Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Who exactly is "adonizedek" the apparent owner of this blog Dave?
Is peer review involved in any of this or it this just an opinion of a creationist?

Don't you know your OT, Al? Adonizedek was the king of Jerusalem at the time of the Israelitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite invasion of Canaan. It seems that these OT characters live a long time, and even manage to start blogs!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

 

[alwight]

Don't you know your OT, Al? Adonizedek was the king of Jerusalem at the time of the Israelitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite invasion of Canaan. It seems that these OT characters live a long time, and even manage to start blogs!


**

"Mahershalalhashbaz" is the longest name in the OT I believe, but I lose track. :idunno:

 

[noguru]

What predators do you know of that use only their eyesight?

How is that relevant?

Optimization of one system, does not preclude the use of other senses for the same purpose. Predators that use eyesight predominantly have much different characteristics and behavior than predators for which it is not predominant.

I think that doloresistere is to trying to say is that biological design seems to be happenstance. The pieces fall into place when conditions exist to allow this, and that the preconceived design we see as the characteristics of human design is not the same strategy we see in nature.

 

[gcthomas]

So far the case I've made is clear, even to you. Not agreeing with what I have said does not mean you haven't understood what I've said.

--Dave

Funny!

I wasn't saying I didn't understand what you were saying. I said that YOU didn't understand what you were saying.

:chuckle:

 

[noguru]

Funny!

I wasn't saying I didn't understand what you were saying. I said that YOU didn't understand what you were saying.

:chuckle:

:rotfl:

OK, now you are being Captain Obvious.

I'd be surprised if Daft_Dave knew his keister from his weenis.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Who exactly is "adonizedek" the apparent owner of this blog Dave?
Is peer review involved in any of this or is this just an opinion of a creationist?
"Overview of the ERV Controversy"
What controversy?
Mainstream genetic science doesn't seem to think so, or is this supposedly another part of the global scientific conspiracy by "evolutionists" as imagined by creationists?

Are we really so vastly different Dave? A few small changes to variables in a computer program can make a huge difference to appearance and the way it functions. But we have basically got all the same parts as chimps that work in the same way that only a few tweaks in DNA could change the parameters substantially.
You otoh simply seem to rush to conclude a supernatural based on the very specific supernatural that you have already pre-concluded from Biblical scripture.
I'd say rather that your religious end is attempting to justify the somewhat emotional supernatural means you propose instead of secular rigorous scientific conclusions founded in cold facts, evidence and peer review, all of which rather rains on your parade Dave.

Creationists would be my peers, evolutionists would be yours.

A peer review of creationists accept all my findings.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Creationists would be my peers, evolutionists would be yours.

A peer review of creationists accept all my findings.

--Dave

Yet scientists reject them, and you aspire to having your claims accepted as science.

Have you given up your claims that your ideas are supported by science now?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yet scientists reject them, and you aspire to having your claims accepted as science.

Have you given up your claims that your ideas are supported by science now?

Creation scientists accept my findings.

Evolution scientists accept yours.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Creation scientists accept my findings.

Evolution scientists accept yours.

--Dave

:rotfl:

Creationists hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis as a foundational assumption of the philosophy of science. That is an added assumption not held by other scientists. It is no wonder creationists accept your findings. You all have a confirmation bias, and you are simply preaching to the choir. A choir of blinded fools, who think claiming to be a "Christian" is some sort of magic incantation that will make you see life more clearly. You are a bunch of cowardly atavistic authoritarians, who have no more power over the rest of the world since the Enlightenment in Europe.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Funny!

I wasn't saying I didn't understand what you were saying. I said that YOU didn't understand what you were saying.

:chuckle:

Why? Oh, I know why! I don't understand what I'm saying because I'm not an evolutionist.

Only members of this enlightened group are true scientists.

--Dave

 

[6days]

Yet scientists reject them, and you aspire to having your claims accepted as science.

Have you given up your claims that your ideas are supported by science now?

GC... You are confusing the word evolutionist with scientist. Certainly some evolutionists are scientists... just as some Biblical creationists are scientists.

 

[noguru]

Why? Oh, I know why! I don't understand what I'm saying because I'm not an evolutionist.

Only members of this enlightened group are true scientists.

