Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[blü 2]

Now if using an impossible scientific proven law to get to evolutionary result of mankind then how do you explain the use of such Faith & Supernatural which is the only way that's possible.

Please enlighten me about the supernatural. For a start, what definition of 'supernatural' do you use? Please set it out precisely and in full.

It needs to be sufficient to provide a test that will distinguish the supernatural from both the natural and the imaginary.

And I've never found one that will do that, so I'm interested to hear your view.

 

[Patriottechsan]

I've already said it n u nervous times & you keep dodging it intentionally & changing the subject.

Abiogenesis is a proven science law that evolution has to break. Therefore, Evolutionist use Faith & Supernatural to bypass it to move forward.

Actually trying to sell me that DNA/RNA which runs all life which is like. a computer program only more complex than anything man has ever been able to do. You try & sell me that it can to be by natural means by writhing itself w/o intelligent design behind it. That is foundational to All of life. Yet you can only offer just so stories & offer non demonstratable science as your proof! That isn't faith or Supernatural. Really?

As I asked, get any Engineer or computer programmer on here & give me scientifically proven examples that are repeatable like real true scienc demands. Show me a Functional complex or Functional Design Computer program that wrote itself or designed itself by Random trial & error w/o any Intelligence required.

Go ahead & look throughout your house, car, office, city, state, this world for any example that proves that foundational premise is proven fact.

All you will give me will validate statements I've given from evolutionist themselves.

You can attack me all you want. Problem is you still can't deliver what is required by real science to prove evolution & your point.

Not to distract you. But why did evolution stop with mankind having only 2 legs & 2 arms? How many times have we wished we had more & could have used them.

Why did it stop without giving us wings to fly &/or the ability to swim like a fish all like birds & fish. Couldn't we use them too?

We don't even see attempts of evolutionary tries at it. If so they die. Plus before finished since has no way to tell it what to keep or throw away like engineer can knowing the end game.


Why is it you have the Scientist Dissent List that reached over or close to 1000 worldwide of many fields of science against the stranglehold of not being academically honest & showing the numerous & multiple serious scientific problems with Darwin's evolution.

You guys are perfect examples of the success of what & how Dr Mano Singham perfectly describes in his article I already described in Physics Today June of 2000 issue & quoted some from.

Since you aren't interested in academic honesty like the 2 Dr Engineer was that challenged me. I won't waste time on dishonest discussions. He & I had them for 2 yrs. Either take one specific point & do it academically honestly or stay as Dr Singham taught.

I'd really like just one example sans evolution just so story & w/o DEMONSTRATION. But an actual scientific example of Functional Design %/or Computer program coming from nothing to that Completely Functional Process by itself from itself w/o help from any type ID. That will show me evolutions feasibility. Otherwise it's fraud & validates quotes I've read.
.Quote mining I've heard before. When in fact they wrote it in books, articles, papers etc so it's their words where they let truth slip. Not like we haven't already known.
But with anything. Any excuse will work when it fits ones biased agenda. I'm sorry truth makes you uncomfortable. It did my Engineer. Why it took 2 yrs. But he stuck it out due to his academic honesty above all. He gave me your stuff plus much more.
I'm going to enjoy the rest of this special day with my wife of almost 35 yrs. I wish you guys that blessing too someday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've already said it n u nervous times & you keep dodging it intentionally & changing the subject.

Abiogenesis is a proven science law that evolution has to break. Therefore, Evolutionist use Faith & Supernatural to bypass it to move forward.

What? Do you mean the law of biogenesis? You are triply wrong here. First you got the name wrong. Second the law of biogenesis applies to spontaneous generation not abiogenesis. Third it is not "proven". Nothing in the sciences is proven

Actually trying to sell me that DNA/RNA which runs all life which is like. a computer program only more complex than anything man has ever been able to do. You try & sell me that it can to be by natural means by writhing itself w/o intelligent design behind it. That is foundational to All of life. Yet you can only offer just so stories & offer non demonstratable science as your proof! That isn't faith or Supernatural. Really?

Wrong again, but since you are doing a Gish Gallop all that it takes to refute you is a negation.

