A Challenge To All Creationists

[gnostic]

I still haven't seen a single verifiable evidence that would verify a creator god is real.

 

[jeager106]

Creation Science Today - Scientific evidence for creation

Here's a pretty good read for Creationist.
A good read for evolutionists also if it adds to your side of the debate.
The ONLY documentation we have for the creation event is
the Bible and it's written for people that had no concept of what science
even was/is.
"Can't explain it? God did it." Case closed along with the mind.
Well I posit that maybe God did do "it" but I have no clue how God
did it.
The Genesis account gives few details and isn't even close to a scientific
document. It isn't supposed to be a scientific document.
Genesis was written to explain things to the people of that time.
An era in which "god" was responsible for everything. People had no
idea that science was a tool or that science even existed.
A different "god" we know as Satan gets the nod for bringing temptation
to mankind via a twit of a woman called Eve.
I think that was the beginning of gender discrimination to tell ya the
truth.
In any even I must conclude that Genesis is a masterful bit of prose
written for the people of the time.
Imagine this: God creates a being from dust and calls him "man" (Adam).
He sees that His man is lonesome and bored after giving names to all
creatures on this new Earth so instead of giving Adam a playmate like
a trained chimp God takes a rib (ouch) from Adam and creates Eve.
Since then the Earth has been in turmoil.
Huh?
Write a tale like that today and submit it for publication and see how fast
the manuscript is sent back to you with a rejection slip.
Everything in the Christian Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.
It takes some work, some time, some study to understand the meaning
in our Bible and more work to understand HOW it makes meaning.
40,000 denominations of Christianity ALL reading the same book.
Any questions?
Pass me a basket of rattlesnakes so I can demonstrate to God how
much faith I have that I won't get bitten and if I do I won't die, and
if I die it's because "God" wanted me in Heaven.
When I win I loose. Go figure.
No one can just read the Bible from cover to cover and fully understand
it.
No more than a grade school kid can read a college physics book
and be a scientist.

 

[omega2xx]

First of all, I'm pretty sure you haven't done the research because, if you had, you wouldn't be posting the distortions that you have been perpetually posting.

You can believe what you like. From my discussion with you and others who accept evolution have not done your homework. You certainly don;'t understand even basic genetics. You accept mutation and natural selection as mechanisms for a change of species, but can't offer an example of it happening. You are willing to accept by faith alone any explanation offered by anyone that you think reinforces your beliefs. You accept rhetoric as evidence,

It's either that you simply are trolling based on "confirmation bias". To illustrate the point, consider the complete absurdity of your last sentence. Even a high school biology student should know better.
It's amazing how you ignore the massive objective evidence for evolution, and yet you obviously believe in religious stories that cannot in any way be confirmed through objectively-derived evidence. If all humankind had your "driving curiosity" , we'd be still trying to figure out even today what are all those lights in the sky about?

This is the usual nonsense I ALWAYS get when the person can't produce ANY evidence for what they believe. You don't even seem to know what determines the characteristics the offspring gets, and how these characteristics are limited---that is basic biology.

It is more amazing that you think there is any objective evidence to support evolution. You don't even understand what scientific evidences is.

 

[omega2xx]

False. You setup a fallacious argument only to arrive at a single point which is irrelevant.



No I say that as that is not how evolution and mutation mechanics are taught. Like I said you have no idea what you are talking about, make demands based on your ignorance then call it a day.



Then my answer is pointless as you are claiming you have knowledge of which mechanics work or not all while being obvious that natural selection is not speciation. Hilarious.
Try again son.

You have already stated your bias openly as you will dismiss any evidence for evolution thus your participation in this thread is pointless.






It does matter as it exposes your ignorance of a topic at hand.



I have already provided examples of speciation pages ago. You ignored these as your bias prevents you from accepting it. And your ignorance which causes you to confuse the terms and their meaning.






I pointed out another of your mistakes. If you can not ask a question properly since you have no idea what the terms you are using means your question is irrelevant.




I provided examples pages ago. Go back and read my posts.



This is hilarious coming from someone that thinks natural selection is speciation.

What flaw? demonstrate it do not claim it.





Yes you did as you were demanding evidence of one mutation producing a new species.



Then you previous question was nothing but a strawman to arrive at the above conclusion. Too bad there is evidence which I posted of new species emerging. Go back and read my posts.



I don't. I just openly mock your vast ignorance of the topic at hand. Besides I provided examples in previous posts. So the question is are you capable of reading on your own without being spoon fed knowledge like a child?





Hilarious coming from the one that confused natural selection with speciation.... What son?




Put forward by the person that thinks natural selection is speciation, Hilarious son.



No I have provided examples before, you either didn't look up these examples of dismissed them automatically.





Coming from the Biblical literalist this is hilarious. Try again son

What is hilarious is that you think I am a literalist. However when it comes to real science, one must be a literalist.

The rest of your post gets a big YAWN.

No need to try again until you have a better understanding of genetics and evidence. Anyone who things the nose of a land animal can become the blowhole of a water creature needs more help than I can give them.

