Why Does Evolutionary Science Only Believe In Things In Which There Is No Evidence?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What an embarrassingly stupid thread. Anyone who believes the thread title would fail a middle school science test.

 

[james bond]

Hey, Hollie with the clueless symbol as an avatar. Here is an example of use for male nipples haha. I guess he wants to show them off. Like for women, it is for sexual stimulation and not just breast feeding. It is stupid to assume they are vestigial organs in order to provide evidence for vestigial organs (both evolutionary and circular thinking) when there is a function for them. I won my fantasy b-ball league and this is the vid that I played to celebrate to the league.

I gave you the link earlier to vestigial organs. It’s obvious that struck a nerve as you’re now spamming the thread with pointless YouTube videos.

You offered nothing to refute the data, You simply launched into another tirade replete with your usual “hahahahaha” commentary. At least for me, “hahahahahaha” is not a convincing argument but it seems to be the best that ID’iot creationists can offer.

Here’s another anti-evilutionist claim. Note that it comes from one of the most extreme hyper-religious loons who obviously wont be persuaded by fact.


Claim CB361:
Vestigial organs (if any really exist) are not evidence of evolution. They just show decay consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 75-76.
Response:

1. Vestigial organs include more than atrophied organs. The bones of the middle ear, for example, are vestiges of jaw bones of ancestral tetrapods.
   
   
2. Loss of organs is sometimes an advantage. For example, loss of legs is adaptive in whales. Thus, losses of organs often are evolution driven by natural selection. They are evidence of evolution when their vestigial forms show similarities to earlier nonvestigial forms.

Here’s an introductory guide to biological evolution that touches on vestigial organs.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

You’re free to counter with research papers from the Henry Morris school for the afflicted.




Here’s more data to ruin your day: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Note that there is an entire page of references and links at the bottom of the article.

You could counter the above with peer reviewed studies performed by the charlatans at your ID’iot creation ministries but we both know that those charlatans do no research.

Gawd. More foolishness and you do not address my argument. I'm not sure how we ever got on this topic. All I can think of is "vestigial" organs is a made up argument against God. I think the logic goes God would not create humans with non-functioning body parts. Otherwise, this is an evolutionary fail like monkeys that are not bipedal. Or chickens that evolved from dinosaurs. You can't have it both ways.

How can my Queen vid be pointless when Freddie Mercury is titillating his fans? I doubt he was wearing his spandex backwards like a woman would do.

Many times I just hahahahahahahaha to your post as in smh, lolz, lolz, lolz due to its lack of academic basis and foolishness. You should at least get that message.

Moreover, why can't you explain what your links say in your own words? How does vestigial organs relate to evolution? How does it relate to the argument you are presenting. I'm not a mind reader.

I'll address Dr. Henry Morris' argument that you copy and pasted. It sounds like he's claiming entropy or the transfer of heat when animals use up their energy to counter the evolutionary claims. There are no basis for these claims in the first place as we do not have transitional fossils of whales losing their legs. I think someone made an argument that whales came from tiktaalik as an example of how animals can evolve another way instead of the sea-to-land-and-back-to-sea evolution. Even Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy thinks apes evolved from humans. These are valid theories under evolution, but the liberal media spin their own stories for the mainstream to digest and be brainwashed with. That's how people believe in the Earth and universe being so old. I knew the argument for the evolution of whales, so was able to respond to it.

Will you answer my questions? Can you briefly answer in your own words? What does the middle ear bone have to do with evolution?

I was not at all surprised you chose to sidestep the data I linked for you. One honestly reaches conclusions by examining the evidence.

Conjecture, speculation and rejection of facts are what we see from the hyper-religious and the ID'iot creation ministries. Dogma, as a means to support predefined conclusions, does not deserve the same consideration as peer reviewed data. Conjectures which generate claims in conflict with observed physical evidence can be summarily discarded.

Young-earth creationism ID'iot creationism is conjecture and wilfully discarding of facts. That is obviously in conflict with the available evidence. As such, it does not deserve equal consideration or time with volumes of data, evidence and and well-tested theories from science.

