A Challenge To All Creationists

[SkepticThinker]

First you answer mine.

I asked you first. And honestly, your question makes no sense to me. Hence my question about it.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Just like snake oil. It only works if you believe it does.

Good try but that is incorrect.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I asked you first. And honestly, your question makes no sense to me. Hence my question about it.

Do you believe that it is possible that God exists?

 

[Ouroboros]

Good try but that is incorrect.

Actually, it's heads on.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Actually, it's heads on.

Prove it is.

 

[Ouroboros]

Prove it is.

Same format:

Snake oil only works when you believe in it.
Bible only makes sense when you believe in God.

X only works/make sense when you believe in Y.

 

[Ganondorf]

The are many difference that separate ape and men. Speech is the main one and unless you can show a scientific explanation, they should not be linked together.

"Many" relative to what? As long as those many differences are not objectively compared to the amount of shared traits with already existing groups, the concept of autapomorphy could also accomodate a species having many unique traits.
Classification should assess both differences and similarities.
Hence, I think it would help your case if you devised, like any good taxonomist, a classification, but one in which humans fall into a unique clade that can't be grouped specifically with the clade of great apes.

Also DNA separates them

We can check he DNA for dogs for example and not only will it show they are all dogs, it will tells us what kind they are. The DNA for apes and humans will separate them. Close is not enough o classify them in the same species.

Chimps, gorillas and orangutangs are different spiecies but they all belong to
the family of apes, do you agree?
So, if you're right, we should expect the comparison of their and humans' genomes to yield at least the following result: on average, humans being significantly more distant to apes than any species of apes are to each other. Is that right?

If so, can you provide evidence confirming this expectation, please?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you believe that it is possible that God exists?

Anything is possible. I'm not so sure it's likely though.

How about answering that question now?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Same format:

Snake oil only works when you believe in it.
Bible only makes sense when you believe in God.

X only works/make sense when you believe in Y.

Illogical. Snake oil does not work whether I believe in it or not. God is good to me whether I believe in Him or not.

 

[McBell]

 

[Reggie Miller]

Anything is possible. I'm not so sure it's likely though.

How about answering that question now?

Okay:

"I'm not sure what makes you think the Bible is God's word."

God is true. The Bible is true. God confirms His word in my heart by His Spirit.

Since you do not know God you do not know His word because you do not hear when the Spirit speaks to you. If you do not listen you will not hear.

 

[Ouroboros]

Illogical. Snake oil does not work whether I believe in it or not. God is good to me whether I believe in Him or not.

You missed the point.

The claim that X only works if you belive in Y is what's a snake oil salesman would use. Has nothing to do if it actually does work or not, but the claim or selling point.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You missed the point.

The claim that X only works if you belive in Y is what's a snake oil salesman would use. Has nothing to do if it actually does work or not, but the claim or selling point.

And you missed my point. The existence of God's word isn't based on such a flimsy whim of an argument. You've compared things very unalike, which is another fallacious way to make an argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

And you missed my point.

And you are too.

The existence of God's word isn't based on such a flimsy whim of an argument.

I didn't say that.

I said that you making the argument that God's word only makes sense if you believe in God is the same argument snake oil salesmen would use when the medicine doesn't work. You have to believe it works, otherwise it won't. So it was your claim that I'm talking about, not the veracity about God's word. It was your claim. Not the Bible. Your claim.

You've compared things very unalike, which is another fallacious way to make an argument.

No. That's not what I was doing. I was comparing your claim, not the Bible or God or the veracity of God or Bible, but your claim that you made.

 

[Shad]

Also, there are names omitted in the Matthew list.
Comparing to the genealogy in the old testament, the names Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim are gone from the New testament.

Yes. However there is a key point you are missing. Joseph is not Jesus father, period. At least according to mainstream Christianity's own theology.

 

[gnostic]

What a rant. How sad that is all you can do. You certainly can't produce any evidence to support evolution.

The question is why do YOU keep repeatedly tell "evolutionists" to prove the Big Bang theory?

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang cosmology. That's the job of astrophysicists. Astrophysicists are not biologists and biologists are not astrophysicists.

The following posts belonging to you.

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?

Are you serious? Where did the matter that went bang originate? Also there is no scientific evidence for the BB. You need to face the FACT that evolution has no scientific evidence for the origin of anything,

It's sort of like Peter's response when Jesus ask the disciple "who do you say that I am"? Peter said, where else can we go. No matter how absurd some evolution theology is, they have nowhere else to go.

Even some evolutionist have given up on the BB.

I have no idea. That it is, is the response the evos give for evidence of the BB.

You expect "evos" or evolutionists to supply evidences for the Big Bang. Why?

It is not their job to get involve with astrophysics and cosmology of the universe.

Would you ask a fisherman to pilot and fly an airbus?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. However there is a key point you are missing. Joseph is not Jesus father, period. At least according to mainstream Christianity's own theology.

True.

And even if we'd consider the idea that one genealogy is Mary's and one is Joseph's, the virgin birth means still that Joseph wasn't the biological dad. So why even have Jospeh's lineage when Joseph and Jesus aren't biologically related?

 

[Shad]

True.

And even if we'd consider the idea that one genealogy is Mary's and one is Joseph's, the virgin birth means still that Joseph wasn't the biological dad. So why even have Jospeh's lineage when Joseph and Jesus aren't biologically related?

One bloodline is that of Joseph found in Luke.

Christian theology which became mainstream does not necessarily represented the views of the past. Too many treated traditions of their church as synonymous with fact.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

.



MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.​

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

That's all folks​

.

Two words: CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, THANK YOU.

(Oh, wait, that's 4 words. Just ignore the 'thank you')

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It wasn't just a snapping of fingers and POOF! Complex organic material!

How do you know it wasn't?

"Complex" is a key word you used.

The wide variations in body plans, yet with all showing functionality in their respective environments -- lends credence to separate acts of creation.

Since genetic code tends to lose (not gain) coherent information as it mutates, is it realistic to say a single-celled organism evolved upward to form the 35 different animal phyla extant today, or that these life forms began complex at their separate created origins, and evolved from these established families and orders, downward into the lower taxonomic ranks?