 

[omega2xx]

Has nothing to do with the definition. The definition is just the definition.

A definition that is wrong should not be used to prove something.

No, what's absurd is that you think that the definition of speciation somehow is suppose to teach the truth of evolution. You got it all backwards.

The why is speciation always used as an example to PROVE evolution? If I remember correctly, YOU used it for that purpose.

 

[omega2xx]

5 Theories in Economics: 5 Nobel Prize-Winning Economic Theories You Should Know About

I guess I should have been specific and limited it to science. Economics don't work like science.

Theory of phase transision in physics: The Nobel Prize in Physics 1982

While reading through the article I found this statement: "The problem was solved in a definite and profound way by Kenneth Wilson in two fundamental papers from 1971 and followed by a series of papers in the following years." Although it is called a theory, it sounds like it has been proven to me.

Here's a list of awards in physics, several regarding "theory": All Nobel Prizes in Physics

I will check thosed later.

Let's get this clear. You don't know what a scientific theory is or what it means. You don't know what evolution is or means. You don't know what speciation is or means. You don't know what "nothing" means. You don't know a lot of things, but you have plenty of opinions.

Lets get this very clear. I know as much about the thins as you do, probably more. I KNOW speciation does not result in a new species, something you don't know. I know natural selection and mutations do not cause a change of species, thins you have accepted by faith alone, and can't proved any scientific evidence they do.

I alwayS get this "you don't understand" nonsense when the evo can't produce any evidence for what they preach. You don't even understand what scientific evidence is. All you and your links have done is offer unsupported OPINIONS.

And still, you haven't given any evidence for creationism for this thread, which was what this thread is about. Stop with all these red herrings and start showing some real content.[/QUOTE]

DUUH. Unless you have a scientific explanation for the existence of matter, energy and life, the evidence for the creation is the creation. You just don't accept the evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

wow.
That went way over your head.

Maybe. Why not bring it down to my level of understanding and lets see if it did.

 

[metis]

It is more amazing that you think there is any objective evidence to support evolution. You don't even understand what scientific evidences is.

I guess that's why I'm a scientist who taught the subject for roughly 30 years.

I grew up in one of those fundamentalist Protestant church that was quite anti-science, but I outgrew it, so I know where you're coming from. Maybe some day you'll actually decide to do some serious homework instead of spouting nonsense.

There's a saying that goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans", and let me add to that: "When discussing science, deal with science and not medieval mythology". Just a recommendation.

 

[omega2xx]

I guess that's why I'm a scientist who taught the subject for roughly 30 years.

Wonderful. Show me the science that causes natural selection to result in a new species.

I grew up in one of those fundamentalist Protestant church that was quite anti-science, but I outgrew it, so I know where you're coming from. Maybe some day you'll actually decide to do some serious homework instead of spouting nonsense.

I was never in a fundamentalist church and am not now. Why do you bring religion into a science discussion? I love real science. The more science proves, the more it points to the TOE being a scientific fraud.

You taught what you were taught. If what you were taught is wrong, what you taught was also wrong. And you were taught be evolutionists.

There's a saying that goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans", and let me add to that: "When discussing science, deal with science and not medieval mythology". Just a recommendation.

Here is a recommendation for you. If I don't mention religion, I an not using it for what I believe about science. That what the Bible says is medieval mythology is another thing you can't prove.

 

[Shad]

What is hilarious is that you think I am a literalist. However when it comes to real science, one must be a literalist.

Considering you put forward an expanding earth models to account for Noah's flood so that a global flood works then my claim is justified.

You know next to nothing about science

The rest of your post gets a big YAWN.

Yah must be hard to be so incoherent that you still haven't figured out what the words you use mean

No need to try again until you have a better understanding of genetics and evidence.

What is natural selection again son? What is speciation again son?

Anyone who things the nose of a land animal can become the blowhole of a water creature needs more help than I can give them.

Strawman. Besides the movement of the position is observed during embryonic stages. Again another fine demonstration that you still have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[metis]

Here is a recommendation for you. If I don't mention religion, I an not using it for what I believe about science. That what the Bible says is medieval mythology is another thing you can't prove.

You are not telling the truth when you say that you haven't mentioned religion in this context, as has been pointed out to you before.

And also notice that your last sentence refutes your claim as I never mentioned the Bible nor Christianity. "Medieval mythology" was a reference to interpretations that actually were an early part of history whereas people fabricated all sorts of stories and then built "theologies" around them.

So, as usual, you just keep making up stories.

 

[omega2xx]

Considering you put forward an expanding earth models to account for Noah's flood.

You know next to nothing about science

[quiote]The rest of your post gets a big YAWN.

Yah must be hard to be so incoherent that you still havent figured out what the words you use mean



What is natural selection again son? What is speciation again son?



Strawman. Besides the movement of the position is observed during embryonic stages. Again another fine demonstration that you still have no idea what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

YAWN

And you still haven't offered an example of mutations and natural selection being the mechanism for a change of species. You can't even prove natural selection ever happens. Your pope said it did so you gobbled it up like candy.

