From the "What is Abiogenesis" thread:
Post 252286
Technically Gonzalez espouses "Intelligent Design." There have been court cases where IDers have claimed that ID is science, not religion. So why is Gonzalez claiming religious descrimination?
I do not claim to read Gonzalez' mind. I have already answered twice, and explained how the discrimination against Gonzalez was based on the religion of his persecutors.
Post 252372
Can you suggest an experiment that would produce some positive evidence for creationism?
I can. Who can't?
Post 252374
How else do you explain the phyletic gradualism (the small changes in time) of horse evolution? Click the link to horse evolution that I posted earlier. You will see that there are many transitional fossils, each of which shows small differences from the preceding one -- and in the order in which they are found in situ. Is this just a weird coincidence? Did God create one horse ancestor, only to wipe it out and create another slightly different one? And do it again and again? The logical conclusion, where this is repeated across different species all over the globe, is evolution. I repeat, how else do you explain the evidence?
I'm non obligated to research every ancient issue. Even evolutionists who look into "horse evolution" consider it "a disgrace". Does your browser not have a search feature?
I also don't respond foolishly to loaded questions. I frequently do not respond to off-topic questions. Try another tactic. On an interesting issue.
I have no interest in "horse evolution" It's a bland, boring story and I have but one use for it these days: anyone dragging it out and claiming it's valid demonstrates lack of education or intent to deceive. I honestly don't recall the details, nor do I care to refresh my memory.
Discuss it with someone else, or research it yourself. I have better things to do.
Post 252383
Now if ID and CS must be classed as unscientific because some of the historical events they accept aren't testable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which events are you referring to specifically?
You really don't know what the arguments against CS & ID are, do you? If you did, you'd have no reason to ask this. You just take the conclusions of evolutionists on blind faith, without even examining the reasoning behind them.
Why should I take the time to teach you evolutionism? You wouldn't like the way I'd teach it.
Post 252415
Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?
----------------------------------------------------------------
More unsubstantiated assertions.
Untrue. Your Oort cloud is unsubstantiated, as is your faith therein.
Post 252415
You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.
You've already indicated that any slander levied against a creationist site will be taken as true by default. At this time, I don't see much point in subjecting good persons to further slander.
Post 252432
it's hard to find discussions of any cosmic models that have any chance of being accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubstantiated fluff. Unless you can provide some . . . gosh, I'm going to have to use that E-word again.
Space is demonstrably 3-dimensional. Show me a discussion of a cosmic model that doesn't depend upon a 4th spacial dimension. Even 2 creationists models incorporate this fatal flaw. The models I've seen that don't incorporate it aren't cosmic in scale - they're limited to the solar system or galaxy.
Your request for evidence that no such discussions are easily found is absurd. Are discussions of orange and purple striped alligators easily found? Please submit
evidence.
Any theories competing with existing theories need to take those existing theories into account, and explain why they don't adequately explain the evidence.
Do tell! Isn't it then obligatory for DNA-world researchers to conclusively demonstrate the flaws in RNA-world (and half a dozen others)?
If you can't do this then I don't expect to hear any more assertions on the subject from you.
Uh-oh? Just what happens when I fail to meet your expectations?
From the "Cracking Down" thread
Post 252524
If you think the ToE is not a satisfactory explanation for any of the criteria that you listed in your OP, then which ones does it not explain, and what would be your alternative model? Falsifying one theory does not by default validate another one. You don't get creationism validated if you manage somehow to poke holes in the ToE.
Is creationism in any way falsifiable or testable?
It was inappropriate to ask off-topic questions. It would have been inappropriate for me to respond to off-topic questions. You are in error when you maintain otherwise.
I have observed that you've been frustrated in the past while trying to drag Russ off topic in many a discussion. I understand your desire to practice this tactic in compliance with the customs and traditions of evolutionism. I do not think you have any right to complain when I decline to be the victim of such practices. If you disagree, please present evidence.
