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

Re: taking the piss, but at least admitting it

rosborne979 wrote:

So this whole thread is a trick question.

It's Wilso's fault.

It's his thread. Laughing

I asked him what kind of 'natural' evidence he was seeking for the 'supernatural', but so far no clear answer. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Well then, define the 'singularity' which is the ultimate source of matter/energy in the naturalistic scenario.

I don't know that there has ever been a singularity that is the ultimate source of matter or energy in the naturalistic scenario. I don't know that there is an ultimate source of matter or energy.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Natural selection is random.

No it's not.

Does the 'more evolved' (or 'better adapted' if you prefer) critter/species ALWAYS survive?

What does that question have to do with natural selection not being random?

It should be rather apparent.

It's not.

But if you prefer not to explain yourself, that's fine.

0 Replies

Re: taking the piss, but at least admitting it

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
So this whole thread is a trick question.

It's Wilso's fault.

It's his thread.

I asked him what kind of 'natural' evidence he was seeking for the 'supernatural', but so far no clear answer.

I did answer it. I will answer again, and this time I'll type really slowly so you can read it. Science requires a standard of evidence for a hypothesis to become a theory. I'll accept the same. But the fact is, your post above is another pathetic cop out by another pathetic loser, because the fact is, you can't provide a f@cking thing. Maybe it will be easier if I tell what is not evidence?

Creation happened, so it must be creation. Another worthless cop out.
It says so in the bible. Even more pathetic.

I suspect you're just going to keep dancing around it, because deep down you know that you've sweet f#ck all.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Does the 'more evolved' (or 'better adapted' if you prefer) critter/species ALWAYS survive?

Sadly, all critters, including each of ourselves, die eventually. It doesn't matter how well adapted they are. What matters is: How many copies of their genes will each of them pass down the generations before that happens?

0 Replies

Re: taking the piss, but at least admitting it

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
So this whole thread is a trick question.

It's Wilso's fault.

It's his thread.

I asked him what kind of 'natural' evidence he was seeking for the 'supernatural', but so far no clear answer.

On the other hand, creationISM in the classic usage, makes some specific statements about historic physical events. THOSE events should have specific physical evidence which reflect the event. A complete lack of evidence (which is the case we have here) is an indication that the historical record (from a literally interpreted bible for example) is incorrect.

You SHOULD be able to provide at least one example of empirical evidence which reflects the historical event. Yet you have not done so. Why is that?

0 Replies

When a plant stem is viewed thru an electron microscope, an elaborate NETWORK of celluar SYSTEMS all CO-ORDINATED comes into view. Water pulled from the ground. (Men make wells, pumps) Minerals are seperated from it. (Men make filters) The water, and the minerals are sent to the parts of the plant needing them. (Men make trucks and railroads) Sunlight is harnessed for energy- and sent to the areas need that. ( Man makes solar panels/systems)

This is just one of the endless examples of ELABORATE DESIGN and ENGINEERING seen in all living things, that the Wonderful World of Science accredits to blind chance (evolution).

It would be far, far easier a PC to come about by blind chance! It would be a Tinker Toy compared to ANY living organism.

THIS is the EVIDENCE few want to see anymore...

As stated at Romans 1:18- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19- Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20-For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21-Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...

0 Replies

theMadJW wrote:

that the Wonderful World of Science accredits to blind chance (evolution).

You are lying in this statement. Please correct it or I will be forced to call you on it each and everytime like I have to do with RL.

0 Replies

theMadJW wrote:

This is just one of the endless examples of ELABORATE DESIGN and ENGINEERING seen in all living things, that the Wonderful World of Science accredits to blind chance (evolution).

It would be far, far easier a PC to come about by blind chance! It would be a Tinker Toy compared to ANY living organism.

That was just about the stupidest thing I ever read. Are you an idiot, or just pretending to be one?

0 Replies

LYING? CORRECT it?
Do you imply that science teaches that God created all things thru Evolution?????
Correct yourself!

