The Definition of Real Science

[Musician]

Things you can see and touch, like atmospheres surrounding round planets that are 4 Billion years old.

 

[CrowCross]

laboratory techniques

I presented those techniques in my post 95. Do you think those techniques mimicked nature?

 

[ChristB4us]

Microevolution and macroevolution are not different processes. Common sense tells us we can not observe something that takes over decades to centuries. Seeing them as different processes is creationist misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the term.

@Gus Bovona & @Musician & @CrowCross

There are evolutionists that will say that microevolution will always produce microevolution. It cannot produce macroevolution.

Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, postulated Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution because Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records. He continued to theorized that an explosion in the fossil record had to occur back in the Cambrian Period and that a global flood had to taken place to tap that capacity.

I point this out to evolutionists and those who believe in the evolution theory and they said he never stated that it was a global flood that covered the mountains and they were right and yet there are marine fossils on mountaintops all over the world. Kind of a big duh there.

Evolutionists covers this up even in this article by explaining how fossilized whale bones and other marine fossils were found buried on the Andes Mountaintops with land animal fossils by the mountains rising suddenly from the sea trapping marine life.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

They did not bother with the white elephant in the room by how those land animal fossils were found buried with the marine fossils in one smooth gradient meaning buried together under that same sedimentary layer that fossilized them both at that time.

But of course, the carbon dating method would have them be separated which goes to show their shortsightedness because the "reservoir effect" would have marine fossils appear older than the land animal fossils. So they are ignoring the obvious evidence of the Biblical global flood.

No one is preventing parents from teaching and/or sending their children to schools and churches that treat evolution as a farce.

Try finding one in your local area. I doubt the majority has that luxury that they have to home school them.

If there were a worldwide flood there should be evidence of one. There isn't.

There is but it is covered up by nonsense in respect to the evolution theory. So you can either believe how "convenient that all the mountains in the world rose up suddenly catching marine life off guard for why there are marine fossils on those mountain tops or...you can believe the Bible.

On the other hand, there is evidence that people reached America 13,000 years ago (perhaps as early as 33,000 years ago) and Australia 48,000 years ago. The beginnings of the Indian civilization has been traced back to about 7000 B.C. in remains that have been uncovered in Mehrgarh and other sites.

All such finding is done in respect the evolution theory and the faulty assumption in doing those radiocarbon dating results being accurate only under the pretense that there had been no global catastrophe in the last 55,000 years. So yeah, you are going to get errant dating results.

The earth and the universe & mankind only existed about 6,000 years.

For someone like myself, with my background, believing in worldwide flood would also be believing God deceived us by removing all evidence of the flood and leaving or planting evidence of other civilizations dating back thousands of years.

I went to a Catholic elementary school and a Catholic college. The Catholic Church does not prohibit interpretations of Genesis 6-8 that include a worldwide flood, but neither does the Church require there to be a worldwide flood in all interpretations of these passages.

The devil is the prince of lies and by denying the global flood by that false science, the evolution theory, nobody believes God judged the world with that global flood to take Jesus's warning that another judgment if fire is coming on the earth after the pre great tribulation rapture event.

Luke 17:26-37 KJV So is Jesus a liar?

2 Peter 3:3-15 KJV Is Peter a liar?

That is why we have mockers the way they are today.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

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.

 

[CrowCross]

@Gus Bovona & @Musician & @CrowCross

There are evolutionists that will say that microevolution will always produce microevolution. It cannot produce macroevolution.

Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, postulated Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution because Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records. He continued to theorized that an explosion in the fossil record had to occur back in the Cambrian Period and that a global flood had to taken place to tap that capacity.

I point this out to evolutionists and those who believe in the evolution theory and they said he never stated that it was a global flood that covered the mountains and they were right and yet there are marine fossils on mountaintops all over the world. Kind of a big duh there.

Evolutionists covers this up even in this article by explaining how fossilized whale bones and other marine fossils were found buried on the Andes Mountaintops with land animal fossils by the mountains rising suddenly from the sea trapping marine life.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

They did not bother with the white elephant in the room by how those land animal fossils were found buried with the marine fossils in one smooth gradient meaning buried together under that same sedimentary layer that fossilized them both at that time.

But of course, the carbon dating method would have them be separated which goes to show their shortsightedness because the "reservoir effect" would have marine fossils appear older than the land animal fossils. So they are ignoring the obvious evidence of the Biblical global flood.

Try finding one in your local area. I doubt the majority has that luxury that they have to home school them.