I'm sure you noticed that nowhere did you offer a single bit of evidence to refute the links I supplied. Aside from your denials and inability to offer any support for your claims to magic and supernaturalism, what did you hope to accomplish?

Your points were refuted by finding fuctions for these "useless" organs. They're just organs, but for some queer reason atheists believe they are left over organs from previous common ancestors. You can't even answer my simple questions, so you go back to being ignored for the ignorant being you are . You notice I do not follow you around, but you follow me around.

 

[james bond]

What an embarrassingly stupid thread. Anyone who believes the thread title would fail a middle school science test.

Yet, you felt the need to post all over the place here. And not one piece of evidence to back up your theory. We had "vestigial" organs that turned out to be regular organs. We found out about the spiritual living and the spiritual dead and what they believe and not believe. There was evidence provided for the spiritual living in the universe was shown to have a beginning and is flat shaped like a scroll per the Bible while the non-believers side came up with a walking whale with no fossil evidence of them having feet. Also the spiritual dead side got, "We love to sin." And one non-believer said Christianity was based on circular reasoning, but had no examples to back it up. OTOH, we had the universe just popped into and out of existence and then started expanding and the sun, moon and planets in the Milky Way ended up just right with very little explanation how all this matter came to be. Something about infinite this and infinite that and all this matter, motion and energy just fell into place. You can tell a middle schooler about the choices and I know which side is more credible, believable and where they would want to live.

 

[Hollie]

Hey, Hollie with the clueless symbol as an avatar. Here is an example of use for male nipples haha. I guess he wants to show them off. Like for women, it is for sexual stimulation and not just breast feeding. It is stupid to assume they are vestigial organs in order to provide evidence for vestigial organs (both evolutionary and circular thinking) when there is a function for them. I won my fantasy b-ball league and this is the vid that I played to celebrate to the league.

I gave you the link earlier to vestigial organs. It’s obvious that struck a nerve as you’re now spamming the thread with pointless YouTube videos.

You offered nothing to refute the data, You simply launched into another tirade replete with your usual “hahahahaha” commentary. At least for me, “hahahahahaha” is not a convincing argument but it seems to be the best that ID’iot creationists can offer.

Here’s another anti-evilutionist claim. Note that it comes from one of the most extreme hyper-religious loons who obviously wont be persuaded by fact.


Claim CB361:
Vestigial organs (if any really exist) are not evidence of evolution. They just show decay consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 75-76.
Response:

1. Vestigial organs include more than atrophied organs. The bones of the middle ear, for example, are vestiges of jaw bones of ancestral tetrapods.
   
   
2. Loss of organs is sometimes an advantage. For example, loss of legs is adaptive in whales. Thus, losses of organs often are evolution driven by natural selection. They are evidence of evolution when their vestigial forms show similarities to earlier nonvestigial forms.

Here’s an introductory guide to biological evolution that touches on vestigial organs.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

You’re free to counter with research papers from the Henry Morris school for the afflicted.




Here’s more data to ruin your day: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Note that there is an entire page of references and links at the bottom of the article.

You could counter the above with peer reviewed studies performed by the charlatans at your ID’iot creation ministries but we both know that those charlatans do no research.

Gawd. More foolishness and you do not address my argument. I'm not sure how we ever got on this topic. All I can think of is "vestigial" organs is a made up argument against God. I think the logic goes God would not create humans with non-functioning body parts. Otherwise, this is an evolutionary fail like monkeys that are not bipedal. Or chickens that evolved from dinosaurs. You can't have it both ways.

How can my Queen vid be pointless when Freddie Mercury is titillating his fans? I doubt he was wearing his spandex backwards like a woman would do.

Many times I just hahahahahahahaha to your post as in smh, lolz, lolz, lolz due to its lack of academic basis and foolishness. You should at least get that message.

Moreover, why can't you explain what your links say in your own words? How does vestigial organs relate to evolution? How does it relate to the argument you are presenting. I'm not a mind reader.

