Delusions of Evolution

Norcalblogs.com ^ | April 04, 2009 | by OneVike

[Nathan Zachary]

It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. ...

[Ev Reeman]

God created the Heavens and the Earth and as He also created all the sciences as well as man himself He can use those same sciences or change them as He wishes.

[freedumb2003]

>>Can’t you read? I said it was a partial list.

There are no quals.

And wiki is a valid source for exactly nothing. Except maybe
“Survivor” and “American Idol.”

[freedumb2003]

>>God created the Heavens and the Earth and as He also created all the sciences as well as man himself He can use those same sciences or change them as He wishes.

100% agreed. To suggest God “Poofed” the Earth into existence is quite an insult to Him and His Power.

[freedumb2003]

That doesn’t explain what creation science is. It merely pokes philosophical holes into current life science.

[GodGunsGuts]

The answer is, no. Do you get royalties from every Evo book (or Evo site that sells books) you have ever referred to???

[Nathan Zachary]

I’m still waiting for “scientific proof” to prove ANY evolutional theory.

Seems it’s YOU that has a lot of work to do trying to find some, rather than always using “conjecture and philosophy”.

And please by all means show me where I have ever used conjecture and philosophy.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> I’m still waiting for “scientific proof” to prove ANY evolutional theory.

I hate to break it to you — but neither of you has “proof”. So, this back and forth —

“Prove it!”
“NO, YOU PROVE IT!”
“I’ve got 27 scientists on my side!”
“Well I’ve got 33 scientists, three 4th grade math teachers, and and a graduate student!”
“Prove it!”
“No, YOU! Nanny, nanny, boo boo.”

... isn’t going to get you anywhere.

SnakeDoc

[DevNet]

I haven’t referred anyone to any books. And if I had I would have been upfront about it - I would not have included a link that claimed to prove something that would require someone to buy something to view said proof.

[OneVike]

That has been debunked so many times, it is unbelievable.

No it hasn't, there has been futile attempts to debunk the proof of dinosaurs being around when men where but never have they done more then write a paper with their opinion. An opinion of a drawing is just that, an opinion.

As for looking at the evidence, why do you refuse to look at the evidence these scientists have?

As for those who say there are thousands of scientists who believe in evolution against the hundreds who do not, that is a straw dog argument.

There are thousands, and thousands of well known scientists who claim man has caused global warming, compared to much much less that disagree. So are you telling me because of consensus we must believe in global warming also?

Why is you people will not use the same logic you use against global warming as you do on evolution and dating methods?

[Nathan Zachary]

"There is no such thing as “creation science.” Maybe you don’t know what science is? Insults, such as “numskull,” although they give you a childlike thrill, don’t do much to help your argument."

Absolutely there is, it's all current science. It ALL proves creation, from the complexity of a single cell to the order of the universe.

And please, if anyone gets "childlike thrills" it's you since name calling is all you ever do thread after thread.

It's like you run around with your fingers in your ears yelling nananananananana! when people post FACTS that either prove the probabilities of creation, or shoot down evolutional garbage theories, then only take them out long enough to hurl some insults.

Do your eyes roll around when you do that too? because it seems you can't read properly either when you do that.

[GodGunsGuts]

It doesn’t require you to buy anything to view the case studies, that is why I posted them.

[freedumb2003]

>>I’m still waiting for “scientific proof” to prove ANY evolutional theory.

I can’t redo your biology classes from elementary school through College (assuming you had any).

But, in a nutshell, TToE is a stochastic process, observed directly in laboratory conditions as well as determined through examination of billions of fossils gathered over the last 2 hundred years. TToE meets all criteria of a scientific theory. If you need me to list those then you speaking on a subject of which your are unaware.

You clearly also were not trained in the forensic arts. TToE is the overwhelmingly prevalent. It is you who muc prove it wrong and why it does NOT meet the criteria for a Scientific Theory.

Also, waiting on those names and quals. We are still early on into your original post and have yet to see proof of your assertion.

[DevNet]

You lie. Only 7 are linked - most are not linked.

