Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by oozyism

 

That's fine if you want to claim that as a belief, but that still doesn't turn your syllogism into proof of a creator. That just turns it into an assertion of faith. So, again, no positive proof of a creator.

Also, I don't think you read my second refutation of your syllogism. Whether your major premise is a belief or fact, it doesn't change that your syllogism is poor constructed in that the conclusion doesn't follow from the major and minor premises. Unless you want to assert that the universe is constructed of laws. Like I said, you'll need to be much much more explicit than you have been if you'd like to make that claim.

Yes, it is a belief, infact there isn't much out there which is not a belief. What does evidence mean? Evidence means your basis for belief or disbelief. It means knowledge which you base your belief on.

I have this knowledge which I base my belief on, and until someone comes and tries to prove otherwise, I'll stick to my belief, obviously in search for the truth, I will dig deeper, because it is also my job to prove or dis-prove my hypothesis.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

I went back to the earliest post in the blog you linked to and managed to find a glaringly untrue statement immediately...

...In all cases, the observed speciation has shown a loss in the total information of the genome of the species. Evolutionists may point out bacteria's resistance to anti-biotics as "proof" of evolution. The problem with that is the bacteria are not "evolving" new enzymes.

You might want to read your sources before you play cut and paste with them, because calling attention to this one is like striking a giant bell that sounds like "wronnnnnnnnnng". Read up on the evolution of nylonase to see why.

Also, if you're going to rely on the theory of conservation of information, please understand that it was thoroughly debunked by mathematicians, physicists, and information theorists as a valid refutation of evolution at least five years before the blog you're citing was created.

reply to post by iterationzero


Nevermind.

I thought it was worth a reasonable try to meet you in the middle.

But no. You can't even do that.

I'll keep trying with members who are open and honest. People with integrity. Those of you with closed minds are an embarrassment to your cause.

You can keep calling names, telling half truths, and believing your own man made lies. And I'll keep praying for you.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Nevermind.

Weren't you the one that just lambasted Mr. XYZ for walking away from a discussion? Weren't you the one that declared victory for someone else when you did? I guess by those rules you just lost. Keep in mind that I don't actually see it that way. I'm sorry that you don't want to continue the conversation just because I can find refutation upon refutation for every point that you deliver.

I thought it was worth a reasonable try to meet you in the middle.

But no. You can't even do that.

In your mind, what is that middle? And I fail to see how cutting and pasting material from a blog called "Evolution Debunked" consists of trying to meet in the middle. Please, don't try to play the martyr. It's unbecoming and dishonest. You're not being persecuted.

I'll keep trying with members who are open and honest. People with integrity. Those of you with closed minds are an embarrassment to your cause.

Please explain how I've been dishonest, closed, or showed a lack of integrity? And calling someone closed minded is a common retreat for someone that believes in a supernatural concept. Here, watch this...

You can keep calling names, telling half truths, and believing your own man made lies. And I'll keep praying for you.

Again, show when I've done this anywhere on this board. OK, I did call you a cheerleader for oozy, but seriously... read back over your own posts where all you do is repeat what he said, give him a pat on the back, and then declare victory for your side of the discussion.

reply to post by oozyism

If you think you're going to suck me into a futile exchange of assertions, as you did with MrXYZ, you are mistaken.

If you cannot see the truth of what I posted earlier, that's your problem, not mine. Your argument is simply the tired old Paleyan one. It is long discredited.

*

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

I'm sure acceptance of evolutionary theory seems faith-based to those who do not understand the science.

Now, do you have any proof of intelligent design, or are you just going to keep thrashing around pointlessly?

reply to post by Astyanax

Now, do you have any evidence for intelligent design, or don't you?

My personal evidences for a possible Creator.

1. Creation ( I know, I knoowww, but I couldn't resist)

2. Life can only come from preexisting life ( Yes, a gap in knowledge, but I think there is a good chance a creator exists outside the gap). I will also add that intelligence only comes from prior intelligence.

3. Dark Matter

4. A priori knowledge. Humans seem to have an instinctual spiritual need. Which you guys fill with science.

5. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionary biologist and expert in abiogenesis, who said "evolution is cleverer than you are", and then hypothesized that life may have came about by guided intelligence.

6. Every documentary in which the narrator talks about evolution (sorry to bring it up madness)
and ascribes to it qualities, as if it were a person.

