The Definition of Real Science

[ChristB4us]

I love science...my teachers were not boring to say the least. When I began to learn the science behind the YEC models I was amazed.

Referring to your article...the fossil records fits like a hand in a glove when seen through the event called Noah's flood and what that flood would have done to the earth.

Well, I am about to do an upgrade and I have no idea what that will do with my folks's computer but here goes nothing.

The computer is already hacked as that hacker turns off the VPN every now and then to let me know they still have access.

They can prevent e-mails too from forums I have visited in the past. Oh well. Jesus is still Lord. If He uses them to knock me off line as they do that too on occasions, & then put me back online, He is helping me to look to Him and to forgive them for they know not what they do.

If I do not see you again, may God bless you & keep you. May He shine His face upon you & give you His peace.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You mean the Law of Biogenesis in how a dog can become a different kind of dog but still a dog?

No, that is not what I meant at all.

But science should not be accepting the phenomenon of macroevolution.

Ever witness genetic information being added to a living organism? Not going to happen unless man intervenes ( intelligent design ) and wind up making that altered living thing impotent for messing with its DNA.

"Adding genetic information" is vague. Can you flesh that out and explain exactly what you mean?

ETA: For instance, there are different definitions of information. Which one do you mean?

 

[Frank Robert]

I love science...my teachers were not boring to say the least. When I began to learn the science behind the YEC models I was amazed.

Amazed or mesmerized or both?

Referring to your article...the fossil records fits like a hand in a glove when seen through the event called Noah's flood and what that flood would have done to the earth.

It fits like a glove because it supports your religious belief. Perhaps it is the same reason that I find the Catholic Church and science compatible.

 

[CrowCross]

Amazed or mesmerized or both?

It fits like a glove because it supports your religious belief. Perhaps it is the same reason that I find the Catholic Church and science compatible.

To be honest I find much of what the catholic church says and the bible to be incompatible.

 

[ChristB4us]

Well, I am about to do an upgrade and I have no idea what that will do with my folks's computer but here goes nothing.

The computer is already hacked as that hacker turns off the VPN every now and then to let me know they still have access.

They can prevent e-mails too from forums I have visited in the past. Oh well. Jesus is still Lord. If He uses them to knock me off line as they do that too on occasions, & then put me back online, He is helping me to look to Him and to forgive them for they know not what they do.

If I do not see you again, may God bless you & keep you. May He shine His face upon you & give you His peace.

So far, still online. I guess the Lord is willing for me to be back here. Course, there may be other reasons for leading me away but He will do that when it is time.

 

[ChristB4us]

No, that is not what I meant at all.

looks like we are not going to agree on anything then, not even for what real science is.

"Adding genetic information" is vague. Can you flesh that out and explain exactly what you mean?

ETA: For instance, there are different definitions of information. Which one do you mean?

Genetic information being added to a living organism.

Like say the genetic information to add to a fish to start growing legs when it never had that genetic information?

Or the genetic information to lose the gills to start breathing air.

Had any of that been observed as being added to the living organism at the time it was being added to observe that or is all that still in the imaginations of the mind of evolutionists?

The conveniency of time as an excuse does not wash. If at different times macroevolution occurs per a series of microevolution, then there would be a lot of transitional fossils in the fossil records but there aren't for why there are huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records.

I am aware of the fish that can seemingly walk upright on the floor of the ocean but those stumps are hardly feet. It is the lack of transitional living things leading up to its vacancy from the ocean and in the fossil records that is found wanting for why you should not believe in it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

looks like we are not going to agree on anything then, not even for what real science is.

Genetic information being added to a living organism.

Does any change to DNA count as information being added? If not, what counts and what doesn't?

Like say the genetic information to add to a fish to start growing legs when it never had that genetic information?

The genome doesn't change all at once to go from no legs to growing legs in evolution.

Or the genetic information to lose the gills to start breathing air.

