still no faulsifyables...lol

but lets quote olivers latest...redirection...
in lue of science fact..or faulsifyable

oliver...<<<..the enquirer>>>and the mindless

has...<<is assimilated into the objective>>>.to wit...the ...lol..SCIENCE...lol..of evolution

<<and in a sense becomes one with objective.>>.lol
we finally agree...

<<As the Chinese say,.."one cannot see the face of the mountain/from inside the cave".>>>a great saying...but it cuts both ways

PRESENT THE FAULSIFYABLES
or by not...admit...evolution...ISNT SCIENCE

<<Herein,..the theist>>>and the athiest...alike
let alone...the children thinking..evolution/science..WHEN CLEARLY ITS NOT

<<..is hard pressed to think rationally,>>...lol
yes...ignorants...claiming...science...yet..UNABLE..to present...faulsifyable...science...MUST HAVE,,by its own measure...reveal their ignorance...simply by avoiding even their mention

<<..because of the absence of the apt qualifying syntax>>..isnt science method

lack of science/faulsifyables..
.MEANS,,you dont got a science
at best you got a theory...

at worst..you got a GRAND/deception/FRAUD!
peddled..by those ignoarant of science

fool's/thinking they...are so clever...
claiming...science
yet science...illiterate..

thus simply fools/..decieving yet other fool's
[the teqnical term...being imbisile...
but that might be beyond your ken..[knowing]

evolution...out of genus,..,is fraud*
its opinion/..theory...NOT* SCIENCE

LIVE WITH-IT
the silence...lack of *faulsifyables..speaks for itself

Dear Dan,

Once again you have trotted out the despicable Nazi war criminal, von Braun. Remember why you trotted him out. You responded to wobbles posting: “Science can fly you to the moon but Religion can fly you into buildings.”

Von Braun used his science in the service of Hitler to send V2 rockets into buildings in London during the Blitz. He is responsible for many more deaths than those who flew the planes into buildings on 9/11. He used his science to fly into buildings. He is also responsible for the deaths of many slave labourers who were worked to death at Peenemunde.

Believing in the Jewish fairy tales of creation in the Bible didn’t stop him from serving a government which murdered 6,000,000 Jews.

Albert Einstein, also not a biologist, but with a far greater mind than von Braun realised at a young age that the biblical account of creation was a fairy tale and gave up belief in the Bible as literal truth.

Of course one does not have to be a decent person to be a scientist or to believe literally in the Bible, but must you keep bringing up such filth as von Braun?

Why do most scientists accept macroevolution theory? A major reason is that it is now the accepted world view of scientists

—an idea to which they are exposed from the earliest days of training,..and by which they are surrounded daily....ras been refuted..by science..not being as egsact as they thought

Most scientists are influenced by social pressure,..and many believers fear recriminations from their fellow scientists/..if they do not conform to what currently is viewed as correct.

To prove their orthodoxy,..many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th century-naturalism.

50 Belief in evolutionism..requires a credulity induced partly by pressure......to conform to a world of science..that is saturated with naturalism.

this is from the conclusion of
http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism
and it dosnt...you will recall...homology...presumed..linkage to ape...and other delusions

I KNOW YOU LOT CANT PRESENT.../faulsifyables

SO TRY...lol..
to rebut what is revealed at the link

<<'It is homology that Darwinists..rely on../to bridge the gaps in the fossil record.

..It is homology/..that underlies the diagrams drawn up/..by Darwinists from Haeckel to the present day..showing how every living thing is related.

Ultimately,however,..it is homology that has provided the greatest stumbling block..to Darwinian theory,..for at the final and most crucial hurdle,..homology has fallen.

The recent information/explosion in embryology,..microbiology, genetics..and especially molecular biology..has revealed in minute detail how plants and animals are constructed/at the molecular level.

If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct,/then we would expect ..that the same homologies..found at the macroscopic level...also exist at the microscopic,/..biochemical..and genetic levels.

What researchers..in each of these fields often find,..has greatly undermined the homology concept.

So many exceptions..now exist that molecular biologist/Michael Denton concluded..that the homology theory/..should be rejected.

His main argument is/that genetic research..has not shown..that homologous structures..are produced by homologous genes..and follow homologous patterns of embryological development.

Instead,..genetics has found..that homologous structures are..'often specified by..non-homologous genetic systems'..and furthermore,..the homology..'can seldom be extended..back into embryology'.

but present..ya...fauls-if-i-ables...lol..
or rebut..if you dare...lol

Dear David,
Sorry if I offended you by mentioning the name Von Braun. It was not my intention to offend. And it is true that we’ve been around the block on this one.

It was Wobbles who raised the moon landings, and it is hard to talk about that without mentioning Von Braun, who was responsible for the technology.

The issue I was attempting to address (as brought up in Zimmerman’s article) was the general compatibility (or otherwise) of science with faith.

There is no incompatibility with science and a very straight forward reading of Biblical Scripture. Thousands of practicing scientists and understanding theologians will testify to that. I mention just two names. Included are many who work in all branches of science, including physical, biological, geological, etc.

Now that you have completed your character assassination of one of them, you are welcome to try completing it for the rest.

-

Yuyutsu,
I know who I am.

The word ‘there’ does not always refer to location. ‘There is’ can be part of a stative clause, a bit like ‘there exists’. For example, ‘there are no laws against stupidity’.

Either someone made us (the human race) or no one made us. These options cover it all and are mutually exclusive. Or do you think you can squeeze another option in there somewhere?

Dear Dan,

I did not commit any character assassination. What I said about von Braun is true. He is a war criminal who got away with it because of his rocket expertise.

Dan,

I was unaware that the question "who (if any) made the human race?" was ever raised here, or was of particular importance to anyone here, so I was very surprised by this "us (the human race)" statement. While I could discuss that question if you insist, I never touched on it previously. I consider it like asking "who (if any) made your hat?": the human form is but a garment that we wear for 70, 80 or 100 years, then discard. We are not it just as we are not our hat.

The statement "there are no laws against stupidity", translates into "one cannot find any legal, written or verbal documents that prohibit stupidity anywere in {this-forum|Australia|Planet-Earth|...}".

Nevertheless, I will rephrase my earlier statement in a way that does not discuss space or use the word "there": Stating that "God exists" is an attempt to degrade God to the level of an object (because only objects exist). Worshiping an object is idolatry.