Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 211 of 336 (637572)
10-16-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Nuggin
10-16-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
There are COUNTLESS examples of life forms on this planet that don't reproduce sexually and/or don't have traditional "male/female" sexes.
So, I'd say there are PLENTY of ways "around this equation".
I'd say you have typically missed the point. That the premise is even contemplated at such an early time, when belief was globally hinged on superstision, divine kings and head butting deities, is astonishing. It is the first introduction of a scientifically based recording of life and reproduction. You are also incorrect in your defense of it. Some life forms dispense their seed in different ways which may not be discernable at first glance, and some life forms may harbour single gendered seed issue - such anomalies are rampant and do not negate the equation that a seed follows its kind. All life forms do not have eyes either - yet they see!
quote:
The same goes for the first recorded listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat, as in Genesis, aka 'species' today
Ridiculous.
The Egyptians recorded all that stuff, you can still go see it.
Not to mention it's also present in cave art in France, rock art in Australia, etc.
Show us the Egyptian text listing life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol - instead of just saying it here while rejecting everything - its a very simple matter to negate my post. The French rock color paintings were exposed as bogus: any intelligent person would have demanded a name of a human or a monument if they were able to perform color illustrations 30,000 years ago. This makes your rejections of my post equally bogus.
quote:
You keep making these claims that Genesis was the first recorded instance of X, Y, Z, but Genesis is YOUNGER than Egyptian heiroglyphs. YOUNGER than the Book of the Dead (after all, that's where Moses got the 10 commandments).
You need to rethink your timeline.
The Hebrew bible came late in the ancient scene, blatantly obvious and stated in the texts. It remains the first advanced alphabetical book despite being surrounded by older and greater nations - that's a big anomaly. The book of the dead is a poem, and full of occultism which has no bearing on science and the modern world today; it is fully disimilar to Genesis and this forum's thread debates today.
quote:
How old do you think Genesis is? When was it written? By who?
There appears no issue concerning its stated period. It is obviously older than the date of its first translation by the Greeks in 300 BCE [The Septuagint] and obviously older than the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE, as well as older than the book of Esther [700 BCE]: all the items listed in its texts were already in place, such as Solomon's first temple [850 BCE]; the war between the Israelites and Canaanites which resulted in a sovereign kingdom called Israel [later Judea] and the war with Egypt as stated in a 3,500 year Stelle. The point is which ever date one selects, there is nothing whatsoever anywhere else for centuries after the Hebrew bible appeared in its advanced alphabetical form.
Was Nimrod the first recorded 'KING'? Did a city called Pithom and Goshen exist 3,500 years ago and its relics discovered recently? Was their a nation of the Medianites embedded in the desert of what is now Saudi Arabia 3,500 years ago? How do we know of such information - book of the dead? When was medicine seperated from occultism?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 10:57 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 7:58 PM IamJoseph has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 212 of 336 (637573)
10-16-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 7:43 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Show us the Egyptian text listing life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol
First, define "life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol". That's word salad.
The French rock color paintings were exposed as bogus: any intelligent person would have demanded a name of a human or a monument if they were able to perform color illustrations 30,000 years ago. This makes your rejections of my post equally bogus.
In the looooong history of incredibly stupid things Creationists have said, this is perhaps the MOST stupid thing any Creationist has ever said.
Brava!
You claim that the cave paintings are false because no one demanded that their name be put on them?!?!
REALLY?!
First of all, the paintings were done by MULTIPLE people over a LONG period of time.
Second, a hand impression is a signature
Third, they ARE a monument in and of themselves
And lastly, how does this claim make the cave paintings "bogus".
Are you claiming that they were faked? That some crafty scientist in the 70s developed a method to grow crystals at an astonishing rate so as to cover over some art and has kept that methodology absolutely secret by assassinating any scientists who come close to discovering it?
It remains the first advanced alphabetical book despite being surrounded by older and greater nations - that's a big anomaly.
Geez, talk about fail. So, the Hebrew bible is different than the book of the dead because the Hebrew Bible uses alphabetics instead of heiroglyphs. And it's different than cuniform tablets because it's written on goat skin instead of impressed into clay.
Drawing some pretty pathetic distinctions there, aren't you?
The book of the dead is a poem, and full of occultism which has no bearing on science and the modern world today; it is fully disimilar to Genesis and this forum's thread debates today.
Are you saying that the books of the Bible are not poetic?
As far as "no bearing", that's debatable. It's the source of the 10 commandments.
Further, it predates Genesis and mentions the idea of Death making it "the first scientific recording of the concept to death" thus proving that Genesis is not the first scientific recording.
See how easy it is to play this game?
When was medicine seperated from occultism?
With the development of the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 7:43 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 8:44 PM Nuggin has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 213 of 336 (637574)
10-16-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Nuggin
10-16-2011 7:58 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
First, define "life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol". That's word salad.