7. Every inventor that has had someone steal his work, and claim it for themselves. Who says life is fair?

8. A centillion. Think about it.

9. When atheists ridicule a person that they say doesn't exist.

10. Even though this will really be mocked and ridiculed, I'm gonna go with Love on this one. I mean the kind of unselfish love that people demonstrate from time to time, when they oh, I don't know, they go against their own people and hide a Jew in their attic, even though the Nazis believe that they Jews are inferior, and not compatible with their eugenics plan. The kind that someone, who may even believe in evolution and abiogenesis, shows when they don't laugh, when they see someone that lost the lottery on natural selection, and they throw a glare at anyone who would dare make fun of such a person. The kind of love you show for an old timer when they are waaaay past their supposed prime or usefulness, you show patience, and cut them a little slack for being slow or use a little too much perfume. The kind of love that makes you cry when your friends cry and laugh when your friends laugh.


Flame on!



Or how about a slow clap?

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Now, do you have any evidence for intelligent design, or don't you?

My personal evidences for a possible Creator.

1. Creation ( I know, I knoowww, but I couldn't resist)

2. Life can only come from preexisting life ( Yes, a gap in knowledge, but I think there is a good chance a creator exists outside the gap). I will also add that intelligence only comes from prior intelligence.

3. Dark Matter

4. A priori knowledge. Humans seem to have an instinctual spiritual need. Which you guys fill with science.

5. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionary biologist and expert in abiogenesis, who said "evolution is cleverer than you are", and then hypothesized that life may have came about by guided intelligence.

6. Every documentary in which the narrator talks about evolution (sorry to bring it up madness)
and ascribes to it qualities, as if it were a person.

7. Every inventor that has had someone steal his work, and claim it for themselves. Who says life is fair?

8. A centillion. Think about it.

9. When atheists ridicule a person that they say doesn't exist.

10. Even though this will really be mocked and ridiculed, I'm gonna go with Love on this one. I mean the kind of unselfish love that people demonstrate from time to time, when they oh, I don't know, they go against their own people and hide a Jew in their attic, even though the Nazis believe that they Jews are inferior, and not compatible with their eugenics plan. The kind that someone, who may even believe in evolution and abiogenesis, shows when they don't laugh, when they see someone that lost the lottery on natural selection, and they throw a glare at anyone who would dare make fun of such a person. The kind of love you show for an old timer when they are waaaay past their supposed prime or usefulness, you show patience, and cut them a little slack for being slow or use a little too much perfume. The kind of love that makes you cry when your friends cry and laugh when your friends laugh.


Flame on!

1) Creation can't be proof of creation. Not sure what's hard to resist consider it's in no way, shape, or form anything resembling proof. It's a word...

2) God of the gaps (like you admit correctly)

3) How does dark matter prove anything other than there's something we call dark matter?

4) Well, there's a ton of non-spiritual humans...and as far a priori knowledge. It's not knowledge, it's filling the gap in knowledge. Considering humanity always had stuff they didn't understand, it's not surprising they make stuff up.

5) Actually, Leslie Orgel was in favor of the Panspermia theory that assumes life originally came from outer space...which isn't the same as saying it came from some intelligence.

6) Only Christian pseudo-scientists doubt evolution. Fossil records, the fact that findings can be applied in modern science/medicine, we witnessed speciation MULTIPLE times, and the list goes on. Either way, evolution doesn't concern itself with how life started, it just states the fact that we had common ancestors with today's monkeys.

7) No clue how that point would prove creationism. Yeah, life isn't fair...so what?

8) OMG, a big number...yeah, makes total sense why that would be proof for creationism

9) We're not ridiculing him, just as I'm not really ridiculing unicorns. Why would I waste time ridiculing something I have no proof of? I'm ridiculing people trying to use pseudo-science to try and prove creationism.

10) You call it love...herd animals call it sticking together because instinct tells them their survival chances are better. Animal mothers sometimes attack things way larger than them to protect their loved ones, even at the risk of losing its life. There's also a lot of brain chemistry involved. I'm no expert on love and brain chemistry...but either way, I wouldn't see how this proves the existence of a creator.

So in short: Nothing you posted would be considered scientific evidence.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Actually, Leslie Orgel was in favor of the Panspermia theory that assumes life originally came from outer space...which isn't the same as saying it came from some intelligence.

