Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Oct 2, 6:09 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:41:12 -0400, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : In <hkfvd4h99gijdnavb0og0ulk2ljvbmn...@4ax.com>, Gabriel: <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > :
: > : > You don't have an observation NOR do you
: > : >have a test/verification. Just reasons why you believe it to be
: > : >true. We cannot observe gravity, as gravity is a force, but we
: > : >can repeatedly test/verify that whatever it is, it exists and
: > : >does exactly what we claim it does. Unlike your version of
: > : >evolution with is not only unobservable, but you cannot even
: > : >test/verify that it does what they claim it does.
: > :
: > : Universal gravitation is exactly similar to common descent life on
: > : Earth in this regard. We can't directly measure gravity over the
: > : entire universe and we can't directly observe how living things have
: > : changed over the history of Earth.
: >
: > I already mentioned gravity: not observable (because it's
: > an invisible force of some kind): but what we can do is do
: > repeated tests/verification of gravity doing exactly what we
: > claim it does. There's no such test/verification that shows the
: > molecules to man version of evolution doing what they claim it
: > does. If you know of such a test, by all means please present it.
: > Until anyone does (and no one can), it remains not only
: > unobservable, but untestable/unverifiable as well.
:
: biologists claim that one of the things evolution does is leave
: fossils of a certain shape behind. finding those fossils would be
: testing evolution.
Others come up with beliefs on what the fossil records
would (or would not show) if the fish to man version of evolution
were false, and creation by design were true, and they are right
as well.
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
www.icr.org
www.creationontheweb.com
Does that make God scientific fact as well? Of course
not. Why? For the exact same reason: God creating life in this
manner is not observable and/or testable/verifiable. Bingo. Why
the double standard?
No, all you have shown is that others have the same
belief you do when looking at dead bones.
:
: we also cannot test gravity on some planet in another galaxy.
But we know gravity exists (it's testable/verifiable, and
you can actually observe it doing its job here on earth and on
the moon), and hence given orbits we know other planets have this
same thing called gravity to different degrees. Far cry from
acting like we know the fish to man version of evolution is true
when no one's observed it, or been able to show a
test/verification of it even once.
snex
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:44:11 -0700 (PDT),snex<x...@comcast.net>
what fossils would "creation by design" predict, and how can you
logically show this?
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.aspwww.icr.orgwww.creationontheweb.com
>
> Does that make God scientific fact as well? Of course
> not. Why? For the exact same reason: God creating life in this
> manner is not observable and/or testable/verifiable. Bingo. Why
> the double standard?
if you could actually demonstrate a logical connection to god creating
and the types of fossils youd expect to find, then yes it would be
scientific. unfortunately, since god can literally do ANYTHING, you
cant possibly use the idea of a god to predict what kinds of fossils
will be found.
since evolution is not omnipotent, it can only allow certain fossils
to exist. thats what makes it testable. we can test to see if the
fossils are impossible given evolution or if they are exactly what
evolution predicted ahead of time.
here is the perfect chance for you.. make a real prediction about a
fossil find using your creation model. name a kind of fossil that has
never been found but that we should expect to find if creation is
true. use your model to predict where on the earth that fossil should
be, and in which layer of rock. then go dig those rocks and see if the
fossil is there.
real scientists do exactly that all the time. if evolution were false,
they wouldnt be able to pick the exact layer of rock in the exact part
of the world that holds a fossil of a specific shape as accurately as
they do.
>
> No, all you have shown is that others have the same
> belief you do when looking at dead bones.
>
> :
> : we also cannot test gravity on some planet in another galaxy.
>
> But we know gravity exists (it's testable/verifiable, and
> you can actually observe it doing its job here on earth and on
> the moon), and hence given orbits we know other planets have this
> same thing called gravity to different degrees. Far cry from
> acting like we know the fish to man version of evolution is true
> when no one's observed it, or been able to show a
> test/verification of it even once.
youve been given a test. it predicts things about fossils before those
fossils are ever found. gravity does the same thing. it predicts that
planets we have never seen will behave a certain way.
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:44:11 -0700 (PDT), snex <x...@comcast.net>
Personally I would rather be an organism from anevolved species with
free will than be something like you with no original thought or
freedom of expression.