(October 7, 2017 at 12:08 am)Astonished Wrote:

(October 7, 2017 at 12:05 am)Hammy Wrote: Existence doesn't have to be explainable to be existent. Existence has to be explainable to be knowable.

Then how could the existence of something be concluded if not explainable and therefore unknowable?

Something existing, and humans coming to the conclusion that something exists are two different things.  If pineapples exist, then they exist.  Even if no human on earth had any way of knowing about their existence.  Existence doesn't require a mind to acknowledge it.

(October 13, 2017 at 3:07 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 2:25 am)Mathilda Wrote: And it's only non-scientists that think that you make lots of money as a scientist.

I know scientist that make 6 figures and he is a Christian.

How. What does he do?

(October 13, 2017 at 3:07 am)Godscreated Wrote: Evolutionary science has no use because it's not true, there are no proofs at all, none.

Nor is there any proof for creationism so we can disregard that point. It's only theists who ask for proofs because they suffer from religious binary thinking.

Instead we need to look at the available evidence to determine which is true. The theory of evolution arose to explain the evidence. Any evidence for creationism was cherry picked to back up an existing religious belief while ignoring simper alternative explanations.

As I said, I use the evolutionary process all the time. Many scientists do. Mankind has deliberately bred animals throughout history. This is evolutionary theory in practice. There are medicines that work effectively which were created based on evolutionary theory. Just saying that evolutionary science has no use does not make it so. What you are doing is effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la. If you're happy with yourself for doing that then fine, whatever floats your boat, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you.

(October 13, 2017 at 3:07 am)Godscreated Wrote: I know what peer review is and I know what dishonest peer review is. Creation scientists have given much evidence for the way they see things, it goes against what the so called reviewers believe so it's rejected.

I very much doubt that you can tell the difference between peer review and dishonest peer review in the same way that you do not understand what critical thinking skills are.

The evidence does not support your contention. There are many papers that go against what reviewers believe that get accepted because they meet an acceptable standard.  Just providing evidence is not enough if the paper does not meet an acceptable standard. And by that I mean if the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented, if the authors have not performed a literature review and acknowledged alternative explanations and why they don't apply, if the work is not falsifiable or reproducible etc. Standards are generally very high for peer review and many papers from genuine scientists get rejected because they do not meet the minimum standards. Genuine scientists understand this. Creationists cry persecution.

(October 13, 2017 at 3:07 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 1:15 pm)Godscreated Wrote: Since you do not believe in God I expect such a statement from you, being so you are not qualified to make such a statement and represent it as truth, it's nothing but an opinion you give to please the other atheist.

(October 5, 2017 at 9:14 pm)Godscreated Wrote: I do not need to be a Muslim to know that Allah nor any other god is false. God said there are no other gods but Me. Since God is omniscient we have no reason to question what He says.

 

Mathilda Wrote:You are a hypocrite.

A hypocrite how so, what I said is true.

Using your standards then I do not need to believe in your god to know that he does not exist, in the same way that you claim that you do not need to be a Muslim to know that Allah or any other god is also false.

Your argument relies on special pleading.

An example of observable evolution consistent with the theory of evolution:

Antibiotic resistance could spell end of modern medicine, says chief medic

Read this and you may never eat chicken again

Quote:And though common, resistant bacteria are a grave threat and getting worse.

They are responsible for at least 700,000 deaths around the world each year: 23,000 in the United States, 25,000 in Europe, more than 63,000 babies in India. Beyond those deaths, bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics cause millions of illnesses – 2m annually just in the United States – and cost billions in healthcare spending, lost wages, and lost national productivity.

It is predicted that by 2050, antibiotic resistance will cost the world $100tn and will cause a staggering 10m deaths per year.

Disease organisms have been developing defenses against the antibiotics meant to kill them for as long as antibiotics have existed. Penicillin arrived in the 1940s, and resistance to it swept the world in the 1950s.

Tetracycline arrived in 1948, and resistance was nibbling at its effectiveness before the 1950s ended. Erythromycin was discovered in 1952, and erythromycin resistance arrived in 1955. Methicillin, a lab-synthesized relative of penicillin, was developed in 1960 specifically to counter penicillin resistance, yet within a year, staph bacteria developed defenses against it as well, earning the bug the name MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

After MRSA, there were the ESBLs, extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, which defeated not only penicillin and its relatives but also a large family of antibiotics called cephalosporins. And after cephalosporins were undermined, new antibiotics were achieved and lost in turn.