Thank you for finally acknowledging Leslie Orgel!

Oh, and you are mistaken, he was suggesting a higher intelligence.

The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.

Crick posed that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, could be loaded on a brace of rockets and fired randomly in all directions. Crick and Orgel estimated that a payload of one metric ton could contain 1017 micro-organisms organized in ten or a hundred separate samples. This would be the best, most cost effective strategy for seeding life on a compatible planet at some time in the future. The strategy of directed panspermia may have already been pursued by an advanced civilization facing catastrophic annihilation, or hoping to terraform planets for later colonization.

Directed Panspermia

Dr. Orgel later collaborated with Dr. Crick, his Nobel-winning colleague at Salk, in refining the provocative notion that the seeds of life may have indeed come from the reaches of space. The concept, known as directed panspermia, proposes that interstellar microorganisms, like spores and bacteria, may have been sown by a higher intelligence.

Article

Leslie Orgel, was an expert in his field, and felt that a natural explanation was impossible, and a directed intelligence was a possibility.

reply to post by dusty1


A possibility isn't fact. Just like abiogenesis hypotheses aren't facts until they're proven...the difference is people admit theories relating to abiogenesis aren't perfect (yet), creationists flat out refuse to acknowledge that they could be wrong. In fact, there's some that even claim it's scientifically proven that there's a creator

reply to post by MrXYZ

A possibility isn't fact. Just like abiogenesis hypotheses aren't facts until they're proven...the difference is people admit theories relating to abiogenesis aren't perfect (yet), creationists flat out refuse to acknowledge that they could be wrong. In fact, there's some that even claim it's scientifically proven that there's a creator

I could be wrong.

However, a real expert in the field of abiogenesis made a case for directed panspermia, a guided intelligence that seeded this planet.

So in short: Nothing you posted would be considered scientific evidence.

Wrong again. I am going with the Directed Panspermia Hypothesis

Whud up?

reply to post by dusty1


Whud up? Well, mostly the fact that by its very definition a hypothesis isn't proof

In addition, that theory is 37 years old!! I'm pretty sure we made scientific progress in the relevant fields since then. I'm not saying the hypothesis should be rejected flat out, I'm saying unlike evolution, it hasn't been proven.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by oozyism

All men are mortal,
and
Aristotle is a man;
therefore
Aristotle is mortal.

Prove that all men are not mortal.

All laws are product of intelligence,
and
the universe is filled with laws,
therefore
the universe is the product of intelligence.

Prove that all laws are not products of intelligence. It is actually as simple as that

Again, a false comparison. A law in the legal sense and a law in the scientific sense are two entirely different things. We've yet to see a natural law come into being that has an intelligent factor behind it. You're simply arguing a silly semantic point.

Systematic syllogisms don't really work when the linguistics are off.

Now, if you could somehow prove that natural laws and legal laws are the same sort of thing, you'd have a point.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Just wanted to ask if you noticed how both mad & Mr gave up in their own way?

No, did no such thing. You actually were the one who started ignoring everything I said except for the statement that lightning comes from clouds.

One gave up by saying "To restate it again: Debunking evolution wouldn't prove intelligent design or creationism."

That is a true statement, not a statement of giving up. I was simply pointing out that there are hundreds of threads that have tried and failed to disprove evolution, this isn't one of those threads.

The challenge in the OP of this thread is to put forth positive proof of intelligent design.

Basically admitting evolution was debunked but that it still doesn't prove I.D.

No, I've yet to see evolution debunked.

This means that he knows you were right and is mulling it over - a seed was planted.

Again, no, he is not right. He's confusing the legal with the natural. He's using two different definitions of the same word to make a false point.

The other starting talking about "if" there was a God, which I never thought I'd ever hear him say, so obviously you got to him too.

Actually, it's something atheists say quite often. Unlike theists, we're open to possibilities, even the possibility that we're wrong. MrXYZ and I have both said those sorts of things over and over.

And that is a big IF anyway.

So congrats. Hopefully that's two souls you've saved or at least got to start thinking things over.

They were obviously lost.

Well, I'm trying to save your mind. You still seem to be ignoring those attempts.

