A Challenge To All Creationists

[Shad]

Thanks for confirming you don't have the knowledge to understand the fossil record. Whatever the evos say, you lap it up and never question the evidence they present.

I was attacking your logic that rare means no transitional fossil.

Your knowledge of the fossil record is to deny views in biology that conflict with your religion. It is amusing to see you claim I accept science like a lap dog while you accept a book from the bronze and iron age more than I agree with science. You have more certainty in your holy book than I have ever shown for science.

You have no way of knowing my motives. F, I rejected evolution for 4o years befdor I accepted cratgionism.

Another amusing point considering I was openly mocking your assertions regarding Gould. More amusing is how fast your become offended when it is done to you yet you think nothing of doing it to other people.

You also don't have the intellect to call my responses, rage. 3 strikes and yer out.

I said outrage, not rage. Try again son, next time use a dictionary

 

[savagewind]

Please read my question again, and tell me that you really think that is an appropriate response.

But this is simply not true. Fish that could once see, that got trapped in a permanently dark cave, have lost their eyesight. They still have vestigial eyes, but they don't work. Eyes (like everything else) are expensive to produce in a biological sense, so if they're not doing any good, why pay the expense? So is having one of your senses slowly atrophy really "moving up?"

If you had said ""is a fish having one of its senses slowly atrophy really "moving up?"", the answer would be from me, "probably not, but how am I supposed to know that"?

 

[gnostic]

I gave you the link earlier. Once again we see how your refusal to look at anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear distorts your perception of reality.

He frequently demand that we give him evidences (though, he more often use the word "proof" more than "evidence"), and when given, he will either tell us he is not interested in looking at it, or he make some sort of illogical apologetic excuses on how we are mistaken.

The former shows he is not only his dishonesty (for asking for evidences, when he doesn't really want ones from us), but also how he married his hypocrisy with his stubborn ignorance.

 

[Reggie Miller]

And to suppose you cannot know something about it through examination using the tools of science is abysmally ignorant. You can. (Well, I don't suppose you can, but those with a very little training certainly can.)

Sure, just ask it. Or make up stuff about it. Scientists have been doing that for years, no sense changing now.

Remember Lucy?

 

[omega2xx]

As I said before, it is a good example of the creationist approach to reality......don't look.

I have given my reasons and no one has showed up and given a reason why I should continue to read them. That serves a a good example that the evos have not real scientific evidence to present. If they did, at least one of them would have accepted my challenge, including you. Now it is time to put up or shut up. Present just one example of scientific evidence in any link, or admit you can't or just run away. Your choice.

Nope. He even described some in the article the quote came from. Just because you refuse to look at something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Put up or shut up. Saying i is evidence does not make it evidence.

It's difficult to do justice to the level of delusion shown here. You declare that you refuse to look at links to scientific sources, then in the same post you demand I post scientific evidence.

Asking is not demanding---put up or shut up.

If you don't see the problem with that, you should stop for a bit and think on it.

The problem is with you---put up or shut up.

The understanding of evolutionary relationships between taxa is the means by which we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. Our understanding of how populations evolve over time is how we develop new vaccines, antibiotics, and pesticides.

No it isn't and that is a perfect example trying to discuss the subject. You say it but present no evidence. How populations evolve has nothing to do with developing vaccines, etc.

I've posted links to all of these, but of course you won't look at them. Such is the nature of creationism.

But you wont; post the evidence will you? That speaks louder than words.

 

[omega2xx]

He frequently demand that we give him evidences (though, he more often use the word "proof" more than "evidence"), and when given, he will either tell us he is not interested in looking at it, or he make some sort of illogical apologetic excuses on how we are mistaken.

The former shows he is not only his dishonesty (for asking for evidences, when he doesn't really want ones from us), but also how he married his hypocrisy with his stubborn ignorance.

