Science for a pre-sin world

[chair]

You passed it up. Why I wonder?

He is playing his usual games.

 

[Stripe]

Care to direct me to the page on this thread where the evidence is listed? Or if you want post the evidence again right here and prove me, the evolutionist who has pretended to not see it or lied about not seeing it, wrong.

You can validate your claim that evolutionists are dishonest/illiterate right now Stripe. This is the chance of your lifetime. Don't pass it up

I'm not here to play your silly games.

Try reading your thread. :up:

 

[MrDeets]

If that's true then why has it been consistently being accepted at increasing numbers in the scientific community over the past 100 years? Now it's to the point that it's almost unanimous among scientists that evolution is very real and observable (north of 99%)

I now see why the evolution threads always run in circles. :box: Methinks this is the wrong place to try and stick to peer reviewed, commonly accepted science and get anywhere with that. Faith is valued more highly than any single shred of accepted fact. Oh well.

 

[ok doser]

They're working on it, and learning more all the time. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. :idunno: This article is far from absolute proof, but it is intriguing...http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum



That statement shows exactly how well you understand evolution. "Evolution"(artificial selection is a better term when humans guide or influence it) is "duplicated" in agriculture, the breeding of animals, vaccines, etc. Duplicating natural selection in a lab would prove zilch, because it's a forced duplication under scientific circumstances. Natural selection or "evolution" is being observed all over the world, though I'm sure you'd call it "micro", which would even farther demonstrate your lack of understanding.

oh deets :nono:

my "lack of understanding"?

:darwinsm:

good one! :thumb:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evolutionists hate reading.

Mmhmm.....because scientists, people who write and meticulously proofread papers and do tedious studies in order to gather research for those papers in order for other scientists to read and review those papers, hate reading.


It all makes sense now

Because the evidence — along with a prediction — was given to you, but you, an evolutionist, have pretended not to have seen anything.

Care to direct me to the page on this thread where the evidence is listed? Or if you want post the evidence again right here and prove me, the evolutionist who has pretended to not see it or lied about not seeing it, wrong.

You can validate your claim that evolutionists are dishonest/illiterate right now Stripe. This is the chance of your lifetime. Don't pass it up

I'm not here to play your silly games.

Try reading your thread. :up:

:rotfl:

Great work, Stripe. Really good stuff

 

[Stripe]

Great work, Stripe. Really good stuff

What? My post that you demanded, but then ignored?

Yeah, I know. How do you? :think:

 

[Greg Jennings]

What? My post that you demanded, but then ignored?

Yeah, I know. How do you? :think:

:rotfl: Anyone can see in my post above that I asked for evidence that you claimed was here, then refused to provide. Does this game you play really fool anyone?

If it does then props to you. You've found a way to convince people here of your credibility with minimum effort. That takes knowing your audience. You should go into sales

 

[6days]

:rotfl: Anyone can see in my post above that I asked for evidence that you claimed was here, then refused to provide. Does this game you play really fool anyone?

If it does then props to you. You've found a way to convince people here of your credibility with minimum effort. That takes knowing your audience. You should go into sales

Greg...I didn't read everything so perhaps I missed something in your chat with Stripe. But, I did see where he said 'evolutionists hate reading'. I suspect he says that because you keep demanding an answer to the OP, which was answered several times early in the thread. IOW, it appears you aren't really interested in an answer...Either that or, "evolutionists hate to read".

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg...I didn't read everything so perhaps I missed something in your chat with Stripe. But, I did see where he said 'evolutionists hate reading'. I suspect he says that because you keep demanding an answer to the OP, which was answered several times early in the thread. IOW, it appears you aren't really interested in an answer...Either that or, "evolutionists hate to read".

6days I've reviewed the entire thread four times for the scientific evidence asked for in the OP. There hasn't been any scientific evidence listed. As I previously mentioned, the closest thing I got was you saying "Genesis 1" which you and I both know isn't scientific.

If I'm mistaken, please direct me to the post or post number of any containing scientific evidence(s) that support a pre-sin world. Thanks

 

[6days]

6days I've reviewed the entire thread four times for the scientific evidence asked for in the OP. There hasn't been any scientific evidence listed. As I previously mentioned, the closest thing I got was you saying "Genesis 1" which you and I both know isn't scientific.

If I'm mistaken, please direct me to the post or post number of any containing scientific evidence(s) that support a pre-sin world. Thanks

I think a few people said, or asked, what evidence you expect from a time span of a few days, from 6000 years ago.

 

[Stripe]

I've reviewed the entire thread four times.

Great. Then you should have found my posts that contain evidence and a prediction then. :thumb:

 

[Greg Jennings]

I think a few people said, or asked, what evidence you expect from a time span of a few days, from 6000 years ago.

Anything measurable or tangible. Anything that can verify the creation story instead of just blindly assuming it to be truth. ANYTHING

 

[ok doser]

Anything measurable or tangible. Anything that can verify the creation story instead of just blindly assuming it to be truth. ANYTHING

the existing universe :idunno:

 

[Greg Jennings]

the existing universe :idunno:

Does anyone here know what tangible or scientific means?

 

[ok doser]

Does anyone here know what tangible or scientific means?

you don't think the universe is tangible? :freak:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Great. Then you should have found my posts that contain evidence and a prediction then. :thumb:

You mean this?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp17582632

The errors on that specific page are so mind-boggling it's not even funny. It is not evidence for creation. It is, however, excellent evidence for why creationist sites are either uneducated or dishonest.

Think about this Stripe: if the science is so supportive of Genesis, then why must you go to creationist websites in order to find any claimed evidence?

 

[Greg Jennings]

you don't think the universe is tangible? :freak:

Of course it is. But the fact that it is here isn't evidence for how it got here. And what is being asked for is evidence of the biblical creation being the method by which the universe was created. I guess that's not obvious to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

6days I've reviewed the entire thread four times for the scientific evidence asked for in the OP. There hasn't been any scientific evidence listed. As I previously mentioned, the closest thing I got was you saying "Genesis 1" which you and I both know isn't scientific.

If I'm mistaken, please direct me to the post or post number of any containing scientific evidence(s) that support a pre-sin world. Thanks

Get used to this tactic from the creationists here at ToL. They like to dodge and avoid questions, wait until threads are 6+ pages long, and then claim to have already answered the questions (but never seem to be able to say where). And as you've also seen, in the meantime they like to make a lot of empty assertions about how terrible evolutionary biology is, how it's already been falsified, and how creationism is the model that's actually supported by the data.

But all that does is demonstrate just how impossible it is to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[ok doser]

Of course it is.

so you're willing to accept that the universe is tangible

good, that's a start :thumb:

But the fact that it is here isn't evidence for how it got here. And what is being asked for is evidence of the biblical creation being the method by which the universe was created. I guess that's not obvious to you?

i'm taking this in baby steps, so bear with me

you admit that the universe exists and that it is tangible, right?

do you accept the scientific concept of entropy?

 

[Greg Jennings]

so you're willing to accept that the universe is tangible

good, that's a start :thumb:



i'm taking this in baby steps, so bear with me

you admit that the universe exists and that it is tangible, right?

do you accept the scientific concept of entropy?

I accept is because that what's we observe in the universe and at the quantum level, yes