As I asked, get any Engineer or computer programmer on here & give me scientifically proven examples that are repeatable like real true scienc demands. Show me a Functional complex or Functional Design Computer program that wrote itself or designed itself by Random trial & error w/o any Intelligence required.

Go ahead & look throughout your house, car, office, city, state, this world for any example that proves that foundational premise is proven fact.

All you will give me will validate statements I've given from evolutionist themselves.

You can attack me all you want. Problem is you still can't deliver what is required by real science to prove evolution & your point.

Not to distract you. But why did evolution stop with mankind having only 2 legs & 2 arms? How many times have we wished we had more & could have used them.

Why did it stop without giving us wings to fly &/or the ability to swim like a fish all like birds & fish. Couldn't we use them too?

We don't even see attempts of evolutionary tries at it. If so they die. Plus before finished since has no way to tell it what to keep or throw away like engineer can knowing the end game.


Why is it you have the Scientist Dissent List that reached over or close to 1000 worldwide of many fields of science against the stranglehold of not being academically honest & showing the numerous & multiple serious scientific problems with Darwin's evolution.

You guys are perfect examples of the success of what & how Dr Mano Singham perfectly describes in his article I already described in Physics Today June of 2000 issue & quoted some from.

Since you aren't interested in academic honesty like the 2 Dr Engineer was that challenged me. I won't waste time on dishonest discussions. He & I had them for 2 yrs. Either take one specific point & do it academically honestly or stay as Dr Singham taught.

I'd really like just one example sans evolution just so story & w/o DEMONSTRATION. But an actual scientific example of Functional Design %/or Computer program coming from nothing to that Completely Functional Process by itself from itself w/o help from any type ID. That will show me evolutions feasibility. Otherwise it's fraud & validates quotes I've read.
.Quote mining I've heard before. When in fact they wrote it in books, articles, papers etc so it's their words where they let truth slip. Not like we haven't already known.
But with anything. Any excuse will work when it fits ones biased agenda. I'm sorry truth makes you uncomfortable. It did my Engineer. Why it took 2 yrs. But he stuck it out due to his academic honesty above all. He gave me your stuff plus much more.
I'm going to enjoy the rest of this special day with my wife of almost 35 yrs. I wish you guys that blessing too someday.

Repeating your errors now. This is rather boring. Would you care to discuss this properly or are you bound and determined to demonstrate not even a high school level of scientific literacy?

 

[blü 2]

I've already said it n u nervous times & you keep dodging it intentionally & changing the subject.

The supernatural is your choice of subject.

So please let me have your unevasive response to my post #101.

Otherwise people might think you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Bear Wild]

I've already said it n u nervous times & you keep dodging it intentionally & changing the subject.

Abiogenesis is a proven science law that evolution has to break. Therefore, Evolutionist use Faith & Supernatural to bypass it to move forward.

Actually trying to sell me that DNA/RNA which runs all life which is like. a computer program only more complex than anything man has ever been able to do. You try & sell me that it can to be by natural means by writhing itself w/o intelligent design behind it. That is foundational to All of life. Yet you can only offer just so stories & offer non demonstratable science as your proof! That isn't faith or Supernatural. Really?

As I asked, get any Engineer or computer programmer on here & give me scientifically proven examples that are repeatable like real true scienc demands. Show me a Functional complex or Functional Design Computer program that wrote itself or designed itself by Random trial & error w/o any Intelligence required.

Go ahead & look throughout your house, car, office, city, state, this world for any example that proves that foundational premise is proven fact.

All you will give me will validate statements I've given from evolutionist themselves.

You can attack me all you want. Problem is you still can't deliver what is required by real science to prove evolution & your point.

Not to distract you. But why did evolution stop with mankind having only 2 legs & 2 arms? How many times have we wished we had more & could have used them.

Why did it stop without giving us wings to fly &/or the ability to swim like a fish all like birds & fish. Couldn't we use them too?

We don't even see attempts of evolutionary tries at it. If so they die. Plus before finished since has no way to tell it what to keep or throw away like engineer can knowing the end game.


Why is it you have the Scientist Dissent List that reached over or close to 1000 worldwide of many fields of science against the stranglehold of not being academically honest & showing the numerous & multiple serious scientific problems with Darwin's evolution.

You guys are perfect examples of the success of what & how Dr Mano Singham perfectly describes in his article I already described in Physics Today June of 2000 issue & quoted some from.

Since you aren't interested in academic honesty like the 2 Dr Engineer was that challenged me. I won't waste time on dishonest discussions. He & I had them for 2 yrs. Either take one specific point & do it academically honestly or stay as Dr Singham taught.

I'd really like just one example sans evolution just so story & w/o DEMONSTRATION. But an actual scientific example of Functional Design %/or Computer program coming from nothing to that Completely Functional Process by itself from itself w/o help from any type ID. That will show me evolutions feasibility. Otherwise it's fraud & validates quotes I've read.
.Quote mining I've heard before. When in fact they wrote it in books, articles, papers etc so it's their words where they let truth slip. Not like we haven't already known.
But with anything. Any excuse will work when it fits ones biased agenda. I'm sorry truth makes you uncomfortable. It did my Engineer. Why it took 2 yrs. But he stuck it out due to his academic honesty above all. He gave me your stuff plus much more.
I'm going to enjoy the rest of this special day with my wife of almost 35 yrs. I wish you guys that blessing too someday.

I am not clear on your reference to the University of Texas and Texas Tech divide on you picture. Then you make references to computers and evolution which are separate subjects. You connect Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution together without realizing how separate these fields are. Your argument is too incoherent. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Either you have no concept of how science works or you are just creating a fantasy argument. Creating incoherent connections is not logical argument at all.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Abiogenesis is a proven science law that evolution has to break. Therefore, Evolutionist use Faith & Supernatural to bypass it to move forward.

My dear Patriottechsan, it would be better for all of us if you were to sincerely try and understand what it is that you are talking about before you talk about it here. I am sure you came to this forum with starry-eyed optimism, hoping to convert us with convincing arguments for your point of view. Alas, you're doing more harm than good to your own cause every time you type a new post. We are beasts here, and you will only meet staunch opposition and ridicule. Welcome!

 

[tas8831]

You need to answer the question for me to show you by steps. But I'll go ahead & show you by explanation. Esp because you have been exceedingly kind & helpful to me this my first day.

I'll do my best to make this clearly understandable.

If an evolutionist doesn't believe in eternal existence. They have a huge problem. They have to explain the origin of the original energy w/o using Faith or Supernatural & it coming into existence from nothing. See that takes both Faith & Supernatural. Science law says something can't come from nothing! Again that proves its using Faith & Supernatural.

You clearly have no idea what the Theory of Evolution is actually about.

You thread OP is a strawman.

 

[Polymath257]

You need to answer the question for me to show you by steps. But I'll go ahead & show you by explanation. Esp because you have been exceedingly kind & helpful to me this my first day.

I'll do my best to make this clearly understandable.

If an evolutionist doesn't believe in eternal existence. They have a huge problem.

First of all, evolution is a topic in biology. It does not have to do with cosmic origins. For that matter, it doesn't even have to do with the origins of life. It is a description of how life changes over time.

This is similar to being able to say what the orbits of the planets are even if we don't know where they came from.

Second, you seem to confuse 'evolutiionists' with 'scientists'.

They have to explain the origin of the original energy w/o using Faith or Supernatural & it coming into existence from nothing. See that takes both Faith & Supernatural. Science law says something can't come from nothing! Again that proves its using Faith & Supernatural.

Well, there is no law of science that says that something cannot come from nothing. What there *is* are conservation laws: laws that say some quantity is the same for all times. For example, the conservation of energy says that the total amount of energy at any time is the same as the total amount at any other time.

Now, in the case of energy, it turns out that the energy of gravity is counted as *negative* energy while that of matter is counted as *positive* energy. What that means is that the total energy of the universe is *zero*. The two types of energy balance.

What this means is that matter *can* come into existence as long as it forms along with gravity, which it inevitably does.

Now if they believe in eternal existence. Then what is the difference between them & creationist & believing in an eternal God.

Well, the people that are generally called creationists are those that believe the universe is less than about 20,000 years old. They also don't believe in the Big Bang scenario or that species have evolved.