0 Replies

theMadJW wrote:

LYING? CORRECT it?
Do you imply that science teaches that God created all things thru Evolution?????
Correct yourself!

No. You are lying about what evolutions says. Nothing about evolution via natual selection is left to blind chance.

0 Replies

Evolutionists fudge on the issue of randomness.

They typically will admit that randomness plays some part in evolution, but they are loathe to admit that randomness is the very music that the evolutionary chorus is set to.

Reality check --- Sometimes the 'better adapted' critter/species survives.

Sometimes it doesn't.

If evolution had anything other than tautology to offer, randomness would not play a part.

But evolutionists argue themselves into a circle trying to deny randomness.

'The better adapted survive and reproduce more because they are better adapted. If they didn't survive then they weren't better adapted after all.'

It's circular.

If they break out of the circle and admit the obvious -- that 'better adapted critters/species sometimes don't [/b] survive and reproduce more, then the randomness is too apparent to miss.

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. 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.

Some interesting pics posted by gunga.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=104024&start=0

I especially enjoyed seeing the Cambodian temple carving.

0 Replies

So you also believe that there were spacemen and UFOs living along side people and dinos? Because in Chariots of the Gods -- by Erich Von Daniken, he uses gunga's type of conclusive proof and shows that cave painting contain images of space suited people and UFOs.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

theMadJW wrote:
LYING? CORRECT it?
Do you imply that science teaches that God created all things thru Evolution?????
Correct yourself!

No. You are lying about what evolutions says. Nothing about evolution via natual selection is left to blind chance.

Lousy 'logic'. All here KNOW science's version of evolution is BASED on blind chance- no Intelligent force directing the construction of these cellular networks. Simple FACT.

Now some religious scientists throw God in the mix, saying HE made all things thru evolution! That is a Hybrid version of the dogma- NOT the official Science Version.

Can you at least admit THAT?

Now the Church version of Creations is EQUALLY ridiculous- teaching the Universe was made in 6 of OUR days- ignoring all the details in Genesis and science CLEARLY showing otherwise. That's why they have to believe that dinosaurs existed with man. Probably why most prefer evolution!

0 Replies

Quote:

They typically will admit that randomness plays some part in evolution, but they are loathe to admit that randomness is the very music that the evolutionary chorus is set to.

oh i totally agree. try and twist a scientists arm to admit that a big pile of illogical crap is true, they won't to save their grandmother.

"randomness is the very music the evolutionary chorus is set to!" - maybe if you get him high first.

once again, you're confusing two entirely different things. one is random mutations and random groupings. the other is the fact that things only fit together (for cell shapes, for ionic charges, for covalence numbers) in particular, ordered ways. random mutation leads to ordered selection.

the fact that you can't grasp that doesn't make it any more ridiculous or unlikely, and there's no point in anyone admitting that your skewed, convieniently selective view of it is true.

0 Replies

theMadJW wrote:

maporsche wrote:
theMadJW wrote:
LYING? CORRECT it?
Do you imply that science teaches that God created all things thru Evolution?????
Correct yourself!

No. You are lying about what evolutions says. Nothing about evolution via natual selection is left to blind chance.

Lousy 'logic'. All here KNOW science's version of evolution is BASED on blind chance- no Intelligent force directing the construction of these cellular networks. Simple FACT.

Now some religious scientists throw God in the mix, saying HE made all things thru evolution! That is a Hybrid version of the dogma- NOT the official Science Version.

Can you at least admit THAT?

Now the Church version of Creations is EQUALLY ridiculous- teaching the Universe was made in 6 of OUR days- ignoring all the details in Genesis and science CLEARLY showing otherwise. That's why they have to believe that dinosaurs existed with man. Probably why most prefer evolution!

Actually there is a method that was proposed to explain how evolution worked called NATURAL SELECTION. This is NOT equalivant to 'blind chance' SIMPLE FACT. As opposed to an Intelligent force directing evolution, science proposes a natural 'force' directing evolution. Either way, a method exists to model evolutionary theory. 'Blind chance' as you propose obviously not a 'model' that a theory can be based on.

