New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[dad]

Nothing you have said discredits science, because you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of science and a religious agenda for young earth Creationism

Nothing you have said credits science, because you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of science and a religious agenda for so called science.

As for your unsupported claim that the little creature that needs no air had to be evolved to get that way, well, add that to your unsupported claims pile.
(not that I care either way because there was lots of evolution going on real fast in the former nature)

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing you have said credits science, because you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of science and a religious agenda for so called science.

As for your unsupported claim that the little creature that needs no air had to be evolved to get that way, well, add that to your unsupported claims pile.
(not that I care either way because there was lots of evolution going on real fast in the former nature)

Nothing you have said credits science, because you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of science and a religious agenda for so called science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why should anyone care what the peanut gallery rules? That is the question.

You really, really, really need to learn how evidence and burden of proof works.
An understanding of basic logic would be beneficial as well.

 

[dad]

You really, really, really need to learn how evidence and burden of proof works.
An understanding of basic logic would be beneficial as well.

It works like this, you make a so called science claim, and you support it through the gills six ways from Sunday. Sorry that you thought that fable re ital was all you needed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It works like this, you make a so called science claim, and you support it through the gills six ways from Sunday. Sorry that you thought that fable re ital was all you needed.

Let's see you back up your claims.

Fable "re ital" is your position.

 

[dad]

Let's see you back up your claims.

Fable "re ital" is your position.

My claim is that science cannot back up the same nature on earth in the past it not only claims, but uses in ALL models of the past. Hoo ha.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My claim is that science cannot back up the same nature on earth in the past it not only claims, but uses in ALL models of the past. Hoo ha.

Great, then back it up.

Along with all your other claims.

 

[dad]

Great, then back it up.

Along with all your other claims.

The claim that science does not know is backed up by your (and a multitude of others) abject failure to back up your beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My claim is that science cannot back up the same nature on earth in the past it not only claims, but uses in ALL models of the past. Hoo ha.

The null hypothesis requires no evidence

 

[dad]

The null hypothesis requires no evidence

Of course not. Creation is the null hypothesis. We wait for your fantasy same nature in the past evidence. And we wait. And we wait. ZZzzzz

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course not. Creation is the null hypothesis.

It is not.

 

[dad]

It is not.

Not any more. At least not as far as your religion is concerned. So? Evidence and support has more to it than word games.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientist do not rule this out. It is possible for God to Create to some creatures that did not need oxygen through evolution based on the evidence.

Why, because you believe in evolution rather than creation? Just wondering...So let me ask you a question. When you say it is possible for God to create some creatures that did not need oxygen through evolution based on the evidence, first of all, what evidence? That these life forms do not need oxygen to exist? And of course, have you figured how the evolution occurred? Except that "God did it" through evolution, no matter what. Everything you say is speculation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why, because you believe in evolution rather than creation? Just wondering...So let me ask you a question. When you say it is possible for God to create some creatures that did not need oxygen through evolution based on the evidence, first of all, what evidence? That these life forms do not need oxygen to exist? And of course, have you figured how the evolution occurred? Except that "God did it" through evolution, no matter what. Everything you say is speculation.

Everything I post is based on published research based on the objective verifiable evidence that falsifies the hypothesis supporting evolution shared by more than 95%+ of the scientist worldwide from many different religious beliefs. Predictive models use scientific methods for evolution are the same scientific methods used throughout science and the foundation of our technology.

The evidence from studying these animals alone are of course, not proof of anything, of course science does not prove anything. These animals are related to other similar animals that use oxygen.

As far as my beliefs I believe God Created our physical existence and humanity in harmony with the natural methods that may be objectively verified by science. God would not Create in a methind in conflict and in contradiction the the evidence of our natural physical existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's see you back up your claims.

Fable "re ital" is your position.

So was Jesus telling stories about creation? What's your position?

 

[YoursTrue]

Everything I post is based on published research based on the objective verifiable evidence that falsifies the hypothesis supporting evolution shared by more than 95%+ of the scientist worldwide from many different religious beliefs. Predictive models use scientific methods for evolution are the same scientific methods used throughout science and the foundation of our technology.

The evidence from studying these animals alone are of course, not proof of anything, of course science does not prove anything. These animals are related to other similar animals that use oxygen.

As far as my beliefs I believe God Created our physical existence and humanity in harmony with the natural methods that may be objectively verified by science. God would not Create in a methind in conflict and in contradiction the the evidence of our natural physical existence.

So if you read the Bible, Jesus this, "However, from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'" Mark 10:6.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everything I post is based on published research based on the objective verifiable evidence that falsifies the hypothesis supporting evolution shared by more than 95%+ of the scientist worldwide from many different religious beliefs. Predictive models use scientific methods for evolution are the same scientific methods used throughout science and the foundation of our technology.

The evidence from studying these animals alone are of course, not proof of anything, of course science does not prove anything. These animals are related to other similar animals that use oxygen.

As far as my beliefs I believe God Created our physical existence and humanity in harmony with the natural methods that may be objectively verified by science. God would not Create in a methind in conflict and in contradiction the the evidence of our natural physical existence.

So have scientists figured out how these specimens, as the popular thought goes, evolved?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So was Jesus telling stories about creation? What's your position?

My opinion is that whatever people thought Jesus thought or said has no bearing on the robustness of the evidence that supports the fact of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if you read the Bible, Jesus this, "However, from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'" Mark 10:6.

OK! So what!?!?!? You believe in a literal creation in an ancient text 2,000+ years old. It simply is not a viable view simply based on the objective knowledge we have today.

Everything I post is based on published research based on the objective verifiable evidence that falsifies the hypothesis supporting evolution shared by more than 95%+ of the scientist worldwide from many different religious beliefs. Predictive models use scientific methods for evolution are the same scientific methods used throughout science and the foundation of our technology.

The evidence from studying these animals alone are of course, not proof of anything, of course science does not prove anything. These animals are related to other similar animals that use oxygen.

As far as my beliefs I believe God Created our physical existence and humanity in harmony with the natural methods that may be objectively verified by science. God would not Create in a methind in conflict and in contradiction the the evidence of our natural physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

So have scientists figured out how these specimens, as the popular thought goes, evolved?

Yes, they evolved through adaptation to changing environments of "time"

You do not believe in science, therefore any response is of no help.