You had way more pateince with them than I did. Their complete illogical thought patterns were just too much for me. But thank you for sticking with them and helping them see the light.

Illogical thought patterns? Says the person who used false definitions of 'theory' and 'inert' and then started ignoring the person that called you out on your fecal arguments.

I answered your 'question' (that wasn't a question) that would debunk evolution once and for all.

And I've asked you to prove creationism, which you've yet to do.

I know they are going to deny what I just wrote

Saying that sort of thing doesn't mean anything. It's basically lying and then attempting to make it not a lie by saying someone is going to disagree with you.

Of course I'll deny a lie.

and probably start some of their long dillusional tirades or name calling or whatever,

Nope, no name calling here and no delusions either.

I'm just waiting for you to resume the discussion instead of constantly ignoring the plethora of arguments and evidence I've given you.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by Astyanax

 

I'm sure somehow this is not permitted but I really don't feel like rewording all of this so...
I'm gonna copy and paste from: evolutiondebunked.blogspot.com...

Well, it's not the point of this thread. This is a thread where you're supposed to prove creationism not debunk evolution...even though I've seen that link before and it does nothing to debunk evolution and others have pointed out that it has false information.

Also, all you have to do is ex tag external sources. Learn formatting

I'm guessing the rest is external, so I'm ex tagging it for you.

To be completely honest about this subject - neither evolution or creationism can be proved 'scientifically'. They both take faith.

Except that evolution has been proven scientifically, repeatedly. Genetics, phylogeny, the fossil record, experimentation, and observation have all proven it.

Evolution is as concrete a scientific theory as germ theory and cell theory.

And, once more, you're supposed to try to prove creationism. But the quote has a point, there's no way to prove it scientifically because it isn't true.

That's why we have such a hard time discussing this logically - because both sides have strong beliefs about the subject and neither side can prove it to the other without a shadow of a doubt. I believe are beliefs blind us of some of the truths of the other side.

Evolutionary biologists don't have any blinding beliefs, they're scientists. Scientific thinking immediately requires people to change their mind when new evidence is presented.

What I see as common sense (where did it all come from?), is viewed as ignorance by evolutionists. What I view as ignorance (Chemicals were always here), is considered highly intelligent by evolutionists.

For one thing 'where did it all come from?' isn't a question evolutionary biology strives to answer. That would be astrophysics and cosmology. Asking a biologist about where everything came from is the same sort of nonsense as asking your doctor to be a structural engineer on a skyscraper.

And chemicals were always here isn't ignorance, it's merely deduction. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, the law of conservation of matter and energy, so it had to have always existed.

However, where we truly differ is that Creationism tries to explain how life began.

And so does abiogenesis, a relatively fledging field of biochemistry that isn't the field of evolutionary biology.

The difference isn't that Creationism tries to explain something that evolution doesn't, it's that it tries to explain a dozen scientific fields in direct contradiction with established, proven science.

And we end with a faith that God, or some supernatural being, or super eneregy or whatever term you like, had to create something from nothing.

But scientific thought is that there was never nothing. Something always was. How hard a concept is that to grasp?

Does evolution try to explain how things came in to being?

It never claimed to do so. But abiogenesis explains how life began, geology explains how the Earth got to the state it is in, various fields of physics and cosmology explain everything from how the solar system, the sun, the Milky Way, and the universe came into being.

Explaining more doesn't mean you have a better idea, it just means you're not as focused.

Or is it simply stating how things evolved once they were here?

Yep, that's sort of exactly what it states.

It's the Origin of Species

I believe there is a lot of confusion in their camp about that point.

None, whatsoever.

Because some of my real life friends, doctros, lawyers, teachers - (as opposed to ats members

believe in evolution but they still believe in a super natural being.

Where did anyone state that a belief in the supernatural and a belief in science contradicted each other?
I surely didn't.

They know it all had to come from somewhere and that evolution does not explain this to their satisfaction.

I've repeatedly told you, and you've repeatedly ignored, that there are other scientific theories that explain those things.

Of course, you ignore even evolution.

But just because people here still believe evolution is a fact and not a theory - I feel I have to post this:

A theory can be a fact.

Is your body made of cells? Yes, it is. And that is because cell theory is factual.
Do you get sick from germs? Yep. And that's because germ theory is factual.
Does speciation occur naturally? Hell yes. And that's because the theory of evolution is factual.

