A Challenge To All Creationists

[SkepticThinker]

Not true. There is no scientific evidence that supports the BB, so it did not support any predictions. Let me head off the main reason the evos think support the BB--the universe is expanding. How do you know God did not create the universe so it would continue expanding?

Any energy strong enough to continue pushing stars and planets million of light years away, would have made them all dust and killed any chance of life coming into existence.

You can't even explain where the matter that went boom, came from, and you can't explain where that much energy came from. Without scientific evidence for that, it is the BB THEORY that is blown up.

What reason do we have to believe god(s) exist in the first place? Why posit god as an explanation for anything when nobody can empirically demonstrate the existence of any god in the first place? Why posit god as an explanation when there are other explanations that don't require inserting some mysterious entity into it?

 

[omega2xx]

Most people don't have a problem with their wisdom teeth coming in..



Yeah... it's essentially the same thing. However, you might be startled to know that whales have leg bones.

I'm sure that does some good for swimming, being covered and nothing more than a remnant of evolution - like our appendix.

This is the usual evo wild imagination taking over. That is not a leg bone, it is a fin bone. It unlike the aendix serve a vital purpose and it can't come fro a dog-like animal. You need to go back to school and take an intermediate course in genetics.

A change in the climate and region, of course, that would not be so "quite well" as you think. Similar to how a cooling earth likely forced several theropod species to produce feathers (and they did, we have fossil evidence for that).

If you think scales became feathers, going back to school and having some evo teacher tell you they did. Just save you money. It is IMPOSSIBLE GENETICALLY. It is a necessary evo speculation.

I didn't see you explanation of a nose becoming a blowhole. Once upon a time....and they lived happily ever after.


This ain't Pokémon.

[/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

Since this is slightly offensive, I feel entitled to say that you should replace "even" with "only". And I am being generous by conceding so much as two digits.

Since it is only humorous, I will stick with what I usually use. l But thank you for that advice.

There is not such a thing as creation science. By definition of "science".

Technically you are right. There is also no such thing as evolution science, no matter how hard they try to squeeze that square peg into that round hole.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Since it is only humorous, I will stick with what I usually use. l But thank you for that advice.



Technically you are right. There is also no such thing as evolution science, no matter how hard they try to squeeze that square peg into that round hole.

See how much we agree. I also believe there is no evolutionist science. There is no gravitationist science, either.

Cool.

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

You must be quite proud.

Why???

Then you should accept the theory of evolution. It is science-based. The evidence that supports it comes from almost every scientific field in existence. Biology does not even work without evolution. Nor does genetics.

Then why can't you produce even one example of something that the toe preaches that can be proved scientifically.

I have, and they don't. If they actually did, then creationism would be the accepted, prevailing scientific theory that best fits the available evidence. But it isn't. That designation goes to the theory of evolution.

So now we are going to determine truth by majority. sorry, real science proves what it says. If it was true, all scientists would accept it and it would no longer be called theory.

So again, I'm going to go with the accepted science, independent confirmation and the consensus of evidence, rather than with some lone poster on a religious forum that thinks they've got it all figured out. If you think you do, please feel free to publish your findings in scientific journals. And get ready to collect your Nobel Prize because anybody who could manage to falsify the theory of evolution would surely turn all of science on its head.

That fine I will stick with real science

The people who have spent their lives studying this stuff accept the theory of evolution as the explanation that best fits the evidence. I'm going with them.

What evidence do you have in mind? You can't provide the evidence for even one thing.

 

[omega2xx]

What reason do we have to believe god(s) exist in the first place? Why posit god as an explanation for anything when nobody can empirically demonstrate the existence of any god in the first place? Why posit god as an explanation when there are other explanations that don't require inserting some mysterious entity into it?

Because you have no evidence for the origin of matter, energy and life, and a Creator is more logical, when their is a creation.

 

[omega2xx]

See how much we agree. I also believe there is no evolutionist science. There is no gravitationist science, either.

Cool.

Ciao

- viole

I still believe in miracles.

 

[viole]

I still believe in miracles.

No doubt.

That is what characterizes "real science", doesn't it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Reggie Miller]

No doubt.

That is what characterizes "real science", doesn't it?

Ciao

- viole

What is "real science"?

 

[viole]

What is "real science"?

Science that does not contradict the writings of some bronze age authors, apparently.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then why can't you produce even one example of something that the toe preaches that can be proved scientifically.

I have. Multiple times. You ignored all of them. In fact, you flat out said you refuse to click on links for evidence and requested I cut and paste the evidence for you - which I did. You still ignored it.

So now we are going to determine truth by majority. sorry, real science proves what it says. If it was true, all scientists would accept it and it would no longer be called theory.

I didn't say that at all. Take note that I referred to consensus of the empirical EVIDENCE, not consensus of opinion.

That fine I will stick with real science

Then you should accept the TOE, if you accept the sciences I listed.

What evidence do you have in mind? You can't provide the evidence for even one thing.

See above. Or many of my previous posts to you, earlier in the thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because you have no evidence for the origin of matter, energy and life, and a Creator is more logical, when their is a creation.

The theory of evolution is not about the origin of matter or life. It's about the diversity of life on earth.

When you can empirically demonstrate the existence of a god capable of creating the universe, that's when I'll believe it. Not before.

 

[viole]

and a Creator is more logical, when their is a creation.

It is not necessarily more logical. But for sure, it is more question begging.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Because you have no evidence for the origin of matter, energy and life, and a Creator is more logical, when their is a creation.

Since you have not been able to show the universe was created....

I understand that you will not allow that fact to hinder you.

 

[Reggie Miller]

The theory of evolution is not about the origin of matter or life. It's about the diversity of life on earth.

When you can empirically demonstrate the existence of a god capable of creating the universe, that's when I'll believe it. Not before.

Can you provide us with your evolutionary tree?

 

[McBell]

Can you provide us with your evolutionary tree?

So you can beat up on another dead straw horse?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you provide us with your evolutionary tree?

Pardon?

Why would I have my own evolutionary tree?

 

[McBell]

Pardon?

Why would I have my own evolutionary tree?

Think perhaps he means family tree?

Though I have no idea why he would want that.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Pardon?

Why would I have my own evolutionary tree?

Well, you do believe in macro-evolution, right? Which evolutionary tree do you think is correct and why?

 

[gnostic]

Because you have no evidence for the origin of matter, energy and life, and a Creator is more logical, when their is a creation.

I still believe in miracles.

That's all amount to the same thing as saying you believing in fairies.

Highly irrational wishful fantasy, whether you believe in creator or in fairies.

Believing in a creator deity that can create something from nothing or perform miracles by incantation of some words sound like witchcraft or magic to me. That's good for fairytale, but not so convincing in real life...unless you are superstitious primitives.