Word salad: life began in water [correct protocol]; next came air-born winged life [correct protocol]; humans are the last grouping [correct protocol]; all transit life forms are aso listed in the correct protocol, including virus and bacteria which cannot be seen by the naked eye. Where's the Egyptian writings? You have run far from the point of debate here, jimping to minutae deflections instead - where is your Egyptian writings proof?
quote:
Second, a hand impression is a signature
No, its not. Nor is a thumb impression prevalent in ancient Egypt 4000 years ago. There should be 1000's of transit imprints since 30,000 years seen every 5000 years: names; nations; monuments; wars; historically identifiable marks; books; kings; etc. The proof of the dead sea scrolls is not its C14 verification, but the listing of historically evidential contemporanous names and events, etc. C14 is easilly doctored; contemporary names and events provable of an ancient period are not. Saying there was a temple 2850 years ago via C14 is not proof - finding a relic of a coin, or a part of a temple monument, or a name of a historical king or war proven via cross reference writings, maintained via periodical thread of evidences is proof: you have not got such proof - why is that? For this reasoning we know that aboriginals in Australia are not 60,000 years old: it is the caves, not the cave markings, which reflect that conclusion. Check some population figures and the vacuum of graduated imprints not seen for 60K years! There are no UFO's in area 51 either.
quote:
Third, they ARE a monument in and of themselves
Caves?
quote:
Are you claiming that they were faked?
Absolutely. For all the above reasons you have avoided.
quote:
So, the Hebrew bible is different than the book of the dead because the Hebrew Bible uses alphabetics instead of heiroglyphs. And it's different than cuniform tablets because it's written on goat skin instead of impressed into clay.
Yes, of course. Why are there no alphabetical books - volumes of them, as one would normally expect? It is different also for a host of other reasons not seen before or for some 800 years later.
quote:
Are you saying that the books of the Bible are not poetic?
It is sublimely poetic prose and grammatically perfect, however it is the historical factors contained in those writings - and the total absence of head butting dieties which seperate these writings. The advanced alphabetical hebrew books are of course greater than all the writings seen before. Rocket science applies.
quote:
As far as "no bearing", that's debatable. It's the source of the 10 commandments.
No sir. Its dfferent in kind and degree. One of them nixes image worship and divine kings and professes monotheism of a form never seen anywhere else till today.
quote:
Further, it predates Genesis and mentions the idea of Death making it "the first scientific recording of the concept to death" thus proving that Genesis is not the first scientific recording.
No sir. Taking one's earthly belongings to the grave in a monument which costed 1000's of lives for a divine king is hardly an understanding of death; 24 hour burial is a more scientific premise.
quote:
When was medicine seperated from occultism?
With the development of the scientific method.
Think treatment, ID, quarantine, burning and seperation of 'infected' and 'contagious' belongs of leprosy, instead of deeming deseases as curses of the gods. The multi-page descriptions reads like a medicine treatise of today - check it out some time. The washing of hands to elimate 90% of germs also comes from the same source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 7:58 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 9:00 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 215 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2011 9:11 PM IamJoseph has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 214 of 336 (637577)
10-16-2011 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 8:44 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Word salad: life began in water [correct protocol]; next came air-born winged life [correct protocol]; humans are the last grouping [correct protocol];
There is a world of life between "life in water" and "air-born winged life".
Further, humans are not the last thing to evolve. There have been plenty of life forms since man came around.
Second, a hand impression is a signature
No, its not.
Sure it is. If I am an artist and I decide to make a handprint on my art to signify that it is my art, then that is my signature.
If you ask the aboriginal artists who make handprints, they will tell you it is to signify that they were there.
C14 is easilly doctored; contemporary names and events provable of an ancient period are not.
Wow have you got that backwards. Really really backwards.
For this reasoning we know that aboriginals in Australia are not 60,000 years old: it is the caves, not the cave markings, which reflect that conclusion.
You are confusing two different groups both of which predate your Bible, both of which make rock art.
No one is claiming that the aborginies in Australia are the ones responsible for the cave art in France.
Caves?
The art within the cave.
Absolutely. For all the above reasons you have avoided.
You haven't provided any reasons. You have said that a coin is evidence of a temple.
That's not an explanation of how the art work in the caves can be covered by thousands of years worth of crystal formation.
Nor is it an explanation how a cave bear (extinct) could have scratched through artwork which would have had to have been made AFTER the cave bears disappeared.
Come on. I know you're a Creationist and all, but this is particularly pathetic even for you.
the total absence of head butting dieties which seperate these writings.
The Book of Job disputes this claim rather soundly.
One of them nixes image worship and divine kings and professes monotheism of a form never seen anywhere else till today.
Jewish monotheism is based on the Egyptian cult of Akhenaten and Ra worship.
No sir. Taking one's earthly belongings to the grave in a monument which costed 1000's of lives for a divine king is hardly an understanding of death
So, you are now claiming within the same sentence, that only the pharoah can die and that the 1000s of people who died making the monument didn't die because they weren't buried within the monument?!
Does that make sense to you? It sure as fuck doesn't make sense to anyone out here in the real world.
Think treatment, ID, quarantine, burning and seperation of 'infected' and 'contagious' belongs of leprosy, instead of deeming deseases as curses of the gods.
Um, you need to go back and read your Bible.
Are you saying that Exodus does NOT include curses from God on the people of Egypt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 8:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 215 of 336 (637578)
10-16-2011 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 8:44 PM


Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
C14 is easilly doctored...
Do you actually know anything about C14 dating? Ever collected and submitted any samples? Ever written on the subject for peer-reviewed journals? (I have collected and submitted over 600 samples, and written several articles and one monograph on the subject; along with numerous lectures.)
Why don't you find one of the threads relating to C14 dating, or start a new thread, and we can explore your knowledge of the subject in more detail. I am familiar with sample collection and interpretation, while another poster here, kbertsch or some such, is expert in the laboratory aspects of the technique.
I'm guessing you won't accept this challenge because you know nothing more than you've read on creationist websites, and they are lying to you. Now you are caught out in their lies, so you'll duck and weave, or ignore this entirely.
For creationists, business as usual, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 8:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:51 PM Coyote has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 216 of 336 (637579)
10-16-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Nuggin
10-16-2011 9:00 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
There is a world of life between "life in water" and "air-born winged life".
Further, humans are not the last thing to evolve. There have been plenty of life forms since man came around.
Correct. Life forms which creep, where the waters swarm - these precede the winged creatures; and 'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye. We also see that the transit point of life from the oceans to land is in creepings of life forms which extended out between the waters and land [namely 'wherewith']:
quote:
1/21. the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind
quote:
Sure it is. If I am an artist and I decide to make a handprint on my art to signify that it is my art, then that is my signature.
Sure. But if you are already an artist, it infers such artistry is already an established vocation - it means you were not the first artist which popped from nowhere 30, 000 years ago, with the next artist emerging only recenty!
quote:
You haven't provided any reasons. You have said that a coin is evidence of a temple.
A coin which mentions the temple and the year and name of the king, in alphabetical hebrew to boot. Not to mention that temple was destroyed by Babylon 600 BCE. This transcends any C14 dating and alledged 30K year paintings.
quote:
Caves?
The art within the cave.
Absolutely. For all the above reasons you have avoided.
You haven't provided any reasons. You have said that a coin is evidence of a temple.
Do you not see any difference between a C14 dating made with the total lack of proof seen with a coin!?
quote:
Jewish monotheism is based on the Egyptian cult of Akhenaten and Ra worship.
Its based on the total reversal of Ra and a sun deity referred to as monotheism. Ask the nations of Arabia and Europe why they don't worship Ra and the sun instead. Your not talking science but as a fundamentalist who cannot be touched of his beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 9:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by bluescat48, posted 10-16-2011 11:30 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 230 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 3:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 217 of 336 (637580)
10-16-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Coyote
10-16-2011 9:11 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
quote:
Do you actually know anything about C14 dating?
Yes. And I gave clear and credible reasonings why it is insufficient w/o on the ground backing. It is reasonable, in fact incumbent, to expect follow-up with on the ground backing of an alledged 30K year artist whose great works are seen on a cave in France. Specially so when Ghoul [France] is a relatively new country in the ancient realm.
quote:
Further, humans are not the last thing to evolve. There have been plenty of life forms since man came around.
Life forms and life form groups [kinds; species] are two different things: a life form, as in a new form of virus is not a specie but one that follows a prevailing specie. Genesis is vindicated as the first recording in declaring humans as the last specie as well as the dominant one. It is aso the first recording of species of life forms in its correct protocol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2011 9:11 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2011 9:56 PM IamJoseph has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 218 of 336 (637581)
10-16-2011 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 9:51 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
You challenged the method itself:
C14 is easilly doctored...
Now either put up or shut up.
Let's see what you actually know about C14 dating.
Do you want to retract your ill-informed statement? Or do you want me to start a new thread in your honor?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:51 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 10:49 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 10:54 PM Coyote has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 219 of 336 (637583)
10-16-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Coyote
10-16-2011 9:56 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
quote:
Now either put up or shut up.
I did! We have C14 datings for relics found in Israel, as an example. However, these relics, aside from C14, are also backed by a host of on the ground evidences which align themselves to the conclusion of C14, in their original dating and in a thread of graduated evidences since that time - with no vacuums.
Please show us equal proof of a 30K year cave painting or 60K year natives from Australia - in accordance with the above criteria. If you cannot - and you absolutely cannot, then how about aligning those C14 datings with some circumstantial trace evidences - like population counts of 60K speech endowed humans, whose pops should be around six trillion today? How about a few other French cave paintings say 10K years ago? Am I being too abnoxious for you - or making reasonable requests?
We can safely prempt here: you have no coins, relics, moniments, nations, kings, names - you have nothing - zero - outside C14 assessments, which are notoriously insufficient of small margin accuracies. How come?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2011 9:56 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2011 11:21 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 220 of 336 (637584)
10-16-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Coyote
10-16-2011 9:56 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
quote:
Now either put up or shut up.
Actually, you are guilty of your own accusation: you have not responded to any of the criteria put to you in the last six posts! You have only played leap frog and made new unrelated demands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2011 9:56 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 221 of 336 (637585)
10-16-2011 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 10:49 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
We have C14 datings for relics found in Israel, as an example. However, these relics, aside from C14, are also backed by a host of on the ground evidences which align themselves to the conclusion of C14, in their original dating and in a thread of graduated evidences since that time - with no vacuums.
So the C14 method works when it supports relics from Israel, but not when it supports other events in the past?
As I suspected, you know absolutely nothing about the C14 method. You're results oriented, not informed about the science behind C14 dating. I should have known.
You're caught out in your ignorance.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 10:49 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 1:35 AM Coyote has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 222 of 336 (637586)
10-16-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by IamJoseph
10-16-2011 9:24 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
and 'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye.
Where does it say that swarms are life that cannot be seen by naked eyes? Winged fowls did not exist until after the most primitive mammals existed. The first winged creatures were ancestors of current dragonflies & mayflies in the carboniferous. Winged fowls in the Jurassic. Mammals from the Triassic. The order is wrong.
As for the Temple, it was not destroyed by Babylon, but by the Chaldeans who made their capital at Babylon, after conquering the Assyrians who had previously conquered the Babylonians.
Edited by bluescat48, : typo

