Oh wow... did you just infer that mathematics have not been used (and required especially in quantum fields) ?
No I did not. In fact I said "
those proofs may well be used in science", so quite the reverse.
at least you are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you state: "Yes, there are proofs in maths, and yes, those proofs may well be used in science"...and they you go on to somehow disconnect from what you just stated by fumbling out this silliness: "but none of those mathematical proofs actually prove any scientific claim" One can't make that kind of self contradiction up if they were honest.
Again you betray your lack of knowledge of science.
A simple example would be F=ma. Very simple maths that is used to model nature. But the maths does not
prove it is right.
So now it is your turn Martin. You are accusing me of not being honest here, which I find insulting, so let us see how honest you are. Step up to the plate and show us you are right and I am wrong.
Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science.
If you cannot - and we both know you cannot - then I will expect an apology for your false accusation. Unless your pride is too great, of course.
So , translation... "yes we don't have a complete fossil record that shows the required step by step gradual blind and random development of species... but our faith in material things we can't prove is enough for us to worship in the crumbling house of darwinism.
We do not need faith because we already have overwhelming evidence. Over a million fossils. Tonnes of genetic data. Etc. Etc.
And we are getting more and more literally every week.
How is creationism doing?
So , translation... "yes we don't have a complete fossil record that shows the required step by step gradual blind and random development of species... but our faith in material things we can't prove is enough for us to worship in the crumbling house of darwinism. we hope to find them someday along with that mermaid"
You still are failing to get the point of the mermaids.
Mermaids would falsify evolution. That means: (1) they would prove it wrong; and (2) evolution is falsifiable.
Seriously, this is like talking to a brick wall.
Go learn what falsifiable means!
I'm ok with evolution as a theory by a person who had no real scientific degree or training. I just have a problem with how it has so much
So much what? I am guessing
evidence.
You have a problem with how it has so much
evidence.
your assertion was proven wrong.
You have a vivid imagination.
and now you wish to ignore the 100s of leading scientists that don't agree with you.... do you actually read much about counter views or opinions or are do you like making things up like 99% false agenda talking points
Yes, I ignore 100s of leading scientists who reject evolution.
Just as you ignore the 10,000s of leading
biologists who accept evolution.
I think I am in a better position here. My biologists outnumber your engineers 100 to 1.
let's put your 99% embarrassment to bed
Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman
thenewamerican.com
so many nobel prize winners have demonstrated disbelief in darwinian evo.... were they biologist not that I know of but we have 100s of biologists that actually don't see the agenda the way you do. ...and a lot of them are not Christians. ... (as if it matters since you are all about the step by step science)
I am not embarrassed about agreeing with 99% of biologists.
So who are these Nobel prize winners? What is their area of expertise, Martin? If it is not biology, why should I take them as an authority on biology?
What you have is a very small number of Nobel prize winners who are not biologists, so NOT knowledgeable in the subject, and a few hundred other scientists, a lot of whom are not biologists, so NOT knowledgeable in the subject.
Meanwhile, I have 10,000s of biologists who ARE knowledgeable in the subject who agree with me.
and in my original response I too looked it up and responded with the facts that that fossil was kicked to the curb long long ago as a transitional fossil .. but yeah.. just because an actual tetrapod stepped on top of the tiktaalik toc toe fossil embarrassed scientists proclaiming that this strata will product the transitional fossil (they were wrong by many millions of years... and the fossil does not even show that it was an early tetrapod...just that it maybe could of been the beginning of one possibly.
As I asked last time:
And that refuted evolution how?
If you cannot tell me, that is because it does not.
I guess I can add that to the list of questions you keep dodging.
I have not lied. All have said is, to the best of my knowledge, true and I have taken some effort to verify it is true.
I have to tell you that if you make such an accusation again, I will report you.
I earlier said:
I am typically looking at a dozen or so web sites each time I reply to you, and include several of them in my posts, because I want to be sure of what I post. I do not want to look like an idiot because I confidently said dogs "evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet" and then later have to lie and pretend I said something else. I prefer to check what I say before hand and get it right.
so you lie again.. but i understand why... you can't find my quotes and you wish to spin things to make you think you might be right.
I quoted you right there in the text, Martin. It is not me lying.
You said dogs "
evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet". I quoted you saying that. Do not try to pretend otherwise.
Too funny not going to let you wiggle away on that one...
Sure, I will get right on that... As soon as you answer the questions you have been ducking for the last three posts.
Do you need them again? No problem.
- I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
- I asked how creationism explains the pattern of differences in a protein; you dodged it
- I asked why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish; you dodged it
- I asked why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas; you dodged it
- I asked what your belief is with regards to creation; you even dodged that!
I am going to add to that:
learn what falsifiable means.
I am not a biologist, and explaining the mechanisms of limb and eye evolution would require a fair bit of research on my part. I will happily do that, but first you have to do your bit. Show me creationism can answer these question. Show me
you can.
If you cannot be
bothered, then why should I?
If you are
unable to, well, you lose. Evolution can explain these things, it even predicts some of them. If creationism cannot explain them, the conclusion is that
creationism is wrong.
It is time for you to step up to the plate Martin. It is time for you to show us what creationism really is.
I confidently expect you to fail. In fact, I am sure you will not even try, and for everyone else, the message will be clear:
Creationism is wrong.
I just hope it will make YOU think about the failings of creationism, at least enough to start questioning it. Go to creationist web sites and ask them. Talk to your creationist friends. See if any creationist anywhere has the answers. And if not, think about
why.