Equating science with faith

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.

This allele frequency thing is only a small portion of what is implied by the word 'evolution'. Change in allele frequencies with time is fine as far as it goes but these small changes are supposed to add up to big changes according to the big picture of 'evolution'. That's where the materialism comes in. Where did the genes come from originally? According to the big 'evolution' picture, they come from dead chemicals that supposedly came alive billions of years ago. If that's true, then God is out of a job.Particularly the God of the Bible who said he created life.The actualevidence that we have suggests that life only comes from pre-existing life. The philisophical thinking of evolutionists suggests that life actually came from non-living chemicals by a natural process and pure chance. Any room for God there?

No they don't -they proclaim sudden appearance followed by general stasis. You have to believe in evolution before you imagine the proclamation.

It's the difference between chemistry and biology -a big difference.

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.

Well Percy,
At least we agree that faith should not clash with reality -so this is actually a case of getting the log out of your own eye before you criticize my stick.Clashes are unavoidable when the philosophy of evolutionists (materialism)imagines that life progressed by a process of gradualism and then refuses to alter their imaginative musings despite the Cambrian explosion that clearly defies gradualism in the unbiased mind.Oh that's right, all the billions of intermediate links are missing -we can't expect everything to be preserved can we? But such a BIG glaring gap.....????? That enormous jump from single celled organisms to such incredible diversity...
Well -it doesn't matter, we still know that mutation and natural selection did all this creating so look at the rest of the 'fossil record' and what do we see....'general stasis'-crabs are crabs are crabs and they look pretty much the same today......but that doesn't matter, the committed evolutionist has an answer for everything because we KNOW God didn't do it so random mutation and natural selection must be responsible. It must just be that crabs were well suited to their environment and didn't experience the adaptive pressures that other creatures did. Of course, that's it - so while the crabs reamined happy and content in their environment, other single-celled organisms were so disatisfied over such a long period of time that they just kept changing until they became ...humans with a brain to work it all out, no less.
If faith is to be converted to righteousness, evolutionists deserve the grand prize in the hereafter that doesn't exist (according to them). Only problem is ...does the geologic column signify time? There again, the evidence........what about the lack of erosion between hundreds of millions of years of 'time', the fossils that go through multiple layers of 'time' without decaying, the bending through millions of years of time that seems to have occurred when the sediment was soft and bendable. But no problem, the evolutionist has answers for all of these pressing questions because their paradigm is ultimate and everything will fit whether it does or not.That's a BIG log you got there Percy!

Matter is all there is....There is no God....matter and natural law is all we have to work with....there is no God.....that is atheism.
As for theistic evolutionists - they are what Lenin called "useful idiots" for the evolutionists -they don't appear to see the contradiction.

Hey True Believer - good to see you too!It's rare to find a friendly face in this neck of the woods.Will get over there asap.Beretta

You really don't want that -i'll never stop -let's be more specific -what are you looking for...As for the bus story...what?....

Well that would be patterns they look at. Large chunks of the mythological geological column are missing all over the planet -it's not quite how it appears in the text book but yes it is a general guide to sedimentation -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. 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.

It doesn't work when you use more realistic atmospheric gases to start with.

But how did you get the reproducible thing together in the first place -from chemicals to reproducible thing is a bi.....g jump.
If you're going to suppose this first reproducible thing, why not go the whole hog and suppose what came before. Evolutionists are not usually so reticent....this is the alternate creation story after all, you have to start at the beginning.Edited by Beretta, : Spelling!

Well I think there is -it's called organization.A cell is an organized assembly of micromachines that work according to a plan.
When the plan fails, you die. It is pretty magical in my estimation. I really wish that were true -unfortunately philisophical considerations make evolutionists selectively blind to whatever evidence goes against their belief system.The facts don't seem to be as important as they would have us believe.

Hi Percy,
would you mind altering that ruling as I can't be here regularly which is why I've been away for probably a month before the last few days. My answers are usually as long as the person who I am responding to and I'm trying to answer as much as I can in the time that I am able to be here.Unfortunately the 15 minutes prevents me even starting to answer anything for the entire 15 minutes so only after 15 minutes can I begin my next answer which makes it much longer between postings.How 'bout cutting that to five minutes -it'll be more practical for me then I can sit around for five minutes while I consider my response.
Thanks
Beretta

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. Well for a start nobody is trying to find a new or different set of natural laws.
As for the rest - resounding, complete and utter, absolute rubbish, incredible stupidity....and all those sorts of words of certainty comes from reading your heroes literature rather than actually taking the time to read the opposition argument.You may find that the opposing arguments are based on a lot of practical sense rather than the ridiculous religious references you would expect no matter how the dedicated evolutionist tries to banish any opposing argument to obscurity with their ridiculous and unsubstantiated use of the argument that anything and everything based on intelligent design or creation is REFUTED, absolutely REFUTED, absolutely and utterly REFUTED and so on and so forth....ad nauseum....It gets really tiring -it's like you're all sucking on the universal evolutionary consciousness and there is nothing new coming out there except the old and boring stock answers. 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. 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. Warned about what???Anyway thanks for allowing the possibility for ignorance here though I see later on the rather repetitive use of the word 'dishonest'. That implies intentional deceit. What would be my point? This is a serious argument not a one upmanship competition. I believe what I believe based on the evidence and so apparently do you. Don't take it too hard though, I've heard the word often on this forum which just makes me wonder about the real thoughts and intentions of the users of the word. Oh I understand it just fine and so do a lot of scientists at AIG -you are succumbing to propoganda again -try using your own brain -you may find it inspiring.
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.