Evidence for God from Science

Stu wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:
For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

On one hand, we have Audie who dismisses your website because it's a "creosite". And on the other hand, you dismiss talkorigins because it "reeks of bias and disinformation".

Does anyone actually care to address the points presented by either site, without dismissing them out of hand?

Regarding creosites and divers other woo woo sites, the "out of hand" thing may be more aparent than real.

I've seen Ron Wyatt taken seriously by creationists, in his many claims of discovery.
A person with the least eye for geology can spot his "noah's ark" or "Sodom and Gomorrah"
as simple common land forms.

I suppose one could go to some big professor of archaeology with Ron-photos
of the ark, and challenge (stump) him witBut notbdismissive in the senseh them, like in a Chick tract. Or more likely, not.

Paleontologists, archaeologist, they get their share of such. It could be that after seeing the
same sort of thing enough times, and the same sort of ab or stu style obduracy over and over,
that when the next one shows up with Ica stones or Paluxy man tracks to stump the prof,
well, maybe they do get dismissive.

But not in the sense of refusing to even look. It is like, "this aint my first rodeo".

In general sure, dont be dismissive. Agenda driven sources tho, derserve nothing better.
If a person cannot cite original research papers, but must go to some predigested site
that offers opinions for the sycophants, they dont have anything but
dismissal coming to them.

With the rare-if they exist at all- exceptions being those who actually want to learn something.

It's called the Genetic Fallacy, plain and simple. And you are full of it.

Aw did we smoke out a Ron Wyatt fan? So solly.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:ACB evolution has evidence after evidence its just you like many other anti-evolutionists don't understand and acknowledge it.

No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

But no matter how much you overlooked it there is nothing at all special about a family of a population producing variation amongst that population that cannot breed. It is normal for it to happen on some occassions and this means you only have evidence for horizontal variation amongst a population,and not verticle evolution. Like all the different shapes and sizes of dogs and different variations of bacteria.But they are still dogs and bacteria is still bacteria.Or different variations of roses and yet they are still roses,viruses too,same thing - normal variation amongst a population.Evolution science is just stating the obvious while assuming so much based on the obvious.

This is what the evidence for evolution confirms over and over with the life they tested and what the evidence out in the world around us confirms too. So why is speciation a definition in evolution science? Not all dogs can breed and they did not branch off and start evolving above the species level. This right here means the whole tree of evolution is a myth built on assumption and imagination and it is not ancestry gene related like they claim. I already knew " cladistics" is a joke but now they claim they have mapped it all out how they are related by their genes.DNA is irrelevant at this point.Would you buy a dinosaur from these people? Their credibility is shot.

Evolution is built on convincing people to believe it is reasonable to believe small changes lead to big changes but this is what Charles Darwin did.

How is this quote from Charles Darwin different than claiming small changes lead up to big changes? " If,then,animals and plants do vary,let it be ever so slightly,why should not variations or individual differences,which are in any way beneficial,be preserved and accumulated through natural selection?"

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote: Nothing to explain...I asked you 3 very simple questions.

The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation.
The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve.

I'm sorry, where does it say in Genesis 1, it's Adam and Eve? Where did you read that?

It says:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Are you trying to tell me that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are referring to four different people? Or what is your point exactly?

You tell me!

I am asking you your reason for saying that the above verses are on Adam and Eve...I see man, male and female, I do not read Adam and Eve? where and how did you reach that conclusion? As far as I see Adam and Eve are made in Gen 2 and then not together. Eve is made after. But Gen 1 doesn't say that. Also in Gen 1 the order of creation is plants, birds and fish, mammals and reptiles, and finally man, while in Gen 2, the order is changed, with man first, then plants and animals. The two stories also have different narratives, opposite environments. In the six-day story, the creation of humans occurs through a single act and the creator appears to be a distant impersonal, non-human like God, who is present only through a series of verbal commands. In the Adam and Eve story in Gen 2, the man and woman are created through two separate acts at different times and God is present in a way which feels almost father-like.

Infact why do you think that Gen 1 should be considered a wider context? The creation account is different in both stories. Even God feels different in both. They both have a few similarities but are different as well. So which one is it? And in which one do you place Adam and Eve and why?

I'm sorry this is not a trick question. You made a comment, rather a rhetorical one about Adm Eve being fable to Hugh I think. So I am trying to know your reasons for not thinking them as fable?

I think you are just trying to complicate things because it doesn't fit in with your views.

In Genesis 2 it refers to "man" plenty of times, as well "Adam". It doesn't have to use the word "Adam" every single time when "man" will do just fine.

Genesis Chapter 1 very clearly announces that plants were created on the third day, and humans on the sixth day.

'11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.'

'26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.'

Genesis Chapter 2 very clearly announces that there were no plants before the creation of Adam.

"5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

These words are literally contradictory. They cannot both be literally true. If the bible is inerrant, there must be a way of interpreting them such that they do not contradict. Different people interpret them in different ways. Stu says: "The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation. The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve." But that's meaningless. Going into detail should enhance comprehensibility, not simply contradict what went before.

There are a number of well published Christian responses to the dilemma, some of which make sense, and mine (that they are both fables) is one of the more conventional. To deny it is to claim a personal authority (an 'infallibility' in Audie's words) which needs to be justified before anyone else should be expected to acknowledge it.

Does anyone disagree?

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:
The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation.
The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve.

I'm sorry, where does it say in Genesis 1, it's Adam and Eve? Where did you read that?

It says:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Are you trying to tell me that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are referring to four different people? Or what is your point exactly?

You tell me!

I am asking you your reason for saying that the above verses are on Adam and Eve...I see man, male and female, I do not read Adam and Eve? where and how did you reach that conclusion? As far as I see Adam and Eve are made in Gen 2 and then not together. Eve is made after. But Gen 1 doesn't say that. Also in Gen 1 the order of creation is plants, birds and fish, mammals and reptiles, and finally man, while in Gen 2, the order is changed, with man first, then plants and animals. The two stories also have different narratives, opposite environments. In the six-day story, the creation of humans occurs through a single act and the creator appears to be a distant impersonal, non-human like God, who is present only through a series of verbal commands. In the Adam and Eve story in Gen 2, the man and woman are created through two separate acts at different times and God is present in a way which feels almost father-like.

Infact why do you think that Gen 1 should be considered a wider context? The creation account is different in both stories. Even God feels different in both. They both have a few similarities but are different as well. So which one is it? And in which one do you place Adam and Eve and why?

I'm sorry this is not a trick question. You made a comment, rather a rhetorical one about Adm Eve being fable to Hugh I think. So I am trying to know your reasons for not thinking them as fable?

I think you are just trying to complicate things because it doesn't fit in with your views.

Not by a long shot. I have been happy to concede that Adam and Eve could exist, probably did exist. They may have been among the ancestors of the Hebrews. My only contention had been them being first humans. That is what all evidence suggests against. But other than that I have no problem.

But I think you have not either thought your views out correctly on the two creation accounts or you don't want to see the critical issues which exists. We know the stories appear to be from different older sources and authors. In any case I wanted to know your reasons which you still haven't brought up yet.

For me, I find the two accounts beautiful and quite sublime in a way. The editor did a good job of weaving them together.

And Hugh, the point of the creation narrative is not to be literal in the first place (literal meaning being true - as if things actually happened a certain way or order, which if you look explains the two contradictory creations accounts on the sequence of what was made when...however please note it doesn't mean that author(s) doesn't intend the reader to not believe it, instead the truth of what happened is what is being conveyed). That is why if you read it literally the two accounts don't make sense on everything but on a larger picture they do, they satisfy more important theological points. I am convinced that that is the only way the scripture is intended to be read. Imagine the watery chaos in the global flood, is a hark back to the Gen 1 watery chaos. But Gen 2 which appears to be the older story starts on dry land. However both explain, sin, death, the order from, and presence of God.

However these stories fact or fiction, or more likely a mix of both were written with a goal, and if that goal was achieved the rest didn't matter much. That is perhaps the main point of it.

However, the two creation accounts, while been woven together, still are two different stories, they are complimenting each other but they also show contrast in a number of ways though that was not a problem for the editor as being literal and chronological wasn't the goal of the writing.

So no Stu, I am not trying to complicate things because it doesn't fit with my beliefs. I am trying to ask you your motivation and reasons in light of the facts, if that was, or was not, a new pov for you.
How do you make sense of it and explain away the problems?

neo-x wrote:And Hugh, the point of the creation narrative is not to be literal in the first place (literal meaning being true - as if things actually happened a certain way or order, which if you look explains the two contradictory creations accounts on the sequence of what was made when...however please note it doesn't mean that author(s) doesn't intend the reader to not believe it, instead the truth of what happened is what is being conveyed). That is why if you read it literally the two accounts don't make sense on everything but on a larger picture they do, they satisfy more important theological points.

I know that; you know that; and between us we could have an interesting discussion about what the stories are really about. Stu, however, and Crochet, I think, do not know that. I think they would like to cling to the most literal reading that they possibly can. That lands them in all sorts of difficulties, which they are having difficulty explaining to us, probably because they can't really explain them to themselves, preferring to drift off into vague but illogical generalisations: "The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation. The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve." (Stu) or scattered -- random -- whimsies -- "some history -- some poetry -- etc. -- and some is symbolic -- and there are parables. And as a person is Reading various portions -- it's apparently What they are reading" (Crochet), and hoping it makes sense to someone.

And that's fine. Everybody is entitled to their own way of interpreting the bible.
What they are not entitled to is to pretend that their way necessarily means that everybody else is wrong.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:ACB evolution has evidence after evidence its just you like many other anti-evolutionists don't understand and acknowledge it.

No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:ACB evolution has evidence after evidence its just you like many other anti-evolutionists don't understand and acknowledge it.

No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

Evolution is not that hard to understand, tho of course many details are
challenging. Kinda like heart surgery that way.


It wont do you or me any good to continue to "provide evidence". It is to him all "evolution paradigm".

I dont care to write a treatise in any case.

Especially in view of how he handled the uncomfortable facts about
polar ice vs"flood, which were easy to present, easy to understand. He made up three different impossible solutions, then ran.

Jac suggested nobody indulge him in this evolution talk until he honestly
faces the disproof of his flood fantasy.

He ran so far and fast from that, I think even he suspects that he hss no other way out but to run.

Lets see if he is good for his word on "evidence". Care to join me on that,
no other topics till he faces this one?

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

Evolution is not that hard to understand, tho of course many details are
challenging. Kinda like heart surgery that way.


It wont do you or me any good to continue to "provide evidence". It is to him all "evolution paradigm".

I dont care to write a treatise in any case.

Especially in view of how he handled the uncomfortable facts about
polar ice vs"flood, which were easy to present, easy to understand. He made up three different impossible solutions, then ran.

Jac suggested nobody indulge him in this evolution talk until he honestly
faces the disproof of his flood fantasy.

He ran so far and fast from that, I think even he suspects that he hss no other way out but to run.

Lets see if he is good for his word on "evidence". Care to join me on that,
no other topics till he faces this one?

We both know he wont be able to, especiually on the flood topic.

neo-x wrote:

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:
Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

Evolution is not that hard to understand, tho of course many details are
challenging. Kinda like heart surgery that way.


It wont do you or me any good to continue to "provide evidence". It is to him all "evolution paradigm".

I dont care to write a treatise in any case.

Especially in view of how he handled the uncomfortable facts about
polar ice vs"flood, which were easy to present, easy to understand. He made up three different impossible solutions, then ran.

Jac suggested nobody indulge him in this evolution talk until he honestly
faces the disproof of his flood fantasy.

He ran so far and fast from that, I think even he suspects that he hss no other way out but to run.

Lets see if he is good for his word on "evidence". Care to join me on that,
no other topics till he faces this one?

We both know he wont be able to, especiually on the flood topic.

I've been reading a book called "Wave", authored by a British lady who lost her 3 children, spouse, and parents to the tsunami in Sri Lanka. Her vivid description of total emotional
devastation, the loss of everything, anything with meaning or value, adrift in a nightmare with
nothing anywhere to cling to. Its making me cry, I am reading it anyway.

Partly for the self centered reason that I know just whst she talking about,
how it is when everything, even your self, is taken from you.

It may well be that for Ab, and some few others here, the rigid / brittle consttuct of
"Truth" that they dwell within is their only defense, the shield that keeps them safe from the
howling winds of confusion and despair. What might happen if at last, it should crack?
What if ala Jack Nicholson, he actually cannot handle the truth?

Perhaps what I am doing is irresponsible and potentially very harmful.

What do you think? Anyone else have a thought?

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

Evolution is not that hard to understand, tho of course many details are
challenging. Kinda like heart surgery that way.


It wont do you or me any good to continue to "provide evidence". It is to him all "evolution paradigm".

I dont care to write a treatise in any case.

Especially in view of how he handled the uncomfortable facts about
polar ice vs"flood, which were easy to present, easy to understand. He made up three different impossible solutions, then ran.

Jac suggested nobody indulge him in this evolution talk until he honestly
faces the disproof of his flood fantasy.

He ran so far and fast from that, I think even he suspects that he hss no other way out but to run.

Lets see if he is good for his word on "evidence". Care to join me on that,
no other topics till he faces this one?

We both know he wont be able to, especiually on the flood topic.

I've been reading a book called "Wave", authored by a British lady who lost her 3 children, spouse, and parents to the tsunami in Sri Lanka. Her vivid description of total emotional
devastation, the loss of everything, anything with meaning or value, adrift in a nightmare with
nothing anywhere to cling to. Its making me cry, I am reading it anyway.

Partly for the self centered reason that I know just whst she talking about,
how it is when everything, even your self, is taken from you.

It may well be that for Ab, and some few others here, the rigid / brittle consttuct of
"Truth" that they dwell within is their only defense, the shield that keeps them safe from the
howling winds of confusion and despair. What might happen if at last, it should crack?
What if ala Jack Nicholson, he actually cannot handle the truth?

Perhaps what I am doing is irresponsible and potentially very harmful.

What do you think? Anyone else have a thought?

You know, on the last comment from him, I was actually thinking that maybe he tried it and it didn't make sense to him and he may need help in understanding it. I know I would need help if the question was on maths, I am pretty bad at it. Anyway, I don't know, I could help but only if he wants it.

neo-x wrote:

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:
I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

Evolution is not that hard to understand, tho of course many details are
challenging. Kinda like heart surgery that way.


It wont do you or me any good to continue to "provide evidence". It is to him all "evolution paradigm".

I dont care to write a treatise in any case.

Especially in view of how he handled the uncomfortable facts about
polar ice vs"flood, which were easy to present, easy to understand. He made up three different impossible solutions, then ran.

Jac suggested nobody indulge him in this evolution talk until he honestly
faces the disproof of his flood fantasy.

He ran so far and fast from that, I think even he suspects that he hss no other way out but to run.

Lets see if he is good for his word on "evidence". Care to join me on that,
no other topics till he faces this one?

We both know he wont be able to, especiually on the flood topic.

I've been reading a book called "Wave", authored by a British lady who lost her 3 children, spouse, and parents to the tsunami in Sri Lanka. Her vivid description of total emotional
devastation, the loss of everything, anything with meaning or value, adrift in a nightmare with
nothing anywhere to cling to. Its making me cry, I am reading it anyway.

Partly for the self centered reason that I know just whst she talking about,
how it is when everything, even your self, is taken from you.

It may well be that for Ab, and some few others here, the rigid / brittle consttuct of
"Truth" that they dwell within is their only defense, the shield that keeps them safe from the
howling winds of confusion and despair. What might happen if at last, it should crack?
What if ala Jack Nicholson, he actually cannot handle the truth?

Perhaps what I am doing is irresponsible and potentially very harmful.

What do you think? Anyone else have a thought?

You know, on the last comment from him, I was actually thinking that maybe he tried it and it didn't make sense to him and he may need help in understanding it. I know I would need help if the question was on maths, I am pretty bad at it. Anyway, I don't know, I could help but only if he wants it.

Ok..but any thoughts on what I said?

See how the evolutionists are? They just declare it is true and ignore the reasons it is not true and not even close. They cannot refute me and reasons why evolution is fraud science.I know they cannot because I don't lie.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:ACB evolution has evidence after evidence its just you like many other anti-evolutionists don't understand and acknowledge it.

No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

You ignored the reasons speciation is a myth and the whole tree of evolution cannot be true based on the evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote:See how the evolutionists are? They just declare it is true and ignore the reasons it is not true and not even close. They cannot refute me and reasons why evolution is fraud science.I know they cannot because I don't lie.

You must be God.