Equating science with faith

The difference between creationists and scientists is that scientists don't assume Goddidit when they don't know. I've noticed that you regularly ignore how your arguments are essentially Goddidit. Perhaps you realize just how weak they are.

quote:

---

Acceptance of evolution means that God is punishing said persons for denying Him credit as Creator. This explains why a theory with no evidence is accepted.

---

No evidence? Or more likely evidence you don't like, therefore you don't classify as evidence, a typical creationist response. And you are obviously dishonestly tying your interpretation of Genesis to what Christanity actually means. Where does Evolution state that God was not responsible at all?

quote:

---

Evolution was never science and will never be science - it is Materialism.

---

This jumped out at me, signaling a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part. Science studies the natural world, what exists and can be tested. How can science not be materialism? Furthermore, how can evolution be materialism yet not science?Or is that you are completely redefining words to suit your bad arguments in an attempt to avoid just how weak they are?Name me one fact of ID. Furthermore, how can one have blind faith in evolution when various sciences all use it? I know someone who works at ExxonMobile and their methods of finding oil rely on evolution's timeline. Chevron drills specifically in areas where it is believed to have been high concentrations of ancient plankton which was compressed into oil. Care to explain how two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world are using 'blind faith?' Or are you going to simply pretend it doesn't exist, plug your ears and go "i'm not listening?"

quote:

---

Evolution says intelligence is not seen in reality and that God is not the Creator, that is why all Atheists support.

---

Come again? Where in the statement of "the change in allele frequencies over time" states that God is not the creator?Show me a single respectable textbook that even mentions the word "God."

quote:

---

We already know that Atheists believe that anyone who does not believe what they believe to not have science understanding, what is your point?

---

I'm not an atheist. But you from your history seem to lack a basic fundamental understanding of what science actually is. Looking at your history, you also seem to run away from a virtually every post and argument you make.

quote:

---

Because Materialism presupposes the non-existence of God in reality and denies the existence of all evidence that contradicts.

---

Define contradicting evidence. I suspect you are thinking of evidence free concepts such as faith. Hardly good evidence. What actual evidence exists for God for Materialism to reject? I'd love to see how you define this. Creationists have a long history of dishonestly redefining words and terms to fit their poorly constructed arguments.

quote:

---

Science does not deny the existence of evidence, but recognizes its existence and attempts to explain it.

---

What? Do you even understand what science is? Science examines evidence to see what conclusion evidence supports. Science does not explain evidence, it uses evidence to explain what happened. As I suspected, your post signals a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part.

quote:

---

When we remember that you are a Materialist your opinion about persons who accept science is explained and, of course, entirely predictable.

---

Do you regularly cast everyone who disagrees with your bad arguments as an atheist?

quote:

---

You have misunderstood.

​

Evolutionary theory is not science, but scientism.

​

The issue is the inclusion of evolution to be part of science.

---

It would help if you actually knew what science was, which you clearly do not.I brought up a perfectly valid example of practical application of evolution in every day products and now you're back peddling.How predictable.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How exactly does Exxon mobile depend on the evolution timescale for its drilling? The dates that the evolutionary timescale uses are based on assumptions of age. They may drill in specific areas but they don't need dates to do that, they just need to recognize patterns.

---

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, if it's anything. XOM looks at the evolutionary time line to see when specific types of organisms lived and where they lived. Then they drill specifically in those areas and to the depths based on the time line evolution and sediment accumulation rates. They do need the dates as the dates give basic outlines for the depth areas.

As it has already been pointed out, you are using a fallacious strawman, creating your brand of evolution to dishonestly attack actually is. As your post doesn't actually address what evolution is, and is a classic example of creationists dishonestly, I don't see why I should bother to address your first post.What's your take on the Miller experiment?

quote:

---

where it can be found is one thing (pattern of sedimentation)and that would be helpful but the 'when' of it is irrelevant since that is all based on uniformatarian presuppositions in any case.

---

How is that irrelevant? What makes uniformatarianism wrong? That has already been discussed with a resounding failure of creationists to show that it is wrong, provide any evidence of why it is wrong, and completely failing to show any evidence of a different set of natural laws. There is no reason to assume that the rates were any different.

quote:

---

That will be the circular reasoning thing -the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks -you don't need time to follow that -you could call it alpha, beta etc. instead of 100 million, 200 million -it would be a lot more realistic.

---

Your ignorance, or your deliberate dishonesty will get you warned. Fossils are partially dated from rocks, and rocks are dated on a wide variety of dating techniques. Your argument sounds straight out of AiG without any understanding of radiometric dating.CC310: Dating fossils, dating strata
Isochron Dating

But it does indeed prove that the building blocks of life can arise naturally without any Divine Origin, which flies in the face of your argument. Sure it may have its flaws, but its basic premise and conclusion do refute your arguments.

quote:

---

Well that doesn't prevent it from being pretty obvious what they think - with all this random chance going around, God is still out of the equation. What do you imagine they say about how life originated? You can't just have a big theory with no starting point.

---

So? Merely because a person who accepts Theory A believes in Idea B does not equate that Theory A includes Idea B. That is a not only dishonest, but a serious flaw of thinking, if not gross negligence. You cannot honestly states that since someone believes in A and B, that A = B. Evolution clearly states is the change in allele frequencies. Things that aren't alive excluding Viruses don't have alleles. Therefore evolution cannot study anything earlier then the first life form. Secondly, evolution does not state that God is out of the question. To do so would require testable evidence of God, which does not exist. Furthermore, science cannot test the existence or non-existence of God as God is of the supernatural and out of the jurisdiction of science. Finally, you have completely and utterly failed to address which God/set of Gods we're talking about. Like many dishonest creationists, you have seem to given the argument that only ONE god exists rather then honestly include all possible Gods, many of which have no problems with Evolution and several that require it as part of their belief system.Stop the dishonesty.Edit: Looking through your posts, it seems that you have deliberately avoided responding to posts which bring up your massive dishonesty about multiple Gods. Perhaps you realize just how flimsy your arguments are?Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Care to explain the contradiction for Deists? Or how about those who see Genesis as a metaphor?Stop dishonestly trying to argue that your interpretation of Genesis and Christanity is the only interpretation and that there is only one God out there.You do realize that there are thousands of Gods out there with a possibility of infinite Gods?Stop the dishonesty.

quote:

---

Uniformatarianism is based on an assumption formulated in the 18th century about how long they imagined it would take to lay down sediment based on the assumption that is only ever happened slowly at rates they could observe at that point in time.It's an extrapolation of that principle that gives the dates.

---

PRATT. This has already been refuted here at least 10 times and I've only recently joined. Furthermore, Uniformatarianism is supported at least partially though the science of radioactivity, the same science that is used in nuclear reactors. If the assumptions were invalid, then it stands that the rest of the science is invalid as well. Practical commercial application of this refutes such arguments that Uniformatarianism is false.

quote:

---

Well for a start nobody is trying to find a new or different set of natural laws.

---

For the simple reason that there is no evidence for other sets of laws.You've already been warned for your substantial lack of any evidence.
If you have an argument with evidence, make it.

quote:

---

Neither is there any reason to randomly assume uniformatarian principles -that wipes out any possibility of a global event/s that may make that assumption null and void.

---

Nuclear power rejects such an assertion.

quote:

---

There are a lot of up and coming catastrophists amongst the geologists these days -they see what the uniformatarians cannot.That's the problem with historical science you see -nobody was there, assumptions are made and those assumptions may be completely in error.

---

Apparently you've never met a chemist. Furthermore, catastrophic events don't change rates. Many such events leave evidence of their existence in the record by having abnormal amounts, such as Iridium concentration.

quote:

---

I believe what I believe based on the evidence and so apparently do you.

---

If that was true, you'd present it. Since you have essentially failed in your 227 posts, it would suggest that your beliefs are indeed not based on evidence, but faith.

quote:

---

Oh I understand it just fine and so do a lot of scientists at AIG

---

Then why have you consistently ran from people who proved you did not?

quote:

---

As a matter of interest there are lots of other dating techniques apart from the radiometric ones -radiometric dating is very problematic -dates tend to be picked based on pre-existing misconceptions about what the date should be based on their pre-existing belief in the geologic column as formulated by the uniformatarians. Radiometric dating gives long ages which is why it is so popular. Methods of dating that give young dates are ignored because according to our belief system, they just can't be true.

---

Name me one form of dating that does what you say it does for co-gentic samples.Not that I'm holding my breath. You've deliberately ignored my other posts for calling you out on your dishonesty.

Agreed.I suspect that Beretta is thinking of AiG articles which test non-cogenetic samples and then declare all dating wrong while not even discussing the age, make up and general characteristics of the samples themselves.I'd love to see a reason why catastrophes would invalidate and change the basic laws of physics.

Next time you should cite the Discovery Institute as your source.http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.phpAnd it's wrong about Holland's claim.CB026: Toxic chemicals from abiogenesis experiments
CB035.3: Amino acids from simple atmosphere

Did you forget this?Name me one form of dating that does what you say it does for co-gentic samples.

quote:

---

Not the basic laws of physics only the interpretation of the geologic record.

---

Why? Explain. Uniformitarism is based on the laws of physics. Those laws dictate rates. Why would massive abnormal events such as the Yucatan asteroid change the interpretation at all? Explain how few events which leave obvious evidence of their occurrence change the rates of sediment as well as radioactivity.

Outside of the fact that you have still failed to name a single method of dating which supports your assertions...Percy has clearly shown that your definition of uniformatanism is obviously wrong, your source's information has never been repeated nor even reviewed.CD240: Alternating layers laid down suddenlyEvolution on this planet occurred slowly. Evolution is not dictated as a theory by time. Evolution can occur quickly or slowly based on the climate and environment. We are now seeing super bugs and super pests arise in less then 50 years. How is that vast period of time?I'm still waiting for why catastrophes change the laws of physics.