Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Historical science.

No such thing. So fecking stupid.

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

 

[james bond]

Historical science.

No such thing. So fecking stupid.

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

Nothing fake about historical science. It's you who are fake, have feces for brains and are BOY.

I've already criticized and thoroughly rendered humans came from apes as pseudoscience using observational science. OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. The evo scientists are finally rethinking how to store the dinosaur fossils if they contain soft tissue. It could lead to these historical scientists into observational science which is what the creation scientists want to happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, historical science is a completely fake concept. "But we weren't there!"...ridiculous.

You are a desperate religious nutball. No, nobody will be reading g any of your bullshit in any scientific journal, ever. You have zero education in any science field, and you would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class.

 

[Syriusly]

historical science

^^

Fake concept made up by religious nutballs.

You're too stupid to realize what evolution is. Historical science. It's not observable. It's not testable. It's not even falsifiable .

Except of course- that is all untrue.

But then again you believe in 'Creation Science' which is basically believing in witch doctors.

 

[Syriusly]

Historical science.

No such thing. So fecking stupid.

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .

Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.

Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.

And you have it sort of backwards.

Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew

Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."


She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.

So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.

 

[Syriusly]

C) Explain it to us in a paragraph. What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?

I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?

So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism.
If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.

But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.

You go first.

Second, you do not even understand what I have been discussing. What a boob you are!!! I'm discussing creation science, not creationism. I can explain creation science and how science backs up the theories of the Bible.

Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?

You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'

So you aren't able to explain the difference? No shock there

Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?

You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'

Still waiting for the opportunity to respond to the challenge.

what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'?

If they are the same- then we can use the terms interchangeably so when you provide your evidence of Creationism we know what you mean.

 

[DOTR]

Historical science.

No such thing. So fecking stupid.

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .

Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.

Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.

And you have it sort of backwards.

Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew

Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."


She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.

So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.

Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?

Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for evolution.

 

[DOTR]

It’s obvious why. It’s not so obvious why it matters.

 

[james bond]

No such thing. So fecking stupid.

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .

Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.

Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.

And you have it sort of backwards.

Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew

Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."


She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.

So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.

Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?

I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.

 

[DOTR]

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

Why are their so many species of dogs?

Dogs are a funny anomaly. They were reclassified fairly recently (by some) as Canis lupus familiaris which should hint at the difficulty in explaining them. Domestication does strange things.

 

[james bond]

Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?

Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for evolution.

I'm not speaking to you because you have sh*t for brains. I'm pointing it out to others who have the intelligence to understand like DOTR..

Baryons are observational science. Evolution isn't a yardstick, it's a theory. The only thing it measures is against itself. Today, evolutionary science is based on not accepting God, the supernatural and the Bible because it's considered religion. The only supernatural we believe in is Genesis or origins. We do not believe in ghosts or mediums and the like. If you really were able to discuss evolution, then we'd have a better discussion.

I've said it many times because evolution is 1) more a religion than science and is based on "faith" that assumptions of radiometric dating is correct and that evolutionary change happens over long time, based on a family tree and common ancestor, and mutations and natural selection. The creation scientists are actually using science except their theories are based on what the Bible tells them. I've also said that we have the same evidence. Those are facts. The difference is we filter it differently.

What do I accept about evolution? I accept natural selection or microevolution. What doesn't happen is macroevolution. You believe it because of historical science and belief in common ancestry or descent with modification.

Those for theory of evolution believe in this:

Key points:

• Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:
  • Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
  • Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
  • Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
  • Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.
  • Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

Instead, creation scientists find that God reused some of the same molecular parts such as DNA in his creation. Similar location refers to distribution from a specific area in the Middle East and through actual human ancestors. That's why one gets the similarities. What we don't believe is the fossil evidence. That's historical science based on erroneous methods. We also know how something like DNA cannot form by itself. It's one of the examples of how complex molecules are formed into a design with intelligence behind it. No amount of randomness will produce something like it. In other words, it doesn't just happen in nature from amino acids. That said, we know that it's at the molecular level. Thus, we would be able to create synthetic DNA and this is what has happened. We know we can create synthetic diamonds at the molecular level. What we will never be able to create is gold, an atomic element. Coinicidentally, a divine element. We won't be able the create G, T, C and A bases.

Evolutionists think they have "created" some new species, but they haven't. The still won't be able to create at the atomic level of DNA bases. God has prevented humans from creating at the atomic level. How many times have I said that we appreciate the beauty of the design behind it by God? All of these things were meant for us to discover and marvel at his handiwork. Instead, we give credit to ourselves. It's like we stole the technology behind it and hand out the awards to those who use it first. All of these things, creation scientists can do, but they've been eliminated from the scientific community. How fair is that when they know more about real science than their counterparts? Thus, today we are building our own research centers and scientific brand. Eventually, I see two competing scientific groups and two foundations of scientific learning and thought. The creation scientists are behind, but they will catch up quickly because we have the Bible and private donors.

Science just gives us reason to appreciate the work of God more. It doesn't create God or faith for us. That's already in place due to our own doing and it will lead us to greater accomplishments than those of atheist scientists.

 

[LittleNipper]

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

I guarantee you have no idea what that study actually says.

And I'm of a firm realization that you could care less.

 

[Desperado]

Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?
Only certain segments of the population

 

[ChesBayJJ]

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .

Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.

Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.

And you have it sort of backwards.

Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew

Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."


She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.

So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.

Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?

I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.

You post some ridiculously ignorant BS.

I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible​

What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

I guarantee you have no idea what that study actually says.

And I'm of a firm realization that you could care less.

of course I care about what the study actually says. I also care about your lies about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You post some ridiculously ignorant BS.

Yep, it's pretty hilarious. What makes it even better is that he keeps declaring Victory, repeatedly. Good stuff!

 

[Syriusly]

No such thing. So fecking stupid.

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .

Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.

Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.

And you have it sort of backwards.

Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew

Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."


She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.

So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.

Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.?

Of course- many scientists are Christians.
However- almost no one in science- Christian or not- accepts the Creationists fairy tales.

Remember- Creationism is only a small cult offshoot from mainstream Christianity

 

[Syriusly]

You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes. We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today. We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past. The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time. I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana. He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance. There you go.

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.

OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .

Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.

Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.

And you have it sort of backwards.

Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew

Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."


She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.

So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.

Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?

I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.

What are 'myths'?

The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.

Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.

It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.

 

[Syriusly]

Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?

Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for evolution.

I'm not speaking to you because you have sh*t for brains. I'm pointing it out to others who have the intelligence to understand like DOTR..

Today, evolutionary science is based on not accepting God, the supernatural and the Bible because it's considered religion. The only supernatural we believe in is Genesis or origins. We do not believe in ghosts or mediums and the like. .

Again- false. Many scientists are persons of faith- Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindi- who just consider evolution to be the best answer to the question of the origin of the species.

If you reject the supernatural in the rest of the Bible other than Genesis.....why do you accept Genesis?