Each time pharmaceutical chemistry produced a new class of antibiotics, with a new molecular shape and a new mode of action, bacteria adapted.

(October 13, 2017 at 3:07 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 2:25 am)Mathilda Wrote: Yeah it's called peer review. It means that papers need to reach a minimum standard in order to be accepted. For example, assertions need to be backed up by evidence. A difficult concept for you I know.

If creationists could provide evidence for creation science then they  would be able to publish papers stating it. But they can't. For example I'm not employed to research artificial intelligence at the moment, and the research I do in my spare time is at odds with the predominant paradigm that most follow. Yet I still publish papers because I back it up with evidence.

What's more evolutionary science is actually useful. Not only are the theories backed up by evidence but they work in practice. This would not be the case if it was incorrect. I personally use it almost every day of my life. There has been no useful application of the belief that everything was created.

And it's only non-scientists that think that you make lots of money as a scientist.

I know scientist that make 6 figures and he is a Christian. Evolutionary science has no use because it's not true, there are no proofs at all, none. I know what peer review is and I know what dishonest peer review is. Creation scientists have given much evidence for the way they see things, it goes against what the so called reviewers believe so it's rejected.

Flouting your ignorance again. You know nothing of evolution but what dishonest christians tell you.  You may know what peer review is, but you don't understand it.  Creation science is rejected because....IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

---

(October 13, 2017 at 3:07 am)Godscreated Wrote:

Mathilda Wrote:You are a hypocrite.

  A hypocrite how so, what I said is true. When Christians bark back at the atheist here they are called everything in the book, you all think we are to roll over and play dead, not the way I work.

GC

One of the reasons I think you're a hypocrite is that you ignore the myriad of evidence for evolution, but blindly lap up the crap creationists squeeze out and mislabel "evidence". It's SO obvious you only accept evidence from christian sources.  You don't even explore what the evidence is saying, you just reject it.

(October 13, 2017 at 5:14 am)Mathilda Wrote: As I said, I use the evolutionary process all the time. Many scientists do. Mankind has deliberately bred animals throughout history. This is evolutionary theory in practice. There are medicines that work effectively which were created based on evolutionary theory. Just saying that evolutionary science has no use does not make it so. What you are doing is effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la. If you're happy with yourself for doing that then fine, whatever floats your boat, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you.

 The two bold statements are by me and shows that you have no understanding of what evolutionary theory is. Both bold statements show man manipulating, this is not a natural process. It would have a small resemblance to what God did through creation.
GC

Animals don't breed outside of human intervention?

(October 13, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Animals don't breed outside of human intervention?

Have you been living under a fucking ROCK?!

Albeit I most certainly haven't hence why only 5 minutes ago I was wrestling two wasps to force them to shag each other. I got stung 80 million times but it wasn't not worth it betwixt if only Homer Simpson's yellow crusty foreskin I weren't talking complete and utter albeitshit.

Quote:I know scientist that make 6 figures and he is a Christian. Evolutionary science has no use because it's not true, there are no proofs at all, none. I know what peer review is and I know what dishonest peer review is. Creation scientists have given much evidence for the way they see things, it goes against what the so called reviewers believe so it's rejected.

Right you know  a scientist....  

Weather a science has a pragmatic use (evolution does) says nothing if it's true or not. 

You don't know what peer review is and no creationists don't have shit.

On the contrary shit is all they have. Which is why they do no research themselves but try to poke holes in other people's work. Very sad.

(October 13, 2017 at 11:27 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(October 13, 2017 at 5:14 am)Mathilda Wrote: As I said, I use the evolutionary process all the time. Many scientists do. Mankind has deliberately bred animals throughout history. This is evolutionary theory in practice. There are medicines that work effectively which were created based on evolutionary theory. Just saying that evolutionary science has no use does not make it so.

 The two bold statements are by me and shows that you have no understanding of what evolutionary theory is. Both bold statements show man manipulating, this is not a natural process.

If people can selectively breed animals for a desired result then it demonstrates beyond doubt that the biological mechanisms are there to allow it to happen. In other words, animals have DNA and traits can be passed down through generations. This is necessary for the evolutionary process to occur.

It does not matter whether it is mankind deliberately selecting for particular characteristics, or whether the natural environment of a wild species means that those characteristics are beneficial, the effect is the same. It creates a selective pressure for those characteristics to be passed on. As I said, it is an example of the evolutionary theory being used in practice.