Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong (now this is weird)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong ^

[celmak]

"I can provide falsifiable evidence for most of what I say."

Please do provide falsifiable evidence. Sources? Links?

[celmak]

"I can provide falsifiable evidence for most of what I say."

Please do provide falsifiable evidence. Sources? Links?

[metmom]

I can provide falsifiable evidence for most of what I say.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

But you never do.

In order to know if you're close to the truth, you have to have an idea of what it is.

What it REALLY is, not just what you want it to be.

You don't know enough and can't be objective enough to be able to determine that.

Thanks for admitting that you don't speak the truth and what you say is meaningless. It gives us all the justification to label what you spout off as a meaningless pile of nonsense, by your own admission.

[LeGrande]

Please do provide falsifiable evidence. Sources? Links?

What specifically do you want?

[LeGrande]

In order to know if you're close to the truth, you have to have an idea of what it is.

That is a great example of circular reasoning.

[Texas Songwriter]

Love is chemicals in the brain.

Next time you feel like telling your spouse that you love him/her, just tell him instead that you have an itch or a gastrointestinal pain. It means the same thing in your world....ie...a neurohormonally mediated chemical response inside brainmeat,significant of nothing. Chemicals simply react and that reaction logically has no meaning what-so-ever.

[LeGrande]

Next time you feel like telling your spouse that you love him/her, just tell him instead that you have an itch or a gastrointestinal pain. It means the same thing in your world....ie...a neurohormonally mediated chemical response inside brainmeat,significant of nothing. Chemicals simply react and that reaction logically has no meaning what-so-ever.

"But what a tongue and Oh! what brains were in that parrot’s head It took two men to understand one half the words he said."

[Texas Songwriter]

But what a tongue and Oh! what brains were in that parrot’s head It took two men to understand one half the words he said."

Derision disguised as a half-hearted attempt at intellectual elitism does not make your case. Make your case logically, rationally, and with reason if you wish, but your degeneration to Jabberwocky is fruitless. I commend Charles Dodgson's writings to you. You will feel at home there.

If you wish to have a meaninful discussion I will be reading your posts, but you have tipped beyond making meaningful commentary or even flawed commentary to simply charicaturing your own comments.

Good luck to you.

[LeGrande]

If you wish to have a meaninful discussion I will be reading your posts, but you have tipped beyond making meaningful commentary or even flawed commentary to simply charicaturing your own comments.

Are you capable of having a meaningful discussion? Generally creationists are lacking in that ability, but I suppose there is always a possibility that I could be wrong (falsified) : )

[celmak]

You state:

“Only 'truth' that can be falsified (tested) can have any meaning.”

And:

“I can provide falsifiable evidence for most of what I say."

So, please do provide falsifiable evidence of a truth. Say for instance,provide falsifiable evidence of the truth that people (it does not have to be all people) have a conscience (bad or good, little or large).

[metmom]

pwnd

[Texas Songwriter]

Are you capable of having a meaningful discussion? Generally creationists are lacking in that ability,...

What would you like to know about the subject of creation?

[metmom]

Are you capable of having a meaningful discussion? Generally creationists are lacking in that ability, but I suppose there is always a possibility that I could be wrong (falsified) : )

Yes, TS is capable of having a meaningful discussion. It is you, by your own admission and in your own words, who have declared that what you have to say is not truth and is meaningless.

Quote from post 64:" That is my point. It can't be tested, therefore my 'truth' is meaningless and should be treated as such.

By your own admission, what you believe and advocate as truth is meaningless, just like the chemical processes that occur in your skull that you label as *thought* and *emotion*.

I see no reason that anyone should take you seriously since you yourself admit the blather you post on FR is the byproduct of chemical reactions that you have correctly labeled as meaningless.

[metmom]

*crickets*......

[allmendream]

The analogy I like to use when creationists try to point out a few hoax finds as an attempt to discredit all fossil finds is that by that logic, if you ever find a hundred dollar bill that is counterfeit; you may as well throw out ALL your hundred dollar bills.

[LeGrande]

So, please do provide falsifiable evidence of a truth. Say for instance,provide falsifiable evidence of the truth that people (it does not have to be all people) have a conscience (bad or good, little or large).

You are confused. I never made that statement.

[metmom]

Nobody is trying to discredit all fossil finds. And hoaxes are not *finds*, they’re plants.

And your analogy doesn’t work. One one hundred dollar bill? No. But when there’s many, you start suspecting and checking them all. That’s reasonable.

The evo side has perpetrated and believed enough hoaxes to seriously damage its credibility. Only a naive fool would believe everything at face value at this point. Especially if it seems too good to be true.

[allmendream]

Over the hundreds of years and many thousands of fossil finds, there have only been a few hoaxes, and the deception was discovered by scientific methodology.

And when creationists point out the hoaxes they are attempting what you just did.

“damage its credibility.” “Only a naive fool would believe.” etc.

Do you think religious charlatans and fakers (of which there have been many thousands) discredit religion to an equal degree that a couple hoax fossils do?

[LeGrande]

What would you like to know about the subject of creation?

I have tons of questions : ) But I will start with the easy ones. First off, what happened to all the waters, where did they go? Then how did plants survive without a Sun (for however long a day was)? When did God create the Dinosaurs and what happened to them? How long was a 'day'?

Obviously you can answer those simple questions easily and definitively?

[Texas Songwriter]

Creation - the act of instituting a beginning, or more spefically, the origin of being. Your questions do not deal with creation. You would do well to understand what subject you broach. There are three basic views of Origin of the Universe - which is the subject which most philosophers and scientists (cosmologists) reference when they discuss 'creation'. These three views are creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex deo, and creatio ex materia. I will give you a brief overview. Creatio ex materia generally refers to the Pantheists veiw of creation from matter which they say has always existed in the universe. Creatio ex deo is the claim that everything in the universe arose from, or "Out of God" (in other words the universe is God). Creatio ex nihilo is the cosmological view that a Transendent God created out of nothing, the universe.

Materialists, atheists, and darwinists generally refuse to deal with creation at all as it is it is often conjoined by materialism and pantheism, thus it generally is asserted by the materialist that it can be called, creatio ex materia. This requires the materialist to to 'redefine' the term creation to not hold to it original meaning of 'coming into being', but they have adopted the exchange of the term 'formation' for creation. This seems to be the place which you find yourself.

For myself I prefer to approach the subject by means of actual terms of meaning and with the use of science, logic, reason, and rational thought. Atheist materialists often attempt to champion those tools of logic, reason, science, and rational thought. If you are agreed let us begin to discuss 'the subject of creation' which you brought up.