variations of genus. On what empirical ground does creationism fit in? Creationism is based on faith. Evolution is a scientific theory drawn from empirical observations and deduction. Noone is saying that evolution is absolutely true, but it is a "theory," a proven hypothesis that fits and is falsifiable, meaning that you have to prove it to the opposite to replace the model.

And the creationists infer from one comic book that creation is a fact. hearty har har...

I have never worked out a chronology for the Flood. But I have no large problem with the info you posted. In any case, it would be something in the low thousands of years , not millions, if that is the point you are trying to establish.

cicerone imposter wrote:

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

You seem to enjoy quoting John Merritt, C.I. Do you have any clue what he is saying and how you can backup what you cut and paste without a clue as to what you are pasting?

I cut the same line (highlighted in red) from your same source. You can even see the same spelling error on the word gotten.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

It is amusing that Meritt has not understood what context actually is. Yes, John 3:16, might have been used out of context, but Meritt and Cicerone Imposter fail to give an example of such action. With his logic all scientists quote each other "out of context", just because they don't quote whole chapters! Context is not about length of quote, it is about the way it is used, and where it used.

When are you going to get into serious discussion and debate and forget your little one liners about comic books and such nonsense. You are a grown man. Come on in, CI, and discuss with the big boys and girls. Enough of the schoolyard games. Bring some meat to the table.

And the creationists infer from one comic book that creation is a fact. hearty har har...

I differ with your characterization of the nature of the evidence.

You mostly draw inferences from fossils, Ray. You do not have direct observation (empirical evidence) of evolution when you see a fossil. The fossil is dead. The limited empirical evidence it provides would include that something that was alive is now dead. However, you do not observe it becoming a creature other than what it was. If you did, that would be empirical evidence of evolution, but you do not have it.

You infer from bacterial mutation that enough mutations might produce something other than bacteria. Bacteria have never been actually observed to evolve from bacteria to something else. After mutation, they are still bacteria; so you do not have empirical evidence of evolution.

You draw inferences as well from the other things you mentioned. No direct observation of evolution.

And also when we say something is falsifiable, it does not mean that another theory must be proven true in order to prove yours false. That is incorrect.

neo, Your aplogies accepted. <low bow>