Chew On This, Creationists

[SkepticThinker]

I am saying it because it is true. How many times have I been told that "there are no facts in science"?

No, it's not true. Myself and others have explained in great detail why it is not true, on multiple occasions. Hence my amazement at your repetition of it.

Remember the discussion about how evolution is a fact, while the theory of evolution is the explanation that describes the mechanisms involved in evolution, which itself is made up of facts?

So does evolution when it goes beyond what is provable. Adaptation is not 'evolution' in the sense that science wants to make it out to be. There is a line between what is observable and therefore "provable" and what is assumed and suggested on biasedly interpreted "evidence". All life did not spring from a single celled organism. That is fantasy that requires a great deal of faith and belief.

Evolution has a ton of evidence backing it, and no evidence against it. Adaptation, as you describe it, is evolution. I've pointed that out to you countless times as well. We're all still waiting on the creationists to present the evidence that would falsify the theory. Still.

There is no faith required in accepting demonstrable, verifiable facts. How much faith does it take for you to accept gravity or the existence of germs?

You can believe whatever you wish.....I will believe that the evidence points to Intelligent Design, way more that it points to undirected chance being responsible for all the complex, interconnected lifeforms and ecological systems we see in nature.

I accept things that are supported by evidence. I don't accept things that are not supported by evidence.
You believe the things you want to believe, as you've stated several times. See the difference between our points of view?

 

[Deeje]

I was curious about this question, so I did a quick search and found out something very interesting. Here's every post that comes up when you use the search function to look for the phrase "there are no facts in science" in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum:

March 27, 2019
#139 -Deeje
How many times have I been told that "there are no facts in science"? So does evolution when it goes ...

March 26, 2019
#124 -Deeje
I keep getting told that there are no "facts" in science....there is just "evidence"....

August 28, 2017
#1,000+ -Deeje
"Appears to be" is not a statement of fact and neither is "might have" or "could have"......there are no facts in science as you all keep telling me. If they are not 'facts' they are 'assumptions'...educated guesses, at ...

November 13, 2018
#1000+ - Deeje
I keep getting told that there are no "facts" in science.....well, there are no "facts" in my belief system either. Your belief system has as much "proof" as mine. I hope that I have demonstrated that for the benefit ...

May 04, 2018
#29 - Deeje
The scientists here keep telling me that there are no facts in science....so why is it taught as if it were fact and not pure speculation? I don't know any students who are taught that evolution cannot be proven. Its about ...

May 05, 2018
#104 - Deeje
It can't be called science fact because "there are no facts in science", so they keep telling me.....so it must be science fiction masquerading as something it isn't. If you can't prove it...it isn't a fact. Heaven forbid ...

June 27, 2018
#143 - Deeje
All that volume is not provable and therefore there are no "facts" in science. How is it taught as truth when it is only suggestion supported by biased interpretation of evidence? No they are not. The arguments against ID ...

April 27, 2018
#44 - Deeje
There are no facts in science...or so everyone keeps telling me. Having read quite a lot of articles and links provided to me over the years, it has been reinforced time and again that when science does not have real facts ...

April 23, 2017
#16 - Deeje
You all blindly accept what you are told in spite of the fact that there are no facts in science....because, as you said, "Science does not prove anything"...... Who told you that Genesis was based on Babylonian myths ...

October 12, 2009
#122 -Man of Faith
There are no facts in science.

SOURCE: https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...E ARE NO FACTS IN SCIENCE" forum:"65"&tab=409

So, Deeje, the answer to your question is NOT ONCE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS FORUM, and the only person who has ever used the phrase "there are no facts in science"... is you. Literally nobody else on these forums has used that phrase except one creationist ten years ago.

LOL....Thank you for confirming what I have said all along...."I keep getting told that there are no facts in science".....especially is this true when it comes to macro-evolution. No "proof" is required because you accept it all on faith in your own belief system.

"Facts" are replaced by "evidence" which is a good "hide" for those who know that science cannot "prove" that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone a reality. The facts and real evidence of adaptation is used to take the scenario way beyond anything science can prove. It only shifts into the realms of possibility when the story is told by those who should know about these things.