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 10-16-2011 9:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 1:55 AM bluescat48 has replied

Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


(1)
Message 223 of 336 (637589)
10-17-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 11:10 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
First of all, we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation.
That's not only retarded, but also a deceptive claim. And the fox tail is exposed as follows.
-------
The story of ToE is something like this;
Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict will be resulted on each repeatition. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.
For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to be falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.
Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.
Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.
If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.
On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.
ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.
Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).
As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!
The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 11:10 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 4:19 AM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 237 by Larni, posted 10-17-2011 8:10 AM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 8:24 AM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 242 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:31 AM Hawkins has not replied

Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


(1)
Message 224 of 336 (637590)
10-17-2011 12:55 AM


Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 10-17-2011 1:59 AM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 8:26 AM Hawkins has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 225 of 336 (637592)
10-17-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Coyote
10-16-2011 11:21 PM


Re: Ignorance about C14 dating on parade
quote:
So the C14 method works when it supports relics from Israel, but not when it supports other events in the past?
C14 is not proof by itself, especially so when making extraordinary claims of a 30K year elaborate color painting, with no traces of anything else for that whole period outside of C14 conclusions - in fact everything else contradicts it. The example given of this in an Israel relic is a classic one. 20 years ago, King David was deemed a myth by a host of archeologists, and Jericho was rejected as per the Hebrew texts: those scholars will never recover from their shame. The fundamental things apply, not a one-eyed jack view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2011 11:21 PM Coyote has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024