A Challenge To All Creationists

[Ouroboros]

Good grief.

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

I think so. He must be a troll or incredible stupid.

 

[omega2xx]

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)

I don't know much about Christian history because it will not help me understand the Bible. I know enough that Christianity was never involved in pagan worship and mythology. Some in the church, which was mainly Catholic at that time, may have been, but Christainity was not.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

You don't even know what scientific evidence is. Hint---it is not opinions.

Have a nice day.

 

[omega2xx]

Good grief.

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

The joke is thinking a definition that is wrong is a good definition and should be used in scientific study. That is worse than a joke, it is sad anyone would think such a thing.

 

[metis]

I don't know much about Christian history because it will not help me understand the Bible. I know enough that Christianity was never involved in pagan worship and mythology. Some in the church, which was mainly Catholic at that time, may have been, but Christainity was not.

Could you please do some homework.

BTW, it was that same church that you mention above that actually chose the Bible you use.

 

[omega2xx]

The definition isn't wrong. Look it up.

Unless speciation results in a change of species, and it doesn't, the definitiion is wrong.

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.

Okay, there were 2 or 3 who said speciation resuslted in a neew species,

Ok.

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

That simply is not true. A theoery is an idea put forward for consideration,

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

I am using the definition given in the American College Encylopedic Dictionary.

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

IMO anthroplogy is not a true science, like physics and biology.

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

Right, agree wit the evos or you don't understand. From the things you have said you don't have a clue about even basic biology and genetics. However be specific, what don't i have a clue abut? Anyone who believes the nose of a doglike land animal can evolve into the blowhole of a sea creature is the one with no understanding.

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.

I am not sure if I am the one who got off track or it wa trying to answer a comment by someone else.

So let me put this to rest---No one ca prove creations and no one can disprove it.

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.

You were taught by evolutionist and believe what they said. I was taught by evolutionisits and did not beleive what they said.

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

Just did.

 

[omega2xx]

Could you please do some homework.

I am not interested in Church history. Believe what ever you want about it.

BTW, it was that same church that you mention above that actually chose the Bible you use.

Now you need to do your homework. The Catholic church did not chose the Bible I use. See I know what is important in church history.

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

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)

So things DON'T have to have a cause. Thanks for agreeing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Unless speciation results in a change of species, and it doesn't, the definitiion is wrong.

No it's not. The term speciation is a term to signify the process or event of new species. It doesn't matter if you believe speciation is true or not, the term still means what it means.

You're just taking wrong to another level and making it to an artform. It's quite amazing to watch how wrong can pile on wrong.

That simply is not true. A theoery is an idea put forward for consideration,

In colloquial use, yes, but not in the scientific community. Hence your confusion.

IMO anthroplogy is not a true science, like physics and biology.

What is a true science to you? And why isn't anthropology one?

Right, agree wit the evos or you don't understand. From the things you have said you don't have a clue about even basic biology and genetics. However be specific, what don't i have a clue abut? Anyone who believes the nose of a doglike land animal can evolve into the blowhole of a sea creature is the one with no understanding.

Rant.

I am not sure if I am the one who got off track or it wa trying to answer a comment by someone else.

So let me put this to rest---No one ca prove creations and no one can disprove it.

Finally an honest answer from you.

You were taught by evolutionist and believe what they said. I was taught by evolutionisits and did not beleive what they said.

I was taught by Creationists and believe what they said, and then I studied, and realized that creationism was wrong, then I took classes by evolutionists. They didn't have to convince me, I could see it for myself long time before they taught me.

Just did.

No, you didn't, and you just admitted to that you can't, just a few sentences above: "No one ca prove creations and no one can disprove it."

So how did you meet the criteria of proving creation when you also admit that it's impossible?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am not interested in Church history. Believe what ever you want about it.

If you want to understand the bible then you do need to understand how it was created and how it has been used over the years. It seems mostly that you are simply uninterested in it when it goes against your point. Earlier you said that the problem of mythos wasn't true of Christianity but refused to talk about the history of the Church where evidence points to that.

Now you need to do your homework. The Catholic church did not chose the Bible I use. See I know what is important in church history.

Really depends on which bible you use. The Catholic cannon ws created by catholics. The KJV was created by the English Parliment and the King but was really just a chopped up version of the Catholic Cannon. So if its the KJV bible its still the Catholic version but then mutilated by England for the purposes of it matching more to his predecessors invented religion of Anglican Christianity. All created of course because he had a bit of a political squabble with the pope over gettin rid of his wife. Or if you are a mormon then your bible was created by a man who has been arrested on numerous occasions for conartistry and written in what might be the most ridiculous way possible. He wrote it in KJV style english when they obviously did not speak that way. He changed his story a few times becaue he said that it would never be "quite the same" if he had to read it over again. Also only he could read a secret tablet no one else was allowed to see and he could only view them with special "seer stones". Also it was supposed to be written in "reformed Egyptian". Every scholarly attempt to look at the golden tablet (which isn't actually golden) shows that not only is it not Egyptian at all but isnt' even a language of any kind.

