Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

Unfortunately, you don't know the difference between evidence used in science and Christian creationist propaganda and you will ALWAYS choose the latter simply because it's your faith.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet, you are a staunch supporter of Christianity and the corruption it causes. You yourself propagate the corruption with your posts. You are part of the problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is fine, go ahead and assume they are fake.

I gave you all I have on that particular item, and can’t do more than that. There is a lot more evidence out there than just this one item. Nothing hinges on it at all. A lot is being ignored to avoid upsetting the Authorities in the Fields involved.

The more recent Video Claims that 10 South American Secular Archeologists believe that it is real, legitimate, and is exactly what it appears to be.

The Video Claims it but I cannot prove it.

And I can only provide the available material I have, flaws, incomplete, all it is, and is not, and rely on each person to evaluate it for themselves.

Is that still permitted here or not?
The evaluation of evidence?

I think that it is only permitted in order to ridicule it. And that of course, is extremely unscientific and anti-scientific.

Let’s say for a second that you are a professional archeologist living and working in South America.
And you know about this and you think it is real.

Would you risk losing your professional career over it, even if you were convinced it was real?

I really doubt it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The assumption that they are real is far more irrational than to assume they're fake. More things you fail to understand.

That's why you and your Christian brethren making the videos are clueless.

Liar.

Prove it or admit you're lying.

That's why you fail. Video's are irrelevant, peer reviewed papers are required.

It has been evaluated, as has your ability to discern reality from fantasy.

Exactly, your unscientific, anti-science propaganda deserves only ridicule.

Fantasizing doesn't help your argument in the least, quite the opposite.

 

True, like those fake stones.

Right - but that's from a creationist. He also couldn't get any of them to say that on camera.

He is engaging in magical thinking - that if he believes something strongly enough it becomes true. So he talks to "secular archaeologists" (which is like saying "I talked to a living scientist") and hears what he wants to hear. He can't record them saying it, because if he did, it would become apparent that they are not saying that.

Absolutely. A Youtube video from a creationist is not evidence. Making fake Youtube videos is now an art form.

?? You would "risk" a Nobel prize if you had valid data that shows it was real.

Do you know any scientists who would abhor the idea of winning a Nobel? (Come to think of it, do you know any scientists period?)

 

Has the cat got your tounge Seti?

Why is it you can not address these questions?

Just try the first one please...how does discrediting science prove there is a god?...come on an honest answer please...or could it be that for you to think about that for even a moment will make you realise that all abuse directed at you is never going to adequately describe just how silly you really are...you just don't have what it takes you see...you belong to a cult with a terrible past which you are incapable of acknowledging...that is terrible.

Me making my claim was even lost on you...try and see a little bit of what you do in my unsupported claim...can you? No of course not but I guess that is just part of what makes you less than perfect.
When will you realise the problem is not science which seeks the truth but with those who attack science because they insist on destroying the truth.
I mean how can you support a group who must employ dirty tactics and treat dishonesty and deceipt as acceptable..how can you just accept any of it ...how can you look your boys in the eye and say you are on the right side..why can't you be honest with them and yourself.

Alex

 

Discrediting Science does not prove there is a God.

And also...

Discrediting Christianity does not prove there is no God.

So why try to discredit Christianity?

 

Then, why are you here trying to discredit Science?

Lol. Christianity has been discrediting itself for centuries, it needs no help in that regard.

 

OK,

I will get more evidence together for your review.

Please provide evidence of Maco-Evolution with an example of DNA modification increasing in complexity and sophistication resulting in a new species body plan.

Not the usual imaginary fairy tales and artist interpretations.

But real Empirical Science that shows it and proves it in the lab, and that is repeatable.

Thanks!

 

Does that not give you cause for concern?

It should, at the very least, cause you to
1. not post it as reliable evidence, since it has no provenance, and further:
2. question the legitimacy of the source it came from i.e, the video is probably making false claims.

 

From more Christian ministries who do little more than spread propaganda against science?

 

Why not?

Scientists are supposed to love questioning their theories. That is the standard line the sheeple are fed.

 

I'd like to take a shot at your questions.

It doesn't. Neither does science discredit the idea that there might be a god. Yet many atheists, from Dawkins and Coyne to right here on this board, seem to believe exactly that, that as Dawkins puts it, Darwin drove the final stake through the hearts of the "philosophers and theologians", leaving the world safe for glorious science (the conquering faith) and for all the righteous atheists.

No. I'm not a Christian or even a theist, so why should I? I tried once when I was in my teens, but got hung up on the 'begats'.

It wouldn't. Although it would place a big speed-bump in the way of those who hope to use evolution as a weapon against religion (or whatever caricature of religion is rattling around in their heads).

As for me, I don't for a moment want to discredit evolution. I like evolution. Much of my interest in biology (my old undergraduate major) involves evolution.

But I would like to deflate a bit of the almost religious-style faith that we find with so many atheists. Evolution is an explanatory hypothesis. It's very useful for explaining things and for pulling together seemingly separate lines of evidence into a single coherent picture. But its truth isn't absolutely certain. It isn't some sort of moral crime to question it or to point out perceived problems with it. Science is supposed to thrive on constant questioning, right?