There is but it is covered up by nonsense in respect to the evolution theory. So you can either believe how "convenient that all the mountains in the world rose up suddenly catching marine life off guard for why there are marine fossils on those mountain tops or...you can believe the Bible.

All such finding is done in respect the evolution theory and the faulty assumption in doing those radiocarbon dating results being accurate only under the pretense that there had been no global catastrophe in the last 55,000 years. So yeah, you are going to get errant dating results.

The earth and the universe & mankind only existed about 6,000 years.

The devil is the prince of lies and by denying the global flood by that false science, the evolution theory, nobody believes God judged the world with that global flood to take Jesus's warning that another judgment if fire is coming on the earth after the pre great tribulation rapture event.

Luke 17:26-37 KJV So is Jesus a liar?

2 Peter 3:3-15 KJV Is Peter a liar?

That is why we have mockers the way they are today.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

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.

Great post. There's a lot of evidence where the evo's have to look the other way.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Don't you think any dino blood would have clotted within hours....or do you think it would have taken 65+ MY's to clot?

A question isn’t an answer. Can you make a declarative statement in answer to my question?

 

[CrowCross]

A question isn’t an answer. Can you make a declarative statement in answer to my question?

The answer is it's what I have been told and read. Post 95 can be a starting point for you.

 

[Manfred]

Yes, although I vaguely recall seeing some new research that suggests there might have been more than one. I don't have a link.

Macro-evolution is word and a concept that is used by those who reject evolution; it's not used (generally) by those who accept evolution.

Yes, and we all know why

The very definition of speciation means that some species, through genetic mutation and natural selection, and often involving physical isolation, become incapable of producing fertile offspring with the rest of the species it is (often) isolated from, thereby producing a new species. That may happen within one genus, but, when that happens multiple times over millions of years, the resulting species can be significantly different from each other.

I understand the concept. Yet you have many different breeds of dogs, that are all still dogs.
No dog has yet come close to becoming something else than a dog, despite all the breeding.

Let's use a simple example. Dogs started evolving 15 Billion years ago, and today, 15 billion years later there is still no sign or evidence that the evolution (speciation) which started 15 billion years ago in dogs, have/will produced anything else, except more dog breeds.

Evolution doesn't say a cat will come from a dog, but it does say that cats and dogs came from an ancestor species around 50 million years ago.

And then they stopped evolving right! No more speciation in cats and dogs for the last 50 million years.

You can't get inside the mind of scientists, especially not the thousands and thousands of scientists since Darwin who accept evolution. You're not a mind-reader. It's fine to disagree with them (in a certain sense), but you don't have to impugn their motives to disagree.

It requires more faith than the faith I have in my Creator.
It starts with the notion that SOME-THING came out of NO-THING.
The excuse is/was "we are still learning"
Now the excuse is/was that there was always something, we just do not know what.... yet
Then a word like abiogenesis is thrown around and all of a sudden there is a new theory, without anyone being able to define it.

I'm going to believe the thousands and thousands of biologists who accept evolution over someone who makes the beginner's mistake of implying that evolution says that cats could come from dogs.

You can do whatsoever pleases you. The path to destruction is wide, and many follow it. I don't even blame you. The cross of Christ is folly/foolishness to those who are perishing.
You do find it foolishness don't you?

Only if you assume it was created.
Of course it does.
Flip a fair penny millions of times and you'll get long, long strings of heads or tails in a row. No one intervenes to deliberately choose head or tails.
Shake a jar of water with sand and pebbles, etc., of different sizes, and the finer particles will separate themselves out to the bottom with the larger particles forming layers as you go up, creating quite a nice order from merely shaking the jar (not as if someone deliberately sorted all the particles).

I wonder where you assume the natural laws that allow the separation of those particles come from... All chance with no purpose.

Correct, but that some processes don't create order doesn't mean that none do.

Those that are bound to natural laws. I would love to see order come from and explosion.

Entropy only increase in an isolated system. But we're continually getting energy from the sun.


See above.

For how long do you think energy from the sun will continue. Haven't the scientists put a date to the end of that yet?
Entropy on it's own debunks evolution. Everything decays over time, yet pretend you see newness all around.

You have a lot more faith than any religionist on the planet.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The answer is it's what I have been told and read. Post 95 can be a starting point for you.

Here's how many times I've asked the question without getting an answer from you:

How do we know that clotted and hardened blood (is hardened the same as clotted, or is it something different?) can't be available to iron in a chemical process?

