Darwin vs DNA

[Youwerecreated]

You have no idea what I believe, other than God is God and can do as He will.

You are the one who thinks you can speak, as did the Pharisees, for Him.

What have I said that goes against scripture ? Show me how i'm putting words into God's mouth or is this another desperate accusation ?

 

[Hollie]

Let's be honest. Sharing what you know involves cutting and pasting youtube videos produced by creationist ministries. I've demonstrated to you on repeated ocassions their tactics of lies and deception.

Where is the analysis and data prepared by Milton and offered for peer review?

In regard to Milton, he is as sparse with facts as you are.

Lets be honest Hollie, learn to quote people properly.

Yes, let's be honest. You need to learn to make arguments that conform to truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lets be honest Hollie, learn to quote people properly.

Yes, let's be honest. You need to learn to make arguments that conform to truth.

Ok let's put you to the test. Do kinds bring forth after their own kind as the bible claims ?

 

[Hollie]

Unimportant because neither are scientific.

He also does not know the difference between creationism and the ID crowd. How many times have I reduced the theory of evolution to a faith based science and they can't see it.

The same thing can be said for many theories of science. When it is only conjecture holding a theory together that is not science that is philosophy.

Yet another sweeping comment totally without support. What many theories of science?

What you understand is that the peer review process (totally shunned by the creationist crowd), is a corrective process. Those theories that don't withstand the rigors of the scientific method are discarded.

On the other hand, we have the process of the creationist ministries where data is manufactured and manipulated to conform to biblical tales and fables.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Unimportant because neither are scientific.

The same thing can be said for many theories of science. When it is only conjecture holding a theory together that is not science that is philosophy.

Yet another sweeping comment totally without support. What many theories of science?

What you understand is that the peer review process (totally shunned by the creationist crowd), is a corrective process. Those theories that don't withstand the rigors of the scientific method are discarded.

On the other hand, we have the process of the creationist ministries where data is manufactured and manipulated to conform to biblical tales and fables.

Hollie the video I posted that you attempted to slander the speaker gave several examples of theories that use conjecture and examples of conjecture that is used to fill in the holes in the theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lets be honest Hollie, learn to quote people properly.

Yes, let's be honest. You need to learn to make arguments that conform to truth.

Ok let's put you to the test. Do kinds bring forth after their own kind as the bible claims ?

 

[ima]

Intelligent design is for retards and people afraid of the truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then debate them in the philosophy class room.

Unimportant because neither are scientific.

He also does not know the difference between creationism and the ID crowd. How many times have I reduced the theory of evolution to a faith based science and they can't see it.

The same thing can be said for many theories of science. When it is only conjecture holding a theory together that is not science that is philosophy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a philosophical question, which needs to be debated in the philosophy classroom. Where you can bring whatever scientific evidence, do so.

Your assertions have to be scientifically proved, which you can't do.

That's what all the varieties of your crowd's philosophies fail.

You can't be serious ? How many times do you need to be reminded that creationist,evolutionist,and ID people look at the same evidences just have different explanations of the same evidence it is up to you to decide which explanation makes the most sense. Why do you think there are people of science that are believers ?

I'll let you answer a simple question. Do kinds bring forth after their own kind ? you don't need to be a scientist to answer this question but science can be used to answer this question so that makes it a scientific question and answer. The bible answers it correctly. The bible made a scientific claim and is supported by the scientific method. So how is the bible not scientific ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We worship the Creator. We do not let uninformed man speak for Him.

We in the word and love of God always put His word before yours and labor against your Pharisaical philosophies here.

Then put Gods word before mans, it will not let you down.

I have to disagree with you,you go along with man that has an agenda to undermine the creator.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that you are devious.

What confuses you with this?

Ok,genesis states 10 times that kinds bring forth after their own kind,after billions of observations over many years what do we see ? Kinds bringing forth after their own kind.

I'm not the one confused and can state the obvious.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ID and creations are philosophies and should be included in the Liberal Arts classrooms under subjects, such as "Theories of Creation", "Comparative Religions," "Philosophy of Science," and so forth.

But since they are not sciences, they must be excluded from the science classroom.

 

[Hollie]

The same thing can be said for many theories of science. When it is only conjecture holding a theory together that is not science that is philosophy.