The fact that not one of you has posted the evidence in one of you links points to your stubborn ignorance not mine. The fact that no one has done that tells me at least one of you planned to do that, and discovered the scientific evidence was not in the link, just the usual eve rhetoric. Now it is time for all of you to put up or shut up.

There is an old saying, "they would if the could but they can't." It applies to this discussion.

 

[omega2xx]

I was attacking your logic that rare means no transitional fossil.

I didn't say rare means none. I said it does not mean "abundant."

Your knowledge of the fossil record is to deny views in biology that conflict with your religion. It is amusing to see you claim I accept science like a lap dog while you accept a book from the bronze and iron age more than I agree with science. You have more certainty in your holy book than I have ever shown for science.

I have not mentioned the Bible, so why do you? This discussion is about science, not religion. I didn't say you accepted science, I said you accept whatever some evolutionist scientist says. The Bible only mentions something scientific rarely, but when it does, it is accurate.

Another amusing point considering I was openly mocking your assertions regarding Gould. More amusing is how fast your become offended when it is done to you yet you think nothing of doing it to other people.

You keep reading something into what I say, and you are not good at it. How is quoting Gould mocking him. Who have I mocked? Disagreeing is not mocking.

I said outrage, not rage. Try again son, next time use a dictionary

Don't need a dictionary, there is not a nickel's worth of difference and anyone as smart as you are should have understood what I meant. I apologize for my mocking statement of you.

 

[gnostic]

The fact that not one of you has posted the evidence in one of you links points to your stubborn ignorance not mine. The fact that no one has done that tells me at least one of you planned to do that, and discovered the scientific evidence was not in the link, just the usual eve rhetoric. Now it is time for all of you to put up or shut up.

A number of us had provided evidences and examples of evidences, when requested, but you ignored each one of them, then say we did provided any, which only showed your hypocrisy and dishonesty.

What Jesus mean when he told his apostles, to not to provide for "false witness", omega2xx?

It means don't lie. You have been lying to each one of us since you come here.

 

[gnostic]

I have not mentioned the Bible, so why do you? This discussion is about science, not religion.

No, wrong, omega2xx.

The requirements were for "creationists" to provide evidences or a logical explanations that the creator is real and the creation is real.

Skwim told you guys, not to use evolution.

You haven't provided any evidence for creationism.

All you have done since you came here, is ignore skwim's requests (to provide evidences for creationism), and have tried to redirect the evidence-providing on non-creationists about evolution.

This is not your thread, so you have no right in changing the subject and requirements. You want other people to provide evidences for evolution...which they already have...then you should start a new topic with a list of your requirements.

You have moved the goalpost, you have evasive (with evidences for creationism), and you have been downright biased...and ignorant.

This subject was supposed to be about creationism, not about evolution, not about abiogenesis, not about science.

You should go back to school to learn how to read, so then you will understand what skwim want from you and other creationists.

 

[Jose Fly]

He frequently demand that we give him evidences (though, he more often use the word "proof" more than "evidence"), and when given, he will either tell us he is not interested in looking at it, or he make some sort of illogical apologetic excuses on how we are mistaken.

The former shows he is not only his dishonesty (for asking for evidences, when he doesn't really want ones from us), but also how he married his hypocrisy with his stubborn ignorance.

Yep, and I still maintain that he serves as a very good illustration of the inherent dishonesty of creationism. To be frank, I've yet to meet what I would call "an honest creationist". Creationism requires a denial of so much reality, I don't think it's even possible to advocate it in an honest manner.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have given my reasons and no one has showed up and given a reason why I should continue to read them. That serves a a good example that the evos have not real scientific evidence to present. If they did, at least one of them would have accepted my challenge, including you. Now it is time to put up or shut up. Present just one example of scientific evidence in any link, or admit you can't or just run away. Your choice.

So you refuse to look at any evidence, while simultaneously demanding that people show you evidence.

Your rather absurd level of delusion is noted.

