Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

I only KNOW what you tell me Asgara. You convey atheism, guess what ?I think you are an atheist.Claiming your atheism does not intrude into scientific conclusions is preposterous.The above claim is derived from the New Testament.And I agree with it.If you say I am not against God then I have to take what you say at face value. Then I will wonder why you never jumped in and credited God for something.The entire simple point of my theological argument said that God requires that He be credited as the Creator - period. And if He isn't He will punish.Personally, I don't care if you or anyone in this anonymous forum actually credit Him or not. I just wanted the true Biblical view to be known. This view explains the failure of anyone who cannot see God as Creator/Designer. I just wanted a small slice of the Internet to be counter-balanced away from the moronic nonsense of fundies and young earth creationists. Thanks for having me.

Heathen Roman historian Tacitis says He lived.

Sorry. Do a search for this. It's been discussed many times before.

---

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Regarding your circularity brand upon my argument :It is not circular because my argument DOES NOT say/indict EVERYONE who embraces evolution to not possess God sense. My argument says that the only persons who have no God sense are the ones who do not credit God as the Creator. And the reason they (whoever they be) do not credit God as the Creator is because God has punished them for rejecting Him as a possibility.Re-read the above paragraph very closely. I admit it could appear circular but if you read it like it reads it is not.TE credits God and they embrace evolution, thus they (whoever they be) are not subject to the punishment of God sense removal. You need to define creationism before you put all of TE against it. You need to recognize that the term "theism" means belief in a personal almighty God. Why even call oneself a theist unless your theism has a part in the origin of species ?Your beliefs about a merciful God are subjective. The Bible reveals God's love/mercy not to be a doormat. His mercy has one condition : That it be responded to in a predetermined amount of time only known to God.Then you say :" perhaps they fail to see God in creation because of the evidence "What ? Are you kidding ? I thought the evidence which is produced via rational enquiry does not take a position concerning the Divine.How does the evidence disprove a Creator ?Why can't " a purposeless and mindless process " be the invention and design of a Creator ?Once again, I thought no position concerning God was being derived from the evidence. My arguments says there is a position being taken. Did you slip up here ? If so, no big deal - I will let it go.Kant is wrong. He is using his brilliant talent to justify the exclusion of Divine truth because of an a priori belief that God is not knowable.It is possible to distinguish truth if you possess God sense.Kant is intellectualizing doubt. Theism at its roots says there is a way to know objective truth. It requires hard study just like any other discipline.Ayer is a text book example of God sense removal. To conclude all theological statements empty of meaning reveals that you have no spirit, a God-damn retard subjectively proclaiming the bias of your worldview. Which is fine, but don't think for a minute that the clever rants of an atheist rises to the respectability of objective thought. I could interview any ordinary atheist on the street and get what he says from them. I would expect to read something worthy of an intellectual of Ayer's status.Austin:I really enjoyed your reply. Even though we disagree I found it stimulating. Thank You.

Now, now Mr. Aussie WJ - A troll sits under a bridge and gobbles up little dollups.A couple of you suggested that Romeo & Juliet were stories that were made up but that had real cities in them.But the evidence I am submitting is the opposite. The Bible isn't a novel. It is history. Some challenge it. So every archaeological discovery adds to its truthfulness. Archaeology is evidence. You know they found Jericho and the evidence was that the walls came down like the Bible said.Now we also have the fact that if we came from a common ancestor then we should be able to interbreed. It sounds silly, but humans should be able to breed with donkeys if they have the same ancestor.But the Bible says each after its own kind. No interbreeding. That makes a lot more sense to me! So no common ancestors according to the Bible.This right here disproves evolution. How can we have the same ancestor as a chicken? It's just a story.

I presume this is your own idea? It is so, uh, 'unusual' that I imagine only you would hold such an idea.Could you explain why in the world you would thing such a thing because, as you say, it does sound silly?

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

When I did post scientific I posted mainstream stuff. (Milton, Behe, Johnson )

---

Now that is a clear falsehood. Behe is the only one who is any sort of scientist and his anti-evolutionary argments are rejected by the mainstream.Johnson is a lawyer, whose arguments are likewise rejected.And as I showed Milton doesn't even seem to understand the role natural selection plays in the theory of evolution. And your promised reply in that thread - which you said would be posted by the 27th December has not materialised. And he obviously hadn't done any proper research on the wolf and thylacine since otherwise he would have known that what he was saying wasn't true (indeed the diagnostic difference in the back teeth is evident even in Milton's small drawings of the skulls).So obviously you have no idea what the mainstream scientific view even is.

No he didn't.You need to actually read what Tacitus wrote, not what you think he wrote.Brian.

Willowtree,
you were rather incensed when your post 116 was ignored. Now you ignore my reply...tsk tsk

WillowtreeWhat material from your "scientific" sources has not been refuted in this thread? Do you have no more "scientific" evidence against evolution?

quote:

---

The Bible isn't a novel. It is history. Some challenge it. So every archaeological discovery adds to its truthfulness. Archaeology is evidence. You know they found Jericho and the evidence was that the walls came down like the Bible said.

---

what evidence are you using for your jericho information?Kenyon demonstrated that the fall of jericho happened no later than 1300 bce, which was at least, and this is being generous, 70 to 100 years before the bible said it could have happened. her findings were based on evidence found at the site. if you are citing the reports on jericho from the 1930's and not paying attention to any subsequent discoveries, then i would say you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.what archeological evidence supports the OT conquest stories? or the exodus? or anything in the OT for that matter?my point--the bible is not inerrant. science is also subjected to mistakes and outright hoaxes or biases. there is one big diference between the two--science is self-correcting.sometimes objectively gathered evidence, or any scientific hypothesis or theory for that matter, can be subjected to bias based on the subjective ideas of archeologists or scientists or whomever. however, unlike your biblical inerrancy, science has peer review. if hoaxes, like piltdown man, or mistakes, like nebraska man, occur, review and experimentation by others will root these falsehoods out. science is inherently self correcting. these corrections might take some time, but they are found.evolution is a good, no, incredibly robust theory for many reasons. one being that in the 150+ years since darwin published on the origin of species, no one has refuted the theory. it is not like anyone has not tried either. sure, mechanisms are continuously debated in scientific circles, but that is how science works. lively and ongoing peer review is a hallmark of science and not a sign of weakness. how many times do we have to erroneously hear that "many scientists cannot agree on evolution, so it must be wrong"? that is such BS!the development of the theory of evolution has a great story. an incredibly arduous journey through all that is good and sometimes bad in the scientific community. it tells a story about the development of life on Earth and how we got here. there is a huge difference between the story of creation and the story of evolution, though. creationism doesn't change according to the evidence, it exists in spite of evidence. evolution grows and changes based on evidence. if the evidence doesn't support part of the story, it is changed. evolution doesn't exist b/c of some dogmatic impulse of the scientific community. it exists b/c it is backed by mountains of evidence that cannot be covered up by your fountains of the deep or your firmament

You said to take my time. I will respond tonight. I have posted one reply to you and I posted replies to others. You are next. Thank you for your interest.

Hi WT,
I was poking fun. Take your time..I will be offline the next few days so can't respond anyway.cheers
M

The first six questions/points of post #223 from this topic have not been adequately dealt with much less refuted.These six things are directed at you. Please answer them yourself from your own knowledge. I am debating you and not another website. I rarely, if ever defer to argument of another website.I think you should do some work and answer these points.

The questions you have asked are all or mostly separate topics of their own.This was supposed to be your scientific evidence against evolution. Could you pick one specific item as evidence?