Yet another sweeping comment totally without support. What many theories of science?

What you understand is that the peer review process (totally shunned by the creationist crowd), is a corrective process. Those theories that don't withstand the rigors of the scientific method are discarded.

On the other hand, we have the process of the creationist ministries where data is manufactured and manipulated to conform to biblical tales and fables.

Hollie the video I posted that you attempted to slander the speaker gave several examples of theories that use conjecture and examples of conjecture that is used to fill in the holes in the theory.

Like so many of the videos you post, the one hosted by Milton was laughable. Did you miss the fact that the video was produced by some entity called UFO tv? Apparently these loons don't really take themselves seriously. Any guess as to why Milton didn't find sponsorship by the National Science Foundation, Scientific American or some other respected science journal?

Further, Milton did nothing but offer stereotypical creationist commentary about inaccurate dating methods of fosill artifacts and those artifacts mysteriously being found in strata where he asserts they should not be found. As we see with so may creationist hacks, Milton has no formal training in the subject matter he self-qualifies himself to speak with authority to.

It would be a simple matter for Milton and those like him to publish their work and submit it for peer review. But of course, he doesn't do that. Instead, he preys upon people like you who are convinced that the relevant science community has gotten so much wrong because so much of science contradicts a 6000 year old earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Intelligent design is for retards and people afraid of the truth.

ID proponents hold degrees in all fields of science how can you say they are retards ? I don't even claim that about evolutionist even though they are wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is a philosophical question, which needs to be debated in the philosophy classroom. Where you can bring whatever scientific evidence, do so.

Your assertions have to be scientifically proved, which you can't do.

That's what all the varieties of your crowd's philosophies fail.

I'll let you answer a simple question. Do kinds bring forth after their own kind ? you don't need to be a scientist to answer this question but science can be used to answer this question so that makes it a scientific question and answer. The bible answers it correctly. The bible made a scientific claim and is supported by the scientific method. So how is the bible not scientific ?

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We worship the Creator. We do not let uninformed man speak for Him.

We in the word and love of God always put His word before yours and labor against your Pharisaical philosophies here.

I have to disagree with you,you go along with man that has an agenda to undermine the creator.

Then you should stop typing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I agree that you are devious.

What confuses you with this?

I'm not the one confused and can state the obvious.

By me asking you a question you are avoiding to answer ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet another sweeping comment totally without support. What many theories of science?

What you understand is that the peer review process (totally shunned by the creationist crowd), is a corrective process. Those theories that don't withstand the rigors of the scientific method are discarded.

On the other hand, we have the process of the creationist ministries where data is manufactured and manipulated to conform to biblical tales and fables.

Hollie the video I posted that you attempted to slander the speaker gave several examples of theories that use conjecture and examples of conjecture that is used to fill in the holes in the theory.

Like so many of the videos you post, the one hosted by Milton was laughable. Did you miss the fact that the video was produced by some entity called UFO tv? Apparently these loons don't really take themselves seriously. Any guess as to why Milton didn't find sponsorship by the National Science Foundation, Scientific American or some other respected science journal?

Further, Milton did nothing but offer stereotypical creationist commentary about inaccurate dating methods of fosill artifacts and those artifacts mysteriously being found in strata where he asserts they should not be found. As we see with so may creationist hacks, Milton has no formal training in the subject matter he self-qualifies himself to speak with authority to.

It would be a simple matter for Milton and those like him to publish their work and submit it for peer review. But of course, he doesn't do that. Instead, he preys upon people like you who are convinced that the relevant science community has gotten so much wrong because so much of science contradicts a 6000 year old earth.

You are simply lying now. You really should read his book as well.

 

[Hollie]

That is a philosophical question, which needs to be debated in the philosophy classroom. Where you can bring whatever scientific evidence, do so.

I'll let you answer a simple question. Do kinds bring forth after their own kind ? you don't need to be a scientist to answer this question but science can be used to answer this question so that makes it a scientific question and answer. The bible answers it correctly. The bible made a scientific claim and is supported by the scientific method. So how is the bible not scientific ?

Wow do you know anything about genetics ? That is the area of this question.

The bible is supported by the scientific method?

Great. Then we can submit components for testing per the strictures of the scientific method.

Where should we start?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why are you avoiding my very simple question that requires a yes or no answer.