Whale evolution is a classic example of this. They want us to believe that whales evolved from four legged, furry, land-dwelling creatures who were led to opt for an aquatic life all those millions of years ago. What is the basis for this fairy tale? A similar ear bone!
They then take similar looking creatures that existed in different millenniums, and link them together with the flimsiest of "evidence". They have no real evidence that these creatures were even related.

It is obvious that the "evidence" was "interpreted" by those who were already convinced that evolution is true, therefore this "evidence", biasedly strung together with nothing more than imagination, was then presented as "fact" to an already convinced audience. There is the scientific sleight of hand right there.

Regardless of what you say in protest, macro-evolution is accepted on faith in a belief....just like creation is.

You can no more prove that evolution is a reality than I can produce a Creator in reality. We have evidence too, which is just as compelling...if not more. It just depends on what we want to believe. We choose our own belief system.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Whale evolution is a classic example of this. They want us to believe that whales evolved from four legged, furry, land-dwelling creatures who were led to opt for an aquatic life all those millions of years ago. What is the basis for this fairy tale? A similar ear bone!
They then take similar looking creatures that existed in different millenniums, and link then together with the flimsiest of "evidence". They have no real evidence that these creatures were even related.

It is obvious that the "evidence" was "interpreted" by those who were already convinced that evolution is true, therefore this "evidence", biasedly strung together with nothing more than imagination, was then presented as "fact" to an already convinced audience. There is the scientific sleight of hand right there.

Regardless of what you say in protest, macro-evolution is accepted on faith in a belief....just like creation is.

You can no more prove that evolution is a reality than I can produce a Creator in reality. We have evidence too, which is just as compelling...if not more. It just depends on what we want to believe. We choose our own belief system.

It's based upon made up information..... and wishful thinking.....

 

[Deeje]

It's based upon made up information..... and wishful thinking.....

Speculation.....what a wonderful thing! Pure imagination!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL....Thank you for confirming what I have said all along...."I keep getting told that there are no facts in science".....especially is this true when it comes to macro-evolution. No "proof" is required because you accept it all on faith in your own belief system.

"Facts" are replaced by "evidence" which is a good "hide" for those who know that science cannot "prove" that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone a reality. The facts and real evidence of adaptation is used to take the scenario way beyond anything science can prove. It only shifts into the realms of possibility when the story is told by those who should know about these things.

Whale evolution is a classic example of this. They want us to believe that whales evolved from four legged, furry, land-dwelling creatures who were led to opt for an aquatic life all those millions of years ago. What is the basis for this fairy tale? A similar ear bone!
They then take similar looking creatures that existed in different millenniums, and link them together with the flimsiest of "evidence". They have no real evidence that these creatures were even related.

It is obvious that the "evidence" was "interpreted" by those who were already convinced that evolution is true, therefore this "evidence", biasedly strung together with nothing more than imagination, was then presented as "fact" to an already convinced audience. There is the scientific sleight of hand right there.

Regardless of what you say in protest, macro-evolution is accepted on faith in a belief....just like creation is.

You can no more prove that evolution is a reality than I can produce a Creator in reality. We have evidence too, which is just as compelling...if not more. It just depends on what we want to believe. We choose our own belief system.

This kind of bait and switch is hilarious, Deeje. No matter how you try and spin in, the fact is that nobody on these forums has ever told you "there are no facts in science".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Speculation.....what a wonderful thing! Pure imagination!

Much easier to convince themselves their theory is valid when facts can be made up out of thin air.

 

[metis]

Much easier to convince themselves their theory is valid when facts can be made up out of thin air.

That's simply not how it's done as a scientific theory, such as the ToE, requires significant amounts of evidence with no counter evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's simply not how it's done as a scientific theory, such as the ToE, requires significant amounts of evidence with no counter evidence.

It’s exactly how it’s done in the evolution hypothesis.

When you can’t find data to fit, make it up as you go along. Then when later data contradicts what you just imagined to be the case..... keep it in the same place in the line regardless if it was belief in flippered feet that placed it there originally.

What evidence?

Every creature in the fossil record remaining the same across millions of years until it goes extinct?

Then imagining imaginary “missing common ancestors“ to connect separate creatures?