 

[McBell]

Sure, just ask it. Or make up stuff about it. Scientists have been doing that for years, no sense changing now.

Remember Lucy?

Lucy actually HURTS your argument, not helps it.
For it was SCIENCE that rooted out the Lucy fraud...

 

[omega2xx]

A number of us had provided evidences and examples of evidences, when requested, but you ignored each one of them, then say we did provided any, which only showed your hypocrisy and dishonesty.

No true. Only 1 person tried. He said mutation are a mechanism for a change of species, and they are not but at least he tried. Even then he did not offer any evidence. Just made the statement, which all the rest of you ever do. The rest of you have either post a link or just made a statement with no science backup.

What Jesus mean when he told his apostles, to not to provide for "false witness", omega2xx?

He didn't say anything abut providing a false witness. He said not to be one. So unless you can post some scientific evidence you say you have provided, you are a false witness.

[/QUOTE]It means don't lie. You have been lying to each one of us since you come here.[/QUOTE]

YAWN. I can't help it if you don't underestand "scientific evidence."

 

[Shad]

I didn't say rare means none. I said it does not mean "abundant."

No you didn't you jump from rare not no transitional fossils.

I have not mentioned the Bible, so why do you?

You do not need to state the blatantly obvious

This discussion is about science, not religion.

Then creationism has no part at all.

[ I didn't say you accepted science, I said you accept whatever some evolutionist scientist says.

Which is still accepting an expert's view regarding the majority view of a science, namely biology.

The Bible only mentions something scientific rarely, but when it does, it is accurate.

Sure it does. Like Genesis

You keep reading something into what I say, and you are not good at it.

Try again son, maybe read?

How is quoting Gould mocking him.

You quoted then made an assertion about "him saving face". Remember what I said about reading?

Who have I mocked?

I mocked your line of argument back by an assertion. Try reading.

Disagreeing is not mocking.

Try reading.

Don't need a dictionary, there is not a nickel's worth of difference

Actually there is. Get a dictionary.

and anyone as smart as you are should have understood what I meant.

If you can not use English properly that is not my problem

I apologize for my mocking statement of you.

You didn't mock me. I mocked you and your assertions. Get the story right at least.

 

[omega2xx]

So you refuse to look at any evidence, while simultaneously demanding that people show you evidence.

Your rather absurd level of delusion is noted.

Your failure to cut and paste the evidence you claim is in your links is also noted. It says you you would if you could but you can't.

It would be so easy to do, but you won't. If you challenged me to produce the evidence for something i said, I would produce it, or admit I have none. You would rather whine about me not reading your links. This has become a complete waste of time. Either cut and paste or cut and run. Your choice.

From now on, no evidence, not response.

 

[omega2xx]

No you didn't you jump from rare not no transitional fossils.





You do not need to state the blatantly obvious



Then creationism has no part at all.



Which is still accepting an expert's view regarding the majority view of a science, namely biology.



Sure it does. Like Genesis



Try again son, maybe read?



You quoted then made an assertion about "him saving face". Remember what I said about reading?



I mocked your line of argument back by an assertion. Try reading.



Try reading.



Actually there is. Get a dictionary.



If you can not use English properly that is not my problem




You didn't mock me. I mocked you and your assertions. Get the story right at least.

Whine on and on and on, but don't provide any evidence.

 

[Shad]

Whine on and on and on, but don't provide any evidence.

You never asked for any and I was clearing up your mistakes regarding what I posted. Nice dodge. Read next time.

 

[gnostic]

He didn't say anything abut providing a false witness. He said not to be one.

Being a false witness, is about "not lying", omega.

And you have been lying ever since, you started posting here.

No true. Only 1 person tried. He said mutation are a mechanism for a change of species, and they are not but at least he tried. Even then he did not offer any evidence. Just made the statement, which all the rest of you ever do. The rest of you have either post a link or just made a statement with no science backup.

I can't help it if you don't underestand "scientific evidence."

