Different Opinions....Who is right?

[metis]

Both sides are based on faith!

Absolutely 100% false, which is why we use the "scientific method" that theists generally don't use, with some exceptions. You are using what is called a "false equivalency".

As an example, please provide objectively-derived evidence that there is only one deity? I can guarantee that you can't do it because if had been already done it would be broadcast daily on every religious outlet in the world.

I accept that there is likely One God, but I do so on the basis of faith and some "experiences" I have had, thus not on objectively-derived evidence.

 

[dad]

You have already acknowledged that you do not consider science to be or use belief.

Real science, yes, that is fine. Origins fables in the name of science, no.

I know you do not get it. You do not or are not capable of distinguishing the fantastic nonsense you concoct in your head from actual facts.

I do know the difference between what I believe and what is known. I base evaluation of science on the facts and not some ridiculous nonsense about the laws of nature being different when there is no evidence to suggest that.

In other words you believe nature was the same for no reason and cannot prove it, but think it is a fact.

You have decided on a means to interpret belief and it is that means that is at odds with science. Rather than recognize the limitations of your means, you come up with fantasy. You re-brand your fantasy as fact. All to make your particular view of belief hold up. Your entire presence ends up being like that of a troll that is not here to discuss, learn or gain insight. You are just here to re-enforce you fantasy views.

Science is not beliefs, as much as you believe it is. You are deluded.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No more than if a tooth fairy existed it would be included in Catholic literature.

That makes no sense at all.
Not as an analogy to what I said, and not even just as a stand alone statement.

 

[dad]

That makes no sense at all.
Not as an analogy to what I said, and not even just as a stand alone statement.

Sure it does, religions do not publish beliefs of other religions. The rigid belief system of so called science would not publish anything about true religion, God, the spiritual, etc.

So called science is a cult!

Cult

noun
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
the object of such devotion.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

 

[rational experiences]

When every statement is a human owned, human applied assessment, then all your thoughts in actuality are a self congratulation for a human purpose.

You demonstrate to science that all life living on Planet Earth is innate to all life being owned living on Planet Earth.

The God science conscious TEACHING...what is relative....was exactly the word human usage for describing, by use of the language.

Science language says science is first....for they claim that radiation radio waves communicate.....as a conscious identification of what a human being does......be an aware self, communicated to equal partnerships side by side...in the one whole equal state...water and oxygen holy bodies.

Holy water, a God relative status to self.
Holy oxygen generation, the tree of life relative to self....yet diversity is what science identifies owns the same usage. So we are relatively not comparable.

Egotism is what a human establishes is the compare evaluation to then claim yes I now conclude I am the highest by evidence of life on Earth...what science concluded was RELATIVE.

Relating to in science, all bodies naturally present allow all bodies naturally present to exist......relative intelligence.

Science however is not intelligent for radio wave communications ARE NOT our language.

That language was formed and given to design and machines.

Consciousness in science by its gained sacrificed life as Stephen Hawkings became aware of......knowledge, I am sick, mutated, reasoning, science/machines caused it.

Aware natural human self, highest identification and self aware knowledge, if I do not teach myself correct natural self advice then I am doomed to my own destruction.

O knowledge of God, the mass of energy from which human science took all of its precedence's from....for without the planet existing, no laws as science inferred would even exist...relative to O GOD, the Earth if you cared to be truly rational.

No Earth O, no planet, No God for no human would exist either....what is relative understood by a human who understands concepts of how to destroy/force convert and manipulate the state of science to the sciences and wisdom of being a relative supporter of life continuance.

As simple as it was taught....science is the only self deceiver in human life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Real science, yes, that is fine. Origins fables in the name of science, no.

In other words you believe nature was the same for no reason and cannot prove it, but think it is a fact.

Science is not beliefs, as much as you believe it is. You are deluded.

I find no reason or evidence to conclude that the laws of nature were different in the past than they are today. No one, I MEAN NO ONE, on this forum or anywhere else, has provided evidence to demonstrate the laws of nature were different in the past. Persistent claims that nature was different in the past are desperation and delusion.

I am done with you. All out of troll food.

 

[dad]

I find no reason or evidence to conclude that the laws of nature were different in the past than they are today.

I find no reason or evidence to conclude that the laws of nature were the same in the past as they are today.

No one, I MEAN NO ONE, on this forum or anywhere else, has provided evidence to demonstrate the laws of nature were different in the past.

No one, I MEAN NO ONE, on this forum or anywhere else, has provided evidence to demonstrate the laws of nature were the same in the past.

Persistent claims that nature was different in the past are desperation and delusion.

Persistent claims that nature was the same in the past are desperation and delusion without proof.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Does the lack of fossil evidence mean that something does not exist or that we just do not have the fossil evidence? There are many reasons that fossils of precursor organisms might not be found. Using the theory, it is predicted that these precursors should exist. Not finding evidence of them does not mean that they did not exist. That is just the gap that you put your hat in.

You and the other CD evolution supporters....what is your argument based on?

Well let’s see. For over 150 years, scientists have been searching for viable precursors to the Cambrian organisms. The result? None have been found. Yet, what do CD evolution theorists say? “They must have existed”....but the evidence shows otherwise.

So that, my friend, is an argument from faith!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

it does not indicate what is meant by kinds.

Agreed. But it does indicate that there are classifications of animals.

That was my point. Why did you miss it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Dan From Smithville , why did you mention Lenski? Apparently you overlook what I said....

Has the LTEE produced de novo anatomical features? That’s what I said, you know. Was that an attempt to move the goalposts?