I'll address Dr. Henry Morris' argument that you copy and pasted. It sounds like he's claiming entropy or the transfer of heat when animals use up their energy to counter the evolutionary claims. There are no basis for these claims in the first place as we do not have transitional fossils of whales losing their legs. I think someone made an argument that whales came from tiktaalik as an example of how animals can evolve another way instead of the sea-to-land-and-back-to-sea evolution. Even Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy thinks apes evolved from humans. These are valid theories under evolution, but the liberal media spin their own stories for the mainstream to digest and be brainwashed with. That's how people believe in the Earth and universe being so old. I knew the argument for the evolution of whales, so was able to respond to it.

Will you answer my questions? Can you briefly answer in your own words? What does the middle ear bone have to do with evolution?

I was not at all surprised you chose to sidestep the data I linked for you. One honestly reaches conclusions by examining the evidence.

Conjecture, speculation and rejection of facts are what we see from the hyper-religious and the ID'iot creation ministries. Dogma, as a means to support predefined conclusions, does not deserve the same consideration as peer reviewed data. Conjectures which generate claims in conflict with observed physical evidence can be summarily discarded.

Young-earth creationism ID'iot creationism is conjecture and wilfully discarding of facts. That is obviously in conflict with the available evidence. As such, it does not deserve equal consideration or time with volumes of data, evidence and and well-tested theories from science.

I'm sure you noticed that nowhere did you offer a single bit of evidence to refute the links I supplied. Aside from your denials and inability to offer any support for your claims to magic and supernaturalism, what did you hope to accomplish?

Your points were refuted by finding fuctions for these "useless" organs. They're just organs, but for some queer reason atheists believe they are left over organs from previous common ancestors. You can't even answer my simple questions, so you go back to being ignored for the ignorant being you are . You notice I do not follow you around, but you follow me around.

That was a lot of your usual dancing around the issue. I noticed you made no attempt to refute what I supplied to you. You made no attempt to address the fact of vestigial bones. The scientific community has much peer reviewed data to document their existence.

Here's some information from those evil medical doctors:

appendix vestigial structures - Health.Zone - Content Results



Any comment on the poor design of your gods who apparently dumped spare parts around? Why are your gods such incompetent designers?

The Curious Case of the Designer's Bad Design



Maybe you could comment on the lack of any studies prepared by your ID'iot creation ministries.

CI100: Intelligent Design

 

[james bond]

Hey, Hollie with the clueless symbol as an avatar. Here is an example of use for male nipples haha. I guess he wants to show them off. Like for women, it is for sexual stimulation and not just breast feeding. It is stupid to assume they are vestigial organs in order to provide evidence for vestigial organs (both evolutionary and circular thinking) when there is a function for them. I won my fantasy b-ball league and this is the vid that I played to celebrate to the league.

I gave you the link earlier to vestigial organs. It’s obvious that struck a nerve as you’re now spamming the thread with pointless YouTube videos.

You offered nothing to refute the data, You simply launched into another tirade replete with your usual “hahahahaha” commentary. At least for me, “hahahahahaha” is not a convincing argument but it seems to be the best that ID’iot creationists can offer.

Here’s another anti-evilutionist claim. Note that it comes from one of the most extreme hyper-religious loons who obviously wont be persuaded by fact.


Claim CB361:
Vestigial organs (if any really exist) are not evidence of evolution. They just show decay consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 75-76.
Response:

1. Vestigial organs include more than atrophied organs. The bones of the middle ear, for example, are vestiges of jaw bones of ancestral tetrapods.
   
   
2. Loss of organs is sometimes an advantage. For example, loss of legs is adaptive in whales. Thus, losses of organs often are evolution driven by natural selection. They are evidence of evolution when their vestigial forms show similarities to earlier nonvestigial forms.

Here’s an introductory guide to biological evolution that touches on vestigial organs.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

You’re free to counter with research papers from the Henry Morris school for the afflicted.




Here’s more data to ruin your day: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Note that there is an entire page of references and links at the bottom of the article.

You could counter the above with peer reviewed studies performed by the charlatans at your ID’iot creation ministries but we both know that those charlatans do no research.