Actually, you are he one who don't understand what scientific evidence is, you're fool.

Mutation of viruses, and the way pharmacologists, immunologists and virologists these mutations of these viruses, like how they become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics, and then multiply producing new strains of the viruses.

The mutations here, are examples of evidences of evolution, through mutation. Mutations are mechanism for changes.

Now I don't know much about biological viruses or about mutations for that matter, that's is why I have focused more on Natural Selection.

I have in the past, provided examples of evidences for Natural Selection, here and in other threads, like the tortoises and finches on the Galápagos Islands, with different environments on different islands, producing different species of tortoises and finches on respective islands.

I have often used the differences between the polar bear and brown bear species. These two species were the result of the last Ice Ages.

Since the ice sheets didn't cover every places, globally, during this last Ice Age, brown bears living in the areas not covered in ice, remain the same as they were as a species.

But the brown bears that lived in the areas that were covered by ice sheets, were required to developed better fur and hold more fat contents in their bodies, are what made brown bears evolving into polar bears.

The evidences are shown if you examined the fur closely. The hairs of the fur are more densely grown than that of the brown bears. This mean it provides more insulation to the extreme cold for the polar bears - better wind-proof and water-proof than the furs of the brown bears. And the ability to higher concentrations of fat in their bodies, further evidence that polar bears can hunt in storm or swim the icy sea, without problem, and without hibernation.

And hibernation is another evidence, that distinguishes between polar bears and brown bears; polar bears don't require hibernation in the coldest seasons, but the brown bears do.

The changes didn't occur overnight, and it took generations and millennia to develop the differences physically and genetically.

AND, you were supposed to provide evidences for creationism, not arguing about evolution, you're fool.

Skwim wrote at the OP:

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

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

​

​

You do know how to read and understand skwim's post, don't you, omega2xx?

Apparently you don't understand and cannot read.

Because you haven't provided a single evidence for creationism.

All you have done is focus on evolution, not on creationism. Such blatant ignorance and dishonest from you, is why so many people have pointed out these character flaws of yours.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, omega2xx. Let me help you out, since you cannot understand the original post from skwim.

Can you provide evidences that God made light, to separate day from night, without the Sun, for 3 of those creative days?

According to Genesis 1, there were no sun, moon and stars for days 1, 2 & 3.

But according to every modern astronomers and astrophysicists, the 1st generation of stars (as well as the 2nd generation) existed billions of years in the young universe, long before the formation of our solar system, which included the Earth and Sun.

So for 9 billion years there were stars in galaxies, with no Sun and no Earth.

But again, Genesis 1:1 it stated god created heaven and Earth, but no mention of any star, including the Sun, and that the Sun didn't appear with the stars until the beginning of the "fourth day" of creation. That would mean the Earth is older than all the stars.

You do understand maths, like simple arithmetic, don't you?

So if you understand the measurement and the constant of "light year" (in a vacuum), you would know that light can travel a certain distance in one year. The unit for light year is over 9 trillion kilometres in one year.

Which mean, light still have to take time to travel a certain distance, like from a certain star from earth. Are you with me, so far?

Let me demonstrate with an example, like the Sirius star, for instance. Sirius star is the brightest star that we on Earth can see in our night sky. It is not the brightest star in the universe, but it is the brightest one we can see without using the telescope.

Anyway, the distance between Earth and Sirius is about 8.6 light year away. This mean it take over 8 years for the light from Sirius 8 years to travel to Earth.

That's very simple to understand, don't you think?

Now if all the stars weren't created before the Earth, so Genesis 1:16 claimed, which would mean Earth is older than all the stars.

Now if you did your calculations, using the NASB translation (in which the Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text), you would know from the time of Jerusalem fall (including the destruction of First Temple) in 587 BCE, to the time of creation, you would get 3338 years (or 3338 AM; AM being "anno mundi", from the time of creation).