Bacteria that remain the same bacteria no matter how many times you mutate them?

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Husky’s that mate with Husky’s and produce only Husky’s?

Asians that mate with Asians that produce only Asians?

All the evidence is counter evidence, none of it supporting except the imaginary parts....

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL....Thank you for confirming what I have said all along...."I keep getting told that there are no facts in science".....especially is this true when it comes to macro-evolution. No "proof" is required because you accept it all on faith in your own belief system.

"Facts" are replaced by "evidence" which is a good "hide" for those who know that science cannot "prove" that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone a reality. The facts and real evidence of adaptation is used to take the scenario way beyond anything science can prove. It only shifts into the realms of possibility when the story is told by those who should know about these things.

Whale evolution is a classic example of this. They want us to believe that whales evolved from four legged, furry, land-dwelling creatures who were led to opt for an aquatic life all those millions of years ago. What is the basis for this fairy tale? A similar ear bone!
They then take similar looking creatures that existed in different millenniums, and link them together with the flimsiest of "evidence". They have no real evidence that these creatures were even related.

It is obvious that the "evidence" was "interpreted" by those who were already convinced that evolution is true, therefore this "evidence", biasedly strung together with nothing more than imagination, was then presented as "fact" to an already convinced audience. There is the scientific sleight of hand right there.

Regardless of what you say in protest, macro-evolution is accepted on faith in a belief....just like creation is.

You can no more prove that evolution is a reality than I can produce a Creator in reality. We have evidence too, which is just as compelling...if not more. It just depends on what we want to believe. We choose our own belief system.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It’s exactly how it’s done in the evolution hypothesis.

When you can’t find data to fit, make it up as you go along. Then when later data contradicts what you just imagined to be the case..... keep it in the same place in the line regardless if it was belief in flippered feet that placed it there originally.

What evidence?

Every creature in the fossil record remaining the same across millions of years until it goes extinct?

Then imagining imaginary “missing common ancestors“ to connect separate creatures?

Bacteria that remain the same bacteria no matter how many times you mutate them?

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Husky’s that mate with Husky’s and produce only Husky’s?

Asians that mate with Asians that produce only Asians?

All the evidence is counter evidence, none of it supporting except the imaginary parts....

Utter nonsense.

 

[metis]

It’s exactly how it’s done in the evolution hypothesis.

Evolution has not been considered a "hypothesis" for well over a century now.

When you can’t find data to fit, make it up as you go along.

I think we may well be seeing "projection" at work here because any scientist who would dare do such a thing would have his/her reputation so damaged as to then be virtually ignored.

Every creature in the fossil record remaining the same across millions of years until it goes extinct?

Absolutely false. Maybe google "speciation".

Then imagining imaginary “missing common ancestors“ to connect separate creatures?

Again, "projection" seems to be at work here.

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Where I did my graduate work, it was fruit flies that were largely worked with in our genetics studies, and new species of fruit flies have been observed over several decades worth of such studies. Life forms evolve, and that has been proven over and over again though observations, not speculation.

All the evidence is counter evidence, none of it supporting except the imaginary parts....

You simply do not know what you're talking about, so who's feeding you such lies?

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught much of what you appear to believe, and I had thoughts about going into the ministry. However, because of my interest in science I started studying the ToE in the early 1960's, dropped both the thoughts of the ministry and also the church that was teaching such anti-scientific nonsense, went at first into biology but then decided that anthropology was more my interest. I eventually got a graduate degree in that and then went on to teach if for roughly 30 years.

I also studied theology and taught it for a couple of decades, and let me just say that a clear majority of Christian and Jewish theologians do not have a problem with the ToE as long as it is understood God was behind it all. I am active in my church that does teach the Truth about the ToE, namely that it in no way counters Biblical teachings.

Let me recommend that you seek out a denomination and church that actually teaches the Truth and not made up excuses to reject basic science that reflects basic reality.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

One does not need to be "smarter than Newton" to be able to see his errors. The times that people.live in can make them blind to some pretty obvious errors.

Do you really think Newton believed plants grew first, without the Sun providing the light necessary for them to grow? You’d have to conclude that he was unaware of the Sun’s importance in growing plants, believing the Bible taught such nonsense, i.e., that plants thrived without light from the Sun!