Gawd. More foolishness and you do not address my argument. I'm not sure how we ever got on this topic. All I can think of is "vestigial" organs is a made up argument against God. I think the logic goes God would not create humans with non-functioning body parts. Otherwise, this is an evolutionary fail like monkeys that are not bipedal. Or chickens that evolved from dinosaurs. You can't have it both ways.

How can my Queen vid be pointless when Freddie Mercury is titillating his fans? I doubt he was wearing his spandex backwards like a woman would do.

Many times I just hahahahahahahaha to your post as in smh, lolz, lolz, lolz due to its lack of academic basis and foolishness. You should at least get that message.

Moreover, why can't you explain what your links say in your own words? How does vestigial organs relate to evolution? How does it relate to the argument you are presenting. I'm not a mind reader.

I'll address Dr. Henry Morris' argument that you copy and pasted. It sounds like he's claiming entropy or the transfer of heat when animals use up their energy to counter the evolutionary claims. There are no basis for these claims in the first place as we do not have transitional fossils of whales losing their legs. I think someone made an argument that whales came from tiktaalik as an example of how animals can evolve another way instead of the sea-to-land-and-back-to-sea evolution. Even Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy thinks apes evolved from humans. These are valid theories under evolution, but the liberal media spin their own stories for the mainstream to digest and be brainwashed with. That's how people believe in the Earth and universe being so old. I knew the argument for the evolution of whales, so was able to respond to it.

Will you answer my questions? Can you briefly answer in your own words? What does the middle ear bone have to do with evolution?

I was not at all surprised you chose to sidestep the data I linked for you. One honestly reaches conclusions by examining the evidence.

Conjecture, speculation and rejection of facts are what we see from the hyper-religious and the ID'iot creation ministries. Dogma, as a means to support predefined conclusions, does not deserve the same consideration as peer reviewed data. Conjectures which generate claims in conflict with observed physical evidence can be summarily discarded.

Young-earth creationism ID'iot creationism is conjecture and wilfully discarding of facts. That is obviously in conflict with the available evidence. As such, it does not deserve equal consideration or time with volumes of data, evidence and and well-tested theories from science.

I'm sure you noticed that nowhere did you offer a single bit of evidence to refute the links I supplied. Aside from your denials and inability to offer any support for your claims to magic and supernaturalism, what did you hope to accomplish?

Your points were refuted by finding fuctions for these "useless" organs. They're just organs, but for some queer reason atheists believe they are left over organs from previous common ancestors. You can't even answer my simple questions, so you go back to being ignored for the ignorant being you are . You notice I do not follow you around, but you follow me around.

That was a lot of your usual dancing around the issue. I noticed you made no attempt to refute what I supplied to you. You made no attempt to address the fact of vestigial bones. The scientific community has much peer reviewed data to document their existence.

Here's some information from those evil medical doctors:

appendix vestigial structures - Health.Zone - Content Results



Any comment on the poor design of your gods who apparently dumped spare parts around? Why are your gods such incompetent designers?

The Curious Case of the Designer's Bad Design



Maybe you could comment on the lack of any studies prepared by your ID'iot creation ministries.

CI100: Intelligent Design

Come now, we found that all organs have functions. If someone had an extra toe or something, then it was a mutation which is a deviation from the norm, not something that is the basis for evolution. Forget anything to do with evolution and then it still works. In fact, I think you'll start to become more right in your thinking and opinions. It is what it is.

As for the rest, I'll ignore because you keep confusing me with IDers.

 

[idb]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Perhaps "Evolutionary" Science is an ambiguous term. It's like saying Roman Catholic Church. Evolution is specific in what it accepts as scientific (it is in fact very judgmental in reference to itself as correct, accurate and exclusive). The term Roman Catholic Church is very much the same. Catholic is a Latin term meaning Universal; however ROMAN is an exclusive term. So the Roman Catholic church isn't all inclusive. It is exclusive to itself.

I do believe in the Universal Church, just not a Roman Catholic version. In that respect I hold that all true believers in Our Lord Jesus Christ are in fact all SAINTS and part of this "CATHOLIC/UNIVERSAL" CHURCH that was founded by CHRIST!