In contrast, the best science we have shows that the universe is expanding from an initial hot, dense, state (the Big Bang) and that biological species change over time (evolution). It also shows the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old in the current expansion phase.

Both are using Faith & Supernatural to explain eternal existence whether it be energy or God. So then the question becomes Why do they then have such a problem believing in an eternal existent God & their eternal existent energy or Faith or Supernatural that produced that energy from nothing.

Nope. Science uses observation, hypothesis formation, and *testing* of ideas. It is the very opposite of how faith proceeds.

They both come from the same place no matter how or where you cut it.

All of it comes from Faith & Supernatural ultimate Base from the start!

Nope. For example, you haven't demonstrated that the term 'supernatural' has any meaning whatsoever. Faith is known to be unreliable as a guide to truth.

I hope I explained this well enough.

Again my deepest appreciation to you personally for your help today! Thanks!

You have explained very little, but you have shown your lack of understanding of the differences between science and religion.

 

[Polymath257]

No I have not. See evolution uses the Big Bang as part of the start to begin teaching ORIGINS.

Nope. That isn't *evolution*. That is *science*. Evolution studies how biological species change over time. That's it. Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. It has nothing to do with even the origin of life.

Both of those subjects are inter and important (cosmology and origin of life), but they are NOT evolution.

What you are doing is confusing 'evolution' with all of 'science.

So I'm starting where they do. You can't just ignore that & pick & choose where else you want to start. Esp true for pure atheistic evolutionist that claim pure naturalistist origins & in no way will allow for Faith nor Supernatural. I'm showing that that is false. Origins starts by Faith & Supernatural with atheistic evolution by how they teach origins starting with Big Bang.

Once again, it is not *evolution* that teaches this. It is what *science* has discovered to be the case: the universe is, in fact, expanding. It was, in fact, hotter and denser before to the place that nuclear reactions were happening everywhere. That is what the Big Bang scenario says.

Now, there *are* a lot of questions concerning the very early stages of the universe and whether time can be extended past the Big Bang. The answers to these questions depend on the specific version of quantum gravity that is true. And we haven't, yet, been able to test between the different possibilities.

I'll even go you one further. So let's assume the Big Bang was the start. Now Creationist & Theistic can use Faith & Supernatural to explain God used His guiding hand to set the heavens in the precision we see in the heavens that are so fine tuned that if one of so many measurements of any kind were off any life couldn't exist on this planet.

Do you think life only exists on this planet? If so, then the universe is NOT finely tuned for life, is it?

And why bring a deity into the picture at all? Why do you think the Big Bang had or needed a cause? What makes you think that cause would be intelligent?

Yet for atheist evolutionist They don't have the option of Faith or Supernatural as Atheist. So they are in a bind. They have to "BELIEVE" W/O "FAITH or " SUPERNATURAL" & any scientific experiment that proves any explosion of Energy creates precision & order!! See my Dad was in WWII & on a Navy warship on the way to Japan to be ready for the first wave of attack like Normady when the atomic bomb was dropped. Yet did that explosion of atomic energy, or any hurricane, tornado, etc we've ever seen leave behind & create precision & order?

Well, maybe you should learn a bit more about the Big Bang scenario. It was NOT an explosion in any conventional sense. It *is* an expansion of space. And the formation of structure did NOT happen immediately, but rather over a quite extended period of time.

For example, the Earth is only about a third of the age of the universe. It wasn't formed until the universe had been around nearly 9 billion years.

The problem is real science has experimental proofs to validate theories or hypothesis. Not one has ever validated that one. So atheistic evolutionist MUST USE FAITH & SUPERNATURAL AGAINST THEIR WILL to have to BIG BANG create the heavens in such precise order so that life could exist on earth.

Actually, we have quite a lot of data and observations relating to the early universe. We use that data and those observations to test our hypotheses, just like in all areas of science.

We haven't gotten to the other parts evolution has to use Faith & Supernatural for evolution because for it to occur it actually violates the very laws of science & nature that evolution itself had to create since it is credited with creating everything.

Try writing that again. It came across as convoluted and rather garbled.