The genome doesn't have to lose the gills in order to start the process for breathing air, right?

Had any of that been observed as being added to the living organism at the time it was being added to observe that or is all that still in the imaginations of the mind of evolutionists?

Remember, any particular part of a claim doesn't have to be directly observed, it can be deduced or inferred from other things that are observed, just like homicide detectives can solve a case without an eyewitness.

ETA: BTW, you never replied to this,

So how do homicide detectives pull it off when there is no eyewitness? Luck? Guessing?

which gives the impression you have no reply to it.

The conveniency of time as an excuse does not wash.

That's not part of evolution, either.

If at different times macroevolution occurs per a series of microevolution,

There's not difference in the process of microevolution and macroevolution; you've been informed about this several times, IIRC, so why do you insist on this meaningless distinction?

then there would be a lot of transitional fossils in the fossil records but there aren't

Every fossil and every species is a transitional.

for why there are huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records.

Because fossilization is a very rare process, and because there's no reason to think we've found every fossil.

I am aware of the fish that can seemingly walk upright on the floor of the ocean but those stumps are hardly feet. It is the lack of transitional living things leading up to its vacancy from the ocean and in the fossil records that is found wanting for why you should not believe in it.

See above.

 

[ChristB4us]

Does any change to DNA count as information being added? If not, what counts and what doesn't?

The Law of Biogenesis states that life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. A cow will always be a cow; it can become a different kind of cow but always a cow. Same with the dog that you were talking about with another poster.

The genome doesn't change all at once to go from no legs to growing legs in evolution.

It cannot change at all due to the Law of Biogenesis. Life can only vary with the genetic information that it has.

The genome doesn't have to lose the gills in order to start the process for breathing air, right?

And what by random chance, tells the genome for the living thing to breath air while it conveniently tells itself not to grow or develop gills?

Remember, any particular part of a claim doesn't have to be directly observed, it can be deduced or inferred from other things that are observed, just like homicide detectives can solve a case without an eyewitness.

Hypothesis has to be proven or disproven or you are not going anywhere in solving any case.

ETA: BTW, you never replied to this,
which gives the impression you have no reply to it.

In the other forum I had.

You tried to limit the scenario that favors your evolution theory but you fail to recognize that faulty assumption of the "detectives" that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years that it would not mess up their radiometric dating methods, thereby discounting the Biblical global flood. It is akin to staging the crime scene where the murderer gets away with the crime like having the corpse on ice for a time and then removing it & placing it at the crime scene to throw off the time of death.

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past

That's not part of evolution, either.

Yet at some point in time, living things gradually changes into something else than what they were from before that none of their previous kind never had before like air breathing lungs; legs, or wings even. You would think we could observe such a change now, but no because the Law of Biogenesis disproves spontaneous generation and that includes macroevolution.

There's not difference in the process of microevolution and macroevolution; you've been informed about this several times, IIRC, so why do you insist on this meaningless distinction?

Well, you accepted that at face value but they have been changing those definitions gradually over the years since the 1980's where once standing apart and then later on, blurring the line, where now it seems like they share the same definition. You want to believe that... I cannot help you.

Every fossil and every species is a transitional.

Only within their own kind as life can only come from similar life.

Because fossilization is a very rare process, and because there's no reason to think we've found every fossil.

Petrified Wood: Days or Millions of Years? <--- Link​

"2.1 Mother Shipton's Cave​

As we searched the internet and read some of the articles in the Creationist/Evolutionist debate, we found an interesting quotation from the reputable journal Scientific American which describes a "petrifying stream" in England. Here is an excerpt from the original article:

"There is a well known petrifying stream of water at Knaresborough, Yorkshire, England . . . It is a cascade from the River Nidd, about 15 feet high and twice as broad, and forms an aqueous curtain to the cave known as Mother Shipton's Cave. . . . This cascade has an endless variety of objects hung up by short lengths of wire to be petrified by the water trickling over them, as sponges, books, gloves, kerchiefs and veils, hunter's cap, fox, cat, dog, birds, boots, etc., just as fancy prompts people to seek petrifying results. A sponge is petrified in a few months, a book or cap in a year or two, a cat or bird a little longer. . . . I have a human head petrified, but by what action I do not know. It was found in digging a trench through gravel in the park at Bulstrode, in Buckinghamshire, England."[9]

Petrifying stream in England.

What? You've never heard of a "petrifying stream?" Neither had we. And are you surprised to find such an article in the pro-evolution Scientific American? Well, it turns out the article was published in 1889, when Darwinism was still considered highly speculative. We were so astounded by the claim of a simple stream existing which petrified books and boots and even cats in a year or so that we had to find the original source. After all, if this claim is true, then the idea of a petrified squirrel is not so outlandish after all. Sure enough, the article was real enough, sitting in the archives of the University of Utah. Finding it led us to ask even more questions.


For example, if in fact such a stream existed in 1889, then why have we never heard of it? Shouldn't it be something like a national monument, or at least a major tourist trap where people can still be found hanging a variety of objects in the stream to make conversation-piece bookends, and the like? When we found the original article in Scientific American, it turned out to be only a letter to the editor, and hence may not have been checked out by the editors as rigorously as a full fledged article. In other words, if there really was such a stream in 1889, is it still petrifying objects today? We had to find out.

Well guess what! The stream is still running, the site is indeed a famous tourist destination, and objects are still being petrified on a regular basis. Go to the web site "www.mothershiptonscave.com/petrifying.htm" and check it out for yourself. You can see in the pictures here, taken from that site, that objects are still being hung in the waterfall, and the process is still occurring naturally, molecule by molecule, in a matter of months.[10]

Objects hung in the stream can petrify in months.

3. Conclusion​

The main point of this article is simply to update readers on the state of knowledge of the process of creating petrified wood. While it may not even be a relevant topic in the "age of the earth" debate, it may be important to recovering artifacts from the Great Flood. We are simply reporting that the actual process of petrification in nature is currently being observed to occur on the time scale of months, and that now scientists can successfully complete the process in a few days. So the next time you see some petrified wood, do not think "millions of years" but simply "years." ~~~ End of quote

See above.

You should look to the Lord and not fallible men stumbling around in the dark with those clouded evolution spectacles.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The Law of Biogenesis states that life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. A cow will always be a cow; it can become a different kind of cow but always a cow. Same with the dog that you were talking about with another poster.

You're the one who brought up information, and I'm just trying to understand what you mean by information and exactly how what you're saying works. Don't you want to explain about information to me? If not, then we're kinda done, if you can just bring up ideas and not have to explain them.

It cannot change at all due to the Law of Biogenesis. Life can only vary with the genetic information that it has.

Those two sentences contradict themselves. You say life can't change, and then say a condition by which it can change. How am I supposed to understand this?

And what by random chance, tells the genome for the living thing to breathe air while it conveniently tells itself not to grow or develop gills?

First, can you please confirm or deny that the gills don't have to be lost before the lungs appear or start to develop? I asked you that first.

Hypothesis has to be proven or disproven or you are not going anywhere in solving any case.

That doesn't say anything about whether you need an observation of the exact thing you're trying to claim. Detectives can - can't they? - solve cases without eyewitnesses: right? Yes or no?

In the other forum I had.

You tried to limit the scenario that favors your evolution theory but you fail to recognize that faulty assumption of the "detectives" that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years that it would not mess up their radiometric dating methods, thereby discounting the Biblical global flood. It is akin to staging the crime scene where the murderer gets away with the crime like having the corpse on ice for a time and then removing it & placing it at the crime scene to throw off the time of death.

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past

I limited nothing in my question to you about whether detectives need eyewitnesses to solve a case - regardless of whether evolution is true or not. Just answer the question about detectives honestly and truthfully, and then we'll see if it has anything to do with evolution.