That would mean the earth (and the universe, so YECs would claim) would be less than 6000 years. And even if were to use 2 Peter 3:8 that 1 creative day equals to a period of 1000 years, the calculations of creation would still total to less than 14,000 years ago.

And I don't think it make a hell of difference using 14,000 years over 6000 years, because this is where the real maths come in.

If the creation happened 6000 years ago or 14,000 years ago, it would mean that should be no stars before either of these estimated times for creation.

Any star or galaxy that are further than 6000 or 14,000 light years, shouldn't exist.

Now if we were to use another example in our night sky, we can observe the a tiny blurry blob, which is the Andromeda Galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy is not THE closest galaxy to us (that would be the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds), but it is the closest "spiral galaxy".

Well, omega2xx...guess what...

The Andromeda Galaxy is only over 2 million light years (2.5 million light years to be more precise) away from Earth!

That can't be right (I'm being sarcastic here), if YEC universe is only 6000 years or 14,000 years old, then it would not even be possible for us to see the Andromeda Galaxy in our sky, because it would take the light of this galaxy 2.5 million years to reach us.

And yet, the first recorded sighting of Andromeda Galaxy was back in 964, where the Persian astronomer described it as a "little cloud". Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi didn't know that this "cloud" was actually a galaxy.

Now if Abd al-Rahman can see the Andromeda Galaxy, so could anyone else in ancient time.

No one at the time, knew what a "galaxy" was. Everyone until the 20th century thought the Andromeda Galaxy was simply a permanent cloud in the Milky Way.

But the Andromeda Galaxy is larger than the Milky Way, and hundreds of billions more stars than ours. (MW has about 400 billion stars vs AG has over a trillion stars.)

Even if we were to simply focus on the Milky Way, you would to remember the size of the Milky Way, which is about, between 100 and 120 thousand light years in diameter. This would also refute YEC's claim of much younger universe.

And this is all, not touching more distant galaxies that we can't see without a good telescope.

The longer distance between us and the other objects in the universe, the longer it take for the light to reach us.

Here, I used my knowledge and facts on astronomy to refute both YEC's estimated dates, without ever touching on evolution "species" or the Genesis "kinds".

Now can you provide evidences that the Earth is older than the stars?

Or how about this, omega2xx. If the Earth and universe is only 6000 years old, then how come the city of Jericho is 11,000 years old or 9000 BCE?

That's about at least 5000 years older than this mythological Adam of Genesis.

The earliest evidences of fortified walls enclosing Jericho is about 8600 BCE.

So Jericho predated Genesis Adam, as do Damascus also about 9000 BCE, and Uruk (also known as Erech in Genesis 10) about 5000 BCE. And yet, Genesis 10 claimed that Uruk didn't exist until AFTER THE FLOOD.

Genesis 10 also say that Egypt didn't exist until after the Flood too. Sorry, but the great pyramid in Giza (4th dynasty) is evidence that Egypt did exist before the Flood, as do even older pyramids built in the 3rd dynasty (early 27th century BCE). In fact, a lot of Egyptian artefacts showing Egyptian culture that predated the Bronze Age dynastic period that began around 3100 BCE.

Now I am using history and archaeology, not biology or evolution to refute Young Earth Creationism.

Can you provide historical and archaeological evidences to show that Genesis provide true history of human civilisations and human cultures?

Can you show scientific or archaeological evidences that Jericho, Damascus and Uruk didn't exist before Adam? Or that Uruk and Egypt didn't exist before the Flood?

Well, in this reply i didn't use evolution at all to prove my points.

This is what Skwim meant, when he told creationists to prove creationism without using evolution as an excuse.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your failure to cut and paste the evidence you claim is in your links is also noted.

So what's the effective difference between cutting and pasting from a paper, and posting a link to it so everyone can read the whole thing?

Do you want me to come over and read it aloud to you too?

And now that I see this thread is supposed to be about creationists providing evidence for creationism, I'll wait and see if that actually happens.