Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ok then test the bible and creation science with skepticism..I think he makes valid points I don't agree with everything he states as you can see I have given my opinions on this with him.
He believes God Exists as do I but he is not willing to say God is a personal God and that is where we part ways.
You see you need physical evidence to believe in God but you don't need physical evidence to believe naturalism is the cause of all we see. These explanations of naturalism are only opinions not physical evidence.
I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.
Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.
snicker! a viable explanation? the evidence is either viable or it's not...hahahaha!Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.
What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.
I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.
dodge attempt warning...Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.
Provide the testable evidence for Adam and Eve, the magic garden and talking snakes.
Who was the first Homo sapien pair that produced modern day humans ? Talking serpent can only happen through one means and that can't be proven.
What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.
I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.
This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.
Oh, you poor dear.Let me spell it out for you. I can identify the various christian fundie websites you have "quote-mined" from and I can also link to the "about" pages on these sites and Identify the announcements of their bias leading to a conclusion of biblical inerrancy.
I got a chuckle when you wrote of an adult discussion.
Hollie I share some views with creationist what is your point ? You share views with atheists what is the point ?
So maybe you're not ready for an adult discussion on the evidence. You seem to have a real problem with a believer that can have a rational conversation with you.
You share "some" views with Christian creationist?
Those are the only views you present. Typically, those views are presented in the form of fraudulent "quotes", manufactured specifically to denigrate science.
Creation ministries present no peer reviewed facts to support biblical tales of miracles and supernaturalism. Their arguments are attempts only to tear down science.
"So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils" -YWCSo far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?I certainly can debate and that was demonstrated by your humiliating concession regarding exposure and refutation of the falsified, edited, parsed and manufactured 'quotes" you cut and pasted from various creation ministries and from Harun Yahya.
You choose to forget that you were "outed" on several occasions for cutting and pasting the same fraudulent "quotes" more than once.
They're part of your posting history. That history is one of dishonesty and fraud.
You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.
THE ABOVE QUOTE IS FALSE.
As the content of the quoted article is not factual or scientific it proves nothing as it is based on a religious belief not evidence.
therefore YWC'S CLAIM "'kicking butt" is also false.
I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.
This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.
The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.
Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.
This is again a function of your appalling lack of any training in science. As we know, the planet is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, any reference to organisms dating back 400 million years Is just more of the global conspiracy Involving the science community. Both you and Harun Yahya are at the forefront of the Investigation exposing the fraud that is science.
That being settled, this would be a good time to address your repeated posting of phony, falsified, edited and parsed "quotes". Your actions revealed a pattern of lies and deceit whereby serial dishonesty was the mechanism to press your religious agenda.
I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?
The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.
Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.
ok then test the bible and creation science with skepticism..I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.
Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.
a basic tenant of science is being skeptical of you own evidence. real science tests it's evidence constantly.
not one of you has ever tested your evidence with anything close to the objectivity and skepticism needed to prove your myths true.
snicker! a viable explanation? the evidence is either viable or it's not...hahahaha!What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.
I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.
Oh, you poor dear.Hollie I share some views with creationist what is your point ? You share views with atheists what is the point ?
So maybe you're not ready for an adult discussion on the evidence. You seem to have a real problem with a believer that can have a rational conversation with you.
You share "some" views with Christian creationist?
Those are the only views you present. Typically, those views are presented in the form of fraudulent "quotes", manufactured specifically to denigrate science.
Creation ministries present no peer reviewed facts to support biblical tales of miracles and supernaturalism. Their arguments are attempts only to tear down science.
No I said I believe in Micro-evolution who do you think I am agreeing with there ? Or that Rna can replicate itself ?
The current human mutation rate ?
I also believe and can detect purposeful design in nature now who would I be agreeing with there ?
Hollie once again you show your faleure to reason.
dodge attempt warning...Provide the testable evidence for Adam and Eve, the magic garden and talking snakes.
Who was the first Homo sapien pair that produced modern day humans ? Talking serpent can only happen through one means and that can't be proven.
once again you makes that totally specious assumption the one pair of homo sapiens began the whole species...
I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.
This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.
The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.
Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.
dodge attempt warning...Who was the first Homo sapien pair that produced modern day humans ? Talking serpent can only happen through one means and that can't be proven.
once again you makes that totally specious assumption the one pair of homo sapiens began the whole species...
Show otherwise, How did we get multiple pairs of homo sapiens to populate the earth ?
If this can happen How come living fossils show no change after many more years of existing over Homo Sapiens ? Having many more offspring and many more generations ?
It is really easy to kill the theory you hold dear clown.
This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.
The evidence that carries the most weight are observed evidences. Since you can't observe evolution and it isn't shown in the fossil record all we have is a myth supported merely opinions which I already shot a hole in.
Not a non-sequitur at all nor ad-hominem fallacy.
You obviously never attended a 7th grade science class. Evolution clearly has been observed. This has been delineated for you several times. You simply repeat the fundie creationist party line dogma wifh no ability to learn.
Oh, you poor dear.
You share "some" views with Christian creationist?
Those are the only views you present. Typically, those views are presented in the form of fraudulent "quotes", manufactured specifically to denigrate science.
Creation ministries present no peer reviewed facts to support biblical tales of miracles and supernaturalism. Their arguments are attempts only to tear down science.
No I said I believe in Micro-evolution who do you think I am agreeing with there ? Or that Rna can replicate itself ?
The current human mutation rate ?
I also believe and can detect purposeful design in nature now who would I be agreeing with there ?
Hollie once again you show your faleure to reason.
I'm clear that you have real difficulty with understanding what It is you're hoping to convey. Your nonsensical sputtering above Is nothing more than silliness refuted previously. You're simply wasting your time with creationist dogma.
This would be the appropriate time to offer - yet again - your really nonsensical claim to mechanical devices not assembling into an airliner, thus, proving "design" in nature.
dodge attempt warning...
once again you makes that totally specious assumption the one pair of homo sapiens began the whole species...
Show otherwise, How did we get multiple pairs of homo sapiens to populate the earth ?
If this can happen How come living fossils show no change after many more years of existing over Homo Sapiens ? Having many more offspring and many more generations ?
It is really easy to kill the theory you hold dear clown.
You are the perfect candidate for promoting creationist fear and superstition. Your typically dodge any requirement to support your argument, but instead, bluster on with
juvenile questions speak to an utter lack a science vocabulary.
Show otherwise, How did we get multiple pairs of homo sapiens to populate the earth ?
If this can happen How come living fossils show no change after many more years of existing over Homo Sapiens ? Having many more offspring and many more generations ?
It is really easy to kill the theory you hold dear clown.
You are the perfect candidate for promoting creationist fear and superstition. Your typically dodge any requirement to support your argument, but instead, bluster on with
juvenile questions speak to an utter lack a science vocabulary.
Hollie you still have not addressed my earlier questions and since you can't you try to change the subject .a typical ploy of someone getting their ass kicked.