With all due respect, Frank hasn't impressed me.

Oh how the evos try to simplify their concepts. Didn't you read what the evos had to do to get "iron"..and solve the solution.

Thing is...you can always re-post your article....and in doing so hope to convince the ignorant while NEVER explaining what happens behind the evo-scenes.

Post 95 has not been addressed.

I was talking about **your** claim that clotting/hardening presented some challenge for iron availability, and I'm asking you to support that claim.

What line from post 95 are you referring to?

I merely asked how do we know that iron isn't available after blood has clotted/hardened?

Don't you think any dino blood would have clotted within hours....or do you think it would have taken 65+ MY's to clot?

A question isn’t an answer. Can you make a declarative statement in answer to my question?

The answer is it's what I have been told and read. Post 95 can be a starting point for you.

But post 95 is what prompted my question. One last time: please answer my question that I've quoted several times above (my added bolding.)

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yes, and we all know why

nwrt

I understand the concept. Yet you have many different breeds of dogs, that are all still dogs.
No dog has yet come close to becoming something else than a dog, despite all the breeding.

That's because dogs are relatively recent. If you understood the concept, you'd understand that the ancient ancestor to the dog, which ancestor was not a dog, "became" a dog (although that introduces implications that are not part of evolution).

Let's use a simple example. Dogs started evolving 15 Billion years ago, and today, 15 billion years later there is still no sign or evidence that the evolution (speciation) which started 15 billion years ago in dogs, have/will produced anything else, except more dog breeds.

Dogs weren't around 15 billion years ago.

And then they stopped evolving right! No more speciation in cats and dogs for the last 50 million years

1. Speciation doesn't have to happen at some constant rate for all species, as the environment is an important factor.

2. What would become dogs separated from what would become cats 50 million years ago. Those species *did* evolve, and dogs only separated from wolves around 30,000-40,000 years ago.

You can't think that such simple challenges haven't been addressed in a scientific discipline that is 150 years old and has been worked on by thousands and thousands, if not millions, of biologists who are trained to figure out how evidence fits together.

It requires more faith than the faith I have in my Creator.

That faith is merely you incredulity, because the evidence for evolution is massive. Just go to any university library and look at the shelves and shelves of books and books and books that contain discussions about all the evidence for evolution.

It starts with the notion that SOME-THING came out of NO-THING.

That has nothing to with evolution. Evolution only addresses how living things change compared to their parents and their ancestors, not how life began, and certainly not how the universe came to be.

The excuse is/was "we are still learning"

I have no idea how this relates to our discussion.

Now the excuse is/was that there was always something, we just do not know what.... yet

We're talking about evolution.

Then a word like abiogenesis is thrown around and all of a sudden there is a new theory, without anyone being able to define it.

Do you honestly think no one can define the word "abiogenesis"? And that has nothing to do with evolution.

You can do whatsoever pleases you.

I'm doing that not because it pleases me, but because it is rational.

The path to destruction is wide, and many follow it. I don't even blame you. The cross of Christ is folly/foolishness to those who are perishing.
You do find it foolishness don't you?

That has nothing to do with whether there is massive amounts of evidence for evolution.

I wonder where you assume the natural laws that allow the separation of those particles come from... All chance with no purpose.

Where the laws came from is irrelevant as to whether order - the separation out into layers of smaller to bigger pebbles - happens through a random process - shaking - as opposed to someone having to pick through all the pebbles and separate them into an order. Without addressing that, you're tacitly agreeing that order comes from disorder.

Those that are bound to natural laws. I would love to see order come from and explosion.

As I said before, some processes - like an explosion - won't create order. That doesn't mean that no random process can't create order.

For how long do you think energy from the sun will continue. Haven't the scientists put a date to the end of that yet?

What on earth does that have to do with evolution. While the sun is shining, evolution can happen. Trust me, without that external source of energy, evolution won't happen.

Entropy on its own debunks evolution. Everything decays over time, yet pretend you see newness all around.

Yes, everything decays. And children are never exactly the same as their parents, and their children won't be the same as them, and sometimes those changes prevent breeding, and that means you have a new species, and if those changes happen for a long enough time, the organism will look very different from their ancestors, and entropy has nothing to do with that.

You have a lot more faith than any religionist on the planet.

Just looking at the evidence is all you need to accept evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

I presented those techniques in my post 95. Do you think those techniques mimicked nature?

The evidence presents a plausible and testable explanation.

What plausible and testable evidence do you claim post 95 presents.