4 Reasons Evolution is False

Not these again.

It does not match up the fossil record.

I feel like a quote mine of Gould is coming, but I could be wrong. Of course, I've seen this argument a dozen times and it's been destroyed just as many.

The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly, not with small changes.

That's not entirely true. We have plenty of places where we see forms appearing gradually.
And the other problem is that we don't get every single species fossilizing, because that's not how fossilization works.

An example is the Cambrian explosion. Life goes from being microscopic to complex multi cellular organisms suddenly.

It's not really suddenly. How is 50 million years sudden?

Evolutionists counter that evolution occurs with small isolated populations,

Nope, that's just a straw man.

under conditions that take too long to observe in a normal human lifespan

Again, not sure who told you that, because it's another straw man.
Here are some observed instances of speciation
Here are more

(yes I'm talking about macro-evolution, the generation of new genes, and not speciation containing only a subset of the original genes)

I'm sorry, but what is that supposed to mean? Macro-evolution isn't the 'generation of new genes', so you're now taking things to a ridiculous standard.

Do you even know which organism has the most genetic information? It's an amoeba, with a hell of a lot more genetic information that a human.

Now, evolution is about speciation, the Origin of Species as I've already pointed out.

You're simply redefining scientific terms in a way that makes it really easy for you to make evolution sound stupid...because you're not even arguing against evolution, you're arguing against a straw man.

but too short to show up in the fossil record.

Again, there are instances of all sorts of gradual changes in the fossil record
Spend a measly 20 minutes watching these videos

Paradoxically they also proclaim that evolution requires "diversity" which is not likely to occur within small isolated populations.

Except that it occurs within families. We have some 175 odd mutations unique from our parents. As would siblings.
That's an odd amount of diversity within just a family of 5.

Evolution predicts common ancestors for the species.

Yes, and it shows up.

Phylogenetic trees will be different depending on each gene, which in turn will be different from those based on morphological characteristics.

That's because the phylogenetic tree is still in the process of being perfected. For a while we thought that the Giant Panda and Red Panda were closely related, but the confusion was over a sixth digit that both had. It seems that the morphological characteristic is either something they both held on to but not because of a close relation, or it's because one developed it later on.

However, if you take a dog genome and a cat genome, you're going to end up in the same place.

Even the wikipedia article explains this.

Where?

Evolutionists try to explain the differences using terms like "horizontal gene transfer", but these are not part of the original evolution theory, as it is normally explained.

We have a lot more than the 'original theory'. That's how science works. Theories change to fit in with evidence.

And horizontal gene transfer has been observed. It's the reason for antibiotic resistance. If you take antibiotics, your natural bacterial flora will be killed off, except for those with a mutated resistance to antibiotics. If you then get a bacterial infection, they may horizontal transfer these genes to the infection.

It's been repeatedly documented.

Large amounts of horizontal gene transfer taking place violates the principles of genetics.

No, it doesn't.

Now, if you're talking about dogs transferring genes with elephants, that's one thing. But we're talking about bacteria and other 'lower' life forms.

Philosophically speaking, all that evolution claims to do is provide a kind of search algorithm.

Nope, not at all. It claims to provide a predictive mechanism for all sorts of things, including antibiotic resistance.

To say that life is caused by evolution, is like saying that the internet was created by google.

Again, a straw man. Nobody ever said life was caused by evolution, merely that evolution is how we got all the modern forms of life.

So even if the proposed evolutionary processes took place, it can't really explain away the mysteries of life or deny intelligent design.

Nobody said it explains everything, but it does debunk intelligent design of individual species.

And yet there is still no proof of intelligent design.

The algorithm that evolution claims to work by, is flawed because the only source of information for it is the environment.

What algorithm?
And selective pressures aren't just environmental, they are also sexual. Then there's the other factor of interspecies competition, as well as genetic drift.

You (or the author of this blog) clearly don't understand evolutionary theory.

Random mutations come from the environment.

No, random mutations come about in utero.

So does natural selection.

No, the environment is a single factor. I just explained that.

In the end the only input to the proposed evolution function is random.

Says the one ignorant of evolution.

Evolution is a nonrandom process because survival due to selective pressures is partially deterministic.

Which is more likely to survive as a carnivore and then reproduce: The slower, less durable or the faster and more durable?
The latter will be more likely to survive.

