Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Re: Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Show how they contradict.

And even if they aren't contradictory, merely poorly worded so that it's possible to interpret it my way,.

Perhaps if you spoke Hebrew or had a decent English translation you would think differently.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
You stated yourself on the very first page, that it was possible for microevolution to occur.

Not so.

You're right. You said that microevolution is a far cry from macroevolution. (I posted in the wrong thread). Do you even deny that microevolution exists?

Unless you're defining 'microevolution' as differences within a species , such as size and shape of head, hair color, shape of teeth, brain size, height, weight, limb length, etc.

In that case, I fully agree that variation exists. But calling it 'microevolution' is an exercise in deception.

Evolution requires much more than different hair color. It must produce new species, correct?

A species is that group that can interbreed with each other, right?

So if a critter gives birth to one who is the first of the 'new species', what will it breed with?

And if it still breeds with the 'old species', then it is not a 'new species' is it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

What do you think of cave paintings, carvings , etc of dinosaurs?

They prove nothing.

1) The paintings may not even exist. I'd like to see them before I comment.

2) The paintings may not really be of dinosaurs -- the pattern might have been teased out through creative interpretation, as in cases like "the virgin mary on a piece of toast". I'd like to see the dinosaurs in sharp, un-photoshopped photographs without any hand-drawing on them.

3) The paintings could be forgeries. Before I conclude they're not, I'd like to see radiometric datings, or the testimony of an expert archeologist in the field, or (in the best case) both.

4) Even if items 1 through 3 could be resolved, the paintings still wouldn't prove anything. There is no reason why cavemen shouldn't have dug out a dinosaur skeleton somewhere, then using their phantasy to reconstruct the dinosaur's body. Personally, I believe that's how people came to believe in dragons -- which you and I probably agree never existed.

Next piece of evidence, please!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

There is no reason why cavemen shouldn't have dug out a dinosaur skeleton somewhere, then using their phantasy to reconstruct the dinosaur's body.

You've got quite an imagination yourself, haven't you?

Trained scientists take years to examine and reconstruct dinosaur fossils, and you are suggesting that 'cavemen' did it on the fly. Rolling Eyes

Thomas wrote:

Personally, I believe that's how people came to believe in dragons

Aren't dragons basically just another name for large reptiles?

0 Replies

Re: Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

Perhaps if you spoke Hebrew or had a decent English translation you would think differently.

So, neither the NIV or the KJV are decent English translations? Which version of the Bible do you use? And furthermore, even if there wasn't a contradiction, how can you prove the Genesis account of creation to be true?

real life wrote:

Unless you're defining 'microevolution' as differences within a species , such as size and shape of head, hair color, shape of teeth, brain size, height, weight, limb length, etc.

In that case, I fully agree that variation exists. But calling it 'microevolution' is an exercise in deception.

Evolution requires much more than different hair color. It must produce new species, correct?

Incorrect. Evolution, particularly biological evolution, strictly speaking is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the life of a single individual within that population. There is no requirement for creating new species. It can create new species, but it is not a requirement.

Evolutionary theory is useful in predicting new strains of influenza virus, explains drug resistance, the management of fisheries for greater yields (Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.)

Quote:

A species is that group that can interbreed with each other, right?

So if a critter gives birth to one who is the first of the 'new species', what will it breed with?

And if it still breeds with the 'old species', then it is not a 'new species' is it?

Thank you for arguing against a complete strawman.

Evolutionary theory currently states that species arise from incremental changes (or possibly decremental changes) that slowly modify the population over time. The new generation will still be able to mate with the previous generation. As the incremental changes occur, the newer generations will be more and more incapable of breeding with the original.

You have, if I am not mistaken, reverted to the old Creationist tactic of providing no evidence of your own to support your viewpoint. Of course, that dinosaur painting thing would be considered evidence, if you actually provided sources and if there wasn't a good chance it wasn't a complete hoax.

It's likely to be a hoax or propaganda if it's from a Creationist website like Answers in Genesis. I'm sorry, but they're clearly lying bastards. It doesn't matter how true Creationism may or may not be, those guys are clearly liars that twist the definition of Evolution so they have a strawman to attack and fabricate evidence.

Paluxy river footprints, anyone?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You've got quite an imagination yourself, haven't you?

Trained scientists take years to examine and reconstruct dinosaur fossils, and you are suggesting that 'cavemen' did it on the fly.

Doesn't take that much training if the skeleton is reasonably complete. But why don't you just show me your cave drawings? We'll see how sophisticated they are, how similar they are to actual dinosaurs, and how much expertise this sophistication would take to achieve.

real life wrote:

Aren't dragons basically just another name for large reptiles?

No. For just one major difference, large reptiles don't generally spew fire, which people used to believe dragons do.

0 Replies

Re: Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Thank you for arguing against a complete strawman.

He pulls out that same line in every thread about evolution, and will do it repeatedly.

He is flat out LYING and his god would not be pleased when he makes those types of statement.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

real life wrote:
You've got quite an imagination yourself, haven't you?

Trained scientists take years to examine and reconstruct dinosaur fossils, and you are suggesting that 'cavemen' did it on the fly.

Doesn't take that much training if the skeleton is reasonably complete.

Just when it couldn't get funnier.