 

[Frank Robert]

@Gus Bovona & @Musician & @CrowCross

There are evolutionists that will say that microevolution will always produce microevolution. It cannot produce macroevolution.

You are wrong. Please consult a basic text on evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, postulated Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution because Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records. He continued to theorized that an explosion in the fossil record had to occur back in the Cambrian Period and that a global flood had to taken place to tap that capacity.

I point this out to evolutionists and those who believe in the evolution theory and they said he never stated that it was a global flood that covered the mountains and they were right and yet there are marine fossils on mountaintops all over the world. Kind of a big duh there.

I don't know where you get your information.

Punctuated equilibrium was, however, hardly controversial at its inception.

"As a general characterization of macroevolutionary processes, it was largely presaged by Hugh Falconer (1808–1865) and Charles Darwin (1809–1882) in the mid-nineteenth century and later echoed by Hermann J. Muller (1890–1967) and George Gaylord Simpson (1902–1984) in the early twentieth century. Eldredge and Gould postulated their version of the hypothesis as a logical extension (into paleontology) of Ernst Mayr’s (1904–2005) ecological theory of allopatric speciation (1963), which was widely considered the dominant theory of speciation. Allopatric theory proposes that speciation occurs when a smaller subpopulation becomes geographically isolated from its parent population. Over time, this peripheral daughter population diverges in isolation until it can no longer interbreed with the parent. Speciation as such happens relatively quickly in a small population and in a limited geographic range. Due to the relative brevity of this localized speciation event, intermediate morphologies will be unlikely to fossilize and will be rare even if they do, producing an apparent paleontological pattern of stasis punctuated by discontinuous speciation events."​

​

I'll attend to the rest of your post later.

 

[CrowCross]

Here's how many times I've asked the question without getting an answer from you:

Your question was answered...I'm sorry if you didn't like the answer.

Why don't you address post 95 and all the problems presented..that you have no answer for.

 

[CrowCross]

The evidence presents a plausible and testable explanation.

What plausible and testable evidence do you claim post 95 presents.

The method used to demostrate the plausibility of iron preserving the biomaterial was a joke. Post 95 presented why.

Do you not have discernment?

 

[Frank Robert]

Try finding one in your local area. I doubt the majority has that luxury that they have to home school them.

When I was in HS we received our religious instructions from own parishes. Public school released us an earlier on Tuesdays for religious instructions. I do not know what schools do these days but I think it up to parents and churches to figure it out for themselves.

 

[Frank Robert]

The method used to demostrate the plausibility of iron preserving the biomaterial was a joke. Post 95 presented why.

Do you not have discernment?

Thank you for your opinion. I can only point out that the research was both undertaken by and peer reviewed by real scientists. There is nothing preventing creationist scientists to critique the research and have it published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[CrowCross]

Thank you for your opinion. I can only point out that the article was written by and peer reviewed by real scientists.

What else would you like to talk about?

 

[Frank Robert]

What else would you like to talk about?

I would like to see a discussion where both sides discuss the actual science.

 

[CrowCross]

I would like to see a discussion where both sides discuss the actual science.

LOL.....The evos made the claim that the biomaterial could have been preserved with "iron"...OK, My post showed what they had to do in order to reach their conclusion. the method is no where near why the real world can do....this means their experiment didn't show how the T-rex biomaterial could have survived.

Now, you seem to be a bible believer....why could the flood not have deposited the strata and buried dinosaurs in it that the evo-minded say couldn't have happened?

 

[Frank Robert]

LOL.....The evos made the claim that the biomaterial could have been preserved with "iron"...OK, My post showed what they had to do in order to reach their conclusion. the method is no where near why the real world can do....this means their experiment didn't show how the T-rex biomaterial could have survived.

You are making claims that you refuse to back up with scientific evidence.

Now, you seem to be a bible believer....why could the flood not have deposited the strata and buried dinosaurs in it that the evo-minded say couldn't have happened?

If there was a worldwide that could have happened. All you need to do is provide scientific evidence for the flood that we can discuss.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Your question was answered...I'm sorry if you didn't like the answer.

You replied to my post that contained the question, but you didn't answer the question. If you think you did, please quote the post that was the answer, and I'll show you how your reply isn't an answer. Go ahead. Prove me wrong, in front of everyone in this thread. I'm begging you do to that.

If you somehow manage to do that, I will eat humble pie and apologize profusely. But nothing except an actual quote from you from actual post in this thread will suffice.

I'm waiting.