Darwinists try to explain the origin of complexity

[6days]

...anybody who has actually been educated in just about any natural science can quickly force a creationist into a logical conundrum.

I suppose we could say the same thing about evolutionists. They usually admit things have the appearance of design, yet do backflips to exclude the possibility of a designer.

Greg... I clicked on your link, but it only took me to page 1 of the RNA thread. In any case, your statement about "educated" is clearly false. Although education in natural sciences is atheistic in nature, there are thousands of biologists, geneticists, geologists, physicists etc who state that the evidence points to a supernatural creation.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I suppose we could say the same thing about evolutionists. They usually admit things have the appearance of design, yet do backflips to exclude the possibility of a designer.

As you've been told many a time, evolution does not exclude the possibility if a creator and there are millions of scientists who are both Christian and accept evolution for the undeniable fact that it is

Greg... I clicked on your link, but it only took me to page 1 of the RNA thread.

While page 1 is by far the most important page of that thread, the other 23 should be accessible. They are to me.

In any case, your statement about "educated" is clearly false.

Actually no it isn't. Example: the scientific community has no issue with radiometric dating methods, yet you do only because they contradict (very directly) the ridiculous 6000 year old earth "theory." If all dating techniques concluded that Earth was 6000 years old, you would accept the results without a question. But you don't because you have this stupid, cognitively-damaging agenda

Although education in natural sciences is atheistic in nature

Trump voice: WRONG.

You sound like Martin Luther. Looking for answers about the natural world that aren't in an old book is not being atheistic. It's being practical.

Or do you carry your bible around when trying to study fault lines and wildlife?

, there are thousands of biologists, geneticists, geologists, physicists etc who state that the evidence points to a supernatural creation.

And as long as they say that creation was THROUGH EVOLUTIONthen I can't poke many holes in that theory as of yet.

As we've discussed before, over 97% of real scientists don't take creationism seriously, and 0% that are not young-earther Christians take creationism seriously .

So if 3% of all doctors told you cancer was good for you, would you accept that conclusion as reasonable?

 

[Stripe]

Or I could do none of those things, and anyone can see why by examining the link I previously provided and will provide again here:url]http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108259-Problems-for-evolution-%97-squid-recodes-its-own-RNA[/url]In it you fabricated a story by cherry-picking quotes from an article ABOUT A SUCCESSFUL EVOLUTIONARY PREDICTION, falsely attributed information to credible sources that was factually incorrect, and omitted all parts of the article in question (about 40% of it) that directly contradicted your claim that "squid RNA disproves evolution." In fact the article stated that the RNA discovery spoken of was predicted and expected by 'evolutionists', despite your claims that it "poses major problems for evolutionists."You have 0 desire for rational conversation (likely because anybody who has actually been educated in just about any natural science can quickly force a creationist into a logical conundrum). Where did you receive your schooling and in what scientific field?And anybody can see your dishonesty in action by clicking the linkYou're not kidding anyone

Doubling down on your nonsense is not going to work.

Pointing to another thread does nothing to address the challenge in this one.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Doubling down on your nonsense is not going to work.

Pointing to another thread does nothing to address the challenge in this one.

I'm just pointing out in this link - http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108259-Problems-for-evolution-%97-squid-recodes-its-own-RNA - that you were extremely dishonest, and were obviously trying to fabricate an argument from an article that contradicted the point that you claimed was supported.

If you can't be honest there, why should I expect you to be here?

 

[Tattooed Theist]

There are millions of scientists who are both Christian and accept evolution for the undeniable fact that it is

Undeniable is a gross overstatement.

 

[6days]

Undeniable is a gross overstatement.

Yes.
Welcome to TOL

 

[6days]

As you've been told many a time, evolution does not exclude the possibility if a creator

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your false argument that anyone educated in natural science can easily force non believers into a logical conundrum.* (Moving the goalpost fallacy). You either have not been educated in natural science, or you are proof that your own argument is goofy.

and there are millions of scientists who are both Christian and accept evolution for the undeniable fact that it is

Woooo ...Two fallacies in half a sentence!
Band wagon argument, and fallacy of equivocation.