So the three main bibles are listed. Was your bible written by the murderous Catholic church that fought for 50 years to get it cannonized or is your version the one made up by the predicesor and his politicial associates to match up a brand new religion made entierly on a whim so a king could divorce his wife? Or are you the follower of the bible written by a con artist who is as suprised as the rest of us that his con actually worked?

Anyway, I didn't mean for it to come off as degrading as it probably sounds but I just wanted to make a point that no matter which bible you read its history is revealing.

 

[omega2xx]

No it's not. The term speciation is a term to signify the process or event of new species. It doesn't matter if you believe speciation is true or not, the term still means what it means.


You're just taking wrong to another level and making it to an artform. It's quite amazing to watch how wrong can pile on wrong.

Do you really not understand that if a definition is WRONG, it IS NOT a definition. To use a definition that is wrong to proves something is the height of piling wrong on wrong, and making wrong an art form. If you don't understand that, there is no hope for you to learn anything.

In colloquial use, yes, but not in the scientific community. Hence your confusion.

Science does not get to change a definition to try and make it give more credibility to their opinions. That is dishonest.

What is a true science to you? And why isn't anthropology one?

True science proves/disproves theories. That is the basis for advancing in scientific knowledge. There is a science in anthropology but no on the same level as biology etc. most science proves things that can't be falsified. anthropology gives general truths---this civilization lived from ____BC to _____BC.

Rant.

Amusing coming from one whose whole post is a rant.

I was taught by Creationists and believe what they said, and then I studied, and realized that creationism was wrong, then I took classes by evolutionists. They didn't have to convince me, I could see it for myself long time before they taught me.

That depends on how old you are and where you went to school. If you went to public schools and are under 40, you were not taught be creationists. Unless you went to a Christian college, you were not taught be creationists. I was taught by evolutionists in high school and in college. Even in high school I KNEW all life we have today could not have some from some single celled blob that popped out of nowhere. They originally
used the term "simple cell," but DNA made them choked on their original guess. To believe something as complex as DNA could originate from lifeless elements is, what did you call it" Oh yeah---making wrong an artform.

No, you didn't, and you just admitted to that you can't, just a few sentences above: "No one can prove creations and no one can disprove it."

So how did you meet the criteria of proving creation when you also admit that it's impossible?

I guess I jumped the track. So sue me.

I went back to the beginning of this thread and guess who first changed the subject to include evolution. The originator of the thread. So go back and rant him if you want to rant on anyone.

 

[omega2xx]

If you want to understand the bible then you do need to understand how it was created and how it has been used over the years. It seems mostly that you are simply uninterested in it when it goes against your point. Earlier you said that the problem of mythos wasn't true of Christianity but refused to talk about the history of the Church where evidence points to that.

First of all I am not totally ignorant of church history. I know the history of the canon. How the Bible was used for years is irrelevant. Some still use it incorrectly. How it should be used is the only thing that matters. There is a good chance some calling them selves Christians did use it in a pagan, mythos way. Now how do you know those wh did were Christians?

Really depends on which bible you use. The Catholic cannon ws created by catholics. The KJV was created by the English Parliment and the King but was really just a chopped up version of the Catholic Cannon. So if its the KJV bible its still the Catholic version but then mutilated by England for the purposes of it matching more to his predecessors invented religion of Anglican Christianity.

I am not Catholic. You need a little lesson on church history. Catholics do not use the KJ, they have adoped one of their own, and the errors of the KY have been corrected in the NKJ.

All created of course because he had a bit of a political squabble with the pope over gettin rid of his wife. Or if you are a mormon then your bible was created by a man who has been arrested on numerous occasions for conartistry and written in what might be the most ridiculous way possible. He wrote it in KJV style english when they obviously did not speak that way. He changed his story a few times becaue he said that it would never be "quite the same" if he had to read it over again. Also only he could read a secret tablet no one else was allowed to see and he could only view them with special "seer stones". Also it was supposed to be written in "reformed Egyptian". Every scholarly attempt to look at the golden tablet (which isn't actually golden) shows that not only is it not Egyptian at all but isnt' even a language of any kind.

There is little evidence if any that KJ was translated for political reasons. Even if it was, it is irrelevant. The people needed a Bible and this was an attempt to give them one. It was a good translation at that time, when Greek was not as well known as it is today. I reject Mormonism as a true Christian religion for the reason you gave and more. I have got out my shield of faith to ward off the stones that will be thrown at me for my last comment. The Bible contradicts some of the BOM and much of LDS theology. It is illogical to use 2 books as Scripture that has contradictions.

