Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

It’s more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FF’s. Not all the FF’s were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that “God's law is written on every man's heart”, is obviously false. It’s a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims.

Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not your gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance. That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.

That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in it’s present configuration. All this was done, we’re to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words?
Those gods – they’re such kidders.

Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.

Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.

Still avoiding the questions put to you ?

 

[Hollie]

god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

assumption not fact

True.


So is macroevolution.

False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

assumption not fact

True.


So is macroevolution.

False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.

Apparently neither do you.

 

[Hollie]

Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.

Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.

Still avoiding the questions put to you ?

You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?

 

[Hollie]

True.


So is macroevolution.

False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.

Apparently neither do you.

Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.

Apparently neither do you.

Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.

Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.

And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.

These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.

If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.

 

[Hollie]

Apparently neither do you.

Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.

Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.

And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.

These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.

If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.

Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.

And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.

These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.

If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

I don't loathe science.

But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.

Why did humans stop evolving?

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Full source and references here.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.

And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.

These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.

If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

I don't loathe science.

But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.

Why did humans stop evolving?

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Full source and references here.

You do not understand the scientific method.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

I don't loathe science.

But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.

Why did humans stop evolving?

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Full source and references here.

You do not understand the scientific method.

You didn't read the article.


BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.

 

[Hollie]

I don't loathe science.

But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.

Why did humans stop evolving?

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:



The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Full source and references here.

You do not understand the scientific method.

You didn't read the article.


BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.

I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".

The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.

Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author

 

[UltimateReality]

So who did?

ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.

wtf? God didn't make man in his own image? I believe that that's written in the bibble?

You are confusing ID Theory with the religious belief of Creationism.

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.

Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.

And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.

These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.

If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

Double YAWN.

 

[UltimateReality]

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

I don't loathe science.

But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.

Why did humans stop evolving?

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Full source and references here.

You do not understand the scientific method.

Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized REAL science in many other fields?

 

[Hollie]

Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.

And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.

These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.

If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

Double YAWN.

Speaking of ICR groupies, yet another pointless waste of bandwidth by a flat-earther who knows nothing of science.

 

[UltimateReality]

You do not understand the scientific method.

You didn't read the article.


BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.

I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".

The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.

Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author

In the words of Romney, your attacks to do not, and have never, constituted a valid argument on this thread. You can do nothing but regurgitate your same, tired, accusations. How many times have you used the terms "Haran Yahya", "ICR", and "fundie" in 600 pages? It is getting really tiring.

Kind of like: Where do you go to college?

Your endless attacks and cut and pasting from atheist websites is getting pathetic. Now why don't you run along.

 

[UltimateReality]

Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

Double YAWN.

Speaking of ICR groupies, yet another pointless waste of bandwidth by a flat-earther who knows nothing of science.

Wasted bandwidth? Ha!!! Physician heal thyself!!!

 

[Hollie]

I don't loathe science.

But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.

Why did humans stop evolving?

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:



The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Full source and references here.

You do not understand the scientific method.

Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized real science in many other fields?

Yet another display of the dangers inherent in the pursuit of ignorance characterized by Christian creationists.

 

[UltimateReality]

You do not understand the scientific method.

Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized real science in many other fields?

Yet another display of the dangers inherent in the pursuit of ignorance characterized by Christian creationists.

Pathetic.

 

[Hollie]

Double YAWN.

Speaking of ICR groupies, yet another pointless waste of bandwidth by a flat-earther who knows nothing of science.

Wasted bandwidth? Ha!!! Physician heal thyself!!!

In the flat-earther mindset, that would mean praying to plastic statues on dashboards, lighting smelly incense, magic beads and reading tea leaves.