Yet at some point in time, living things gradually changes into something else than what they were from before

Each human has about 50-70 mutations in their DNA compared to what they got from their parents, on average. That means we're different, which means we're changing.

that none of their previous kind never had before like air breathing lungs; legs, or wings even. You would think we could observe such a change now,

It takes to long to happen to observe directly.

but no because the Law of Biogenesis disproves spontaneous generation and that includes macroevolution.

I don't know what the Law of Biogenesis is. Is it scientific? Do you have a link?

Well, you accepted that at face value

So what?

but they have been changing those definitions gradually over the years since the 1980's where once standing apart and then later on, blurring the line, where now it seems like they share the same definition.

Who's been changing those definitions? Got a link?

You want to believe that... I cannot help you.

I accept it because of the evidence.

Only within their own kind as life can only come from similar life.

You say that with no evidence offered.

Petrified Wood: Days or Millions of Years? <--- Link​

"2.1 Mother Shipton's Cave​

As we searched the internet and read some of the articles in the Creationist/Evolutionist debate, we found an interesting quotation from the reputable journal Scientific American which describes a "petrifying stream" in England. Here is an excerpt from the original article:


Petrifying stream in England.

. . . .

That all that can happen doesn't mean that other things don't happen.

 

[Gus Bovona]

. . . . The main point of this article is simply to update readers on the state of knowledge of the process of creating petrified wood. While it may not even be a relevant topic in the "age of the earth" debate, it may be important to recovering artifacts from the Great Flood. We are simply reporting that the actual process of petrification in nature is currently being observed to occur on the time scale of months, and that now scientists can successfully complete the process in a few days. So the next time you see some petrified wood, do not think "millions of years" but simply "years." ~~~ End of quote

You should look to the Lord and not fallible men stumbling around in the dark with those clouded evolution spectacles.

That petrification can happen quickly does nothing to invalidate evolution. Why do you think it does (apparently)?

 

[Frank Robert]

To be honest I find much of what the catholic church says and the bible to be incompatible.

There are many Christian denominations and many interpretations of the Bible. I find the YEC interpretations are incomparable with many of the denominations but I don't find them any less a Christian than Catholics or other Christian denominations.

 

[Frank Robert]

You are aware of how woke is being imposed on little kids in school through the Department of Education?

Woke is a term being used for political ends. I can think no kind words for people who use that term. I believe we pretty close to another civil war because of such political hatred.

I suggest you see that mainstream understanding as corrupted, brother, because it is.

What church held the Inquisition again?

Perhaps a bit of humility would reduce your hatred.

Granted, Protestant fares no better when John Calvin had warned Servitus not to come or else John was going to have him arrested and put to death, even though he had hoped the threat of death will lead him to repentance but it dd not happen and so preferred a more humane way to die as a heretic, but he did not stop that execution.

Living in the 20th century, it is not difficult to look back and recognize the mistakes made by church leaders.

I believe the Bible of God's description of the behemoth as a dinosaur over fallible men's science any day.

We are all entitled to our beliefs. However, there is also reality. We have fossils of mammoths which which went extinct 20,000 years ago so why don't we have any fossils of dinos if they were still around 5,000 years ago. Plus there is a consilience of multiple fields of sciences that there is no evidence of dinosaurs living for the last 65 million years. If some people wish to believe that God has been confusing us with time and the reality of our findings from the sciences he gave us, I don't agree with them but they are entitled to there beliefs.

The only point I am trying to make is there religion and science are different domains. In most Christian denominations time and science do not conflict with religious beliefs. Still we can agree to disagree.