As a result, I do not feel that Evolutionary Science is true science, because it is limited to the pursuit of establishing EVOLUTION as correct at the exclusion of contrary data. Creationism on the other hand tries to understand all data in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

"Science" welcomes contrary data...that's how theories are refined and understanding increased.

Creationism seems to me to be the opposite of Faith.
If you truly had Faith, why would you feel the need to prove anything?

 

[Hollie]

I gave you the link earlier to vestigial organs. It’s obvious that struck a nerve as you’re now spamming the thread with pointless YouTube videos.

You offered nothing to refute the data, You simply launched into another tirade replete with your usual “hahahahaha” commentary. At least for me, “hahahahahaha” is not a convincing argument but it seems to be the best that ID’iot creationists can offer.

Here’s another anti-evilutionist claim. Note that it comes from one of the most extreme hyper-religious loons who obviously wont be persuaded by fact.


Claim CB361:
Vestigial organs (if any really exist) are not evidence of evolution. They just show decay consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 75-76.
Response:

1. Vestigial organs include more than atrophied organs. The bones of the middle ear, for example, are vestiges of jaw bones of ancestral tetrapods.
   
   
2. Loss of organs is sometimes an advantage. For example, loss of legs is adaptive in whales. Thus, losses of organs often are evolution driven by natural selection. They are evidence of evolution when their vestigial forms show similarities to earlier nonvestigial forms.

Here’s an introductory guide to biological evolution that touches on vestigial organs.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

You’re free to counter with research papers from the Henry Morris school for the afflicted.




Here’s more data to ruin your day: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Note that there is an entire page of references and links at the bottom of the article.

You could counter the above with peer reviewed studies performed by the charlatans at your ID’iot creation ministries but we both know that those charlatans do no research.

Gawd. More foolishness and you do not address my argument. I'm not sure how we ever got on this topic. All I can think of is "vestigial" organs is a made up argument against God. I think the logic goes God would not create humans with non-functioning body parts. Otherwise, this is an evolutionary fail like monkeys that are not bipedal. Or chickens that evolved from dinosaurs. You can't have it both ways.

How can my Queen vid be pointless when Freddie Mercury is titillating his fans? I doubt he was wearing his spandex backwards like a woman would do.

Many times I just hahahahahahahaha to your post as in smh, lolz, lolz, lolz due to its lack of academic basis and foolishness. You should at least get that message.

Moreover, why can't you explain what your links say in your own words? How does vestigial organs relate to evolution? How does it relate to the argument you are presenting. I'm not a mind reader.

I'll address Dr. Henry Morris' argument that you copy and pasted. It sounds like he's claiming entropy or the transfer of heat when animals use up their energy to counter the evolutionary claims. There are no basis for these claims in the first place as we do not have transitional fossils of whales losing their legs. I think someone made an argument that whales came from tiktaalik as an example of how animals can evolve another way instead of the sea-to-land-and-back-to-sea evolution. Even Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy thinks apes evolved from humans. These are valid theories under evolution, but the liberal media spin their own stories for the mainstream to digest and be brainwashed with. That's how people believe in the Earth and universe being so old. I knew the argument for the evolution of whales, so was able to respond to it.

Will you answer my questions? Can you briefly answer in your own words? What does the middle ear bone have to do with evolution?

I was not at all surprised you chose to sidestep the data I linked for you. One honestly reaches conclusions by examining the evidence.

Conjecture, speculation and rejection of facts are what we see from the hyper-religious and the ID'iot creation ministries. Dogma, as a means to support predefined conclusions, does not deserve the same consideration as peer reviewed data. Conjectures which generate claims in conflict with observed physical evidence can be summarily discarded.

Young-earth creationism ID'iot creationism is conjecture and wilfully discarding of facts. That is obviously in conflict with the available evidence. As such, it does not deserve equal consideration or time with volumes of data, evidence and and well-tested theories from science.

I'm sure you noticed that nowhere did you offer a single bit of evidence to refute the links I supplied. Aside from your denials and inability to offer any support for your claims to magic and supernaturalism, what did you hope to accomplish?

Your points were refuted by finding fuctions for these "useless" organs. They're just organs, but for some queer reason atheists believe they are left over organs from previous common ancestors. You can't even answer my simple questions, so you go back to being ignored for the ignorant being you are . You notice I do not follow you around, but you follow me around.