Right now my phone is running out of energy. I need to recharge it. Due to my being on disability I can hardly sit at my computer to do this as it puts my back & me in excruciating pain. I will return asap.
Be patient. Thanks.

If you really want to learn, there are people here that can help you. But if you only want to make claims without backing them up and present your point of view without discussion, you will remain in doubt.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've already said it n u nervous times & you keep dodging it intentionally & changing the subject.

Abiogenesis is a proven science law that evolution has to break. Therefore, Evolutionist use Faith & Supernatural to bypass it to move forward.

Nope. This that you are saying is a complete stranger to truth.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Nope. This that you are saying is a complete stranger to truth.

Kudos, mate! And I must say, the sentence above has *got* to be one of the most polite statements that, when distilled to the essentials, is basically "that is a lie", that I have witnessed in many years.

I think your line, above, is right up there with the wit of Winston Churchill and even the old Bard himself. Well Done!

Diplomacy: The art of telling someone they wrong, in such a way that they thank you for the compliment, and indeed, invite you to their dinner party.

 

[metis]

They both come from the same place no matter how or where you cut it.

Religious beliefs are not derived from using the "scientific method" whereas scientific axioms, theorems, and hypotheses are.

 

[Audie]

Kudos, mate! And I must say, the sentence above has *got* to be one of the most polite statements that, when distilled to the essentials, is basically "that is a lie", that I have witnessed in many years.

I think your line, above, is right up there with the wit of Winston Churchill and even the old Bard himself. Well Done!

Diplomacy: The art of telling someone they wrong, in such a way that they thank you for the compliment, and indeed, invite you to their dinner party.

If there is a good direction for this thread, this is it.
Ignore the gisher, make a few wry comments on
the depths of inanity then wander away and let
ye thread evaporate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the interest of academic honesty, I am posting the following list of objective evidence that demonstrates that the theory of evolution should be rejected.

Thank you. I hope you found the list useful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you must engage, try just one little point.
So far he is playing gish gallop.

"Proof", say. That he is wrong on that.

Chances are the plan is just to return to creoland
having gloriously argued a roomful of evos to a
standstill.

If he / she cannot handle being wrong about "proof"
in science, may as well let 'em declare victory now,
and go away now.

I agree. I think this is a Pigeon Chess gambit. There is no direct address of questions that are raised. There is no direct response to others posts. There is this sense of grand correctness resting on the absolutes of ideology that does not require direct response or a need to answer questions. Then there is all the pigeon poop.

Then this drifted into a (self-serving?) philosophical debate.

I do struggle with the value of responding to these Dunning Kruger experts recently minted from Uneducation U. Should I or should I not? By responding to their wild and completely incorrect claims, am I legitimizing their fantasy that they are onto something and are bearers of some truth? I have to admit that sometimes my choice to respond is upset by my own emotional desires, but there is more to it than just that. Even recognizing that, it occurs to me that I may be trying to rationalize the intent of responding to posts that are so ridiculous the ignorance and deceit behind them shine like a beacon. Rationalize it knowing that the wisdom of the strategy you are supporting is perhaps the wisest. It is not easy to recognize or understand motivations and sometimes less so with ones own motivations.

I try to take a pragmatic view of these things and keep in mind the following points.

I am not going to sway a zealot steeped in their own ignorance.

They will not listen to those that hold an opposing view or take anything useful from responses they receive.

Victory is just getting rational people to engage them, thus legitimizing their own position in their own mind.

Ignorance should always be challenged with evidence, logic and reason. To allow ignorance to run wild is to give up, It is allowing a disease to fester in a community, when rational and benevolent minds could prevent it. Diseases can be virulent and require strenuous treatment.

Is it respectful to the hard won knowledge that so many have struggled to bring to light to let some dullard come in and wash it all away with the waving of his hands?

I think I need a beer and a vacation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If there is a good direction for this thread, this is it.
Ignore the gisher, make a few wry comments on
the depths of inanity then wander away and let
ye thread evaporate.

You are probably right.

 

[Audie]

I agree. I think this is a Pigeon Chess gambit. There is no direct address of questions that are raised. There is no direct response to others posts. There is this sense of grand correctness resting on the absolutes of ideology that does not require direct response or a need to answer questions. Then there is all the pigeon poop.

