A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

Empty assertion.

Empty assertion.

 

[Reggie Miller]

What is the evidence any of these claims are true?

You do know how to Google, right?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Thanks for illustrating my point for me.

Glad to oblige. When you get it all figured out past speculation, come back and see me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Empty assertion.

LOL! Um, no....your claim about classification was offered with absolutely no support, in a "because I say so" manner. That's the very definition of an empty assertion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Glad to oblige.

Interesting. I didn't realize that you were intentionally intending to demonstrate my point about creationists and their shady tactics. Well done though.

When you get it all figured out past speculation, come back and see me.

Oh sure. I can tell you're a real science enthusiast.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL! Um, no....your claim about classification was offered with absolutely no support, in a "because I say so" manner. That's the very definition of an empty assertion.

There can be no scientific support for putting apes and man in the same category. It is a classification of necessity to give the faithful hope they have not put their faith in the wrong person.

Man's ability to speak makes him unique and he should not be classified with any group that can't speak.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Interesting. I didn't realize that you were intentionally intending to demonstrate my point about creationists and their shady tactics. Well done though.



Oh sure. I can tell you're a real science enthusiast.

Truth is truth. Science is science. I prefer truth.

 

[Jose Fly]

There can be no scientific support for putting apes and man in the same category. It is a classification of necessity to give the faithful hope they have not put their faith in the wrong person.

More empty assertions.

Man's ability to speak makes him unique and he should not be classified with any group that can't speak.

That's your opinion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You do know how to Google, right?

I have debated the legitimacy of the bible for years. Zero evidence has been brought forward validating the bible as an accurate historical document. Yeshua, as his name was rather than Jesus, has zero accounts of him in non-biblical sources that have anything to do with miracles. There are only two strained potential references to him as it referenced a person with the title "christo". Zero records of miraculous healing and resurrections are found anywhere in the historical records other than the bible. And not even within the bible always as there is a distinctive increase in supernatural like miracles being used in the narrative of the 4 gospels depending on when they were written. Not to mention that none of the 4 gospels were written by eye witnesses as the earliest one written was nearly 70 years after the claimed death of Yeshua.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I have debated the legitimacy of the bible for years. Zero evidence has been brought forward validating the bible as an accurate historical document. Yeshua, as his name was rather than Jesus, has zero accounts of him in non-biblical sources that have anything to do with miracles. There are only two strained potential references to him as it referenced a person with the title "christo". Zero records of miraculous healing and resurrections are found anywhere in the historical records other than the bible. And not even within the bible always as there is a distinctive increase in supernatural like miracles being used in the narrative of the 4 gospels depending on when they were written. Not to mention that none of the 4 gospels were written by eye witnesses as the earliest one written was nearly 70 years after the claimed death of Yeshua.

Hmm... I guess the couple of billion or so people who think otherwise are all wrong.

Or it could be that your bias clouds your judgement.

I'll go with the latter.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hmm... I guess the couple of billion or so people who think otherwise are all wrong.

Hmm... not sure why you think that's a good argument.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Hmm... not sure why you think that's a good argument.

That's why I went with the latter.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hmm... I guess the couple of billion or so people who think otherwise are all wrong.

Or it could be that your bias clouds your judgement.

I'll go with the latter.

It is the reverse. There are billions of people who have faith in a religion. There are not billions of people who have an understanding of the history of that religion and agree that it stands up to scrutiny. Their inherent bias is the problem.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There can be no scientific support for putting apes and man in the same category. It is a classification of necessity to give the faithful hope they have not put their faith in the wrong person.

Except the 97-98% identical DNA.

Man's ability to speak makes him unique and he should not be classified with any group that can't speak.

Why?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

"because it is the best case for explaining the phenomenon we observe" is speculating to accomodate your need to know. But it isn't fact or truth. So I don't care to hear it.

Once again, it is no more or less speculation that gravity operates the same in other parts of the universe, but creationists don't object to it because it doesn't conflict with their preconception. Evolution and abiogenesis does, so they look for a reason to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with finding fact or truth, you don't want to hear it because you don't want to entertain something outside your belief system.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Once again, it is no more or less speculation that gravity operates the same in other parts of the universe, but creationists don't object to it because it doesn't conflict with their preconception. Evolution and abiogenesis does, so they look for a reason to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with finding fact or truth, you don't want to hear it because you don't want to entertain something outside your belief system.

Nope. You show me it is truth and I'll hear it. In the meantime, keep on speculating if that makes you happy.

 

[omega2xx]

Except the 97-98% identical DNA.

It is not the similarities that are important, it is the differences. All human DNA will identify the subject as homo sapian. It will never identify the subject as an ape.

Why?

DUUH. Because that is a distinguishing characteristic only one species has. That is important enough to make it a separate classification, and there is no scientific way the ability to speak can be inherited.

 

[Reggie Miller]

More empty assertions.



That's your opinion.

I have to seriously question the mentality of a person who honestly believes men developed from same the creature as apes and monkeys. What went wrong with them, they're as stupid as all of the other animals while we are so much smarter? Doesn't make any sense.

Macro-evolutionists have to successfully explain how and why this happened but they can't. Yet they still believe it did. Why? Bias, that's why.

 

[savagewind]

I have to seriously question the mentality of a person who honestly believes men developed from same the creature as apes and monkeys. What went wrong with them, they're as stupid as all of the other animals while we are so much smarter? Doesn't make any sense.

Macro-evolutionists have to successfully explain how and why this happened but they can't. Yet they still believe it did. Why? Bias, that's why.

Animals are stupid?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Animals are stupid?

Compared to humans? Please.