I am not proposing ID as the solution to this connundrum.

You mistated the Theory of Evolution and you need to correct yourself, otherwise you'll be nothing but a liar. Would your God want that?

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

So you also believe that there were spacemen and UFOs living along side people and dinos?

This is why it's hard to take you seriously. You're continually producing strawmen.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Because in Chariots of the Gods -- by Erich Von Daniken, he uses gunga's type of conclusive proof and shows that cave painting contain images of space suited people and UFOs.

EVD interprets some images as representing spacemen. So what?

What is your alternate interpretation of the Cambodian temple carving?

If you don't think it's a dinosaur, stand up and tell us what you think it really is, instead of spewing straw. Laughing

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Actually there is a method that was proposed to explain how evolution worked called NATURAL SELECTION. This is NOT equalivant to 'blind chance' SIMPLE FACT. As opposed to an Intelligent force directing evolution, science proposes a natural 'force' directing evolution. Either way, a method exists to model evolutionary theory. 'Blind chance' as you propose obviously not a 'model' that a theory can be based on.

I am not proposing ID as the solution to this connundrum.

You mistated the Theory of Evolution and you need to correct yourself, otherwise you'll be nothing but a liar. Would your God want that?

Mad replies: Thank you for the condescending reply! One thing you will see from now on is that the very words used to describe evolution SCREAM Intelligent Design (not to be confused with the Church Dogma of the same name!).

You said ""science proposes a natural 'force' directing evolution"- just THINK about that! You step out of your car as its slowly moving- what will be directing it into the proper lane? What will direct it to stop at the CrossWalk, etc.?
Using the example of the elaborate cellullar networks, NOTHING shows "random" 'selection'- there ARE no disorganized groups of cells mixed in with the networked; they are ALL networked to co-ordinate in various TECNICAL ways for a common function. This "Natural Selection" truly IS Natural- since God (whomever He really is) is the one that "directed" them.

Try being truthful with yourself, for a change!

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

theMadJW wrote:
maporsche wrote:
theMadJW wrote:
LYING? CORRECT it?
Do you imply that science teaches that God created all things thru Evolution?????
Correct yourself!

No. You are lying about what evolutions says. Nothing about evolution via natual selection is left to blind chance.

Lousy 'logic'. All here KNOW science's version of evolution is BASED on blind chance- no Intelligent force directing the construction of these cellular networks. Simple FACT.

Now some religious scientists throw God in the mix, saying HE made all things thru evolution! That is a Hybrid version of the dogma- NOT the official Science Version.

Can you at least admit THAT?

Now the Church version of Creations is EQUALLY ridiculous- teaching the Universe was made in 6 of OUR days- ignoring all the details in Genesis and science CLEARLY showing otherwise. That's why they have to believe that dinosaurs existed with man. Probably why most prefer evolution!

Actually there is a method that was proposed to explain how evolution worked called NATURAL SELECTION. This is NOT equalivant to 'blind chance' SIMPLE FACT. As opposed to an Intelligent force directing evolution, science proposes a natural 'force' directing evolution. Either way, a method exists to model evolutionary theory. 'Blind chance' as you propose obviously not a 'model' that a theory can be based on.

I am not proposing ID as the solution to this connundrum.

You mistated the Theory of Evolution and you need to correct yourself, otherwise you'll be nothing but a liar. Would your God want that?

Natural selection is not a 'force' in any real sense of the word.

It is a description of a 'tendency' or an occasional 'result'.

In other words, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Have your cake and eat it too.

If natural selection were a force, it would be theoretically measurable and predictable.

It's not. It's just given credit after the fact.

And when it doesn't occur, there's deafening silence.

Why do better adapted species sometimes not survive?

Well, evolutionists don't want to talk about that unless they can argue in a circle. 'Those that survived were obviously those that were better adapted.'

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know