--Dave

:rotfl:

You are putting the cart before the horse.

No, you are not an "evolutionist" (actually your use of this nomenclature is another indication) because you do not understand (though there are a few honest YECs who accept that science does suggest evolution but opt for their literal interpretation of Genesis over empirical evidence).

Oh boy, the more you post about this, the more you reveal what a moron you are.

 

[gcthomas]

Creation scientists accept my findings.

Creation science is an oxymoron.

Creation scientists are not scientists who have come to believe creation from the weight of evidence, but are either scientists who have abandoned the programme for the empirical understanding of reality, or creationists who are having a turn at playing the scientist in their comedic role playing game.

 

[gcthomas]

Why? Oh, I know why! I don't understand what I'm saying because I'm not an evolutionist.

Only members of this enlightened group are true scientists.

--Dave

No, the reason you don't understand is because you only read science related YEC diatribes, instead of reading the products of science with the aim of understanding. Your approach is to have a negative and destructive intent, not the positive and constructive intent of those genuinely trying to understand the world.

You don't intend to understand, so you will not understand. Simple as that.

 

[noguru]

GC... You are confusing the word evolutionist with scientist. Certainly some evolutionists are scientists... just as some Biblical creationists are scientists.

No, I am pretty sure you are confusing these issues. One can be a scientist, accept evolution, creationist or any other label and not actually understand that which they accept or oppose. Because their area of expertise in an other field. Creationist scientists are (in every case I have researched) incapable of understanding biodiversity through evolution. This is why they are not considered "scientists" in regard to this area of biology.

 

[6days]

No, the reason you don't understand is because you only read science related YEC diatribes, instead of reading the products of science with the aim of understanding. Your approach is to have a negative and destructive intent, not the positive and constructive intent of those genuinely trying to understand the world.

You don't intend to understand, so you will not understand. Simple as that.

But GC... You now confuse science with religion.
Science is about knowledge and truth.... not about denigrating anyone who believes different from yourself.
There are PhD scientists educated at Harvard, Oxford etc who " genuinely try to understand the world" but disagree with evolutionism.

 

[noguru]

But GC... You now confuse science with religion.
Science is about knowledge and truth.... not about denigrating anyone who believes different from yourself.

:rotfl:

Oh my, how you love to confuse and conflate.

There are accepted foundational assumptions in both science and religion. Science has a neatly packaged set of philosophical foundational assumptions that are shared by all areas of science. Some religionists want to hijack or modify those assumptions to incorporate their specific theological assumptions into science, only when it touches on origins. That is what makes you and those of your ilk "not doing science". You are trying to use science as a bully pulpit to force you theological assumptions on others. We will not just blindly follow, well, blind idiots like you.

 

[DFT_Dave]

:rotfl:

Creationists hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis as a foundational assumption of the philosophy of science. That is an added assumption not held by other scientists. It is no wonder creationists accept your findings. You all have a confirmation bias, and you are simply preaching to the choir. A choir of blinded fools, who think claiming to be a "Christian" is some sort of magic incantation that will make you see life more clearly. You are a bunch of cowardly atavistic authoritarians, who have no more power over the rest of the world since the Enlightenment in Europe.

Enlightened absolutism (also called by modern historians benevolent despotism or enlightened despotism) is a form of absolute monarchy or despotism in which rulers were influenced by the Enlightenment.

Enlightened absolutists held that royal power emerged not from divine right but from a social contract whereby the ruler had a duty to govern wisely.--Wiki​

The Enlightenment gave us atheism, the French Revolution, evolution, World War I, communism and World War II.

Bible believing America saved Europe.

John 8:12 RSV Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness."

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, the reason you don't understand is because you only read science related YEC diatribes, instead of reading the products of science with the aim of understanding. Your approach is to have a negative and destructive intent, not the positive and constructive intent of those genuinely trying to understand the world.

You don't intend to understand, so you will not understand. Simple as that.

I read both creation and evolution views, and I understand both.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Creationists would be my peers, evolutionists would be yours.

A peer review of creationists accept all my findings.

--Dave

I'm not sure that creationists actually need peer review Dave, even if they know what it is. Adherence to a literal Genesis is all they seem to worry about whatever science and evidence may say.