So the three main bibles are listed. Was your bible written by the murderous Catholic church that fought for 50 years to get it cannonized or is your version the one made up by the predicesor and his politicial associates to match up a brand new religion made entierly on a whim so a king could divorce his wife? Or are you the follower of the bible written by a con artist who is as suprised as the rest of us that his con actually worked?

You need a lesson on Bible translation. They are not made up by anyone, let alone con-artist. Good Bibles are translated from over 23,000 mss by teams of experts in Hebrew and Greek.

Anyway, I didn't mean for it to come off as degrading as it probably sounds but I just wanted to make a point that no matter which bible you read its history is revealing.

I use the NASB, and its history is irrelevant. It is considered by experts as one of the most accurate translation available. Some consider it the most accurate. When studying the Bible, that is all that matters.

 

[Ouroboros]

That depends on how old you are and where you went to school. If you went to public schools and are under 40, you were not taught be creationists.

I'm over 40. And I'm done with you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't even know what scientific evidence is. Hint---it is not opinions.

Have a nice day.

No, that's you. As evidenced by your comments and avoidance of evidence in this thread (and others).
Psychological projection isn't working for you. Please go and learn something. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The joke is thinking a definition that is wrong is a good definition and should be used in scientific study. That is worse than a joke, it is sad anyone would think such a thing.

You are disputing the definition of a word. Your objection is nonsensical.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you really not understand that if a definition is WRONG, it IS NOT a definition. To use a definition that is wrong to proves something is the height of piling wrong on wrong, and making wrong an art form. If you don't understand that, there is no hope for you to learn anything.

The definition is right. Speciation means "the formation of new and distinct species" or, "the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other."

That is how it is used by people who do science for a living. You clearly are not one of them.

Science does not get to change a definition to try and make it give more credibility to their opinions. That is dishonest.

It's not dishonest at all. Scientists all recognize and use the terms. (You or anyone else can easily find the definition used, if you care to look for it.) Just like all lawyers use specific terms that are understood by those in the field. All brain surgeons use specific terms which are recognized by those trained in their fields. Etc. There's nothing dishonest about it.

True science proves/disproves theories. That is the basis for advancing in scientific knowledge. There is a science in anthropology but no on the same level as biology etc. most science proves things that can't be falsified. anthropology gives general truths---this civilization lived from ____BC to _____BC.

Scientific theories are never proven. Germ theory will never be proven. The theory of plate tectonics will never be proven. They will not graduate or change into laws or anything else. Ever. They will remain scientific theories so long as they are supported by the evidence. The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, hence the reason it's a scientific theory. In fact, it's the only valid and usable scientific theory going that adequately explains the diversity of life on earth.

That depends on how old you are and where you went to school. If you went to public schools and are under 40, you were not taught be creationists. Unless you went to a Christian college, you were not taught be creationists. I was taught by evolutionists in high school and in college. Even in high school I KNEW all life we have today could not have some from some single celled blob that popped out of nowhere. They originally
used the term "simple cell," but DNA made them choked on their original guess. To believe something as complex as DNA could originate from lifeless elements is, what did you call it" Oh yeah---making wrong an artform.

This is an argument from incredulity. Nothing more.

The DNA evidence is more than enough on it's own to confirm the theory of evolution. Never mind all the evidence gleaned from practically every other field of science.

I guess I jumped the track. So sue me.

I went back to the beginning of this thread and guess who first changed the subject to include evolution. The originator of the thread. So go back and rant him if you want to rant on anyone.

It would be great if anyone even bothered to try to provide evidence for creationism.

 

[metis]

Now you need to do your homework. The Catholic church did not chose the Bible I use. See I know what is important in church history.

Oh really? Well tell us, who did? C'mon, let's see you actually do some homework, and then maybe post what you find.

Here, I'll even make it simple for ya: Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

Then look under this heading: Development of the New Testament canon

Let me know what ya find there, omega2xx.

 

[Reggie Miller]

So things DON'T have to have a cause. Thanks for agreeing.

The very first "thing" that came into being or "just happened" couldn't have been the first thing that ever happened - if it had to have a cause.

 

[gnostic]

Science does not get to change a definition to try and make it give more credibility to their opinions. That is dishonest.

The only thing that I am seeing "dishonest", is you, omega2xx.

Science do have their own definitions for "theory" and "hypothesis".

It is the same things, if we were talking about mathematics, which have their own terms, their own definitions. Or with business

And if you are going to argue against science in a debate thread, you should at the very least make an effort understanding the science vocabulary...or else you would end up looking like a fool.

But that's too late for you. You are too stubborn to learn something you are unfamiliar with, and you have made quite apparent you are too egotistic to admit when you are wrong.

I don't think heaven exist, so I am very skeptical about resurrection or the afterlife. But if it did exist, I get the funny feeling that you would argue with God or Jesus when he tell you have sinned. You are too stubborn to admit any error on your part.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm over 40. And I'm done with you.

Those who cant defend what they believe usually are sooner or later. Most last longer than you have.

Have a nice day.