The claim about scientist accepting evolution or not isn't all that important. Why not? Because none of them have ever come up with any difinitive proof. How do we know? Because they would have blasted the proof as proof all over the headlines. The few cases where science has thought it had proof for evolution, have been shown by other scientists to be false or inconclusive.

In fact, most major evolution scientists, and nuts like Dawkins, say or write that the whole evolution idea doesn't really have a leg to stand on. And then there are the more than 1000... https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/item/31694-over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory.

But scientists aren't what the topic is about. Still no proof for evolution, but lots of blab that it exists.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: A question about you is, Why are you so anxious to claim that evolution exists when you can't show any proof? What are you really after? The further promotion of a lie?

^^^ You kan't science.




"... Galileo, for example, relied on rhetoric, propaganda and epistemological tricks to support his doctrine of heliocentrism ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism | paraphrase from Paul Karl Feyerabend (1924–1994)

Flooding the world and capturing two of every animal for no reason seems pretty stupid.

 

The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are:
1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST;
2. The ST is know to factually be a ST;
3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance.
Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely.

As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.

But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases.

The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory."

When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing.

That's not true. There are secular writings that talk about Jesus. All you need to do is search for them.

Besides, the Bible doesn't have any stupid shit in it, except when it is a record of the stupid shit that people do in opposing God. Bible laws are some of the best and briefest that are around.

I don't think that at all. But since this is an evolution thread, shouldn't you be talking about evolution here? Whether or not you believe or understand things of the Bible, isn't it about time that you understand that...

Evolution is a hoax!

Almost all people who know DNA as biologists, botanists and more agree with evolution.

We'll probably go down below $4k one more time before we leave $5-6k zone. Are we going to see $7k again? Of course, but 2019 might not be the year.

I believe we need to get rid of more of the dumb money holders and weak hands first. There are still many around and I am not seeing them panicking.

The simple word "evolution" can be applied to all kinds of things. But evolution theory evolution (ETE) can't be shown to be true until there is proof that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal over thousands of years.

The only way we presently know how to do this accurately is through DNA sampling. But you can't sample DNA from animals that haven't existed for thousands of years without a time machine to go back there to get samples.

Scientists know this, yet they emphatically state that ETE is true and real when they know that they don't really know such. This is the thing that turns evolution into a hoax.

When Jesus came the first time, He came to do the work of redeeming the world. That work was something that had to do with the pain of punishment for all the people that would ever live. It meant that He had to live in obscurity, not even having fame. He became powerful in His ministry, because the kind of ministry He did automatically interjected Him into some sort of fame. But even then He was humble enough about it that the people rejected Him... because they were looking for a powerful, famous, dignified leader. This caused His greater humility, which is what he was intent on at that time.

What does being humble really mean? It means being REAL. If a powerful person acts overly humble, he is not being real. If a weak person acts overly powerful, he is proud, and not real. Because of the great work of salvation that Jesus did, God made Him King of the whole universe. When He returns, humility dictates that the whole world will know Him, because the REALITY is that Jesus is ABSOLUTE RULER over the whole universe... even the laws of physics.

Jesus says in the Bible, that when He returns, every eye will see Him. His return will be like the lightening that flashes across the sky from one end of the sky to the other. Nobody will miss Him when He comes back.

^^^ We are finding out that science is philosophy. How? We are finding out two things about the complexity of nature and the nature of complexity:
1. How some of the complexity works;
2. That complexity is so great that we don't see the end of how it is increasingly greater the more we look.

In other words, we don't even know where the point is that "stuff" is not more complex than we think, as we continue to find greater and greater complexity. All of science is simply a part of philosophy, even as philosophy is an aspect of science at times.

This means that much of what you say doesn't have anything to do with the things of my post which you quoted. The biggest thing is "how do you know?" from the standpoint that the focus is on me. If you had stated it with the focus on the science, you would see that standard science, itself, upholds biblical science.

This, again, shows the subtle way that you are attempting to push the talk into a form of political correctness rather than focusing on science.

This makes me even more certain that Jesus is coming back. And it does the same for you. You simply won't admit it.

The atmosphere forming layers with unique properties is really some hilarious nonsense isn't it?

---

---

The Jig is up, Google should release the AE map for Google Maps/Earth. The underwater images are fantastic BTW, the antediluvian world and the undeniably engineered sea floor comes to life! When you zoom below the clouds it looks flat enough but it would be nice to see the world as it is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

Why do you think I don't understand this? The part you left out was that no matter how many facts/laws/pieces-of-reality a science theory has, it is still not known to be factual or true... except that it is a theory, of course.

The law of gravity is the observation that gravity is real. The theory of gravity is the observation that we don't know why gravity works in the ways it does, but that we are trying to figure these ways out.

There isn't any law of ETE (evolution theory evolution). This is because ETE is not known to be real. In this case evolution theory is trying to prove that evolution is real by finding some of it. So far none of it has been found that does not fit other things better, and should be called one of those other things rather than "evolution." Why? Because the evolution that we are searching for and talking about is ETE, which hasn't been proven.

We know that what we are observing is gravity. We don't know that what we are observing is ETE.