Please don’t misrepresent what I say.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Absolutely 100% false....

Uh, no, it’s true. Facts are indisputable. But interpretations of those facts, are faith-based.
Otherwise, all paleontologists would agree on the aforementioned pathway of bird evolution.

And why do you bring up *my* view of God? *I* have no problem with you implying that I have faith in my beliefs.

Thank you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure it does, religions do not publish beliefs of other religions. The rigid belief system of so called science would not publish anything about true religion, God, the spiritual, etc.

So called science is a cult!

Cult

noun
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
the object of such devotion.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

Science does not include worship, religious beliefs, rites, ceremonies, rituals or anything of the sort.

So by your own definition, science is not a cult.

Christianity is, though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You and the other CD evolution supporters....what is your argument based on?

Evidence.

Well let’s see. For over 150 years, scientists have been searching for viable precursors to the Cambrian organisms. The result? None have been found.

Lie.

Yet, what do CD evolution theorists say? “They must have existed”....but the evidence shows otherwise.

No. The evidence actually proves that common ancestors existed. It's a genetic fact that species share ancestry.

So that, my friend, is an argument from faith!

No. It's not even an argument. It's a conclusion from facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed. But it does indicate that there are classifications of animals.

As every person with a set of eyes and a brain can conclude pretty instantly.
So it's not exactly surprising that the book mentions it as well.

Off course, in light of our modern knowledge concerning biology, anatomy and genetics... the "classifications" of the bible make no sense. Which off course is to be expected from a book written by goat herders in the iron age who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun.

But which is pretty retarded if one assumes that this is intel supposedly communicated by the very creator and all knowing ruler of the universe.

That was my point. Why did you miss it?

I don't think he missed it.
The classification put forward in the bible are on the one hand extremely vague and ill-defined and on the other hand, obviously wrong and non-sensical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Dan From Smithville , why did you mention Lenski? Apparently you overlook what I said....

Has the LTEE produced de novo anatomical features? That’s what I said, you know. Was that an attempt to move the goalposts?

Please don’t misrepresent what I say.

YOU are moving the goalpost.
Your initial request was about de novo functions. Not anatomical features.

Although I could argue that a combination of multiple mutations opening up an entirely new metabolic pathway, is an entirely new anatomical feature concerning metabolism.

In any case, I'm guess that by "de novo anatomical feature", you mean something akin to a forelimb evolving into a wing suited for flight or something. Which would be a process that necessarily would take millions of years and thus by definition not possible to observe in real time, as the entire process takes even longer then humans in general have existed.

So perhaps this is a good time for you to narrow it down and define properly and in detail, what it is that you would want to see as evidence in support of evolution exactly.

I predict that you can't do that for any of the following two reasons:
- you can't, because you deliberatly keep it vague so that you can simply dismiss any example presented with the excuse that it isn't what you asked for, without ever actually being clear about what you are asking for.
- you can't, because the model of evolution you have in your head, is actually a strawman. Being detailed about what you wish to see, would expose that as chances are rather big that the example that you would wish to see, would actually end up disproving evolution rather then support it.

But hey.... you can easily prove my prediction wrong by:
- actually give a detailed and clear description of the example you wish to see
- being sure that this example indeed fits withing the evolutionary narrative and not some strawman.

I actually hope that you give this an honest attempt that proves my prediction wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Uh, no, it’s true. Facts are indisputable. But interpretations of those facts, are faith-based.
Otherwise, all paleontologists would agree on the aforementioned pathway of bird evolution.

What exact evolutionary pathway dino's took to evolve into birds, are NOT "interpretations" of the facts.
All paleontologists do agree on the actual interpretation of the facts. And that interpretation is that birds are dino's that share a common ancestor which was a dino but not a bird.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You and the other CD evolution supporters....what is your argument based on?

Well let’s see. For over 150 years, scientists have been searching for viable precursors to the Cambrian organisms. The result? None have been found. Yet, what do CD evolution theorists say? “They must have existed”....but the evidence shows otherwise.

So that, my friend, is an argument from faith!

There is no evidence that says that no precursor fauna existed prior to the Cambrian. There are many reasons that fossils may not have been found. Yet. That is not faith to recognize that.

Pretending that the absences of evidence means magic is faith and not science. It is existence in a gap.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed. But it does indicate that there are classifications of animals.

That was my point. Why did you miss it?

It is irrelevant. The people of the time recognized that there were different animals and plants. It would hardly be a miracle that they would include some reference to it in the Bible. It was one of these things is not like the other.

That recognition does not support any claim of a specific meaning for kind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville , why did you mention Lenski? Apparently you overlook what I said....

Has the LTEE produced de novo anatomical features? That’s what I said, you know. Was that an attempt to move the goalposts?

Please don’t misrepresent what I say.

No. I saw your straw man argument. My response was not an attempt at misrepresentation. Lenski is an example of evolution resulting in a population with increased fitness. New structures do not have to come into existence in order for that to happen. New structures would evolve gradually and not appear as if by magic in one generation and they would arise from existing structures.

Would you stop using acronyms without reference to what they mean.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science does not include worship, religious beliefs, rites, ceremonies, rituals or anything of the sort.

So by your own definition, science is not a cult.

Christianity is, though.

Beyond a few responses to specific nonsense, I find little reason to respond to some posters. What I have noted seems little different than trolling to me. However, recognition that science is not religion is what I noted in some of those posts too. Got to love a self-refuting poster that has no clue.