*

the scientific community has no issue with radiometric dating methods, yet you do only because they contradict (very directly) the ridiculous 6000 year old earth "theory."

Actually, I have no problem with any dating method...radiometric....genome decay....comets.*
And... your fallacy in that argument is called poisoning the well.
*

Although education in natural sciences is atheistic in nature

Trump voice: WRONG.

*
I didn't know your middle name is Trump? Perhaps you can us which Oxford profs in the natural sciences are teaching evidence for a supernatural creation?

there are thousands of biologists, geneticists, geologists, physicists etc who state that the evidence points to a supernatural creation.

And as long as they say that creation was THROUGH EVOLUTION...

If you mean empirical science...then of course.
If you mean your belief system in common ancestry....of course not.
*

As we've discussed before, over 97% of real scientists...

This is the 'No* true Scotsman fallacy'.* Are you able to counter any arguments with logic and evidence?

 

[Stripe]

I'm just pointing out in this link - http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108259-Problems-for-evolution-%97-squid-recodes-its-own-RNA - that you were extremely dishonest, and were obviously trying to fabricate an argument from an article that contradicted the point that you claimed was supported. If you can't be honest there, why should I expect you to be here?

Feel free to never get involved with another post I make. :up:

 

[Jonahdog]

Undeniable is a gross overstatement.

Well, you are technically correct, you can deny anything. You can deny the earth is round, you would be wrong. You can deny the Holocaust, you would be wrong. You can also deny the fact of a 4.5 billion year old earth, you would be wrong. You can deny the fact of evolution and, wait for it-------, you would be wrong.

 

[Interplanner]

The doc ATHEIST DELUSION and the book by Axe UNDENIABLE are two good current treatments of the wishful fantasies of uniformitarianism. Odd how this happens in an age that also has SSM photography, so we can see as never before how amazing creation actually is.

 

[Stripe]

Darwinists love to assert their theories as fact. Unfortunately, evolution is not a fact; it's just a theory. It can never be more than that.

They also hate OP.

 

[ok doser]

:mock:darwinists

 

[Jonahdog]

Darwinists love to assert their theories as fact. Unfortunately, evolution is not a fact; it's just a theory. It can never be more than that.

They also hate OP.

Once more Stripe shows his lack of understanding of the word "theory" when used in science.

 

[Lilstu]

Darwinists love to assert their theories as fact. Unfortunately, evolution is not a fact; it's just a theory. It can never be more than that.

They also hate OP.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

Well, you are technically correct, you can deny anything. You can deny the earth is round, you would be wrong. You can deny the Holocaust, you would be wrong. You can also deny the fact of a 4.5 billion year old earth, you would be wrong. You can deny the fact of evolution and, wait for it-------, you would be wrong.

Yes, just as you think evolution is an undeniable fact, and you're wrong

 

[Tattooed Theist]

Yes.
Welcome to TOL

:cheers:

 

[Stripe]

Once more Stripe shows his lack of understanding of the word "theory" when used in science.

Nope.

You said evolution is a fact. It's not. It's just a theory. Facts are more important than theories, you know?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

Oh.

That excludes Darwinism then. :up:

A scientific theory is ... confirmed.

A "confirmed" theory is a fact. Evolution is not a fact. It's just a theory.

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile, OP goes unchallenged.

 

[Crucible]

Scientific theory is not synonymous to fact, it's a tested and approved explanation of facts. New evidence can always come along and refute them, in fact Einstein's relativity has been under scrutiny for the past decade.

Since scientists are like priests to atheists, they can't tell the difference between a scientist's accuracy and their over zealousness. They take things like Degrasse's demand that 'evolution is fact' for example and simply think that's the scientific standard.

 

[Stripe]

Scientific theory is not synonymous to fact, it's a tested and approved explanation of facts. New evidence can always come along and refute them, in fact Einstein's relativity has been under scrutiny for the past decade.

Since scientists are like priests to atheists, they can't tell the difference between a scientist's accuracy and their over zealousness. They take things like Degrasse's demand that 'evolution is fact' for example and simply think that's the scientific standard.

E≈mc²