Scientists sometimes spend years just EXCAVATING the dinosaur, only to come up with a fragmentary sample. Complete specimens comprise less than 1% of fossils.

But no doubt your imaginary caveman had lots of leisure time and didn't struggle to eek out an existence. (Probably had a skidloader, too. Powered by fossil fuels, maybe. Laughing

)

Please keep the laughs coming, Thomas. You are terrific.

Thomas wrote:

real life wrote:
Aren't dragons basically just another name for large reptiles?

No. For just one major difference, large reptiles don't generally spew fire, which people used to believe dragons do.

They also believed they could fly. How did they know about large flying reptiles? (Oh yeah I forgot the cavemen reconstructed them in their spare time on weekends after coming home from the old grindstone.)

btw are there critters that can spew fire, or something similar?

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/422599.stm

Quote:

It is one of nature's hot shots. The African bombardier beetle can turn its heavy artillery in virtually any direction and hit the target with extreme accuracy.
The ammunition is impressive too: A boiling hot, toxic fluid that lets off a loud bang on detonation.....................

..........The precursor chemicals have to be stored separately in the beetle's abdomen because they combine explosively when brought together. This explains how the resulting quinones are ejected at high speed and at such a high temperature (100 C).

Indeed, when all guns are blazing, this creature is literally too hot to handle.............

0 Replies

To use your own tactics RL, we ain't talking about proving evolution. We're talking about proving creationism. You've contributed reams of drivel in your pathetic and useless attempts to deny the facts of evolution, and have been beaten every time. I don't care what type of evidence you post. Particularly since you obviously don't know the meaning of the word anyway. Feel free to post anything that your religion damaged brain thinks will back up your ridiculous assertions.

Come on you pathetic f@cking hypocrites. Prove your position.

0 Replies

Once again, Wilso's flawless logic has made refutation impossible.

0 Replies

Re: Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Thomas wrote:

I answered your question, now would you please answer mine? What evidence for creationism do you think you have?

Come on RL, can't you give Thomas even one single example of evidence for creationism?

Surely if magic were used in a massive creation event it must have left some mark somewhere which can't be reconciled with natural events. We're talking about the spontaneous creation of an entire Universe and the planet we live on. And yet, there isn't a shred of evidence for special creation anywhere. The geology of the Earth should be riddled with incongruities which don't match the natural flow of time and evolution, and yet there aren't any incongruities which don't fit into the natural world as described by science.

----

When a creationist challenges evolution they become the worlds toughest skeptics, demanding details finer than those in atomic theory, and questioning the very foundations of philosophical knowledge.

But when it comes to challenging creation, all their skepticism vanishes, it's caution to the wind, have faith the bible, and get in line behind the preacher (of your choice).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Please keep the laughs coming, Thomas. You are terrific.

Or in other words, you have no facts and no arguments about your dinosaur cave paintings. You only have rhetoric.

How about some evidence for creationism now?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

They also believed they could fly. How did they know about large flying reptiles? (Oh yeah I forgot the cavemen reconstructed them in their spare time on weekends after coming home from the old grindstone.)

Yeah, except the body design of dragons are completely unrealistic and based on no creature that ever existed.

Quote:

btw are there critters that can spew fire, or something similar?

Maybe Anne Widdicombe and Anne Coulter, but I don't think they count.

Quote:

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/422599.stm

Oh yeah... toxic liquid is so much like fire isn't it? I remember spending Christmas, roasting chestnuts over hot toxic liquid!

0 Replies

The Creationist answer to what happened to the dinosaures
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.asp?wpc=1038_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/tractimages98900/1038/1038_12.gif

This is what happens when you try to merge myth with reality; you come up with solutions incredibility stupid.

0 Replies

Re: Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Wilso wrote:

Ok losers, freaks and weirdo's. Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position.

Cmon willie: Confused

This is an easy one. It is chock full of evidence and a scientific victory.

Ready?

The proof for creation is --------- creation! It happened! Isn't the historical reality of something, anything - the best proof available? :wink:

0 Replies

I've read that pathetic cop-out before. However, since that supposition is not testable, then it doesn't count as evidence.

0 Replies

The problem here is with the word 'evidence'.

Whether one believes in creation or in evolution, the evidence is the same.

So the originating member's question is doomed to produce an endless circle of blather and lip flappin' clap trap.

The above provides more evidence for the mental state of the original poster than it does for the argument of creation vs. evolution.

0 Replies

ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

0 Replies

Types of evidence:

Experimental

Comparative

Anecdotal

Documentary

Testimonial

Hearsay

Etc.

Shall I go on?

0 Replies

You can type until your fingers bleed for all I care. But since the question was asked, I've indicated the type of evidence I expect. I'm looking for the same type of evidence that is required for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
btw are there critters that can spew fire, or something similar? from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/422599.stm

Oh yeah... toxic liquid is so much like fire isn't it? I remember spending Christmas, roasting chestnuts over hot toxic liquid!

Maybe you should read the whole sentence:

Quote:

The ammunition is impressive too: A boiling hot, toxic fluid that lets off a loud bang on detonation.

Sounds more like a chemical explosion when you read more than just a few words, doesn't it?

and later in the article:

Quote:

The precursor chemicals have to be stored separately in the beetle's abdomen because they combine explosively when brought together.

But never mind. BBC is such a right wing outfit that they will probably make up just about anything.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know