Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Stuu]

Again your ignorance is exposed. These meteorites aren't proposed to have come from the granitic body of the hydroplates, but from nickel/iron accumulations, which require high temperatures to form.

What nickel/iron accumulations?

How do you think these metals reached more than 1,000^oC? Not inside an asteroid, I hope.

Inside a planetesimal within the asteroid belt, big enough to allow sorting by relative density.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

You seem to adhere to a statement of faith, which admits you are unwilling to follow evidence no matter where it leads... "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute..." Geneticist Prof. R. Lewontin

Yeah, that's methodological naturalism, which has been the operational framework of science.....since there's been science.

Given your anti-science views, it's hardly surprising to see you try and criticize scientists for following the rules of science.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You seem to adhere to a statement of faith, which admits you are unwilling to follow evidence no matter where it leads... "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute..." Geneticist Prof. R. Lewontin

Yeah, that's methodological naturalism, which has been the operational framework of science.....since there's been science.

Given your anti-science views, it's hardly surprising to see you try and criticize scientists for following the rules of science.

6days problem is highlighted above. He seems to think when something is "counter-intuitive" and/or "mystifying" (i.e., presently unknown) he can only conclude, "Goddidit!!!"

 

[Jose Fly]

6days problem is highlighted above. He seems to think when something is "counter-intuitive" and/or "mystifying" (i.e., presently unknown) he can only conclude, "Goddidit!!!"

He's basically complaining that science is science, rather than religion.

 

[6days]

Yeah, that's methodological naturalism, which has been the operational framework of science.....since there's been science.

The fathers of modern science defined science as the search of knowledge through observation, repeated experiments and drawing conclusions. Those scientists in many cases were Bible believing Christians. They didn't confuse science with their beliefs about the past as you do.


Naturalism is just a philosophy, or a religion that has at times hindered scientific progress.

 

[Jose Fly]

The fathers of modern science defined science as the search of knowledge through observation, repeated experiments and drawing conclusions. Those scientists in many cases were Bible believing Christians.

Try and pay attention 6days....no one has said Christians (or people from any walk of faith) can't be scientists.

Naturalism is just a philosophy, or a religion that has at times hindered scientific progress.

All the years you've spent talking about science, and you still don't understand the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. The only question is whether it's because you can't understand, or you won't understand.

 

[6days]

..no one has said Christians (or people from any walk of faith) can't be scientists.

Of course... atheists, vegetarians, Catholics, Darwinists, evangelicals, etc can be, and are scientists. Some scientists believe that nothing might have caused everything. Some scientists believe that in the beginning God created.


Some scientists believe life can come from non life. Some scientists believe God created, exactly how His Word says. These scientists can and do work side by side, but have varying beliefs about origins.