Anyone who believes the nose of a land animal doing very well on land, can become the blowhole of a sea creature, is still in the dark ages of science.

 

[Shad]

And you still haven't offered an example of mutations and natural selection being the mechanism for a change of species.

I provided an examples before. Here is another, the Ensatina salamanders which is an example of both.

You can't even prove natural selection ever happens.

I did with my moth example. However since you do not know what natural selection you are still clueless.

Your pope said it did so you gobbled it up like candy.

Hilarious if you think science has a Pope and I have been in communication with this Pope. Your Protestantism is showing.

Anyone who believes the nose of a land animal doing very well on land, can become the blowhole of a sea creature, is still in the dark ages of science.

Anyone that is still clueless that this is observed at the embryo level needs to develop better reading comprehension. Especially after having been told this fact.

 

[omega2xx]

You are not telling the truth when you say that you haven't mentioned religion in this context, as has been pointed out to you before.

I never mention religion is a science discussion. If needed I mention "after their kind," but that is something science has proved and it rejects evolution

And also notice that your last sentence refutes your claim as I never mentioned the Bible nor Christianity.

No it doesn't. You are reading something in that you want to be in it.

"Medieval mythology" was a reference to interpretations that actually were an early part of history whereas people fabricated all sorts of stories and then built "theologies" around them.

That is not true of Christianity

So, as usual, you just keep making up stories.

I don't remember exactly how you said it, but I am going to back track and find out.

 

[metis]

"Medieval mythology" was a reference to interpretations that actually were an early part of history whereas people fabricated all sorts of stories and then built "theologies" around them.

That is not true of Christianity

Then you also don't know much about the history of Christianity.

Here, maybe you can do some reading: Christianity and Religious Freedom in the Medieval Period (476 – 1453 CE)

 

[SkepticThinker]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The proof of a theory is in the evidence,

Show me one example of natural selection being he mechanism for a change of species.

If you want to be a skepticthinker, apply it to the TOE.

I've given you the evidence you have endlessly requested but refuse to ever look at.

I refuse to waste my time anymore with someone who has no interest in actual seeing any evidence. I find your method of argumentation to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[rusra02]

So who created this designer?

The Bible answers: "Before me no God was formed,And after me there has been none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:10,11) "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Psalm 90:2)

 

[SkepticThinker]

If it does not lead to a new species, the definition is wrong.



Would you try to teach a truth with a wrong definition of a word in the definition? That is absurd.

Good grief.

This is a joke, right? You're putting everyone on?

 

[Ouroboros]

A definition that is wrong should not be used to prove something.

The definition isn't wrong. Look it up.

The why is speciation always used as an example to PROVE evolution? If I remember correctly, YOU used it for that purpose.

Then you're remember incorrectly. I didn't use it to prove anything. It was someone else who used it to tell you that there was an example of speciation in fruitflies. To use the word isn't wrong. Speciation is the word that means "emerging new species" so what he said was simply, there's an example of new species in fruitflies. The "new species" is just replaced with "speciation". Has nothing to do with a proof to interchange synonyms.

 

[Ouroboros]

I guess I should have been specific and limited it to science. Economics don't work like science.

Ok.

While reading through the article I found this statement: "The problem was solved in a definite and profound way by Kenneth Wilson in two fundamental papers from 1971 and followed by a series of papers in the following years." Although it is called a theory, it sounds like it has been proven to me.

??? A scientific theory is something that has been proven usually through inference.

You're mixing up the colloquial use of word theory with the scientific use of it.

I will check thosed later.

Lets get this very clear. I know as much about the thins as you do, probably more. I KNOW speciation does not result in a new species, something you don't know. I know natural selection and mutations do not cause a change of species, thins you have accepted by faith alone, and can't proved any scientific evidence they do.\\

I actually took classes in this in college, and I do have a science degree even if it's not in anthropology specifically.

Based on the things you've said, I know for a fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.

I alwayS get this "you don't understand" nonsense when the evo can't produce any evidence for what they preach. You don't even understand what scientific evidence is. All you and your links have done is offer unsupported OPINIONS.

And what I don't get is that you don't understand that this thread and discussion was for YOU to PROVE CREATIONISM and not for YOU to DISPUTE EVOLUTION.

And still, you haven't given any evidence for creationism for this thread, which was what this thread is about. Stop with all these red herrings and start showing some real content.

DUUH. Unless you have a scientific explanation for the existence of matter, energy and life, the evidence for the creation is the creation. You just don't accept the evidence.

I have taken many science classes and even gone on science trips to study relating things. Also, I was a Christian and even anti-evolution for 30 years. But you know what happened? I started to read and study instead of making stupid arguments with people who knew more than me. I realized that I was the one in the dark, just like you are now.

So... DUUUUUUUUUH READ THE F**IN FIRST POST IN THE THREAD AND ANSWER TO THE CHALLENGE INSTEAD.