That was a lot of your usual dancing around the issue. I noticed you made no attempt to refute what I supplied to you. You made no attempt to address the fact of vestigial bones. The scientific community has much peer reviewed data to document their existence.

Here's some information from those evil medical doctors:

appendix vestigial structures - Health.Zone - Content Results



Any comment on the poor design of your gods who apparently dumped spare parts around? Why are your gods such incompetent designers?

The Curious Case of the Designer's Bad Design



Maybe you could comment on the lack of any studies prepared by your ID'iot creation ministries.

CI100: Intelligent Design

Come now, we found that all organs have functions. If someone had an extra toe or something, then it was a mutation which is a deviation from the norm, not something that is the basis for evolution. Forget anything to do with evolution and then it still works. In fact, I think you'll start to become more right in your thinking and opinions. It is what it is.

As for the rest, I'll ignore because you keep confusing me with IDers.

Who is the "we" you rattle on about? As we know, the ID'iot creation ministries do no research and publish no data.

On the other hand, you have been presented with peer reviewed data and references to that data.

You have refuted nothing, challenged nothing and offered no countering facts.

 

[harmonica]

he doesn't know what he believes

Of course, I know what is real science and what is fake science. Both you and denmark are one who have been lied to and fooled badly. Some saps believe anything as long as they do not have to answer to Jesus. However, we all know that everyone will have to answer to Jesus for their second life. The evidence for this is in the Bible and the life of Jesus as Christ and his resurrection. OTOH, we do not even have evidence of bipedalism in monkeys/apes/chimps, but we do see that they still have the same cranial capacity as both you and denmark. I'll take that as true science because creation scientists observed monkeys like this today, and past australopithicine fossils like this, too.

what happens in the [ hahahah ] second life? can we see/hear/talk/etc?
or are we like Star Trek aliens where they communicate with their brains? will we have a brain?

It will be a new Earth and new universe. I think it will be what is described as paradise with Adam and Eve and we will have perfect spiritual bodies, but no temptation to sin since Satan and his demonic angels have been cast down into hell. I think our life spirits will be similar to way we are now. Our personalities do not change. There may still be earthly things that we enjoy doing now.and new and wondrous experiences to enjoy. Of course, there will be a lot of questions to find the answers for in regards to what happened. In this world, we put God first, our families second and our jobs or work third. It may not be that much different in the next world. Just different. No lines. No getting cut off in traffic. No frustrations, discomfort and pain and suffering that we experience now. Here is one view which I have seen and heard of...



Unfortunately, you get the other gate with your attitude. Do you remember what Satan told Eve through the snake? He told her that she will not die. It is ironic that Satan tells you the same thing. That your spiritually perfect body will not die, but you are headed to be one of the spiritual dead.

people love to sin
sex/hate/gluttony/etc

You are not getting God's message from the Bible about the snake and what he said. You also did not get the message about losing your perfect spiritual bodies and being spiritually dead. This is your doom or weakness as a low brow internet atheist. Do you hit yourself in the head with an iron sledgehammer before posting? We've gone from your mocking Star Trek beings who communicate telepathically as part of the second life to even more foolishness.

Anyway, isn't this evidence for Satan? And you got it wrong. People do not love to sin, but hate to sin. They know deep inside what is right and wrong. God made us like himself. I think you are referring to illicit sex, hate, gluttony or the seven deadly sins (Catholic ideas of people's vices from Pope Gregory). The message is not the one sin is greater than the other. It's that all sin leads to spiritual death.

we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message

 

[james bond]

we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message

Wow. Jesus, the Son of Man himself, speaks to you, "“You refuse to come to me to have life” John 5:40

 

[Hollie]

we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message

Wow. Jesus, the Son of Man himself, speaks to you, "“You refuse to come to me to have life” John 5:40

The jeebus also said, “Don’t be’eth cryin’ to me’eth when the old man smite’eth you with death and destruction. Floyd 5:40

 

[LittleNipper]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Perhaps "Evolutionary" Science is an ambiguous term. It's like saying Roman Catholic Church. Evolution is specific in what it accepts as scientific (it is in fact very judgmental in reference to itself as correct, accurate and exclusive). The term Roman Catholic Church is very much the same. Catholic is a Latin term meaning Universal; however ROMAN is an exclusive term. So the Roman Catholic church isn't all inclusive. It is exclusive to itself.