Extracting information from a truly random stream is not possible.

That's true. Good thing evolution isn't random.

Tim's Question Answered
When you have a chemical reaction, let's say 2H2 + O2 + spark ->2 H2O, has new information been generated? It hasn't.

Here's something I'd like to have explained. What do creationists mean by 'new information'?

Darwinists, in order to provide ideological support for atheism and communism,

Um...what now?

I'm not an atheist (I have different reasons) because of evolution nor am I a communist. Well, I was once a communist but that had nothing to do with evolution and a lot more to do with being idealistic.

will claim that an evolution process exists that is neither a process of discovery nor the extraction of information from a different realm.

Where? Darwin didn't invent natural selection, he discovered it. And then it was later refined.

And the term 'new information' is never defined by the opponents of evolution.

If a new limb forms, does that count?
If something gains the ability to process a previously nonexistent material (like nylon), would that count?

In reality, natural selection describes a process of discovery. In other words, the shape and functioning of all the animals would be "compressed" into the basic physical laws of the universe.

...evolution operates under natural laws? Of course it does.
But that process has novel characteristics like mutation, which cannot be predicted.

I believe that life on earth is more than a process of discovery.

Ok, but there's no proof of your belief nor is anyone saying that life is a process of discovery...

It is the expression ideas created in a spiritual realm.

Again, your belief that is entirely unfounded, unlike the truly well founded theory of evolution.

The exact process of creating and expressing these ideas has not been studied in detail, at least by the scientific community, because reasoning runs counter their ideological beliefs.

Nope, no it doesn't. Dr Kenneth Miller, one of the great defenders of evolutionary biology, is a devout Catholic. The reason being that evolution is simply true.

And obviously the thing hasn't been studied in detail because there's nothing to study. What evidence is there?




I'm done responding to the rest, because it's a bunch of comments. I'm not going to respond to each and every silly comment because I've done more than enough here.

Oh, and there was a quote mine of Gould

Evolution has never ever proved that one species ever turned into another species by evolution, lol.

Evolution was just made up garbage, of a man who looked at apes and said, oh they look like humans.

Get in there with those terrific theories on science. Evolution is a theory based on a observation that man looks like apes, and nothing more, lol.

Originally posted by andy1033
Evolution has never ever proved that one species ever turned into another species by evolution, lol.

Evolution was just made up garbage, of a man who looked at apes and said, oh they look like humans.

Get in there with those terrific theories on science. Evolution is a theory based on a observation that man looks like apes, and nothing more, lol.

Actually, "one species turning into another" is called SPECIATION. It has been observed MULTIPLE TIMES.

Here's the LINK.

All your posts shows is that the education system is failing

the proof is in the pudding. the universe created itself and the consciousness so it could think about itself. self-awareness.

reply to post by dusty1


An advanced species sending organic matter to other planets in order to start life doesn't turn those advanced species into gods...and doesn't explain how they came to be.

Organic matter from earth can leave earth too, and if we wait long enough, it might start life somewhere else. That doesn't really turn us into a species worth worshipping...and still doesn't explain how we came to be.

Either way, unlike evolution, panspermiation is a hypothesis and NOT a theory.

Quickly cuz I have to go to work...so since you didn't address all of my points I'm only hitting some of yours...


Illogical thought patterns? Says the person who used false definitions of 'theory' and 'inert' and then started ignoring the person that called you out on your fecal arguments.

I quoted WIKI's definition of theory, which your good buddy mralphabet says is a legit source of info. - so if WIKI is wrong, blame them - not me.

I used 'inert' properly trying to make what I thought was an obvious point - that the chemicals were NOT alive but...evidently even the smartest miss some things and keep beating a 'dead' horse.

I'm not as smart as you - but doesn't 'fecal' mean poop? And isn't that name calling?



And chemicals were always here isn't ignorance, it's merely deduction. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, the law of conservation of matter and energy, so it had to have always existed.

Crap! You admitted we were right again. Re-read what you just said. And keep re-reading it over and over. WOW. That is too funny. I used the law of conversation of matter and energy to prove God about ten posts ago and you used it to prove evolution. How funny is that? One slight problem for your train of thought, how could matter have alway existed? How? Without God or majic or vodoo or something supernatural. Try tirdaing your way out of that way. Crack...