Either that, or admit that you prefer to ignore the intent behind the author of that passage.

Where, do you think, did the “light” in Genesis 1:3 come from? The Hebrew “Owr”, used in verses 3 &18, is different than “ma*owr” employed in verse 16.

Really, what is obvious is that God’s Word does what it says...it reveals “thoughts and attitudes“ in people’s “heart”. — Hebrews 4:12

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again with the Isaac Newton. Are you under the impression that everybody must accept everything single thing Isaac Newton ever said or believed about anything, simply because he was a genius in one area of study? Why?
And why do you think you're making some kind of slam dunk point every time you bring him up (which is a LOT)?

I was discussing just the one aspect of Genesis, namely, it’s mention of lights.

Do you really think Newton believed plants grew first, without the Sun providing the light necessary for them to grow? You’d have to conclude that he was unaware of the Sun’s importance in growing plants, believing the Bible taught such nonsense, i.e., that plants thrived without light from the Sun!

Either that, or admit that you prefer to ignore the intent behind the author of that passage.

Where, do you think, did the “light” in Genesis 1:3 come from? The Hebrew “Owr”, used in verses 3 &18, is different than “ma*owr” employed in verse 16.

Really, what is obvious is that God’s Word does what it says...it reveals “thoughts and attitudes“ in people’s “heart”. — Hebrews 4:12

 

[gnostic]

Asians that mate with Asians that produce only Asians?

What do you mean by “Asians”?

You mean like Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc?

You do realise that Indians, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Palestinians, Turks, etc? So are any Russians living east of the Ural Mountains that divide Russia.

And then you have Austronesian peoples living in Southeast Asia and the Oceania.

Do you stereotype much?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you really think Newton believed plants grew first, without the Sun providing the light necessary for them to grow? You’d have to conclude that he was unaware of the Sun’s importance in growing plants, believing the Bible taught such nonsense, i.e., that plants thrived without light from the Sun!

Either that, or admit that you prefer to ignore the intent behind the author of that passage.

Where, do you think, did the “light” in Genesis 1:3 come from? The Hebrew “Owr”, used in verses 3 &18, is different than “ma*owr” employed in verse 16.

Really, what is obvious is that God’s Word does what it says...it reveals “thoughts and attitudes“ in people’s “heart”. — Hebrews 4:12

I don't really know what Newton believed in this regard, but since the whole of Genesis is myth does it really matter? If he believed any part of it then he would have been in error. Most people of his time probably believed Genesis without giving it much thought.

And I need to remind you that disproving Genesis did not disprove Christianity any more than a spherical Earth does.

 

[tas8831]

It is very telling that the supreme JW, Deeje the great, routinely breaks forum rules by using the laugh rating on posts that document her many lies. She did the same thing when I posted about her frequent use of her "jargon" argument.

What lives these people must lead, that they feel compelled to lie and try to cover their lies with indignation - all to prop up their cultish 'faith.'

I was curious about this question, so I did a quick search and found out something very interesting. Here's every post that comes up when you use the search function to look for the phrase "there are no facts in science" in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum:

March 27, 2019
#139 -Deeje
How many times have I been told that "there are no facts in science"? So does evolution when it goes ...

March 26, 2019
#124 -Deeje
I keep getting told that there are no "facts" in science....there is just "evidence"....

August 28, 2017
#1,000+ -Deeje
"Appears to be" is not a statement of fact and neither is "might have" or "could have"......there are no facts in science as you all keep telling me. If they are not 'facts' they are 'assumptions'...educated guesses, at ...

November 13, 2018
#1000+ - Deeje
I keep getting told that there are no "facts" in science.....well, there are no "facts" in my belief system either. Your belief system has as much "proof" as mine. I hope that I have demonstrated that for the benefit ...

May 04, 2018
#29 - Deeje
The scientists here keep telling me that there are no facts in science....so why is it taught as if it were fact and not pure speculation? I don't know any students who are taught that evolution cannot be proven. Its about ...