 

[Frank Robert]

I looked at the first piece of evidence about dinosaurs from your link and it's just a picture in the Bishop's Tomb? And you think that is valid piece of evidence to add to the pile to reach the conclusion that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time? Do I have that right? Assuming that's the case,

Sorry about that. Here is a direct link to the pdf: https://web.archive.org/web/2010052...ean.edu/~bregal/docs/spec.creat.KenMiller.pdf

You're missing something very important about science: the really crucial step in science is not about trying to prove a hypothesis right, but it's trying to prove it wrong.

Yes that is the "null" hypothesis which is assumed to be true.

That's what science does all day long. I've read scientists talking about scientific conferences at which they present their findings and all anyone does in the audience is to pick at the presentation and try to prove it wrong. That's what science does. If a hypothesis can still be standing after everyone gets a chance to try to disprove it, then science acknowledges that we might be on to something.

That could be a way to look at it but it doesn't sound quite right to me.

I think this is a better example, Let's say we have a new drug and what to test to see how effective in treating a certain disease. We collect the data and If the data statistically shows that the drug is effective, then we would reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the drug is actually effective.

Have you tried that with that dinosaur drawing from the bishop's tomb? One way to try to prove that wrong is to try to imagine all the other explanations for see such a drawing in the tomb besides that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans. If you try, I'll bet you can come up with some.

You need to assume that the drawing represented real dinosaurs. There is no evidence that it does. Additionally, there is no collaborating evidence, such as contemporary dinosaur fossils. We have fossils of mammoths up to 4000 years ago and other dino fossils have been found in the UK. Why no contemporary dino fossils?

Stegosaurus, Rhinoceros, or Hoax?

www.smithsonianmag.com

On a different note: Here is a picture of a living dinosaur who is part of my family.

Kelvin will be 35 years old in Aug.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Sorry about that. Here is a direct link to the pdf: https://web.archive.org/web/2010052...ean.edu/~bregal/docs/spec.creat.KenMiller.pdf

Yes that is the "null" hypothesis which is assumed to be true.

That could be a way to look at it but it doesn't sound quite right to me.

I think this is a better example, Let's say we have a new drug and what to test to see how effective in treating a certain disease. We collect the data and If the data statistically shows that the drug is effective, then we would reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the drug is actually effective.

I think the approach I outlined might be specific to some disciplines, or to larger, theory-making scientific papers. I am not a scientist.

 

[ChristB4us]

You're the one who brought up information, and I'm just trying to understand what you mean by information and exactly how what you're saying works. Don't you want to explain about information to me? If not, then we're kinda done, if you can just bring up ideas and not have to explain them.
We may very well be kinda done because if you do not hear His words, neither will you hear mine.

Those two sentences contradict themselves. You say life can't change, and then say a condition by which it can change. How am I supposed to understand this?

What has been observed that you were agreeing with the other poster about? That a dog will always be a dog and yet you can get different kinds of dog from a dog. We are closer to the pig on the chromosome level than the ape or chimp and yet no evolutionists cares to modify the evolution scale to insinuate we are descendent from pigs.

First, can you please confirm or deny that the gills don't have to be lost before the lungs appear or start to develop? I asked you that first.

Gills will not do that. That which relies on gills is not ever going to develop air breathing lungs unless that was how God made it.

That doesn't say anything about whether you need an observation of the exact thing you're trying to claim. Detectives can - can't they? - solve cases without eyewitnesses: right? Yes or no?

In respect to you blindness given by the manipulation ( unproven evolution theory ) of the criminals ( evolutionists ) that rigged how you look at evidence, no.

I limited nothing in my question to you about whether detectives need eyewitnesses to solve a case - regardless of whether evolution is true or not. Just answer the question about detectives honestly and truthfully, and then we'll see if it has anything to do with evolution.

A case can be proven when there are eyewitnesses to the account, but if your superiors are going to insist that you follow one crime scene that was supposedly solved to apply it to all other crime scenes, then that same butler did it every time.

Each human has about 50-70 mutations in their DNA compared to what they got from their parents, on average. That means we're different, which means we're changing.

What they got from their parents, their parents did not get from an ape.

