Evolution? How?

I did not say "creation doesn't fit the facts". Show me where I said "creation doesn't fit the facts".

Are you going to tell me this doesn't mean the same thing?



Or shall I ask you straight out:

Does creation fit all the facts?

Yes I am going to tell you this doesn't mean the same thing,
unless or untill you prove creation is highly predictive.Yes please do!I need to know your definition of "creation" firstly. Is it the literalist interpretation of Genesis?

It means the same as when you use the word.

Are you unable to defend your position, so you avoid stating one?

Does creation fit all the facts?

(All the other words in that question mean the same thing as when you use them. That way you don't have to ask.)

real life, Have you ever tried to prove a negative?

Since you're the one supporting creation, name one fact that fits?

While you provide evidence for creation, also prove there are three legged turkeys on Saturn.

Are you then willing to accept my meaning of the word?
Whatever would make you think that, I simply need to be sure we are talking about the same thing.Are you then willing to accept my meaning of the word?OK!

Is it the literalist interpretation of Genesis?

Are you alive?

I'm alive because my parents had sex; no different than many animals on this planet.

Perhaps because every time I have ever asked you to define your position , you hedge and ask for definitions of words we have been using in the conversation up to that point with no problem. All sudden, you don't know what the words mean!

It's incredible. Like talking to the Manchurian candidate when someone flashes the Q of H.

Now, back up with evidence why my being alive proves creation?

The fact that you are alive is consistent with creation. Fits fine, no contradiction there.

The fact that your parents produced one of their own kind, and all the animals you mentioned can produce their own kind is consistent with creation. No contradiction there.

The fact that you can do myriads of things that animals can never do is consistent with creation. No contradiction there.

Do you want me to continue?

Can you name one thing that is not consistent with creation?

Hi Real Life,

Now let's not make generalizations about specifics naughty boy, especially when referring to the wonderful yours truly.

How about the literalist interpretation of Genesis? Would that suit your sensitivities?

Hi Real Life,

Are you afraid to tell me how you define creation? I'll go for the literalist interpretation of Genesis, how about you?

real life, Your brain is awash in an ancient book called the bible that is filled with errors, omissions, and contradictions. The young earth creation of earth in the bible has been poo-poohed many decades ago. Your hanging onto what the comic book character called jesus and god can't be proved - or can you? For your simple mind, I must remind you that you can't use the bible to support the bible. You see, that defeats the whole idea of what is called supporting "evidence." Any comic book can be written to make a claim, then support that claim with some ridiculous idea in the same comic book. You see, that's not how evolutionary evidence works. Evolutionary theory is supported by many fields of science, and even has the support of "real" scientists that work in the fields of geology, anthropology, chemistry, biology, paleoanthropology, paleontology, and the other sciences.

The bible can only support the bible. That's not evidence by any stretch of the imagination - except for creationists like yourself. It's sad you can't see the obvious.

But keep arguing your point; it's fun to see you struggling with your brain. It's interesting to see somebody like you rationalize all that information in front of you that supports evolution while you continue to support creationism. It's obvious you can't even be honest with yourself.

real life, "Creation" presumes a creator. Show evidence of your creator. Can you see your imaginary friend in your mind's eye? How does he look? I've always been curious. Does he have a penis?

Oh, BTW, I've been told we are "created in his image." Had to ask.

rl
I like your claim of egalite about the possession of data and evidence. I use the term evidence when it supports a point.
Ive always been a bit curious about how you could try to defend Creationism based upon what the data shows.

1"we havent seen one species change into another" while thats incorrect, even if it were true, the "inference" of how organisms change oover time is highly visible in the fossil record.
2Where doesevidence exist of the "flood"

3Your historical leaning has been to infer that all things were created at once and then gradually died out as they became unfit for enviroments. Yet you have never ever given any evidence specific to that claim. You just broadly sweep a hand over scientific findings and claim ownership. You hope that something, somewhere is in the data to support your view. Youve never brought any up. Ive been quite generous with naming names and publications (as have many others). You just gloss over this and substitute some zinger at the end of each post, hoping that such shout-outs will substitute for scholarship. Im not fooled.To-date Youve given us absolutely nothing except a bunch of neener neeners hoping wed be somehow impressed with your substitution of wit for reason and scholarship.
4You havent ever gone beyond the "Everything was Created all at once but failed to leave fossils until they finally went extinct" argument. This is a concept of a fossil record turned totally backwards. The fossil record, although we call it a death assemblage, its really a lifestyle assemblage, showing us when and where things lived and how they made a living. By your analysis, after some time in the future we will have merely exhausted all species until nothings left.

5. The laws of Thermodynamics dont govern living systems, because the mere definition of living is a system that is operating against entropy.

As far as not seeing the evolution of new species (we werent around to see it happen) , Ill find some rules (based upon observations of Guy Bush and fellow researchers on the evolution of insect species)

6 All concepts of Creation are inconsistent with exiting evidence. Im not going to waste time responding to your debate techniques which are to put the burden of proof on the people who disagree with you. Its incumbent upon you to show us where Creation is consistent with facts to which we all will stipulate

He's an evolution baiter, plain and simple. Too lazy and afraid to investigate the facts that support evolution which today only has very small questions about the actual mechanics. Those small questions do not debunk evolution but the small minded want to hold them up as "evidence" (vis-a-vis, facts) that evolution did not happen and isn't happening as we speak. The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another will not support creationism or even a higher intellect, at least not one that we can totally understand. Aristotle portrayed God as the "Great Mover," or simply put, not an entity but the energy of the Universe. Those who are still deathly afraid of randomness, including death, want to cling to the explanation of all life as written in Genesis. There are literally no facts there to analyze. They do not exist except in a book of fantasy that was written throughout the last two millenniums by a group of scribes who edited, added onto and thus distorting bits and snippets of mythology from the past. Huge sections were excised and much was added -- I guess they were using some ancient form of Microsoft word and kept hitting the "edit" button. Some of it vaguely fits what little history, mostly verbal, from the times on Earth that it covers. It doesn't ever cover what was happening in China, for instance, where there was another world developing. They have their own cuckoo mythology -- read how the Earth was formed in Chinese religion. Ditto, the American Indian, the Mayans, et al (God didn't want the Mesopotamians to know about any of them). This person is not well-read but has a swarm of "ideas" dwelling in his head that defies any rationality, put there by his parents, his friends or his cleric. Let him play his little mind game -- he's playing it on himself and will remain confused about evolution as long as he refuses to actually study it. Let's hope for his sake he isn't terminally lazy and afraid. There's no boogeyman in the evolutionary closet.

you have to admit wiz, rl is very good at dodging. Its almost like he does tis for a calling.
Incredulity, casting doubt, but meanwhile never forwarding a means or mechanism to support his own claims.

I am fascinated at how this thing has proceeded, kinda like a big car wreck on rt 99 in a thick December Fog. We keep uncovering(albeit slowly) new things aboutmany Creationists and their unfounded beliefs.