May 05, 2018
#104 - Deeje
It can't be called science fact because "there are no facts in science", so they keep telling me.....so it must be science fiction masquerading as something it isn't. If you can't prove it...it isn't a fact. Heaven forbid ...

June 27, 2018
#143 - Deeje
All that volume is not provable and therefore there are no "facts" in science. How is it taught as truth when it is only suggestion supported by biased interpretation of evidence? No they are not. The arguments against ID ...

April 27, 2018
#44 - Deeje
There are no facts in science...or so everyone keeps telling me. Having read quite a lot of articles and links provided to me over the years, it has been reinforced time and again that when science does not have real facts ...

April 23, 2017
#16 - Deeje
You all blindly accept what you are told in spite of the fact that there are no facts in science....because, as you said, "Science does not prove anything"...... Who told you that Genesis was based on Babylonian myths ...

October 12, 2009
#122 -Man of Faith
There are no facts in science.

SOURCE: https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...E ARE NO FACTS IN SCIENCE" forum:"65"&tab=409

So, Deeje, the answer to your question is NOT ONCE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS FORUM, and the only person who has ever used the phrase "there are no facts in science"... is you. Literally nobody else on these forums has used that phrase except one creationist ten years ago.

 

[tas8831]

It’s exactly how it’s done in the evolution hypothesis.

When you can’t find data to fit, make it up as you go along.

Sad dishonesty from the creationist... Ho hum..

Husky’s that mate with Husky’s and produce only Husky’s?

Asians that mate with Asians that produce only Asians?

All the evidence is counter evidence, none of it supporting except the imaginary parts....

Were Huskies the the original dog kind? If not, where did they come from in the first place?

Say - why don't you quote that paper you did on christianforums where you tried to use it to claim that the dog-kind's history matches the YEC cult claims? The one where I pointed out that the article was only referring to the major dog breeds in western Europe and they had actually discussed issues that you claimed are wrong? Please cite that one, won;t you? I so enjoy making you look silly and inept!

And where did Asians come from? I mean, Adam and Eve were for all intents and purposes identical middle easterners, and the genomes were "perfect" as many YECs like to claim, so how did we get Asians at all? Multiple rounds of inbreeding??

Incredible...

 

[sooda]

LOL....Thank you for confirming what I have said all along...."I keep getting told that there are no facts in science".....especially is this true when it comes to macro-evolution. No "proof" is required because you accept it all on faith in your own belief system.

"Facts" are replaced by "evidence" which is a good "hide" for those who know that science cannot "prove" that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone a reality. The facts and real evidence of adaptation is used to take the scenario way beyond anything science can prove. It only shifts into the realms of possibility when the story is told by those who should know about these things.

Whale evolution is a classic example of this. They want us to believe that whales evolved from four legged, furry, land-dwelling creatures who were led to opt for an aquatic life all those millions of years ago. What is the basis for this fairy tale? A similar ear bone!
They then take similar looking creatures that existed in different millenniums, and link them together with the flimsiest of "evidence". They have no real evidence that these creatures were even related.

It is obvious that the "evidence" was "interpreted" by those who were already convinced that evolution is true, therefore this "evidence", biasedly strung together with nothing more than imagination, was then presented as "fact" to an already convinced audience. There is the scientific sleight of hand right there.

Regardless of what you say in protest, macro-evolution is accepted on faith in a belief....just like creation is.

You can no more prove that evolution is a reality than I can produce a Creator in reality. We have evidence too, which is just as compelling...if not more. It just depends on what we want to believe. We choose our own belief system.

From YESTERDAY...

Ancient whale with 4 legs walked on land and swam in the sea, scientists say
Ancient whale with 4 legs walked on land and swam in the sea, scientists say

 

[sooda]

Utter nonsense.

How Did Whales Reach the Americas? A Four-Legged Fossil Offers New Clues
Dubbed Peregocetus pacificus, the newly-described species was adapted to life both in and out of the water

Read more: How Did Whales Reach the Americas? A Four-Legged Fossil Offers New Clues | Smart News | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[tas8831]

From YESTERDAY...

Ancient whale with 4 legs walked on land and swam in the sea, scientists say
Ancient whale with 4 legs walked on land and swam in the sea, scientists say

Sorry - too much jargon and assumption....