Also note that your *source* likes making statements that can not be independently verified and they appear to be lacking a functional spell checker*

*Please be assurred that for many cases we respect the confidentaility of people who cannot risk exposing their real name at this time because doing so might jeopardize their current job or family security. For those instances, we often present information about their experience without revealing the actual name of the victims or institutions involved.*

[freedumb2003]

>>That has been debunked so many times, it is unbelievable.

>>No it hasn’t, there has been futile attempts to debunk the proof of dinosaurs being around when men where but never have they done more then write a paper with their opinion. An opinion of a drawing is just that, an opinion.<<

Yes it has. Or at least it has been made clear that a single carving does not prove the existence of anything. You didn’t really read my post, did you?

>>As for looking at the evidence, why do you refuse to look at the evidence these scientists have?<<

Name on real peice of evidence that gainsays TToE.

>>As for those who say there are thousands of scientists who believe in evolution against the hundreds who do not, that is a straw dog argument.<<

Th OP said there were “many.” I merely ask him to prove it.

>>There are thousands, and thousands of well known scientists who claim man has caused global warming, compared to much much less that disagree. So are you telling me because of consensus we must believe in global warming also?<<

There is no consensus and you posit a false dichotomy. There are an equal number of scientists — WITH quals — who disagree with the brand new hypothesis of AGW.

>>Why is you people will not use the same logic you use against global warming as you do on evolution and dating methods? <<

They are different. There are billions of artifacts and science facts that are ONLY explained by TToE. I invite you to provide a SCIENTIFIC Theory which explains them other than TToE.

[Caesar Soze]

Here's a partial list:
Contemporary Scientists who accept the Biblical account of creation

Here is a list of over a thousand scientists named Steve who disagree with them. You've only got 3 Steves on your list, so it seems the evolutionists outnumber the creationists by 360 to 1.

[Nathan Zachary]

“Proofs” are a compilation of facts that give favor to a theory.
and there certainly are a lot of “Proofs” towards creation theory, young earth theory, catastrophic events etc. Far more than any “proofs” toward evolutionary theory(s) (of which there are more and more which even contradict each other)

[freedumb2003]

>>Absolutely there is, it’s all current science. It ALL proves creation, from the complexity of a single cell to the order of the universe.<<

I have tried to be specific. I will try again. .Tell me hw Creation Science meets ANY (much less all) criteria for any valid scientific pursuit.

>>And please, if anyone gets “childlike thrills” it’s you since name calling is all you ever do thread after thread.

Please tell me where ON THIS THREAD, I used name calling — up to the “childlike” part, which was a conclusion.

>>It’s like you run around with your fingers in your ears yelling nananananananana! when people post FACTS that either prove the probabilities of creation, or shoot down evolutional garbage theories, then only take them out long enough to hurl some insults.<<

Again, show me my insult and address my very specifric challenges.

>>Do your eyes roll around when you do that too? because it seems you can’t read properly either when you do that. <<

More insults from you.

And, waiting on that name and qual list.

[GodGunsGuts]

The only lie here is you calling me a liar. There is FREE information there. As for the information contained in their book, why would they offer that for free? There are seven documented cases of Evo persecution against Creation/IDers linked on the website. No everything in this world is free, Mr. Socialist, nor should it be...the worker is worth his keep!

[OneVike]

My question is when are those who believe in evolution going to read the scientific findings of those who disagree with evolution?

For 50 years I been force fed every item of proof that evolutionists have to back up their theory. Yet I have yet to meet one evolutionist who will admit he reads the scientific proof behind the debunking of evolution.

I do not just point to the scientists I agree with, I read their papers and watch their videos, just as I have with those who have tried all my life to buy into the evolution theories.

Who here can tell me they read the whole articles and the evidence?

[freedumb2003]

>>“Proofs” are a compilation of facts that give favor to a theory.

Under what known and accepted definition?

>>and there certainly are a lot of “Proofs” towards creation theory, young earth theory, catastrophic events etc. Far more than any “proofs” toward evolutionary theory(s) (of which there are more and more which even contradict each other)

And 1) your definition fails and 2) the conclusion is begging the question, it fails twice (thrice if you include the gratuitous incorrect assertion about TToE)..