It takes to long to happen to observe directly.

Which means it was never observed directly at all. They use the magic wand of time and poof, we suddenly have a change.

I don't know what the Law of Biogenesis is. Is it scientific? Do you have a link? So what? Who's been changing those definitions? Got a link?

Law of Biogenesis Notice how the first definition starts out "in theory" when it has been proven for why it is a law of science. Evidence of even dictionaries changing that law of science as if it is not really proven as a law of science, thus science education is tainted with false knowledge.

I accept it because of the evidence.
You say that with no evidence offered.

Yet you had agreed with the other poster of the many varieties of dogs you can get from a dog. Are you opposing yourself?

That all that can happen doesn't mean that other things don't happen.

Yet the Bible, Jesus Luke 17:26-37 & Peter 2 Peter 3:3-15 testified to the global flood that had happened as a warning to others that God is coming to judge the earth with fire for why saved believers need to be abiding in him as enduring to the end to escape what is coming on the earth.

We have more volcanos and earthquakes now than in 1905 when the apostasy was breaking out then but died away, trickling down through other churches laying the groundwork for that prophetic apostasy until these latter days where saved believers are departing from the faith in mass droves for why only a few are ready as others are out to the "market" seeking to be filled with the oil ( Holy Ghost ) when they had been filled since salvation when they had first believed in Jesus Christ at the calling of the gospel for why they are the kingdom of heaven, but missed out on the Wedding Reception with the Bridegroom per Matthew 25:1-13.

Many saved believers will be left behind for being in unrepentant iniquity but He will finish His work even in those left behind;

1 Corinthians 3:10-17 KJV

 

[ChristB4us]

That petrification can happen quickly does nothing to invalidate evolution. Why do you think it does (apparently)?

For you to reconsider looking through the lens of the evolutionary time scale and look through the Bible lens instead.

 

[ChristB4us]

Woke is a term being used for political ends. I can think no kind words for people who use that term. I believe we pretty close to another civil war because of such political hatred.

Just pointing out the political influence has on education, brther.

Perhaps a bit of humility would reduce your hatred.

You had stated this first below for why I posted that.

Frank Robert said:
I think it is strange that a Christian has so much animosity for other Christian denominations and other religions.

Just saying. Catholics had their Inquisition. I do not care for John Calvin executing Servitus but he had him arrested hoping he would be forced to repent but it did not work. Then Calvin tried to rearrange a more humane form of execution, but did it get it for Servitus.

John 16:1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Goes to show where John Calvin was in his walk with the Lord as the Catholic Church was in their service to Him. Sometimes zeal for the truth can blind believers into going beyond excommunication that was taught for them to do with such heretics and nothing more.

Living in the 20th century, it is not difficult to look back and recognize the mistakes made by church leaders.

Agreed. We have our own mistakes and trespasses to the Lord for which we are to look to Jesus Christ for forgiveness and help not to do that again rather than to anyone else and making up for it by works of penance as if doubting He will forgive us & cleanse us from all unrighteousness per 1 John 1:9

We are all entitled to our beliefs. However, there is also reality. We have fossils of mammoths which which went extinct 20,000 years ago so why don't we have any fossils of dinos if they were still around 5,000 years ago. Plus there is a consilience of multiple fields of sciences that there is no evidence of dinosaurs living for the last 65 million years. If some people wish to believe that God has been confusing us with time and the reality of our findings from the sciences he gave us, I don't agree with them but they are entitled to there beliefs.

The only point I am trying to make is there religion and science are different domains. In most Christian denominations time and science do not conflict with religious beliefs. Still we can agree to disagree.

The point I am trying to make is that false science do not always apply practical real science in light of that evolution theory when their radiometric dating is based on the faulty assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years. That faulty assumption is why their radiometric dating CANNOT be accurate or even close to the truth.