Why do I say ETE? Because the word "evolution" fits all kinds of things, like how the Model T became the many lines of Ford cars that are out there. If ETE isn't clear enough, then maybe we should start saying "the ETE regarding Darwin's survival of the fittest, or regarding his tree of life" or something similar, so that we are on the same page.

ETE isn't known to exist. Most deep-thinking students and teachers of ETE know this, or at least suspect it. When they suggest or imply that ETE is known to be factual evolution by proof, that's when evolution is a hoax.

Since much of science acts like this, it's time to look at the fact that God exists.

Rather than attempting to show you the proof, because you simply are ignorant about science enough that I would have to teach you from the basics, I will simply show you the big flaw in Big Bang. From there you can apply this basic flaw to the rest of science yourself.

The BB flaw has to do with the math of BB. Here it is. In the supposed beginnings of BB, we assume that math acted the same as, or very similar to, the way it acts now. But the point of all the differences in BB times, shows that the math would have to be different, as well.

What this means is, we can’t use our math on BB... or to extrapolate back to BB. To extrapolate back, we need to first figure out the changes in the way math worked back into the past... the BB of math, which would be the math of BB. The point is that we don’t know anything about BB, or even if there really was a BB, simply because we don't know how to extrapolate back to the math of BB so we can apply math correctly to see if it would have shown us BB or not.

You can apply this kind of thinking to all the science where there isn’t much or any hands-on observation, but basically only observation by extrapolation.


The above is shown by the Bible in the Creation:

1. God created the heavens and the earth. The creation is void, formless, and rather empty. In other words, most of our laws of physics didn’t necessarily apply to the universe at that time. The math of BB shows us this... no application of that math, because we can’t begin to understand what BB math might have been like, and therefore the whole idea of BB is science fiction, because we can't use our math in circumstances where the math was different.

2. God creates light. The stuff that was formless and void gained some order in the form of the electromagnetic spectrum. Does time have to do with the electromagnetic spectrum? Absolutely, even though time itself probably works beyond electromagnetics, as well. The point is, we can’t extrapolate backward in time until we know how time worked back then. And time certainly didn’t work the same as it does now, because both, the physics of the universe, and the electromagnetic spectrum were not set in place in the same way that they are now. Or do you have some proof that they were?

3. Next there is the creation of an expanse that separates water under the expanse, from water that is above the expanse. What is the expanse? Is it simply the sky of the atmosphere? Or is it the “sky” of the whole of outer space? Either way, the things that we don’t know about the past, keep all of our extrapolation from being necessarily anywhere near accurate. We can’t tell if there was a time without outer space or not. If we want to say that BB shows that there was such a time, we again don’t know because BB requires a different physics and a different math. Otherwise it wouldn’t be BB. Or do you have some proof that BB math and physics were the same as ours?


The point is laid out in the most basic of sciences that we have - cause & effect. In order to extrapolate backward to BB, or to extrapolate the age of the universe, we need to know all the causes of each effect in their entirety. If we are wrong in any of them, we extrapolate incorrectly.

C&E the basic. It pervades everything that we understand in every way that we understand. Next are entropy and complexity. These three together pervade everything. We don’t have a clue as to what a universe like ours would be like without one of them. Together they show that the universe is a machine of machines upon machines inside of machines and outside of machines.

Whatever started this whole thing going should be named. Some call it God. Others call it the Great Spirit. But the Bible explains it best.


Don’t let the parading of limited science draw you away from the rest of the story. The fact that science is so limited, is only science proving the Bible. The Bible shows how science is wrong (the above BB example), and becomes the correct science by doing this.

Actually, most of science proves the Bible. Believe whatever you want.

A reasonably simple and complete answer to your question exists here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50459934#msg50459934.

Note that it is not known that virtually all scientists accept evolution from a standpoint of close examination. Many scientist simply state that they accept evolution, basing their statement on the idea that other scientists are accurate in their evolution studies, or that the media wouldn't lie. In addition, it's not known that the majority of scientists even state that they accept evolution.

So, are you going to post some faulty media that suggests that scientists accept evolution as you say? Such is the way that rumors keep on going. prove your media isn't lies. Do you have real scientific studies done on the opinions and statements of scientists?

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

You can attest to anything that you want. You can believe anything that you want. Why can't I? The thing we are talking about is personal proof.

I had a friend who in college did an actual college-style debate on evolution. His team beat the evolutionists' team logically. But this doesn't have anything to do with our personal beliefs about evolution, one way or the other. And that is the way you posted your post that I am responding to... personal beliefs.

How do I know that you don't believe that you are lying when you post as you did?

Jesus will return, and speedily, within 100 years (for most of us), because the next thing we will see after we die, is Jesus calling us out of the grave in the resurrection, even if it takes Him 10,000 more literal years to get here.

Why would I want contradict myself by attempting to prove that there is no proof of evolution theory? Haven't I been talking about ETE? The fact that you are attempting to twist things around and skew the understanding of things we are talking about, proves that you are a person of bad faith.

Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.

This shows that you try to disprove God from false premises when you talk the way you do. It also shows that you are a person of bad faith by the fact that you have a religion of atheism.