Would it be best for evolutionists to just ignore creationsts?

[Hawkins]

Your body is a living observable model sir. The fact that you are here is a tantamount to the repeatability of evolution.

Back that up and make a prediction on what human will be in the future. That's what science requires, instead of a bold assertion suh as this.

All your kind can do here is to keep throwing out assertions without an argument. How miserable!

 

[Photonic]

Back that up and make a prediction on what human will be in the future. That's what science requires, instead of a bold assertion suh as this.

All your kind can do here is to keep throwing out assertions without an argument. How miserable!

Ironic.

 

[Hawkins]

wrong again speciation has been observed in a lab.

Please you embarrass yourself over and over with your lack of education on the subject

Again, you put faith on things. Can you demonstrate how speciation of, say, mammals in a lab?

Your faith is like this,

"because I observed how things occurred to bacteria such that I concluded (with faith) that humans are undergoing the same process". That's your faith simply because humans are far more complicated than becteria that whatever conclusion you made on bacteria cannot directly applicable to humans.

"Bacteria changes are observed such that how a human heart came into existence is proven and revealed" <----- this is a joke by your faith?

Now replace "human" in the above sentence with dog, cat, cow....you name it, to see how miserable ToE fails on most organisms on earth.

Got that, Mr. "no argument"!

 

[Hawkins]

Ironic.

no argument here, still miserable!

 

[Hawkins]

WRONG again

many scientist are theist and find ToE valid

Again, many evlutionists have faith on that, so it must be true. Einstein.

WRONG again

there is a difference between knowledge and faith.

You do know there is a direct link to ones education and belief in creation. Most educated people find creation laughable while the ignorant and uneducated wallow in creation. DESPITE theism or a lack of it.

Again, that's by your faith. Issac Newton is either uneducated or not a scientist at all in accordance to your this faith.

choosing to remain ignorant doesnt help your position

Yet another assertion without an argument, your specialty.

It screams i dont want to know or learn about something fully before I make a decision BLINDLY

Another faith statement. You don't know me, remember?

Ya I understand why you would want to make blind decisions and create a dogma about something you know nothing about. GOLDEN FACEPALM AWARD

I understand why you would like to put blind faith on ToE without even your own awareness that it is a faith. Simply because you used to throw out assertions which you treat them as facts with nothing backing them up.

 

[Photonic]

Again, many evlutionists have faith on that, so it must be true. Einstein.




Again, that's by your faith. Issac Newton is either uneducated or not a scientist at all in accordance to your this faith.



Yet another assertion without an argument, your specialty.



Another faith statement. You don't know me, remember?



I understand why you would like to put blind faith on ToE without even your own awareness that it is a faith. Simply because you used to throw out assertions which you treat them as facts with nothing backing them up.

Can't admit you are wrong so you attack it instead, good plan. Feel free to argue, but your lack of education on the topic only makes it that much more funny.

 

[Hawkins]

Can't admit you are wrong so you attack it instead, good plan. Feel free to argue, but your lack of education on the topic only makes it that much more funny.

Again, throwing out meaningless assertion is all you can do. And it seems that your kind are only good at that. Nothing can be more amusing to see how your kind can't even make a valid argument but assertions in a discussion. Your kind is so boring! Zzzzzzz...

 

[Photonic]

Again, throwing out meaningless assertion is all you can do. And it seems that your kind are only good at that. Nothing can be more amusing to see how your kind can't even make a valid argument but assertions in a discussion. Your kind is so boring! Zzzzzzz...

I just don't feel it is necessary to argue with one who will not understand what I'm saying. It will be lost on you.

Perhaps if you educate yourself a bit more on what exactly evolution is in the first place.

 

[outhouse]

Again, you put faith on things. Can you demonstrate how speciation of, say, mammals in a lab?

I dont have faith in your lack of knowledge in science, I know. The statement above shows ignornace of the proccess.

Like it or not it happens, whether it fits your personal opinion or not.

Again, that's by your faith. Issac Newton is either uneducated or not a scientist at all in accordance to your this faith.

WRONG again.

now you show ignorance in history.

because you cannot understandthe difference between faith and knowledge does not mean we all have that lack of education onthe subject.

I understand why you would like to put blind faith on ToE

poor attempt to mirror ToE to creation. YOU have faith I dont need it.


Look in a dictionary my friend and read the passage for knowlegde

 

[johnhanks]

Again, you put faith on things. Can you demonstrate how speciation of, say, mammals in a lab?

We can demonstrate speciation of mammals on an island.

Your argument, for want of a better word, seems to rest on the notion that if the ToE cannot make precise predictions about future changes in populations, it cannot be a real science. On that basis, you are going to throw out a lot of science. Is plate tectonics unscientific because it is notoriously bad at predicting the times, locations and severity of earthquakes? Should we jettison gravitational theory because predicting the precise paths of asteroids is bedevilled by their interactions with so many unknown objects?

Both of these latter cases illustrate how perfectly good scientific theories may have poor predictivity, not because they themselves are flawed but because the relevant data are difficult or impossible to collect, and it is impossible to know that every contributing factor has been taken into account. This is true of ToE as well.

 

[McBell]

Back that up and make a prediction on what human will be in the future. That's what science requires, instead of a bold assertion suh as this.

All your kind can do here is to keep throwing out assertions without an argument. How miserable!

 

[McBell]

Again, throwing out meaningless assertion is all you can do.

Since you have thoroughly demonstrated your immunity to truth and facts....

And it seems that your kind are only good at that.

And what "kind" is that?
Or are you just making up more BS to support your bold empty claims?

Nothing can be more amusing to see how your kind can't even make a valid argument but assertions in a discussion. Your kind is so boring! Zzzzzzz...

Ah, you must be talking about creationists.
For you have just described how most of them are.


About the only thing you have done in this thread is present the most compelling of arguments as to why creationists should be ignored.
GOOD JOB!

 

[Matthew78]

Again, throwing out meaningless assertion is all you can do. And it seems that your kind are only good at that. Nothing can be more amusing to see how your kind can't even make a valid argument but assertions in a discussion. Your kind is so boring! Zzzzzzz...

My goodness! Such condescending arrogance! Is there a biblical basis for this very snobbish attitude of yours?

 

[fantome profane]

Issac Newton is either uneducated or not a scientist at all

That is correct. Sir Isaac Newton was completely uneducated in the subject of evolution. This is not surprising given that he died eighty years before Darwin was born.
(btw, Newton didn’t know much about string theory or quantum physics either)

 

[Photonic]

That is correct. Sir Isaac Newton was completely uneducated in the subject of evolution. This is not surprising given that he died eighty years before Darwin was born.
(btw, Newton didn’t know much about string theory or quantum physics either)

And his laws on classical physics have been shown to be less than the real thing.

 

[camanintx]

Back that up and make a prediction on what human will be in the future. That's what science requires, instead of a bold assertion suh as this.

All your kind can do here is to keep throwing out assertions without an argument. How miserable!

Would the inability to predict which boulder will be the next to roll down a mountain likewise cause you to discredit the theory of gravity? Evolution cannot predict the individual mutations which drive change in organisms. It can help us make sense of how these organisms came to be as they are.

 

[Hawkins]

To me your kind is just hopeless. You don't know what science is, and you don't know what ToE is either.


Again, just like many times before, I will try to make the situation as simple as possible for your kind to understand. I can't help that much if you still keep throwing out assertion as tactics to evade what has been pointed out.

------
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'.

 

[Hawkins]

Since you have thoroughly demonstrated your immunity to truth and facts....


And what "kind" is that?
Or are you just making up more BS to support your bold empty claims?


Ah, you must be talking about creationists.
For you have just described how most of them are.


About the only thing you have done in this thread is present the most compelling of arguments as to why creationists should be ignored.
GOOD JOB!

Read my post just above to get a clue! Invite some true scientists or true evolutionists in to see how amusing your kind is!

All your kind can do is to gank up together to fart with hollow assertions and a pure attacking tone. Your kind knows nothing but only capable of sounding with a "seem to be sarcastic" tone to try to persuade yourselves that your kind is of any better. Get a life! Or at least try to make some valid argument in a discussion.

Since you have thoroughly demonstrated your immunity to truth and facts...

The most funny read of the day. You are talking about yourself right?

 

[Photonic]

To me your kind is just hopeless. You don't know what science is, and you don't know what ToE is either.


Again, just like many times before, I will try to make the situation as simple as possible for your kind to understand. I can't help that much if you still keep throwing out assertion as tactics to evade what has been pointed out.

------
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'.

Thanks for confirming that you may possibly be more uneducated on this topic than Rusra.

What's your source...no wait, let me guess.

Expelled.



On a side note, you have a lot of nerve saying an astrophysicist has no idea what science is.

Care to have a little spar to see who knows more about science? I don't think I should allow such a point to stand. I look forward to your...response.

 

[johnhanks]

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...

So if meteorologists explain a rainstorm as the result of a particular cold front meeting a warm front under just the right conditions, you will refuse to believe them unless they can recreate that precise rainstorm for you? So, that's fluid dynamics written off as a science too, and much else besides. Aren't we doing well?