Then this drifted into a (self-serving?) philosophical debate.

I do struggle with the value of responding to these Dunning Kruger experts recently minted from Uneducation U. Should I or should I not? By responding to their wild and completely incorrect claims, am I legitimizing their fantasy that they are onto something and are bearers of some truth? I have to admit that sometimes my choice to respond is upset by my own emotional desires, but there is more to it than just that. Even recognizing that, it occurs to me that I may be trying to rationalize the intent of responding to posts that are so ridiculous the ignorance and deceit behind them shine like a beacon. Rationalize it knowing that the wisdom of the strategy you are supporting is perhaps the wisest. It is not easy to recognize or understand motivations and sometimes less so with ones own motivations.

I try to take a pragmatic view of these things and keep in mind the following points.

I am not going to sway a zealot steeped in their own ignorance.

They will not listen to those that hold an opposing view or take anything useful from responses they receive.

Victory is just getting rational people to engage them, thus legitimizing their own position in their own mind.

Ignorance should always be challenged with evidence, logic and reason. To allow ignorance to run wild is to give up, It is allowing a disease to fester in a community, when rational and benevolent minds could prevent it. Diseases can be virulent and require strenuous treatment.

Is it respectful to the hard won knowledge that so many have struggled to bring to light to let some dullard come in and wash it all away with the waving of his hands?

I think I need a beer and a vacation.

There are divers reasons not to respond but among
them is to not provide them with practices, or the
chance to return to creoland with tales of how they
argued a herd of evos into silence.

 

[Audie]

You are probably right.

When am I not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are divers reasons not to respond but among
them is to not provide them with practices, or the
chance to return to creoland with tales of how they
argued a herd of evos into silence.

I agree.

Clearly this Patriottechsan has no real knowledge or experience with science. He is making all his assertions based on a completely fictional version of science and evolution.

Why is it that everyone of these creationists claims to have been pressure tested by personal encounters with someone holding a PhD? They never mention the field the PhD is in or elaborate. It is just invoked as if it were some mystical, magical ordeal that they made it through. It is never believable.

I know that they will all regroup in somebodies basement to celebrate their victories, but is that enough to give up making sure that a rational voice with valid information is raised?

 

[Audie]

I agree.

Clearly this Patriottechsan has no real knowledge or experience with science. He is making all his assertions based on a completely fictional version of science and evolution.

Why is it that everyone of these creationists claims to have been pressure tested by personal encounters with someone holding a PhD? They never mention the field the PhD is in or elaborate. It is just invoked as if it were some mystical, magical ordeal that they made it through. It is never believable.

I know that they will all regroup in somebodies basement to celebrate their victories, but is that enough to give up making sure that a rational voice with valid information is raised?

What these guys like him do is they get loaded up
with the same same same oldy moldy creosite
garbage, and, energized like someone fresh
from one of those motivational speaker rallies
they charge in to slay the evil evos left and right.

With god on their side, they are incapable of being
wrong about anything. You'd not get a concession
of the least error in anything they say. Why would they?
They are on gods side, they are right, you are,well,
not.

When you spot one of those, people, it is best to
just ignore them. Especially as there will be no
actual response to anything said to them.

Now, we have a few who are at least
vaguely worth engaging. There is the incredibly
rare such who might even see some
enlightenment come their way.

Usually, though, it is more like a game to
see just how far into lunacy and denial they
will go to try to uphold some absurd notion.
Among my fav. such are the "flash frozen mammoths
in much" people. (they always use the word
"muck" which shows they all get it from the same
woo woo site)


Some few of these creos have been able to
buttenhole a paleontologist or other scientist.

Of course, the researcher will get shut of them
as quickly as human decency will allow. And
then creo will interpret that as what was that,
"pressure tested"?

I expect the archaeologists who work in Egypt
are equally pleased to be gone-after by one of
those pyramid freaks.

It would be a horrible thing to see one of those
people (lets pick one who is not actually insane)
and have him try to do a thesis defense

The slaughter would be, yes, horrible indeed.