I do believe in the Universal Church, just not a Roman Catholic version. In that respect I hold that all true believers in Our Lord Jesus Christ are in fact all SAINTS and part of this "CATHOLIC/UNIVERSAL" CHURCH that was founded by CHRIST!

As a result, I do not feel that Evolutionary Science is true science, because it is limited to the pursuit of establishing EVOLUTION as correct at the exclusion of contrary data. Creationism on the other hand tries to understand all data in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

"Science" welcomes contrary data...that's how theories are refined and understanding increased.

Creationism seems to me to be the opposite of Faith.
If you truly had Faith, why would you feel the need to prove anything?

Creationism is for all those naysayers who do not believe in GOD and are headed towards hell. They are without excuse. There is an alternative to Darwinism/Materialism/Secularism/Atheism...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Perhaps "Evolutionary" Science is an ambiguous term. It's like saying Roman Catholic Church. Evolution is specific in what it accepts as scientific (it is in fact very judgmental in reference to itself as correct, accurate and exclusive). The term Roman Catholic Church is very much the same. Catholic is a Latin term meaning Universal; however ROMAN is an exclusive term. So the Roman Catholic church isn't all inclusive. It is exclusive to itself.

I do believe in the Universal Church, just not a Roman Catholic version. In that respect I hold that all true believers in Our Lord Jesus Christ are in fact all SAINTS and part of this "CATHOLIC/UNIVERSAL" CHURCH that was founded by CHRIST!

As a result, I do not feel that Evolutionary Science is true science, because it is limited to the pursuit of establishing EVOLUTION as correct at the exclusion of contrary data. Creationism on the other hand tries to understand all data in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

"Science" welcomes contrary data...that's how theories are refined and understanding increased.

Creationism seems to me to be the opposite of Faith.
If you truly had Faith, why would you feel the need to prove anything?

‘Creationism’ is faith, a façade behind which to hide religion.

 

[the other mike]

Music is my religion.

 

[james bond]

‘Creationism’ is faith, a façade behind which to hide religion.

It may be religion, but it's not a facade and religion is philosophy. It has creation science which is real science that is observable, testable and falsifiable. OTOH, atheism is also a religion and philosophy that has faith in no gods. The atheists have evolutionary thinking, history and ToE which is mostly philosophy instead of science. It's forensic science with lots of made up circumstantial evidence. More philosophy or facade as you call it.

 

[Hollie]

‘Creationism’ is faith, a façade behind which to hide religion.

It may be religion, but it's not a facade and religion is philosophy. It has creation science which is real science that is observable, testable and falsifiable. OTOH, atheism is also a religion and philosophy that has faith in no gods. The atheists have evolutionary thinking, history and ToE which is mostly philosophy instead of science. It's forensic science with lots of made up circumstantial evidence. More philosophy or facade as you call it.

So-called “creation science” is not science at all. Nothing in ID’iot creation science is observable, testable or falsifiable. ID’iot creation ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed papers because appeals to magic and supernaturalism are not open to investigation by science.

Your nonsense conspiracy theories about the science of biological evolution are stereotypical rants one can find at any one of the crank fundamentalist ministries.

 

[harmonica]

we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message

Wow. Jesus, the Son of Man himself, speaks to you, "“You refuse to come to me to have life” John 5:40

son of man or god?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just for basic info: A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.

Utter nonsense. You should do yourself a favor and never comment on that again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

@moderators : doesnt this thread belong in the conspiracy theory section?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I kind of enjoy these nostalgic philosophy threads from the Dark Ages. Makes me long for the days of the Inquisition vs. sun worshipers.

 

[progressive hunter]

Just for basic info: A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.

Utter nonsense. You should do yourself a favor and never comment on that again.

you should take your own advice,,,