On top of that, science is aware of the reservoir effect in throwing off marine fossil and even living marine dating results like a living mollusks carbon dated as 2,300 years old dead but it is still alive.

With these two blinders on; is it any wonder why we should rely on His words about creation than man's ever changing word in that false science?

 

[Gus Bovona]

We may very well be kinda done because if you do not hear His words, neither will you hear mine.

I'm hearing you just fine, I just want an explanation. If you don't want to offer an explanation for what you say - for whatever reason - you don't want an intellectually honest conversation.

What has been observed that you were agreeing with the other poster about? That a dog will always be a dog and yet you can get different kinds of dog from a dog. We are closer to the pig on the chromosome level than the ape or chimp and yet no evolutionists cares to modify the evolution scale to insinuate we are descendent from pigs.

Once again, you don't understand evolution. Evolution says that humans and pigs have a common ancestor, not that we are descended from pigs. Do you get the difference?

Gills will not do that.

I didn't ask for agreement about whether they would or would not. I asked if you could agree that gills don't have to disappear before lungs evolve.

That which relies on gills is not ever going to develop air breathing lungs unless that was how God made it.

The evidence says otherwise.

In respect to you blindness given by the manipulation ( unproven evolution theory ) of the criminals ( evolutionists ) that rigged how you look at evidence, no.

A case can be proven when there are eyewitnesses to the account, but if your superiors are going to insist that you follow one crime scene that was supposedly solved to apply it to all other crime scenes, then that same butler did it every time.

Finally! You admit that detectives are able - at least sometimes - to solve a case when there are no eyewitnesses. So, will you now retract your statement that scientists need to observe the phenomenon in question before coming to conclusions about it? That's because, if detectives can make deductions and inferences, predict who committed the crime, and get it right because of those deductions and inferences (and other evidence not from an eyewitness), then scientists can make deductions and inferences, predict how some physical phenomenon will go, and get it right because of those deductions and inferences.

What they got from their parents, their parents did not get from an ape.

At this point, it does no good to merely state what you believe, like the above. You need to bring evidence or logic to the table. The above is not much else besides, "I'm right" and we already know that you think you're right and I think I'm right.

Which means it was never observed directly at all. They use the magic wand of time and poof, we suddenly have a change.

No magic, just thinking carefully about what we can observe, just like a detective trying to solve a crime without an eyewitness.

Law of Biogenesis Notice how the first definition starts out "in theory" when it has been proven for why it is a law of science. Evidence of even dictionaries changing that law of science as if it is not really proven as a law of science, thus science education is tainted with false knowledge.

Dictionaries don't determine what is scientific or not. For proof of that, here's the dictionary definition of astrology:

1. The study of the positions and motions of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.

Yet you had agreed with the other poster of the many varieties of dogs you can get from a dog. Are you opposing yourself?

Without an exact quote, I can't reply, but there is a problem with the way you phrase that, because evolution doesn't say that a dog will ever give birth to something other than a dog. When a new species appears (because they can't breed with what was the previous members of that species), each organism is still giving birth to a member of its own species. Life is a continuous process, and what we call a species is just us drawing a line around something because it's useful to scientists to do so.

Yet the Bible, Jesus Luke 17:26-37 & Peter 2 Peter 3:3-15 testified to the global flood that had happened as a warning to others that God is coming to judge the earth with fire for why saved believers need to be abiding in him as enduring to the end to escape what is coming on the earth.

We have more volcanos and earthquakes now than in 1905 when the apostasy was breaking out then but died away, trickling down through other churches laying the groundwork for that prophetic apostasy until these latter days where saved believers are departing from the faith in mass droves for why only a few are ready as others are out to the "market" seeking to be filled with the oil ( Holy Ghost ) when they had been filled since salvation when they had first believed in Jesus Christ at the calling of the gospel for why they are the kingdom of heaven, but missed out on the Wedding Reception with the Bridegroom per Matthew 25:1-13.

Many saved believers will be left behind for being in unrepentant iniquity but He will finish His work even in those left behind;

1 Corinthians 3:10-17 KJV

 

[CrowCross]

No magic, just thinking carefully about what we can observe, just like a detective trying to solve a crime without an eyewitness.

Is it cheating if you have an eyewitness...the bible...then you look at the strata and see that millions upon millions of years are not required to form them but a world wide flood formed them?

 

[ChristB4us]

I'm hearing you just fine, I just want an explanation. If you don't want to offer an explanation for what you say - for whatever reason - you don't want an intellectually honest conversation.

It is more about the Lord ministering rather than how you are accusing me as not having an honest conversation with you.

Once again, you don't understand evolution. Evolution says that humans and pigs have a common ancestor, not that we are descended from pigs. Do you get the difference?

I did not say that evolution theory did but I pointed out that on the chromosome level we are closer to the pig than the ape and yet you share that bit of info and so now I address it as why they say we share a common ancestor with something else when we are closer to the pig on that chromosome level?

I didn't ask for agreement about whether they would or would not. I asked if you could agree that gills don't have to disappear before lungs evolve.

No. I do not agree with that evolutionary concept at all.

The evidence says otherwise.

Hardly any evidence at all when it has never been observed but assumed as existing only in the minds of the imagination.

Finally! You admit that detectives are able - at least sometimes - to solve a case when there are no eyewitnesses. So, will you now retract your statement that scientists need to observe the phenomenon in question before coming to conclusions about it? That's because, if detectives can make deductions and inferences, predict who committed the crime, and get it right because of those deductions and inferences (and other evidence not from an eyewitness), then scientists can make deductions and inferences, predict how some physical phenomenon will go, and get it right because of those deductions and inferences.

You did not read my post carefully. I had posted:

A case can be proven when there are eyewitnesses to the account, but if your superiors are going to insist that you follow one crime scene that was supposedly solved to apply it to all other crime scenes, then that same butler did it every time.

Thus alluding to the definition of real science which has to be observed and proven. You have to have eyewitnesses acount.

At this point, it does no good to merely state what you believe, like the above. You need to bring evidence or logic to the table. The above is not much else besides, "I'm right" and we already know that you think you're right and I think I'm right.

Real science is about what can be observed and proven. Shall I apply the reverse that what cannot be observed and therefore no proven is a false science? Is it not logical?

No magic, just thinking carefully about what we can observe, just like a detective trying to solve a crime without an eyewitness.

It is magic when it is not observed.

It is akin to believing the bullet macroevolved itself in the victim's corpse for how it had died. So case of death is natural. No murder at all.

Dictionaries don't determine what is scientific or not. For proof of that, here's the dictionary definition of astrology:

I only referred to that as proof of tainted education, sir. You are only confirming it.

Without an exact quote, I can't reply, but there is a problem with the way you phrase that, because evolution doesn't say that a dog will ever give birth to something other than a dog.

The Law of Biogenesis does. remember that pesky law of science which disprove the macroevolution of this evolution theory?

When a new species appears (because they can't breed with what was the previous members of that species), each organism is still giving birth to a member of its own species.

And an example of that is where we can see?

Life is a continuous process, and what we call a species is just us drawing a line around something because it's useful to scientists to do so.

A lion & a tiger were by man's intervention, thus by intelligent design, bred together to create a new species, a liger, both male & female, but they cannot reproduce in carrying on that new species. Same for a mule from a donkey & a horse. They females can mate with their other species still, if I recall that correctly, but as for continuing on as that new species, they cannot.

See the problem?

Science with an established bio system cannot breed new species for it to continue on as a new species and yet we are supposed to believe that by random chance, macroevolution will occur where they are no longer that former specie that can breed with the former species, and yet somehow out of this random chance, an opposite sex will be provided for that new species for this new species to continue?

What does the power of observation tell you there? Macroevolution is not happening ever.