Kevinb

You are still asserting it though. What you're saying is it's designed..intelligently I presume...designed because it looks designed..presumably like a car for example? This can be considered an equivocation fallacy...an argument from ignorance or incredulity...pick one or all. Please demonstrate a supernatural being did it breaking the laws of physics and biology. I'm glad you admit later you can't as it's a position of faith and the supernatural can not be investigated. I've been giving evidence of evolution but you reject it as it contradicts your faith. To which can't be demonstrated as supernatural did it. Anyway.. okay let's try some big bang stuff. The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence: Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting. The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past. The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K. The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount. The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so. The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger. Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them. Inconsistencies are not necessarily unresolvable. The clumpiness of the universe, for example, was resolved by finding unevenness in the CMB. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions; we simply do not know what it is yet. There are still unresolved observations. For example, we do not understand why the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. However, the big bang has enough supporting evidence behind it that it is likely that new discoveries will add to it, not overthrow it. For example, inflationary universe theory proposes that the size of the universe increased exponentially when the universe was a fraction of a second old (Guth 1997). It was proposed to explain why the big bang did not create large numbers of magnetic monopoles. It also accounts for the observed flatness of space, and it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness of the CMB. Inflationary theory is a significant addition to big bang theory, but it is an extension of big bang theory, not a replacement. So otherwise please demonstrate a supernatural being poofed the universe to how we see it? I know you can't demonstrate the supernatural which you've admitted...i can't throw out this big bang stuff for something that can t be demonstrated. I'd be irrational to do this surely. The case I'm learning further the alternative is just to attempt to pick holes in the consensus scientific but not actually demonstrate God claims. Even if x theory is incomplete or has issues it doesn't default the alternative is true... still gotta demonstrate that...especially when we get into invoking supernatural magical things... that defy the laws of nature... that's a massive claim.. the evidence for me then has gotta be equally impressive. Re dover. If you search.... the collapse of intelligent design- ken Miller lecture. You'll find it. I do recommend you watch out of interest...many points and motivations come to light. I didn't know this stuff was going on in the US till recently.. was shocked to see. Culturally it's so different and more religious there than the UK. Did I see you were Australian? I've been arguing for the untruth but I've seen little for the truth in what you said. What's the best argument for the truth?

This analysis supports evolution. The fused ape chromosomes of 14 and 15 off the top of my head. Even if there is some degenerate we are still confirming a fusion here and of these chromosome as the report explains. This is the kinda thing evolution predicts. It didn't have to be there at all of course which would have then not helped a common ancestry case. Creationists clearly must just attempt a dispute as evolution and macro wouldn't be consistent with their view of scriptural statements. In any case we are back to demonstrate God made and designed it. Demonstrate the supernatural. However you want to interpret evidence religion then adds supernatural..miracles.. different lifeforms poofing into being and such.

What other better modelling do we have? This is not saying 100% certainty even if we're talking gravity or germ theory of disease which we agree on. However I don't need to add supernatural claims in my position. That's an addition by faith...belief without evidence. Else demonstrate supernatural claims demonstrably. This is the distinction when you say they both need faith.

As I said could we explore the design alternative? To clarify you admit it's an unframed assertion? Can you...“Demonstrate design. How do you prove a being did it? How do you falsify a designer designing? I'd love to know if there are better arguments as all I have seen is things like irreducible complexity..examples put forward nailed nicely at dover and it looks designed just like a car looks designed equivocation fallacy argument from analogy stuff. You may have more? This is all I've seen so far though. The dover trial well I watched documentaries on you tube on it and interviews of those in on both sides. As you know it was effectively creation design stuff vs evolution by natural selection (including macro of course)Apparently I can't embed you tube here as it will get deleted. Anyway maybe search and watch if you're interested? Essentially all those involved on the evolution side were able to demonstrate the science of evolution..How to correctly interpret the evidence...how the evidence was found. How it follows the scientific method..how it makes prediction..how it's falsifiable... Where as the design creation stuff isn't..this is why the judge concluded it's not scientific and one must stay in science class and the other must not. Such that one is scientific and the other is religious..very brief overview. Anyway you know the result. Hours of footage to see including follow up lectures by guys like ken Miller ( who is religious btw )who were involved to present evolutions case.

Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.) With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line. For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example: K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products.40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon. The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize. Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected. Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them. There are dozens of different dating methods using different sources that overlap whereby one could be checked against others. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example: The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001). Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997). Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999). Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000). The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990). A creationist may site things like mussels being found to be alive and thousands of years old using carbon dating.. if there's been consumption of "old " carbon if you like such that it has already part decayed in limestone it will give a value like this. If you use dating techniques inappropriately you'll get erroneous results.. this is well known of course but a YEC especially cites this kinda stuff to attempt to chuck it all away.

No need for discussion? Then we can just accept any claims by any religion that's ever been.

On the one hand we could just follow all of the bible period. We don't need to go find any evidence..we have the answers before we even ask any questions. We could just live by this faith and faith in supernatural stuff and how do you demonstrated and falsify that? How does scientific understanding do this? Interesting too many creationists now accept evolution if only micro. How the heck could you presuppose evolution from previously having no conception of it. How could you presuppose the germ theory of disease. It's purely following evidence. The fossil record could just show all life totally mixed together without any sequence at all but it doesn't. Dna evidence could disprove.. we may not have found fused human chromosome 2 but we did. The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence, and the evidence remains for all to see. Scientists know that their ideas must stand the scrutiny of other scientists, who may not share their preconceptions. The best way to do this is to make the case strong enough on the basis of the evidence so that preconceptions do not matter. And scientists themselves condemn preconceptions when they see them. (Stephen J. Gould, the most vocal recent crusader against preconceptions in science, was vehemently anticreationism.) The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, ice ages, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads. Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions; they do a good job, on the whole, of reducing bias. They do such a good job, in fact, that what creationists really object to is the fact that scientists do not interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions. The hypocrisy of this charge cannot be overstressed. Creationists state outright that they accept only what they already assume. Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" (AIG n.d.). The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith (ICR 2000). Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions. References: AIG. n.d. Statement of faith.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp ICR. 2000. ICR tenets of Creationism.http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_tenets Anyways again..maybe look from the other side..how do you prove design? That a designer did it? How do you prove kinds or species or whatever term just poof appeared? How would you define a species?

Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage. To verify that pollen is fossil pollen rather than a contamination, one must look at several factors: There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests. What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent. Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen. Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed. Links: Morton, Glenn, 1997. Precambrian pollen.http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.html References: Chadwick, A. V., 1973. Grand Canyon palynology -- a reply. Creation Research Society Quarterly 9: 238. Chadwick, A. V., 1981. Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon - a re-examination. Origins 8(1): 7-12.http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm Flank, Lenny, 1995. Does science discriminate against creationists Demonstrate design. How do you prove a being did it? How do you falsify a designer designing? Is this an unsubstantiated assertion per chance? What are you thoughts on the dover trial? Or any of the trials design v evolution?

8 hours ago, Tristen said: I addressed the specific part of the sentence that was relevant (because you trusting in “theories” and “evidence” is irrelevant to the definition of assertion). An assertion is an assertion whether or not it is supported by “theories” or “evidence”. An Unsupported Assertion is a criticism of the way you argue your point, not whether or not you think your claims canbe supported. You made assertions and expected me to uncritically take your word that they were beyond question. True I've given nothing in this thread on theory of gravity and germ theory of disease. You don't think they are our best current models? I need to convince you of those? I suspect you do accept these as they don't readily conflict biblical statements. Re evolution we've been exploring that.. mainly whales thus far? I prefer to try and keep posts small ish to make them more manageable. I dumped masses of points exposing problems with global flood in another thread and no one was able to answer even a fraction. Erm I was saying you have knowledge of them..gravity and germ theory of disease. This isn't a lack of knowledge. However you could say me thinking you have knowledge here is a fallacy. If you don't then start researching. Well you're not a anatomist. Lets try flippers..to arms. Course could have chosen human arm to a dog's leg..a bats wing... http://www.tmmsn.org/education/dolphin_anatomy.htm If you a Christian in this case yes. The machine of science doesn't have faith in the same way. We've not decided the end answers from day 1 from 1 book from authority then try intrepet evidence to fit it. Science operates from we don't know..lets find out and we will ditch if necessary whether it's evolution or anything else. More to follow..

True I've given nothing in this thread on theory of gravity and germ theory of disease. You don't think they are our best current models? I need to convince you of those? I suspect you do accept these as they don't readily conflict biblical statements. Re evolution we've been exploring that.. mainly whales thus far? I prefer to try and keep posts small ish to make them more manageable. I dumped masses of points exposing problems with global flood in another thread and no one was able to answer even a fraction.

How about you stop childish name calling and personal insults and form an actual argument based on evidence and theory..reviewed would help also.

Who said evolution stopped? I fear you don't understand it at all to say that. I've answered your dawkins thing the 1st time you posted it btw and ignored subsequent repeats.

You really don't get it. By the way science has no proof of heaven and hell. Else please give the evidence. Just stating metaphysics doesn't do this. Again I don't need to prove hell doesn't exist and if I can't then its true. YOU are making the claim...YOU have a burden of proof. So prove it. Otherwise I could say invisible fairies in my garden exist..if you can't prove they don't then it's true. That's crazy right? I would have to prove to you they do... I've made the claim... I've the burden of proof. Islamic faith says Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Do I believe that... no.. again that's faith. Can they demonstrate that's true.. no...can I demonstrate he didn't so therefore he must have... no and that doesn't mean it's true. They make the claim... they have the burden of proof and must prove it. What mechanism must I accept your faith claims and dismiss others. Also how do you accept your faith claims and dismiss others. Logical fallacy special pleading perhaps? I dismiss all without evidence and I suspect you dismiss all except your religions.

You have faith they'll last longer. Did you make them? Did you verify that the electrician is actually certified I've observed myself they last longer than the older style. I'm aware of his certification and training yes. I can buy them hold them. I could time the individual bulbs lifespan if i could be bothered. If you think this is analogous to the bible saying Enoch was 900 or whatever it was that's ridiculous. Otherwise demonstrate Enoch actually existed..is he in your house like my bulbs and switches. Demonstrate that he actually lived that long...could you time it if you wanted? Not sure what I can add if you can't see the difference. Faiths definition in line 2 since we are on a religious chat site. Just below the one you searched. 2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. George Washington....i don't know. I've heard the name that's all... I'm not american. Well I'll give you credit that you believe I'm of the same human species as you. We grow after we are born...we breed..we occur naturally in nature. We're not made of composite materials by other humans in a factory. We've evidence of this that we can test right. Or do you think we are robots? Okay.. I'll try something different here. In order for me to believe we did I wouldn't need supernatural assertions and miracles that suspend the laws of physics to do it. Where as I must do these things to believe in some of the bible claims. Do I hate God? This makes no sense to someone who doesn't accept biblical and god claims as true because they haven't met their burden of proof and rest I said in previous post. Lets say you dont believe in fairies okay..although some do and historically used to. Before fairies were nice little things at the bottom of your garden they were evil creatures that swapped themselves with your family members but had the same appearance. I don't believe any of that either btw. Anyway a digression. So let's say you dont believe fairies exist and I say but why do you hate fairies. It makes no sense.

Erm no. I think you've a confused view on a faith definition. Faith is belief in a position in the absence of evidence...else you'd have the evidence and corresponding theory. You have faith in a virgin birth for example as per Mary and Jesus. You can't possible have evidence to validate that or people in the bible living for hundreds and hundreds of years and more. So my position in my lights coming on is a position of high confidence based upon evidence of having switched said light on many times before. I've recently in fact had an accredited electrician inspect my electrics as we recently moved..he's passed to me an inspection certificate. I'm aware of his qualifications. I've energy efficient bulbs that last longer. I would approach your other examples in the same kinda way but I hope you get the idea. This is very different to I have faith as you suggest and compare. Hope this clarifies the distinction. Ah Pascals wager? Believe in belief...believe regardless. You may be right. My position is not there definitely is no God. My position is religions havent met their burden of proof on God claims. Also that there's overwhelming evidence and theory for the natural world that I can't falsify yet and I'd have to just bin that's a more credible alternative that doesn't require me to have faith..believe in supernatural stuff..miracles and the rest. Really...evidence for hell and heaven? The matrix stuff is just something thrown out there. I've heard it. It's not taken seriously by science and hasn't been demonstrated.. you're reading in the wrong areas if you think scientists take this seriously and think this is our reality in the total absence of evidence.

Oh but you do, you really do. Really what's my position on faith?

Me too but the bible can certainly be read to say that.

Indeed to say no fossils could form more slowly over time due to predators is quite a claim. Fossils are found part complete of course and I wouldn't be surprised if we'd found evidence of scavaging on fossils. Decay yes of dead animals... skin and organs etc wouldn't survive a great deal of time sure that's why we don't readily find much beyond bone..rarely feather and scale and a few other clues.

I'll take that as a threat I'll go to hell? Evidence for hell? The notion is a newer concept ...relatively. subsequently many religions now have this idea if you don't follow them you'll go there. They are all different too. How much time do you spend worrying about other religions hells? I suggest none. Neither do I and I just add the Christian notion too of course. Anyways i sense your frustration. I don't have to accept your view neither do you mine..Neither do either of us any other religions right? We're just exploring what people think here. Ultimately we all lean towards one thing or another.

All I care about here is the truth. Bear in mind I don't accept views on faith being a non believer. I'll stand with genesis isn't validated by science. Let's not forget too the bible asserts stars being angels and can be interpreted to say the earth is flat as some have argued in other threads too and quoted verses that support this. Do you think that or pick and choose? The faith supernatural stuff asserted and asserted circularly means nothing to me and is of no use to discover truth and to buy that I've gotta believe in miracles and to suspend the laws of physics and biology on top of throwing out peer reviewed theory based on evidence having not come about by miracle.

Don't fragment my sentences to attempt to misquote please. I qualify that with I have confidence in theories of evolution..gravity and germ theory of disease because of evidence. Correct I've not published evidence for lots of scientific theories here in different fields..I'd given you credit that you had some knowledge of them. If you feel there is no supporting evidence here I suggest you've much investigating and reading to do. Erm... these aren't 2 random people who live just down the road. These two people are alleged to be the precursors of all of humanity. This is a huge claim you'll agree. Magnificent clams require magnificent evidence. Let's not forget too we're adding supernatural on top also. Leaping to a global flood certainly isn't magnificent. Maybe we should leave flood stuff to the flood thread. There I posted a mass of problems that weren't answered. Topics and posts are getting biiigg. Besides many Christians buy local not global.. Yeah I bet.. but we're only guessing here right plus you seem to be admitting bias based on your faith interpretation. https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ttSKWdz0Cc3NwQKBzJ-4Bg&q=whales+with+legs+evolution&oq=whales+with++legs&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.1.1.0i67k1j0l2j0i7i30k1j0i5i30k1.82487.82487.0.85302.1.1.0.0.0.0.178.178.0j1.1.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-img..0.1.176.Hph1WiIH3JA Not sure if link will work re leg remnants. A dolphin needs that to anchor genitals..evidence? Why would a female need any of these bones to anchor genitals? In terms of differences yes males and females have different shaped pelvis in humans too. Sharks don't seem to need this "anchoring" assertion ?. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dolphin+found+with+hind+legs&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOndeo78nVAhWJLlAKHeDTBmEQ_AUICSgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=fnvVAvR-VMkKzM: This link shows the vestigial developing further. Incidently snakes can exhibit this too. Oh on whales. This link if you can follow. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/baleen-whales-a-lovely-transitional-form/amp/ The baleen whale in the early stages of development grow teeth that then revert and disappear. Read the whole page though..interesting. The fossil record doesn't prove God created life. We've an evolutionary trail based upon radiometric dating.. that do far doesnt throw up species in the wrong order. The whales example still. I believe shown via one of the links above. Transitional species in the right order. You can search for fossils showing noses from front of head to blow hole on top if interested. All in date order. Anyway perhaps focus on one or 2 points like the whale tooth to stop the post length getting too large and time consuming.

Nice try. I've seen conversations like this. Note he said perhaps...he doesn't demonstrate evidence because we don't have evidence for aliens seeding. He's also said maybe comets or asteroids deposited the building blocks of like. Also he says if so the aliens would need to have evolved via Darwinian natural selection. This doesn't need us to suspend the laws of natural..physics and biology to believe in a magic creator too?. He's also said it's incredibly unlikely as the chances of life appear slim...intelligent life even slimer so pockets of intelligent life could be so dispersed as to never meet. This is just theorizing possibility. He didn't say it was the truth of our origins. Also remember scientific understanding doesn't persist on one view without evidence. This faith in authority is what we need religions for.

Absolutely he said no such thing. I've read his books and seen hours and hours of you tube vids. Please provide the link where he said this to make your assertion credible. I'm teachable if the lesson is credible. An argument from a false analogy isn't evidence..its fallacious.

Light = Energy All throughout the word of God, He states things that are not in existence as though they are in existence. So when He said this: Genesis 1:2 (KJV) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. that's not evidence... that's a circular reasoning fallacy...ie the bible is true coz the bible says. Argument from a false analogy. That's not helping at all. We can all go speak to the architect if we wanted...see his blueprints. Plus we've circular reasoning again. Thanks anyway.

Who is they? Don't know what you've been reading but the scientific view doesn't subscribe to this alien seeding stuff. I've yet to see this in evolutionary textbooks ☺. It also gives you the same problem..ie how did the aliens come to be and evolve? You need to demonstrate God did it... this is just an argument from analogy. It's not even analogous in fact computers are made and designed in factories right? Where is your equivalent God evidence. Plus computers don't occur naturally in nature and breed. Arguement from ignorance fallacy I'm afraid.