Page 813 of 813 FirstFirst ... 313713763803811812813
Results 8,121 to 8,124 of 8124

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #8121
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,851
    Thanks
    1,057
    Thanked 2,773 Times in 1,680 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
    No, what you have is a person classically trained in microscopy and nothing else. I never said he faked it you **** ! I merely said he did not demonstrate it in his paper - you know that is the info I have to go on. Which you have failed to demonstrate as well. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he just got it wrong. We leave the faked and lied part till further notice.



    Again, quote where I said he cheated you liar. You should apologize for your BS and trying to run from the simple challenge of showing the demonstration that it was a Tri-horn. You can't and so you are just falling all over the place with your ***** accusations.



    Again, never said he was lying - ****.



    I did address it - you guys often quote phrases just like that and use it to deny the papers findings. Yet when I do it you have a hissey-fit. I often here you and Mike ask for unequivocal proof, etc. HYPOCRITES you are!



    Not me, I am having a hell of a time trying to keep you focused on demonstrating that Mark demonstrated the first point in the paper - that it was a tri-horn. Still can't can you!


    ******
    This post was reported for review. I have edited this post. Please note that it is against board rules to call another member a "liar" or "loser," etc. It is fine to disagree. However, do not insult or personally attack another poster. Thank you.
    Pastor2022- Moderator

    Faith is the confident obedience to the Word of God in spite of circumstances or consequences.

  2. #8122
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,715
    Thanks
    1,421
    Thanked 1,142 Times in 975 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    If all you want Mike is that the strengths and weaknesses of the ToE be taught, then we don't have a problem.
    Fantastic! So the first thing that should be taught is that "ToE" is really "IoE" (the Idea of Evolution), since it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory.

    Let me show you...

    "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program."

    - Karl Popper

    "If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical).... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."

    - Dr. Colin Patterson, Head Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History

    Then, after making it clear right off the bat to students that UCD is simply an idea, and not a real theory, I would immediately bring up the undeniable fact that we currently don't have a viable mechanism by which this idea could have even occurred.


    Are we still in agreement, Don?
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  3. #8123
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 209 Times in 169 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    According to the scientifically derived C14 results, less than 39,000 years old.


    It is not only what I'm asserting, but what I'm able to back up with tons of observational evidence besides the soft tissue and C14 dates. Historical accounts and many other cultural artifacts like this Stegosaurus on a 12th century Cambodian temple...



    And this Sauropod petroglyph...



    But I don't suppose you're interested in any evidence that doesn't fit in with your preconceived paradigm, right?


    I don't have to disprove evolutionism, Don. The onus is on you to prove your counterintuitive, counter-evidentiary idea in the first place. That being said, who's to say we haven't already found a human among dinosaurs? I mean, judging by the reaction to the dino soft tissue and the ENCODE results, what honest person would put it past evo academia to hide such a find? Besides, you guys have already re-written the history of the earth hundreds of times based on other discoveries that didn't align with your paradigm, right? Remember when grass and flowering plants didn't evolve until after the dinosaurs had gone extinct? Now we know better. Remember when mammals and dinosaurs didn't co-exist? Now we have a fossilized mammal with a dinosaur in its stomach.

    Don, did you even know that the following are found in dinosaur layers?

    Modern sharks, rays, sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder, frogs, salamanders, snakes, lizards, turtles, crocodiles, parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, duck-billed platypus, flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, vascular mosses, cycads, ferns, sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars, redwoods, lily pads, cycads, and horsetails.

    How many of those things do the museums display along with their dinosaur exhibits? And why? Hmm...
    Wow Mike I must admit that I didn't know about these ancient artifacts, with carving of different types of Dinosaurs. Are these examples of the tons of evidence that you are talking about? I'm not sure if you mean that the artifacts with carvings of dinosaurs, or actual dinosaur fossil, was confirmed by C-14 dating method? You seemed to avoid being specific. You do realize that science employs many other dating methods for dating fossils and other natural features? But let's assume that you are correct, are you suggesting that man and dinosaurs all lived together? I don't really expect an answer. As a creationist you need to make quite a few ludicrous assumptions.

    You must assume that the hundreds of millions of fossils residing in display cases and drawers around the world, have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public.
    You must assume that all radiometric method of dating used by scientist are useless, and inaccurate.
    You must assume that all the fossils are of the same age, and were somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, like Noah’s flood. Also, that all marine creatures somehow drowned.
    You must assume that fossils do not seem to appear in sequences.
    You must assume that geologists did not notice thay fossils became more complex through time.
    You must assume that the labors of scientists have not led to a single unexpected finding, such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
    You must assume that the Bible is accurate and precise.
    You must assume that that the supernatural realm exists, and there are other different realities.
    You must assume that observation is the only valid method of inquiry that is reliable in science.
    You must assume that normal logic is irrelevant to ones Belief.
    You must assume that all scientist are in a conspiracy to protect the Religiosity of the Theory of Evolution, which is their Religion.

    This is what you do Mike, you say nothing but imply everything. So stop avoiding answering the same questions you raise. Do you believe that man and dinosaurs lived together? Do you believe that all life and the entire Universe was "poofed" into reality by the word of God? I sincerely hope that you don't use the creation myth from the Bible, that would only raise more questions. First, which Creation myth in Genesis do you consider to be science(Gen 1:1 - Gen 2:3, or Gen 2:4 - Gen 2:25)? Are you claiming that the Bible IS a science book? No Mike, the Bible is merely a book of fables, myths, text, legends and stories, compiled by 300 priest, paid for by Emperor Constantine the Great(325 AD), at the Council of Nicaea. Constantine would make Christianity the official Religion, if these religious leaders could settle their differences and create an acceptable text. Not only is the Bible man-made, man-edited, man-compiled, but it was written 300 years after Christ. In fact, at the Council of Nicaea, Constantine was unsure of what else to include as a Holy Scripture (which the later batch became the Bible), that he threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were out. Maybe this might be considered as supernatural? So please do not use the Bible as a reference for anything, other than your own personal Belief.

    This leaves you without any foundation to support your creationist claims. So, again are you saying that because there are carvings of dinosaurs, that this is proof that dinosaurs existed during the age of mankind? If not what is your point? And don't avoid directly answering with "that's the only possible conclusion". This again, like the rest of your verbiage, is more arguments from ignorance. Finally Mike, science has always been self-correcting and self-improving, so what is your point? You wouldn't be insinuating that because of past new discoveries, the belief in anything supernatural should now be justified? That would be another dishonest equivocation fallacy. You have only two choices, either it is man-made, or it happened naturally. Both of these options can be falsified. A supernatural choice can't be falsified. The claim that, "God did it all" is not intuitive and has no explanatory value, therefore, it is you that have the burden of proof. What makes you think that your claim is more valid than any other religious claim? Don

  4. #8124
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,447
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked 1,150 Times in 977 Posts

    Default

    Mike;

    The process by which you were conceived cannot be observed or repeated.

    Are we therefore to conclude that it was not scientifically understood?

    We might conclude that it was faulty in some respect, after reading your posts, but that's merely speculation.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •