The Definition of Real Science

[ChristB4us]

The definition of real science is what can be observed and proven.

The phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven as they do not know the method that causes it for it has never been observed.

What makes a scientific theory valid?

When the phenomenon has been observed in the real world.

Evolutionists roll out the scientific theory of gravity as they hold an object in the air & let go to see it drop to demonstrate the phenomenon of gravity.

This is an example of switch & bait tactic, hoping nobody notice they are not giving an example of macroevolution to observe that phenomenon in the real world.

Some do ask them to give an example of macroevolution, but instead, evolutionists gives an example of microevolution BUT the lizard is still a lizard and a bird is still a bird. That is what the Law of Biogenesis is about as life does not comes from nothing, but life comes from similar life, thus disproving spontaneous generation and along with it, the core of the evolution theory which is macroevolution.

The evolution theory is a false science as they coined microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis, while the devil is hoping you do not see the difference when it comes to macroevolution.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Some anti-KJVers will say "science" is the wrong word and that it should be "knowledge" but since science deals with facts as observed and proven, we are talking about real science in the same way we are talking about real knowledge.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The definition of real science is what can be observed and proven.

The phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven as they do not know the method that causes it for it has never been observed.

What makes a scientific theory valid?

When the phenomenon has been observed in the real world.

Evolutionists roll out the scientific theory of gravity as they hold an object in the air & let go to see it drop to demonstrate the phenomenon of gravity.

This is an example of switch & bait tactic, hoping nobody notice they are not giving an example of macroevolution to observe that phenomenon in the real world.

Some do ask them to give an example of macroevolution, but instead, evolutionists gives an example of microevolution BUT the lizard is still a lizard and a bird is still a bird. That is what the Law of Biogenesis is about as life does not comes from nothing, but life comes from similar life, thus disproving spontaneous generation and along with it, the core of the evolution theory which is macroevolution.

The evolution theory is a false science as they coined microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis, while the devil is hoping you do not see the difference when it comes to macroevolution.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Some anti-KJVers will say "science" is the wrong word and that it should be "knowledge" but since science deals with facts as observed and proven, we are talking about real science in the same way we are talking about real knowledge.

A scientific theory is valid if it fits the available evidence, and remains valid until it can be disproved. Science is an ever changing displine and the word "fact" should be held a little loosely. Newtownian physics was "fact" (and for the most part is still valid within the macroscopic universe) however, when quantum physics came along, it revolutionised physics.

Some, however, have turned it into Science (with a captial "S"), a religion of its own that they think can solve all the questions of life, the universe and everything. It can't of course.

Just a side point, "science" is from a Latin word scire which means "to know". The Greek word in the 1 Tim 6:20 verse is gno'-sis, which I think is more accurately translated as "knowledge", but sadly I am not a Greek scholar so will leave that to others.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The definition of real science is what can be observed and proven.

I'm with you on the observed part, but not the proven part. There is plenty in science that is either (1) provisional - sufficient evidence can change what science holds - or (2) held with a degree of certainty that is less than 100%, so it's not absolutely proven, but it's as good as we've got with the evidence we have.

The phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven as they do not know the method that causes it for it has never been observed.

Macroevolution is not a word that is part of the theory of evolution, although that depends on exactly how you define it. Speciation is part of evolution, and speciation has been observed.

What makes a scientific theory valid?

When the phenomenon has been observed in the real world.

Sometimes, sure, but not necessarily. We can make observations and then deduce that some other phenomenon, that we didn't directly observed, has occurred. That's the same basis on which a homicide detective solves a case without an eyewitness.

Evolutionists roll out the scientific theory of gravity as they hold an object in the air & let go to see it drop to demonstrate the phenomenon of gravity. This is an example of switch & bait tactic, hoping nobody notice they are not giving an example of macroevolution to observe that phenomenon in the real world.

I'm not aware of any biologist who accepts evolution and tries to, or is needing to, demonstrate that gravity exists. Do you know of some biologist who does this?

Some do ask them to give an example of macroevolution, but instead, evolutionists gives an example of microevolution BUT the lizard is still a lizard and a bird is still a bird.

That's why speciation and species (clade, actually) is the relevant unit for evolution (in the sense you're talking about). On what basis did you decide that "lizard" or "bird" is where the line should be drawn? And what are you distinguishing between when you draw the line there? Biologists draw the line at species, which they can define as a population or organisms that can produce fertile offspring when reproducing. How do you define whatever grouping, like species, you're using to draw the line at "lizard" and "bird?"

That is what the Law of Biogenesis is about as life does not comes from nothing, but life comes from similar life, thus disproving spontaneous generation and along with it, the core of the evolution theory which is macroevolution.

How life first began is a separate question from evolution: evolution examines how life, once begun, changes.

The evolution theory is a false science as they coined microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis,

Can you explain what you mean? I can't parse that. And do you have any links or references to biologists doing what you say they are doing?

while the devil is hoping you do not see the difference when it comes to macroevolution.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Some anti-KJVers will say "science" is the wrong word and that it should be "knowledge" but since science deals with facts as observed and proven, we are talking about real science in the same way we are talking about real knowledge.

 

[ChristB4us]

I'm with you on the observed part, but not the proven part. There is plenty in science that is either (1) provisional - sufficient evidence can change what science holds - or (2) held with a degree of certainty that is less than 100%, so it's not absolutely proven, but it's as good as we've got with the evidence we have.

Like disproving spontaneous generation? I would think that would be 100% disproven. Surely something can be 100 % proven.

Macroevolution is not a word that is part of the theory of evolution, although that depends on exactly how you define it. Speciation is part of evolution, and speciation has been observed.

And there is that Law of Biogenesis where a cow can become a different cow but still a cow whereas macroevolution in the evolution theory starts that slippery slope by suggesting gradual change by a series of microevolution that a cow becomes a whale in giving it enough time. Not.

Sometimes, sure, but not necessarily. We can make observations and then deduce that some other phenomenon, that we didn't directly observed, has occurred. That's the same basis on which a homicide detective solves a case without an eyewitness.

Depends on what the detective "wants" to prove. Not all detectives are out for the truth, but just seeking to make a name for themselves. Government fundings goes to those trying to prove the evolution theory.

I'm not aware of any biologist who accepts evolution and tries to, or is needing to, demonstrate that gravity exists. Do you know of some biologist who does this?

Just in Christians and secular forums as far as I know. Some evolutionists claims to be scientists, but how can we verify that when we are not supposed to share personal or private information about ourselves? Then there are some that are just mockers like from truthorigin web site where certain members were at Delphi forums when they had formed that web site to deceive Christians at Delphi forums. In what was called Adult Christian Forum formerly run by kathyg, certain member caught those two members from that newly created web site in lying to purposefully mislead Christians that they had led to come to their site to "see the evidence" on a topic about the Archaeopteryx fossil as science had proven it as a fake and yet they were hyping it as if it was still true to others even after being corrected.

I would not be surprised that "science" has declared it to be not a fake when people keep lying about it often enough and long enough that they forget it was proven a fake. Sort of an Adolf Hitler tactic. Looking on the internet, so far it is still a proven fake. Unless you find something otherwise.

The Archaeoraptor Fraud of National Geographic Magazine

That's why speciation and species (clade, actually) is the relevant unit for evolution (in the sense you're talking about). On what basis did you decide that "lizard" or "bird" is where the line should be drawn? And what are you distinguishing between when you draw the line there? Biologists draw the line at species, which they can define as a population or organisms that can produce fertile offspring when reproducing. How do you define whatever grouping, like species, you're using to draw the line at "lizard" and "bird?"

Law of Biogenesis is life does not come from nothing but life comes from similar life. A lizard will always be a lizard; it can become a different kind of lizard but still a lizard. Microevolution coined from that as speciation but only so people would be led to believe that macroevolution is posssible after a series of microevolution through millions of years.

How life first began is a separate question from evolution: evolution examines how life, once begun, changes.

What has always been observed and proven is the Law of Biogenesis. Life cannot become a different kind of life; a similar life, but not another kind of life.

Can you explain what you mean? I can't parse that. And do you have any links or references to biologists doing what you say they are doing?

If science is talking about the evolution theory and speciation thus seemingly proving microevolution, it is only for establishing a premise that through a series of microevolution, macroevolution will occur. It does not. Microevolution will always produce microevolution. Hence what has been observed and proven for the established Law of Biogenesis.

One does not need to refer to that term microevolution coined by evolutionists for that law of science.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Like disproving spontaneous generation? I would think that would be 100% disproven. Surely something can be 100 % proven.

I didn't say everything couldn't be proved 100%, I merely said that *some* things aren't proved 100% but are still scientific. Agreed?

And there is that Law of Biogenesis where a cow can become a different cow but still a cow whereas macroevolution in the evolution theory starts that slippery slope by suggesting gradual change by a series of microevolution that a cow becomes a whale in giving it enough time. Not.

Do you have a source for this Law of Biogenesis?

Depends on what the detective "wants" to prove. Not all detectives are out for the truth, but just seeking to make a name for themselves. Government fundings goes to those trying to prove the evolution theory.

Do you deny that detectives can solve cases without eyewitness?

Just in Christians and secular forums as far as I know.

Good!

Some evolutionists claims to be scientists, but how can we verify that when we are not supposed to share personal or private information about ourselves? Then there are some that are just mockers like from truthorigin web site where certain members were at Delphi forums when they had formed that web site to deceive Christians at Delphi forums. In what was called Adult Christian Forum formerly run by kathyg, certain member caught those two members from that newly created web site in lying to purposefully mislead Christians that they had led to come to their site to "see the evidence" on a topic about the Archaeopteryx fossil as science had proven it as a fake and yet they were hyping it as if it was still true to others even after being corrected.

Why are you judging the theory of evolution by what lay people say? Here are two good, scientific sources on evolution:
29+ evidences for macroevolution
Understanding Evolution

I would not be surprised that "science" has declared it to be not a fake when people keep lying about it often enough and long enough that they forget it was proven a fake. Sort of an Adolf Hitler tactic. Looking on the internet, so far it is still a proven fake. Unless you find something otherwise.

The Archaeoraptor Fraud of National Geographic Magazine

Science does not work by a web site criticizing a claim that scientists have made. Here's one important aspect of how science works:

Scrutiny. Participating in the scientific community involves scrutinizing the work of others and allowing your own work to be similarly evaluated by your peers. This system of checks and balances verifies the quality of scientific research and assures that evidence is evaluated fairly.

Source
https://www.bible.ca/tracks/archaeoraptor-fraud-piltdown-bird.htm

Law of Biogenesis is life does not come from nothing but life comes from similar life. A lizard will always be a lizard;

That's what evolution says, too, although the lizard is most often not *exactly* the same as its parents. Evolution says that very small changes, lasting over vast periods of time, add up.

it can become a different kind of lizard but still a lizard. Microevolution coined from that as speciation but only so people would be led to believe that macroevolution is posssible after a series of microevolution through millions of years.

It's good that people are led to believe that, because that's what the evidence indicates.

What has always been observed and proven is the Law of Biogenesis. Life cannot become a different kind of life; a similar life, but not another kind of life.

Where are you getting this from?

If science is talking about the evolution theory and speciation thus seemingly proving microevolution, it is only for establishing a premise that through a series of microevolution, macroevolution will occur. It does not. Microevolution will always produce microevolution. Hence what has been observed and proven for the established Law of Biogenesis.

Are you familiar with the evidence for evolution? Look at **all** the evidence in the 29+evidences for macroevolution link above.

One does not need to refer to that term microevolution coined by evolutionists for that law of science.

 

[ChristB4us]

I didn't say everything couldn't be proved 100%, I merely said that *some* things aren't proved 100% but are still scientific. Agreed?

Agreed.

Do you have a source for this Law of Biogenesis?

These days who can find a reliable source when every field of science treats the evolution theory as if it has been proven when it has not.

Do you deny that detectives can solve cases without eyewitness?

Can a detective prove or disprove a hypothesis without being eyewitnesses themselves?

Good!

Theory of Evolution Found on the internet;

"Anaximander was correct; humans can indeed trace our ancestry back to fish. His idea, however, was not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word, because it could not be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong. In science, the word “theory” indicates a very high level of certainty. Scientists talk about evolution as a theory, for instance, just as they talk about Einstein’s explanation of gravity as a theory."

Thing is, the phenomenon of gravity can be directly observed whereas the phenomenon of macroevolution cannot be observed. It is only assumed.

Why are you judging the theory of evolution by what lay people say? Here are two good, scientific sources on evolution:
29+ evidences for macroevolution
Understanding Evolution

I was wrong in recollection about that deceptive web site as being "truthorigin" but it is "talkorigin" of that first link. So not a good source on evolution. Maybe the founders have cleaned up their act but the spirit originally behind it for creating it was for mocking Christians to doubt God's words by lying about that fossil as if it was not proven false.

That second link however is interesting and may be credible for what science may actually believe in the evolution theory for, but they do not discern how their assumptions for determining the "accuracy" of age of "things" is based on being no global calamity for the last 55,000 years.

So science has not taken in the account of the global Biblical flood for why their dating methods has errant results like living mollusks being carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead". They also do not always take the "reservoir effect" on marine fossils for why their results are off.

 

[ChristB4us]

Science does not work by a web site criticizing a claim that scientists have made. Here's one important aspect of how science works:

Source
https://www.bible.ca/tracks/archaeoraptor-fraud-piltdown-bird.htm

A community of enterprise has to be circumspect when government funding favors any research towards support of or proving the evolution theory.

That's what evolution says, too, although the lizard is most often not *exactly* the same as its parents. Evolution says that very small changes, lasting over vast periods of time, add up.

Regardless of the periods of time, it will always be a lizard; it can become a different kind of lizard but still a lizard. It cannot become a bird or macroevolve from a bird. Just want to clarify on that application as science do try to use periods of time to justify how a lizard can eventually become something else altogether and not a lizard any more.

It's good that people are led to believe that, because that's what the evidence indicates.

It is not good for people to believe that assumption when a lizard will always be a lizard.

Where are you getting this from?

Observation. A fetus in the woman's womb is not going to become anything else but a human being born.

If you consider what has to take place for a change from a lizard to say a bird, how can genetic information be added to an existing DNA when it has been never observed nor proven? Granted, mad scientist can do that, but that would be by design and not by random chance of what is supplied only by that DNA. Since life cannot come from nothing but life comes from similar life, then where is that extra genetic information coming from to change an existing DNA when it was not in the DNA to begin with?

Are you familiar with the evidence for evolution? Look at **all** the evidence in the 29+evidences for macroevolution link above.

Well, that link is dubious for the obvious reason for how and why it was created for. I looked at the site and I do not see the 29 + list of evidences for Macroevolution. Do you?

And the second and third sentence of that first paragraph about "gradual macroevolution" being undisputed is false.

The evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould postulated "Punctuated Equilibrium" or "Rapid macroevolution" because Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true because of the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records. He theorized that there was an explosion in the fossil records to have occurred back in the Cambrian period. He went on to reasonably postulate that a global flood had to be the cause to "tap that capacity".

It has been a while and I doubt I can find that source again, but when I had presented it to evolutionists in Christian forums, they argued that he never said that it was a global flood that covered the mountains.... which is true... I cannot find him saying what kind of a global flood that it was. If there is another report where he did describe what kind of global flood it was, I have yet to find it.

However, marine fossils have been found on mountaintops all over the world. In the Andes mountaintops, fossilized whale bones & other marine fossils have been found with land animal fossils buried together in a mass grave in one smooth gradient. The news article has the scientists ( evolutionists ) explain it away by saying the mountains rose suddenly from the sea trapping the marine life. There are other such finding also in another part of the world where the mountains rose suddenly from the sea also, but at the Andes, they failed to explain how the land animal fossils were found buried with them in that same sediment of that one smooth gradient that they were found in together on that mountaintop.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Evidence of the Biblical global flood.

But science will never see it looking at everything through their the evolutionary timetable spectacles, especially for what the government is favoring to give them research grant fundings for.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Agreed.

These days who can find a reliable source when every field of science treats the evolution theory as if it has been proven when it has not.

Then, did you come up with the Law of Biogenesis yourself? Where did you get it from?

Can a detective prove or disprove a hypothesis without being eyewitnesses themselves?

So, I'd like to suggest a conversation ground-rule: if A asks a question, and B responds to that question by asking another question, A has no obligation to answer B's question until B answers A's question. Because, fair is fair. Agreed?

Theory of Evolution Found on the internet;

"Anaximander was correct; humans can indeed trace our ancestry back to fish. His idea, however, was not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word, because it could not be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong. In science, the word “theory” indicates a very high level of certainty. Scientists talk about evolution as a theory, for instance, just as they talk about Einstein’s explanation of gravity as a theory."

I don't understand the significance of this quotation from NatGeo. What is your point?

Thing is, the phenomenon of gravity can be directly observed whereas the phenomenon of macroevolution cannot be observed. It is only assumed.

We have to resolve the issue of a detective solving a case without an eyewitness first, as that is highly relevant to my reply to your statement here.

I was wrong in recollection about that deceptive web site as being "truthorigin" but it is "talkorigin" of that first link. So not a good source on evolution. Maybe the founders have cleaned up their act but the spirit originally behind it for creating it was for mocking Christians to doubt God's words by lying about that fossil as if it was not proven false.

What, exactly, did you do to determine that it was not a good source?

That second link however is interesting and may be credible for what science may actually believe in the evolution theory for, but they do not discern how their assumptions for determining the "accuracy" of age of "things" is based on being no global calamity for the last 55,000 years.

The second link does not contain every fact that might be significant for evolution, so the lack of how they determine the age of things isn't that significant; IIRC, the first link *does* address dating in relating to evolution. Also, from where do you get the idea that science has concluded there has been no global calamity for the past 55,000 years? But, in order to answer that question, we need a more firm definition of exactly what counts as a global calamity, and also why that definition is relevant to the issue of evolution. Lots to do.

So science has not taken in the account of the global Biblical flood for why their dating methods has errant results like living mollusks being carbon dated as 2,300 years old "dead". They also do not always take the "reservoir effect" on marine fossils for why their results are off.

Here's a couple of links to scientists explaining why the global Biblical flood could not have happened:

1 National Center for Science Education

2 National Center for Science Education

Actually, don't bother with those links, here's the larger picture:

In the 150 years since Darwin published "On the Origin of Species," scientists in

• geology
• physics
• paleontology
• chemistry
• embryology
• genetics, and
• molecular biology; and
• all major university biology departments,
• every major science journal
• the American Academy of Sciences, and
• every major science organization in the world

have all confirmed Darwins theory of evolution by means of independent and inter-dependent tests (that is, findings in one discipline about evolution confirm the findings about evolution from another. They all concur: evolution happened (and continues to happen).

What do you have to put up against that that would outweigh that?

 

[Carbon]

So, I'd like to suggest a conversation ground-rule: if A asks a question, and B responds to that question by asking another question, A has no obligation to answer B's question until B answers A's question. Because, fair is fair. Agreed?

Sounds like a great ground rule to me.

 

[Gus Bovona]

A community of enterprise has to be circumspect when government funding favors any research towards support of or proving the evolution theory.

You're only digging your hole deeper because now you have to show that it is true that government funding favors (unfairly, or in a biased manner) support for evolution.

Regardless of the periods of time, it will always be a lizard; it can become a different kind of lizard but still a lizard. It cannot become a bird or macroevolve from a bird. Just want to clarify on that application as science do try to use periods of time to justify how a lizard can eventually become something else altogether and not a lizard any more.

You're missing an important aspect of evolution. Evolution occurs within a population, not within a single organism. Do you get the distinction, in terms of the theory of evolution?

It is not good for people to believe that assumption when a lizard will always be a lizard.

See above.

Observation. A fetus in the woman's womb is not going to become anything else but a human being born.

Your own, individual observation? Why should the observations of a single individual outweigh the observations of thousands if not millions of scientists over the years?

If you consider what has to take place for a change from a lizard to say a bird, how can genetic information be added to an existing DNA when it has been never observed nor proven? Granted, mad scientist can do that, but that would be by design and not by random chance of what is supplied only by that DNA. Since life cannot come from nothing but life comes from similar life, then where is that extra genetic information coming from to change an existing DNA when it was not in the DNA to begin with?

Did you try to find the answer to that question in the first two links I gave you?

Well, that link is dubious for the obvious reason for how and why it was created for.

Once again, you've got something else you have to support: how do you know what the reason was for that site and that that reason makes the site dubious?

I looked at the site and I do not see the 29 + list of evidences for Macroevolution. Do you?

They are listed in the chart with Part 1, Part 2, etc.

And the second and third sentence of that first paragraph about "gradual macroevolution" being undisputed is false.

Well, that statement is meaningless because that's exactly the issue that is in dispute between us; and, those sentence are an introduction/summary and don't present the actual evidence, which is contained in the links in part 1, part 2, etc.

The evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould postulated "Punctuated Equilibrium" or "Rapid macroevolution" because Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true because of the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records. He theorized that there was an explosion in the fossil records to have occurred back in the Cambrian period. He went on to reasonably postulate that a global flood had to be the cause to "tap that capacity".

Yes, and that has been incorporated into the theory of evolution. In fact, what rapid or gradual actually means is in the first paragraph of the "What is Universal Common Descent" section.

It has been a while and I doubt I can find that source again, but when I had presented it to evolutionists in Christian forums, they argued that he never said that it was a global flood that covered the mountains.... which is true... I cannot find him saying what kind of a global flood that it was. If there is another report where he did describe what kind of global flood it was, I have yet to find it.

However, marine fossils have been found on mountaintops all over the world. In the Andes mountaintops, fossilized whale bones & other marine fossils have been found with land animal fossils buried together in a mass grave in one smooth gradient. The news article has the scientists ( evolutionists ) explain it away by saying the mountains rose suddenly from the sea trapping the marine life.

That's not explaining it away, it's explaining it based on evidence.

There are other such finding also in another part of the world where the mountains rose suddenly from the sea also, but at the Andes, they failed to explain how the land animal fossils were found buried with them in that same sediment of that one smooth gradient that they were found in together on that mountaintop.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Evidence of the Biblical global flood.

Failure to explain something - even if that is true, and I have no idea whether it is or not, because you don't say who "they" is, and offer no way to check what you claim about that - does not mean that your favored explanation is correct.

But science will never see it looking at everything through their the evolutionary timetable spectacles,

Properly, any challenge to an existing theory has to account for the evidence in favor of the current theory, and the evidence for evolution is massive.

especially for what the government is favoring to give them research grant fundings for.

 

[ChristB4us]

Then, did you come up with the Law of Biogenesis yourself? Where did you get it from?

Taught that way from High School. Since then, as discovered on the internet, there are a few that will change that law to mean life did not come from nothing and leave it there without adding the obvious for why biogenesis was applied as life comes from similar life to that title of that law of science. They are not kidding me, thanks be to God.

So, I'd like to suggest a conversation ground-rule: if A asks a question, and B responds to that question by asking another question, A has no obligation to answer B's question until B answers A's question. Because, fair is fair. Agreed?

Fine. let us look at your question below:

"Do you deny that detectives can solve cases without eyewitness?"

I believe detectives can solve a case without eyewitnesses but that does not mean they did it right. Evidence of wrong people being convicted on the "evidence" and sent to jail and later released when it was proven they were not the guilty party.

To wit I had replied with my question: "Can a detective prove or disprove a hypothesis without being eyewitnesses themselves?"

The answers to both of our questions is "sometime" and thus not "always".

I don't understand the significance of this quotation from NatGeo. What is your point?

Sorry. This was in addition to your earlier inquiry from this discussion.

I'm not aware of any biologist who accepts evolution and tries to, or is needing to, demonstrate that gravity exists. Do you know of some biologist who does this?

So that was what that reference to NatGeo was about as well as that quote about scientists actually doing that.

National Geographic Theory of Evolution

"Anaximander was correct; humans can indeed trace our ancestry back to fish. His idea, however, was not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word, because it could not be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong. In science, the word “theory” indicates a very high level of certainty. Scientists talk about evolution as a theory, for instance, just as they talk about Einstein’s explanation of gravity as a theory." End of quote

We have to resolve the issue of a detective solving a case without an eyewitness first, as that is highly relevant to my reply to your statement here.

No assumption nor hypothesis can be left unproven.

What has been observed is a lizard will always be a lizard. It can become a different kind of lizard bit still a lizard. The Law of Biogenesis disproves not only spontaneous generation but it disproves the macroevolution phenomenon of the evolution theory.

 

[ChristB4us]

What, exactly, did you do to determine that it was not a good source?

I had explained earlier; the creator(s) of that site were caught lying to believers at one of the Christian forums at Delphi forums about that Archaeopteryx fossil . They were saying it is real or legit whereas science says it was proven fake. I do not know if they are still saying that at that web site to clean up their act or not, but when it was obvious for why they had created that site, hard to take anything there at face value.

Like how they entitled that as 29 + evidence for macroevolution without actually giving that list of evidence right off the bat. Where is it? Just provide links for seekers to peruse without listing them? More often times than not, they just get off with making it look like there is but hoping nobody would actually bother to look for it themselves. Don't you find it irritating when the title for that link does not actually show it?

The second link does not contain every fact that might be significant for evolution, so the lack of how they determine the age of things isn't that significant; IIRC, the first link *does* address dating in relating to evolution. Also, from where do you get the idea that science has concluded there has been no global calamity for the past 55,000 years? But, in order to answer that question, we need a more firm definition of exactly what counts as a global calamity, and also why that definition is relevant to the issue of evolution. Lots to do.

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past

"Understanding the past is essential to understanding our present and to projecting Earth's potential changes in the future. Developing an accurate record of atmospheric radiocarbon extending back 55,000 years helps researchers understand Earth's processes and consequently improve projections of climate change."

This dating results is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years to off set their dating carbon results and when they do not take the Biblical global flood into account, is why they are not getting accurate results and they know it not.

Here's a couple of links to scientists explaining why the global Biblical flood could not have happened:

1 National Center for Science Education

2 National Center for Science Education

Actually, don't bother with those links, here's the larger picture:

In the 150 years since Darwin published "On the Origin of Species," scientists in

• geology
• physics
• paleontology
• chemistry
• embryology
• genetics, and
• molecular biology; and
• all major university biology departments,
• every major science journal
• the American Academy of Sciences, and
• every major science organization in the world

have all confirmed Darwins theory of evolution by means of independent and inter-dependent tests (that is, findings in one discipline about evolution confirm the findings about evolution from another. They all concur: evolution happened (and continues to happen).

What do you have to put up against that that would outweigh that?

Fallible men by their fallible methods for dating in regards to the unproven evolutionary time table is why I believe Jesus's words over theirs.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

You cannot say Jesus was just referring to a story when also referring to Sodom & Gomorrah for how God judged the people when warning believers to be ready or else as there is a fiery calamity that will come on the third of the earth as prophesied in 2 Peter 3rd chapter and Revelation 8:7

2 Peter 3rd Chapter

Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I had explained earlier; the creator(s) of that site were caught lying to believers at one of the Christian forums at Delphi forums about that Archaeopteryx fossil . They were saying it is real or legit whereas science says it was proven fake. I do not know if they are still saying that at that web site to clean up their act or not, but when it was obvious for why they had created that site, hard to take anything there at face value.

Like how they entitled that as 29 + evidence for macroevolution without actually giving that list of evidence right off the bat. Where is it? Just provide links for seekers to peruse without listing them? More often times than not, they just get off with making it look like there is but hoping nobody would actually bother to look for it themselves. Don't you find it irritating when the title for that link does not actually show it?

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past

"Understanding the past is essential to understanding our present and to projecting Earth's potential changes in the future. Developing an accurate record of atmospheric radiocarbon extending back 55,000 years helps researchers understand Earth's processes and consequently improve projections of climate change."

This dating results is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years to off set their dating carbon results and when they do not take the Biblical global flood into account, is why they are not getting accurate results and they know it not.

Fallible men by their fallible methods for dating in regards to the unproven evolutionary time table is why I believe Jesus's words over theirs.

But you're fallible when it comes to deciding whether Jesus' words are true or not, because you're fallible like any other person.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

You cannot say Jesus was just referring to a story when also referring to Sodom & Gomorrah for how God judged the people when warning believers to be ready or else as there is a fiery calamity that will come on the third of the earth as prophesied in 2 Peter 3rd chapter and Revelation 8:7

2 Peter 3rd Chapter

Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I had explained earlier; the creator(s) of that site were caught lying to believers at one of the Christian forums at Delphi forums about that Archaeopteryx fossil . They were saying it is real or legit whereas science says it was proven fake. I do not know if they are still saying that at that web site to clean up their act or not, but when it was obvious for why they had created that site, hard to take anything there at face value.

Like how they entitled that as 29 + evidence for macroevolution without actually giving that list of evidence right off the bat. Where is it? Just provide links for seekers to peruse without listing them? More often times than not, they just get off with making it look like there is but hoping nobody would actually bother to look for it themselves. Don't you find it irritating when the title for that link does not actually show it?

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past

"Understanding the past is essential to understanding our present and to projecting Earth's potential changes in the future. Developing an accurate record of atmospheric radiocarbon extending back 55,000 years helps researchers understand Earth's processes and consequently improve projections of climate change."

This dating results is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years to off set their dating carbon results and when they do not take the Biblical global flood into account, is why they are not getting accurate results and they know it not.

Fallible men by their fallible methods for dating in regards to the unproven evolutionary time table is why I believe Jesus's words over theirs.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

You cannot say Jesus was just referring to a story when also referring to Sodom & Gomorrah for how God judged the people when warning believers to be ready or else as there is a fiery calamity that will come on the third of the earth as prophesied in 2 Peter 3rd chapter and Revelation 8:7

2 Peter 3rd Chapter

Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

And how does Jesus's words account for massive amounts of evidence for evolution?

 

[ChristB4us]

But you're fallible when it comes to deciding whether Jesus' words are true or not, because you're fallible like any other person.

Are you a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ & that God has raised Him from the dead?

 

[ChristB4us]

And how does Jesus's words account for massive amounts of evidence for evolution?

It depends on the mindset of how that scientist looks at the evidence. If scientist comes from the mindset of favoring the evolution theory to get grants and fundings from the government, then he or she will work towards that end.

Kind of like how that woke mentality has been working in the media and in the educational system and that similar mentality was already at work for the evolution theory. banning all contrary thought & evidence that works against the evolution theory.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Are you a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ & that God has raised Him from the dead?

No. But that has nothing to do with whether your fallible belief in Jesus that leads to you rejecting evolution is somehow better than the thousands if not hundred of thousands of scientists who are actually part of an institution designed to correct bias in discovering knowledge and which argues for accepting evolution.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It depends on the mindset of how that scientist looks at the evidence. If scientist comes from the mindset of favoring the evolution theory to get grants and fundings from the government, then he or she will work towards that end.

Kind of like how that woke mentality has been working in the media and in the educational system and that similar mentality was already at work for the evolution theory. banning all contrary thought & evidence that works against the evolution theory.

You don't understand how science works, yet I'll bet you understand how successful it is. Science is designed to weed out its own biased mindsets. How is religion try to handle its own biases?

 

[ChristB4us]

No. But that has nothing to do with whether your fallible belief in Jesus that leads to you rejecting evolution is somehow better than the thousands if not hundred of thousands of scientists who are actually part of an institution designed to correct bias in discovering knowledge and which argues for accepting evolution.

Thanks to the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ, I know in Whom I believe.

By His grace & by His help, I see the iniquities that most Christians ignore in His words.

Thanks to Jesus, I see the movements of apostasy for what they are like the Promise Keeper's movement and the "holy laughter" movement.

I also have been delivered from dark forces when I had foolishly sowed to the works of the flesh.

I see the truth in His words and how science like to double talk when it comes to that definition of real science for why the evolution theory is a false science.

You can't see it like most Christians cannot see the iniquities of some of their "regular" but unbiblical church practices because like I was, I took everything at face value. No more thanks to Jesus Christ in being my Good Shepherd & Friend to help me to follow Him.

So, fellow guest member, Gus, do consider where you are going after you die, because the evolution theory is a lie. God is personal with us and we can get to know Him through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Seek the Lord while He may still be found because after the pre great tribulation rapture event when God will judge His House and a lot of saved believers will be left behind for being in unrepentant iniquity, if you are not saved before then, you will see Him in the clouds & the everlasting gospel will be preached all over the world by that first angel before that fire gets sent on the third of the earth.

Just know you can still call on Jesus Christ to save you when you see death coming.

May God bless you in your time here.

 

[ChristB4us]

You don't understand how science works, yet I'll bet you understand how successful it is. Science is designed to weed out its own biased mindsets. How is religion try to handle its own biases?

Jesus prophesied that in the latter days only a few will be ready as found abiding in Him because of the many iniquities abounding for when He judges His House at the pre great tribulation rapture event.

As much iniquities & dark forces He has delivered me from, I hope in him to bring me Home faultless and not just keeping me from falling.

Gus, as Christianity is riddled with false teachings and yet the authority is the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the meat of His words have been kept in the KJV by those who loved Him & His words, where is the authority for real science unless YOU hold them to that definition of what real science is & not allow them to blur that line with suppositions or assumptions or a series of unproven hypothesis like spinning a fairy tale.

Prove everything, Gus. Do not take their word for it.

Like that article about fossilized whale bones on the Andes mountaintops with other marine fossils found with land animal fossils buried together in the same sediments in one smooth gradient. The article tried to explain away how the marine fossils got up there by the mountain suddenly rising from the sea but they NEVER explained how the land animal fossils were found with them in that same sediment in that one smooth gradient.

They will not apply the reservoir effect to the carbon dating for why the land animal fossils are different from marine fossils, and they still refuse to accept the fact that a Biblical global flood would throw off their carbon dating methods when it is based on the assumption that there was no global calamity in the last 55,000 years.

I used my brain. Evidence of the Biblical global flood.

How about you? Can you explain away the fossilized land animals found buried with marine fossils together on that Andes mountaintop?

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA