Evolution? How?

Oh, and TR, that doesn't let you off the hook--"real life's" idiocy is his idiocy, and yours is your responsibility. So, TR, provide some unambiguous evidence for creation. (If necessary, look up unambiguous before you proceed, so that we don't have to waste pages, RexRed style, until you realize that the use of "unambiguous" places a burden on the quality of your response.)

he read it in a book somewhere

It's amazing how powerful a comic book written two thousand years ago can still impact people's lives.

real life

I find that a rather amusing statement since youve neither shown noer pointed to any such evidence that "suggests" a creation model. All youve been doing is trying, as best as you can, to shoot down multi sourced data and evidence that supplis some of the basic tenets of an evolutionary model.
Youve concentrated on trying to prove that the earth is too young(my interpretation of your words) for evolution to have taken place

Youve attempted tosuggest that retrograde rotation of some of the planets of the solar system are proof that the solar system didnt enucleate as scientists have modeled



Youve tried to suggest that close morphological associations among stratigraphically superior fossils doesnt evidence derivation from an ancestor

Youve attempted to have us believe that microevolution exists but macroevolution does not

Youve presented some "evidence" on a worldwide flood from polystrate fossils (a Creationist term,). Youve argued that evidence for a worldwide flood actually exists.

Youve questioned the close association in primate and hominid DNA as being coincidental and not successional. Youve articulated that since many proteins in the interons are themselves 30 to 35000 bases long this difference is significant to a bifurcated genome set that differs by up to 7 Billion base pairs.
Youve used some other "arguments" that rely on us accepting the initial premise and then jumping to a "poofistic" conclusion.


Id say that , freom my seat, I havent seen anything that approximates evidence but mostly a presentation of half correct pieces of data that are filled in with Creationist preselection.
Science has never done that (oh sure there have been frauds but all of which were quickly caught and exposed before much work was followed on) Science has often gone in one direction, then another depending where the data takes us. Look at the hypotheses of hominid lines going on now, or the development of birds from dinosaurs, or dinosaurs freom birds , or both birds and dinosaurs from a common ancestot to both.
Look at the revision of geology from a geosynclinal model to a coninental drift model (all within the last 30 years)
Look at how molecular biology has replaced paleontology as the principal source of taxa dispersion.
Each time science totally revises its bag of tricks, it pretty much tosses out what's been dogma before. Creationism was tossed out early in the 20th Century just because the data fit a Darwinian model much better, and the fact that we have niches all over the world that are populated with species found nowhere else is a glaring slap in the face of Creationist thought. the Creationists quietly try to shove that data under a table and only deal with some arcane data that they hope 90% of their "believers" will buy without question because they wont take time to learn the science.

If the Dover case goes the way I expect (ever since theyve found that the original editions of "OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE" had the word Creation used instead of Intelligent Design within the text) I believe that other states will follow and even the SUpreme Court by a starre decisis precedent respect , will have to take into account the previous 2 USSC descisions and strike down the ID claims.
After that, I dont believe we will be compelled to pay you any more mind than we would a "Powow Doctor" or ractitiner of Wickke.

O.K, look around you, everything is the product of the creation. The circumstantial evidence is everything. I say that God created it, prove me wrong.



lmao, I try to at least make my posts coherent.

I know what ambiguity is... and I think that the theorys of creation and evolution use evidence of this sort.

isn't ignorance grand? They are able to look at our universe and claim it's the result of creation without understaning anything about science.

thunder runner

Hold on, the burden of proof is on you. Try to be a bit (a whole bit) more convincing. Your argument is circular and obscure.


What you are saying is "Everything is created because if you look around you will see that everything is the product of creation"
Doesnt pass the guffaw test.
Weve been busy giving you verse, number, literature cites and results. If you wish to argue on equal footing you must rise above that argument

My understanding of science has nothing to do with my belief in God. In fact I understand science better than I show on this forum, I just don't bother getting into it with most people on here.

Isn't arrogance grand? They are able to look at our universe and claim they know the path of history by looking at some bones. Here's a hint ci, history is not the logical path, history is the events that have transpired, wether they make sense to you or not is arbritrary.

tr
Whatve you got against evidence? Your comprehension of the world has got to start at some level. Im amazd at how, the Creationists, when pushed to the wall, sort of amit that they dispense with their knowledge base if it interferes with their "beliefs"

Id rather my beliefs be supportable by facts. It helps me know that an equation will work as expected .

tr, As farmerman has challenged you, you have not provided any proof for your claim. Your claim to understand science is also not proven. It's all blather with no substance.

Oh, and evolution isn't?

I thank you for your references farmerman, my dispute is not with the tests and studies, my dispute is with the premeditated interpretations of the results.

Exactly what results and their interpretations are you talking about? You must be more specific. If you understand science at all, generalities are not proof. You must identify and define what you are talking about with specifics.

It appears that their way to answer specific questions is to NEVER answer specific questions.
CMON TR your dodging like Real Life. Admit it, you dont have one piece of decent (or indecent) evidence to even rise Creation to a status of a decent hypothesis. Its scientifically baseless.

THATS BECAUSE ITS SUPPOSED TO BE. It transcends science, (Im giving you some debate pointers so you will have a little ammo to present).
See, we in science dont deal with the supernatural, we cant, its untestable and based only on faith, not evidence. Similarly, Creationism has no basis in fact, its all a matter of faith and belief with no hope of scrabbling a forensic path.
I can accept the rules and the consequences . However, its been the Creationists desire to slip under the tent and try to make us believe that their belief is sciencebased when it certainly is not. Can we agree on that premise? Really, a number of you have been trying the science argument route and havent successfully scored any shots. Youve only reinforced what science has said in its domain. (Science cant claim a supernatural entity, whereas you can) Conversely, you arent able to change or successfully discredit the findings of science.

My older daughter works for the WB network as a production assistant for their new "Supernatural" tv series. (Thanks for the plug, Farmerman!)

That wasnt strictly a plug, it was proper product "placement"
Will Duane Gish be on the show?

Ill have to watch it. I love to be scared to death

TR, you have "cherry-picked" the question i asked "real life," because of his silly insistence upon that term. You, however, used the term "unambiguous," and now assert that you have a better grasp of science than you display here (which ain't sayin' a hell of a lot). Therefore, you placed upon yourself the burden of unambiguous proof. Saying that one need only "look around" and that is the evidence for a creation is providing neither circumstantial nor unambiguous evidence. In fact, you couldn't have made a more ambiguous statement. What links the circumstance of the existence of the material universe to your imaginary friend superstition? Without that, you have no circumstantial evidence either.

You lose, with either criterion.

This guy claims to understand science, but that can't be proved by his posts; it does the exact opposite.

Their views are only irrelevant to self absorbed scientists...

Science thinks (though unknown to them) that God is within creation (they seek God in science) but the creationist believes that God is outside of creation/science too.

So in a sense science is pantheistic.

Creationists are just not fooled by what is seen but they are aware that God is unseen too...

This unseen part of God science can never touch... because their answers are derived from that which is seen and observed.

Creation does not deny all science it just sees beyond science.

Existence itself is evidence of creation it certainly does not provide the contrary. It is kind of hard to miss that elephant in the living room...

Science is in denial of existence...

I have a probably stupid question

What came first atmosphere or life? Did life create the atmosphere or did the atmosphere create life?

As a creationist I can still admire science...