Bottom line, it might revolve around the difference between agnostics and atheists. Agnostics think that it's intellectually dishonest to claim certainty about things that aren't certain. Obviously one can and must make choices in conditions of imperfect information. But it's helpful to retain a little humility when doing that. We probably should refrain from attacking everyone who thinks differently as if they are heretics and heathens, fit only for burning at the stake. It's as true for scientism as for religion.

That's why I have some sympathy for Seti's point of view.

 

I read the comments made by you and by everyone else here. And I consider them.

But I still have my own thoughts on the matter, just as you do. You are welcome to them!

The preponderance of evidence that I know about makes me consider evidence from both sides.

What is your best evidence or proof for Macro-Evolution?

And we are back on the thread topic once more, to keep the thought police happy.

 

OK, so you haven't addressed the points I made, instead choosing to redirect.

It's fair to conclude that you withdraw your claim that dinosaurs were contemporary with man.

There is no evidence in favour of modern dinosaurs - let alone a preponderance. - as you have withdrawn yours.

It doesn't work that way. The onus remains on you to overturn centuries of data that lead to the unavoidable conclusion of Darwinian evolution.

That being said, let me help you gather some information to do your homework and try to make your case:


What city do you live in?

I will direct you to the nearest museum, where you can see thousands of pieces of extant evidence of macro evolution and speciation in-action.

At the same time, I will direct you to a university where you can audit a biology class to give context to the truly overwhelming amount of information you will find in the museum.

You will find that all life on Earth is derived from the same coding mechanism (DNA), and that all life on Earth has VERY similar coding, whose differences are directly correlatable to the time that their ancestor diverged.

For example:

Humans and apes share almost the entire genome. And the human line and ape line both diverged relatively recently.

Humans and orangutans share less of our genome. And diverged earlier.

Humans and elephants share even less and diverged earlier, becoming even more separated in their physiology.

Humans and fish share even less and diverged even earlier, becoming yet more separated in their physiology.

Humans and fungi share even less and diverged even earlier, becoming yet more separated in their physiology.


But we're not done.

The power of a theory is in what it predicts. The theory of evolution predicts this exact correlation between similarity of DNA and recentness of divergence (speciation).

That makes it an excellent theory - because it could so easily be falsified by observations - but isn't.




Now, your turn. What is your idea about the diversity of life on Earth?

Heads up: God is not a valid theory. Attributing the variation of species to God does not predict a particular outcome, therefore was have no way of saying 'If the outcome were different it would falsify the God theory'. There is no outcome that we could say 'Well OK, I guess the theory of God is wrong'. Therefore it is not a valid theory; it's a tautology.

 

As I already said...

You asked for more evidence that Dinosaurs lived with man. So I will provide you with more evidence of that very thing for your review. You are free to evaluate it in any way you wish to.

I would simply request and recommend that you evaluate that evidence after it is presented, not before it is presented.

Seems like a fair request to me, but I guess I am an illogical crazy person! Good to know.

 

The God theory predicts exactly what we see just as well as the Naturalism theory. The God theory is even better at it, in my opinion.

Either one is certainly possible, however unlikely.

The Naturalism theory is far less probable because of the massive specified complexity involving literally trillions of specifically organized and designed components, sub-systems, both simple and enormously complex.

Anything else with probability numbers this bad would instantly be thrown out the window and be declared to be absolutely impossible.

And that is how I regard it...as...
Probabilistically (if that is even a real word) Impossible!

The Math is simply against it happening from Natural Causes alone.

That is my opinion.

 

Then why act as if that you believe the opposite?
And frankly I expect your current position is brand new arrived at only after stopping to think after I pointed out the obvious to you.

One does not have to try to discredit christianity one only needs to read the history..invented based on astrology by the Romans for political control. JC being modelled upon countless human gods that were invented before him...Christianity is responsible for more murders than any other group ...that does not give you reason to question cult membership? You have been sold a pup.
Further how can you support any of it if you have not read the bible? Why won't you read the bible?
.

One need not bother to attempt to prove no god given the only evidence shows god is a human invention ... the claim that there is a god has never been backed up by those presenting such an extrodinary claim.

I encourage you to spend more time studying religion ..read the bible, study the history, study how astrology led to the invention of various human gods...seek the truth.
Alex

.

 

You’re attaching labels to things that don’t seem to fit. So I’m puzzled by the phrase “God theory” and “Macro evolution faith.”

When it comes to science, a theory is considered an explanation with supporting evidence but it seems that your idea of a theory is a strong hunch, without supporting evidence? A theory explains some well known, agreed upon facts from the natural world.

Not suggesting that you don’t know what a theory is but in your threads, the same theme tends to come up and that is a scientific theory can’t really be entirely true because it’s “just a theory.”

I get the sense that you don’t care for the word “theory,” because it reminds you of merely an idea rather that a valid explanation rooted in testing, etc.

Just wondering if I’m way off base or does anything I’m suggesting seem possible to you? In other words, for the sake of these discussions, theories aren’t ambiguous ideas that need to be proven to you.

If overwhelming evidence supports a widely accepted theory, and you choose to not “believe” the facts that support the theory, that doesn’t negate the theory. I’d suggest figuring out what is blocking your acceptance?

 

OK, we did that.
You presented some pictures with no provenance. That disqualifies them as evidence until that provenance is provided.

But I think you have a responsibility too. And that is to question what you consider reliable sources on which you base your beliefs. Does it give you pause for thought that the evidence you brought forth is so simply disqualified? Maybe you need to rethink your beliefs.