The difference isn't that Creationism tries to explain something that evolution doesn't, it's that it tries to explain a dozen scientific fields in direct contradiction with established, proven science.

Come on, really? A 'dozen'? Really? Name 'em.

CRAck...

And we end with a faith that God, or some supernatural being, or super eneregy or whatever term you like, had to create something from nothing.

But scientific thought is that there was never nothing. Something always was. How hard a concept is that to grasp?

Not hard for me to grasp at all...but wow - you're doing a better job of proving creationism than anyone here. Thanks so much. How in the world can you rationalize 'something always was' and not explain it? How? None of your new sciences or old can do it - so by your own thought pattern - you should not believe someting was always here unless it could be proved scientifically - which it hasn't. Good luck contemplating on that one.

CRACk...

Does evolution try to explain how things came in to being?

It never claimed to do so.

WTF? Then why are we even having this discussion? I'm discussing apples and your discussing your own fecal matter. There's no debate here then.

CRACK...

Or is it simply stating how things evolved once they were here?

Yep, that's sort of exactly what it states.

Oh really???... Let me repeat it - Then why are we even having this discussion? I'm discussing apples and your discussing your own fecal matter. There's no debate here then.

CRACK...Crack...

Because some of my real life friends, doctros, lawyers, teachers - (as opposed to ats members

believe in evolution but they still believe in a super natural being.

Where did anyone state that a belief in the supernatural and a belief in science contradicted each other?
I surely didn't.

Wait a minute, are you admitting belief in a supernatural something then? YES OR NO?

BOOM! - All that cracking was your table legs breaking that were holding up your incorrect belief table top of evolution. (I just through that in there for dramatic effect. Did you like it? ; Probably not, hunh? Well, just do what you always do and say I'm foolish and you're not going to write back anymore because I'm not taking this discussion seriously.)

They know it all had to come from somewhere and that evolution does not explain this to their satisfaction.

I've repeatedly told you, and you've repeatedly ignored, that there are other scientific theories that explain those things.

Nope - you never did. You said they were trying to explain those things but it was new field of study.

Of course, you ignore even evolution.

Nope - I just call it by it's real name - adaptation.

 

I'm done responding to the rest, because it's a bunch of comments. I'm not going to respond to each and every silly comment because I've done more than enough here.

'silly' = name calling again. Hmmm...didn't think you did that.

The above is a playlist with 33 short videos going over the largest creationist blunders such as "evolution is wrong", "god is scientifically proven", and so on. I know most creationists on here aren't gonna watch it because it's easier to close your eyes rather than accepting facts and reality. That's why I'm not really expecting a great comeback from them arguing against the points of the video...

I fear for the US education system

Also, for those who don't know what a scientific theory such as evolution is: LINK

reply to post by andy1033


I knew alphabet was going to post that, I should have warned you. It's the equivalent of his one liner.

And if you actually study up on it, that's not what it is at all. Here's the great WIKI def.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject of much ongoing discussion. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments.

The funny thing is it's an 'evolutionary process'. Hmmm...I don't believe all of us here agree with that premise. But for arguement sake, let's say we do.

The only observable 'proof' in nature (which is another name for God)still shows a fish is a fish, a tortoise is still a tortoise, a bird is still a bird - but they are dif. genetically. There is not one observable instance where a goat, let's say turns in to a dolphin. I hate to use such simple examples but it gets my point across.

Of course alphy would counter and say it would happen over million of years. Of which I would reply, therefore it is not observable and therfore can not be proven scientifically. He would say we can see it in the DNA or some such argument and I would counter by quoting him "It has been observed MULTIPLE TIMES." Using his own 'proof' against him.

By answering for him, I just thought I'd speed up our conversation here a little bit. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Go look up "empirical data", because that's what evolution required to be classified as a theory. Read the whole definition of scientific theory before you criticize it...just like you should read the whole article on speciation before making comments that just show your lack of scientific knowledge.

You have to be a complete brainwashed moron to claim evolution is false given the amount of support the theory has. Let me guess, Hovind is your personal hero...cause you sound like him. All the falsely interpreted stuff you just said is debunked in the video...but like I said, you won't ever look at it because it's easier to be ignorant

Oh, and don't worry, you're not offending anyone...you just make some of us laugh