Knowledge or Science, falsely so called.

[teddyv]

20 minutes ago, Who me said:

Sorry I miss understood your earlier reply.y  assuming g you were making that claim.

OK. Thanks.

20 minutes ago, Who me said:

 

Basic law of biogenesis is that life only comes from life.

That is demonstratable, it also is demonstratable that life follows the pattern set by genetics.

There is some interesting experimentation around the development of various biomolecules. No, a formal pathway for developing life has not been demonstrated, but there is more and more evidence suggesting that it could be possible.

20 minutes ago, Who me said:

We do not see fish developing  legs or flightless creatures developing wings.

We don't see that right now.

There is fossil evidence for both. Lobe-finned fish to tetrapods for the former and of course, dinosaurs are considered progenitors for modern birds.

20 minutes ago, Who me said:

Evolution is a faith, that believes without evidence that life comes from nonlife and that living things can developed abilities that non of their ancestors  had.

You are disagreeing about abiogenesis here.

Biological evolution starts with the premise of life existing and then diversifying. There is, in the words of creationist Dr. Todd Wood, "gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution". Creationists disagree with the interpretation of that evidence.

Edited June 20, 2023 by teddyv

[Who me]

3 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Biological evolution starts with the premise of life existing and then diversifying. There is, in the words of creationist Dr. Todd Wood, "gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution". Creationists disagree with the interpretation of that evidence.

This is often claimed, that 5here is " gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution!"

Yet evolutionist repeated decline to debate and wipe the floor with the yec debater with this copious  evidence.

Example  the Ken Ham debate.

The usual get out is, they Don want to publice  creationism, which is another way of saying that there isn't  gobs and gobs of evidence.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Who me said:

This is often claimed, that 5here is " gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution!"

Yet evolutionist repeated decline to debate and wipe the floor with the yec debater with this copious  evidence.

Example  the Ken Ham debate.

The usual get out is, they Don want to publice  creationism, which is another way of saying that there isn't  gobs and gobs of evidence.

A debate is not a forum for ascertaining the truth or reality of an issue. It is a forum where the person best trained in rhetorical methods or charisma can look like a winner, even if they are spectacularly wrong. The current approach to people saying "Debate me!" is like the schoolyard bully yelling at another to go fight after school.

The "gobs and gobs of evidence" is a quote from creationist Dr Wood. Here is a link to the original post, as well as a follow-up post. He is eminently more qualified to make that statement over Ken Ham. 

And Ken Ham has stated that there is nothing that will falsify his belief in creationism, which is a decidedly unscientific position to take. Oddly, he still relies and accepts scientific evidence for many aspects of AiG's positions (like genetics) when convenient. He also is espousing evolutionary processes like adaptation, natural selection and mutation to turn a couple hundred progenitor "kinds" into all the modern species.

[Who me]

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

debate is not a forum for ascertaining the truth or reality of an issue.

Debates have many purposes, one is to demonstrate that ones ideas are right and that the oppositions are wrong.

A better method than the current method of declaring only evolution can be considered and to censor all other ideas.

 

I've read the two links you supplied and they were empty of the ' gobs and gobs of evidence'.

If evolution was so well supported by evidence the failure to show this in the Ken Ham debate is very questionable, why didn't they publicly show he was wrong?

 

Or it is because the evidence is just not there!

 

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

He also is espousing evolutionary processes like adaptation, natural selection and mutation to turn a couple hundred progenitor "kinds" into all the modern species.

Yes he like many people accept proved scientific ideas while rejecting unproven ideas like evolution.

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, Who me said:

Debates have many purposes, one is to demonstrate that ones ideas are right and that the oppositions are wrong.

Perhaps. But most debates centre around ideas that are not right versus wrong, but rather nuanced in such a way that compelling arguments can be made in both directions.

6 hours ago, Who me said:

A better method than the current method of declaring only evolution can be considered and to censor all other ideas.

Evidence of this?

6 hours ago, Who me said:

 

I've read the two links you supplied and they were empty of the ' gobs and gobs of evidence'.

I was simply supporting the quote I made earlier, not supplying the evidence as such. While the quote is could be construed as fallacious (argument from authority), it is merely used to demonstrate the even some creationists, who happen to be educated and work within biological sciences are self-aware enough to recognize that there is compelling evidence for biological evolution.

6 hours ago, Who me said:

If evolution was so well supported by evidence the failure to show this in the Ken Ham debate is very questionable, why didn't they publicly show he was wrong?

What Ken Ham debate? The Bill Nye one? That was barely a debate anyway. I don't think Bill Nye did well, but Jen Ham takes the cake in talking out of two sides of his mouth where he accepts science when it supports him, but then says nothing will falsify his narrow creationist position.

6 hours ago, Who me said:

 

Or it is because the evidence is just not there!

The evidence is there, it's the interpretation of that evidence that is the difference.

6 hours ago, Who me said:

 

Yes he like many people accept proved scientific ideas while rejecting unproven ideas like evolution.

This is coming up a lot lately, but scientific theories are never proven. They are always subject to falsification if the data comes along. That said, some theories are very robust.

[Who me]

4 hours ago, Berwyck said:

The reason so many scientists, even Christian ones, don't often bother debating those kind of creationists is because it goes nowhere. You could have all the evidence in the world and they would still buckle down with "I don't believe that,

While Ken Ham is not a scientist he is supported by scientists who understand the technical details of science.

A public debate and the Ken Ham debate was public a d videod , that showed the strength of the scientific claim for evolution would have done AIG and the other yec organisations tremendous  harm and loss of credibility.

Please remember the debate argument is not just with Ken Ham, but the challenge has been made that yec will debate any scientist on any subject with a recognised scientist  I  that discipline.

The challenge was not accepted.

Yes you are right about childish behaviour , but do you recognise that it applies to both sides of the argument.

[Who me]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Evidence of this?

What evidence would you accept?

Have you tried asking g why scientific journals like,e scientific America don't  publish article discussing creation?

Would you accept the claims of yes scientists?

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

The evidence is there, it's the interpretation of that evidence that is the difference

Got it in one.

It is the bias I side the scientists and in the science establishment that does not recognise the possibility of the supernatural  of a creator or of creation.

Result evolution is the only possibilitity.

[teddyv]

Just now, Who me said:

What evidence would you accept?

Have you tried asking g why scientific journals like,e scientific America don't  publish article discussing creation?

Would you accept the claims of yes scientists?

Got it in one.

It is the bias I side the scientists and in the science establishment that does not recognise the possibility of the supernatural  of a creator or of creation.

Result evolution is the only possibilitity.

Creationism cannot be science because it invokes the supernatural. Therefore, not testable, nor repeatable. Predictions are impossible. Science is limited to naturalistic mechanisms. It does not make any claims for or against God (or any supernatural cause).

[JohnR7]

On 6/19/2023 at 9:06 AM, Who me said:

This is the failure of evolution and why it is a lie when it is taught that information can just arise.

I am not worried about what we read in our Biology book. There has been much debate and discussion as to what we should teach. 

[Who me]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:00 PM, teddyv said:

Creationism cannot be science because it invokes the supernatural. Therefore, not testable, nor repeatable. Predictions are impossible. Science is limited to naturalistic mechanisms. It does not make any claims for or against God (or any supernatural cause).

Yet scientist say the opposite.

Evolutionist and atheists say that science has proved there is no God.

Richard Dawkins is one example of a scientist who claims this.

So as science cannot measure, observe or experiment on the cause of the b3gining of the universe.

What caused it?

Please remember Jesus supports a 6 day creation, he gives n9 support to evolution, so what cause every5hing 5o happen.