|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The phrase "Evolution is a fact" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Again, this is the problem with the evolutionists here. They seem to imply that the term evolution only applys to biological evolution. I knew this topic existed, but I had lots of trouble tracking it down:
How do you define the word Evolution? This cited topic is the place to go and read, and to further post if you wish to pursue the question further. Adminnemooseus .. . Historical note (to self?) - Old style link to topic: EvC Forum: How do you define the word Evolution? Current style link to topic:EvC Forum: How do you define the word Evolution? Either will get you there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1387 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
NosyNed writes: So, your first explanation for what we see is that God is a big practical joker. Feel free to quote me saying that anywhere. Why must evos always distort and purposely misinterpret what we say in order to denigrate our position?
The second explanation is that we don't see what we claim to see at all. This is a fact. YOU DON'T see what you claim to see. The minute you remove God, the Creator from the equation, all available observations become immediately lost to the distorted imaginings of men who must attempt to interpret them in a way which makes sense. This is why the old earth world view must exist in order to justify a slow and tedious process of evolution when none of it is true or factual at all.
You claim that 10,000's of people over many decades are liars. This is also true to a point. Tens of thousands of people have been raised to believe that a false pseudo science is valid. So they have invested their lifetimes attempting to prove it. And since they believe that the premise of this fraudulent science is valid, they promote every aspect of their study as true and interpret every observation as further evidence that they are witnessing evidence of evolution. Sadly though, since the foundational premise of everything they believe is false, we have more than a century worth of bad/fraudulent science which has become institutionalized as valid and real, leading to the corruption of complete generations since Darwin first promoted his secular philosophy for how man came to be apart from the creation account.
As for tree rings, take that to this thread: message1 Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). From what I see of RAZD's thesis is that trees are used in order to determine the minimum age of the earth. What is also painfully obvious is that evolutionists make some dramatic assumptions later on in order to extend their dating of the earth as far back as possible. Never coming even close to 4.5 billion years though, of course, but only making it to the estimated 400,000 year age from his evidence. In other words, it comes no closer to proving that any of the overall beliefs regarding the age of the earth which evolution promotes are even close to accurate in reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
In other words, it comes no closer to proving that any of the overall beliefs regarding the age of the earth which evolution promotes are even close to accurate in reality. Answer it there. You have the correlations to explain and it is clear you haven't read the thread. No one explains the correlations. You are ducking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Sadly though, since the foundational premise of everything they believe is false, we have more than a century worth of bad/fraudulent science which has become institutionalized as valid and real, leading to the corruption of complete generations since Darwin first promoted his secular philosophy for how man came to be apart from the creation account. Concrete evidence please.
This is also true to a point. Tens of thousands of people have been raised to believe that a false pseudo science is valid. So they have invested their lifetimes attempting to prove it. And since they believe that the premise of this fraudulent science is valid, they promote every aspect of their study as true and interpret every observation as further evidence that they are witnessing evidence of evolution. Just change the words pseudo science & evolution to creationism & creationist an d the sentence would be correct. Show me any evidence that the earth is not ~4.5 billion years old. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1387 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Show me any evidence that the earth is not ~4.5 billion years old. Tell me how one proves a negative? The question is to show evidence that a belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old rational or reasonable at all. Can you reproduce the claimed process of abiogenesis which allegedly occurred at that time? Can you prove in any absolute terms at all that the 4.5 billion year age for the earth is accurate? Using the speed of light, red shift and gravitational theory, can you prove in absolute terms that our application of, and predictions based on these observations are absolutely correct and cannot be interpreted in any other way which would drastically change the theoretical outcome we have arrived at regarding the age of the earth and the universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Feel free to quote me saying that anywhere. Why must evos always distort and purposely misinterpret what we say in order to denigrate our position? You claim that God wrote in Genesis not just that He did create everything but your interpretation is also on how He did it. The interpretation you give of Genesis is at odds with what God wrote into the rocks and stars of the creation itself. Since you claim that the paper copy is the truth then the rock copy must be a trick. You paint your God as a practical joker. Here was what you wrote when asked for your interpretation:
quote: The above only 'explains' the evidence if we are forced to assume that everything we can see of the creation around us is a lie which is in conflict with what you say the Bible says about the how things were done. If it isn't then you have no interpretation which works at all. Balls in your court now ... Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given. Edited by NosyNed, : spelling and spelling again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Using the speed of light, red shift and gravitational theory, can you prove in absolute terms that our application of, and predictions based on these observations are absolutely correct and cannot be interpreted in any other way which would drastically change the theoretical outcome we have arrived at regarding the age of the earth and the universe? You should know by now that nothing is absolutely proved in any real-world slightly complex situation. What we do have is enough evidence to support the current interpretations as being very probably correct. Very probably to a very high degree of assurance. If you claim there are better interpretations then you should offer them up. Your tries to do that so far are: God makes it look like that and everyone is lying. These seem pretty weak since you don't give and clear example of these lies. You also don't explain why ICR or others haven't published the facts to expose the lies. Perhaps you can refer to such publications?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
From what I see of RAZD's thesis is that trees are used in order to determine the minimum age of the earth. What is also painfully obvious is that evolutionists make some dramatic assumptions later on in order to extend their dating of the earth as far back as possible. Never coming even close to 4.5 billion years though, of course, but only making it to the estimated 400,000 year age from his evidence. In other words, it comes no closer to proving that any of the overall beliefs regarding the age of the earth which evolution promotes are even close to accurate in reality. So let's say that it is impossible to assume or definitively prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That would suggest that you have evidence to the contrary to support that it is much younger. In your estimation, how old is the earth and by what means have you determined this? "Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Can you reproduce the claimed process of abiogenesis which allegedly occurred at that time? What has abiogenesis have to do with how old the earth is?
Tell me how one proves a negative? You are not proving a negative, simply showing evidence of how old you think it is. Where is your evidence that it is 10000 or 500000 or any other time frame? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5212 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
You claim that 10,000's of people over many decades are liars. This is also true to a point. Tens of thousands of people have been raised to believe that a false pseudo science is valid. So they have invested their lifetimes attempting to prove it. And since they believe that the premise of this fraudulent science is valid, they promote every aspect of their study as true and interpret every observation as further evidence that they are witnessing evidence of evolution. Sadly though, since the foundational premise of everything they believe is false, we have more than a century worth of bad/fraudulent science which has become institutionalized as valid and real, leading to the corruption of complete generations since Darwin first promoted his secular philosophy for how man came to be apart from the creation account. How is it possible to have a discussion with you if you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is lying? Either go present evidence for this vast global conspiracy in an appropriate topic (I suggest calling it "The Conspiracy Theory of Evolution") or actually engage the topic here. The fact of evolution is that populations change over time; there are documented examples ranging from casual observations to full-blown lab experiments presented in peer-reviewed publications. Several of these have been held up as examples to you and all you can say to dispute it is that all these scientists from all these different backgrounds are lying in order to secretly support a philosophical position. This topic isn't about all the science, so even if all the explanations for evolution were lies it wouldn't matter. This is about evolution as a fact...we see populations change. Either populations change over time or they don't. If we can agree that populations change then we can start discussing why they change. So first question: Do populations change over time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4762 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
quote: Bruce, stop making general statements like this and give us some specifics. If you believe this please give some evidence for it. What evidence do you have that there is a deliberate conspiracy to invent a great age for the earth to shore up evolution? I mean evidence other than your belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1387 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Tanndarr writes: Either go present evidence for this vast global conspiracy in an appropriate topic (I suggest calling it "The Conspiracy Theory of Evolution") or actually engage the topic here. Since you asked for evidence here, here is where I'll place it. A complete thread isn't needed to debate what is overwhelming evidence of major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved. But by the time the frauds were discovered, and the retractions were quietly placed on back pages compared to the fraudulent discoveries releases which were widely disseminated, the damage was done since millions upon millions of people heard about the fraudulent evidence on the evening news everywhere; where as 12 laymen saw the retractions on the back page of the scientific journal that laymen never read. Challenge me on this point and I will give details if you like. Evolution Fraud and Myths
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This is going to be a much bigger topic than you think.
Please open a new discussion and, instead of a link bring the arguments into the thread yourself. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1387 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
AdminNosy writes: This is going to be a much bigger topic than you think.Please open a new discussion and, instead of a link bring the arguments into the thread yourself. Thank you. Could you place my post in the appropriate forum as it is currently written, and I will expound on it accordingly after you let me know where you have placed it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Copy it to a Proposed New Topic thread. I will look at it very soon and promote it if you bring the arguments here in your own words. It is not an adequate opening post as it stands.
You don't need a lot. About 3 or 4 paragraphs will be a good start. I suggest you pick a particular focus and you can open other threads when you are ready to discuss other lies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024