A Challenge To All Creationists

[SkepticThinker]

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

Prove it. Your ignorance of paleontology, osteology, etc. don't count.

Remember Lucy?

She's still around. Plus the remains of about 300 other Australopithecus afarensis individuals.

What about them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

It became a waste of time long ago when you firmly stated that you refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. It continues to be a waste of time now, because providing evidence to a person who doesn't recognize evidence is most certainly a waste of time and effort.

It becomes even more of a waste of time once you realize this thread is NOT about providing evidence for the well established theory of evolution, rather the thread is about providing evidence for creationism, without referencing evolution.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Prove it. Your ignorance of paleontology, osteology, etc. don't count.


She's still around. Plus the remains of about 300 other Australopithecus afarensis individuals.

What about them?

Yeah, what about them? Have you proved anything about them yet?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, what about them? Have you proved anything about them yet?

What? You're asking me the same question I asked you??

I was asking you what you were trying to say about Lucy. You asserted that scientists have been making things up for years and then simply mentioned Lucy, as if people are supposed to know what you're talking about.

I asked you to prove that scientists have been making things up for years and to elaborate on your reference to Lucy.

 

[Reggie Miller]

What? You're asking me the same question I asked you??

I was asking you what you were trying to say about Lucy. You asserted that scientists have been making things up for years and then simply mentioned Lucy, as if people are supposed to know what you're talking about.

I asked you to prove that scientists have been making things up for years and to elaborate on your reference to Lucy.

It's not rocket science and I don't believe you don't know all about Lucy.

lucy fossil hoax - Google Search

fossil hoax - Google Search

Ah, yes, Piltdown Man.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Remember Lucy?

Endlessly fascinated by the examples.

On the subject of science -- what I find is that evangelicals and other religious objectors to evolution distrust science ONLY when it concerns evolution. They cannot answer why they think that everybody who actually does the hard of work of years of study and decades of research all manage to get it wrong, while a few who don't do any work at all magically arrive at the only correct answer. (Just another absurd bit of hubris that must be "taken on faith," one presumes.)

And that is a fundamentally foolish notion, given that they all accept the work of science in mathematics, in chemistry, in electronics (you use TV and a computer, no doubt). Very, very few of the religious doubters of evolution would manage to build a television, space ship or computer -- or program it -- without having studied, and when they do study and research, they continue to learn more and more.

This dichotomy is the very clearest evidence possible that yours is a purely religious, and quite uneducated stance. The only reason for it is that science that builds TVs and space ships and computers don't conflict with your creation fable, while evolution does.

I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to Lucy. However, I'm constantly reminded that nay-sayers simply do not understand the paucity of fossil evidence, while the answer is so simple -- that fossilization itself takes place only very, very rarely under very, very special circumstances.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Endlessly fascinated by the examples.

On the subject of science -- what I find is that evangelicals and other religious objectors to evolution distrust science ONLY when it concerns evolution. They cannot answer why they think that everybody who actually does the hard of work of years of study and decades of research all manage to get it wrong, while a few who don't do any work at all magically arrive at the only correct answer. (Just another absurd bit of hubris that must be "taken on faith," one presumes.)

And that is a fundamentally foolish notion, given that they all accept the work of science in mathematics, in chemistry, in electronics (you use TV and a computer, no doubt). Very, very few of the religious doubters of evolution would manage to build a television, space ship or computer -- or program it -- without having studied, and when they do study and research, they continue to learn more and more.

This dichotomy is the very clearest evidence possible that yours is a purely religious, and quite uneducated stance. The only reason for it is that science that builds TVs and space ships and computers don't conflict with your creation fable, while evolution does.

I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to Lucy. However, I'm constantly reminded that nay-sayers simply do not understand the paucity of fossil evidence, while the answer is so simple -- that fossilization itself takes place only very, very rarely under very, very special circumstances.

www.icr.org

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

www.icr.org

You may perhaps be surprised that I am very familiar with ICR. I am also very familiar with William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" apologetics site. Unlike Christians who I try to send to site's where they might learn something, I actually do go to sites with which I disagree, to see if I can find reason to doubt my worldview. And I read it -- by the ton!

And you know what? Even though I'm neither a scientist nor a scholar, I've found very little that I couldn't debunk with one side of my brain tied behind my back. This is most easily done by looking for the following:

• Statements that claim "something might have happened," and then assuming that it therefore did, without providing any further evidence
• Hiding what you are trying to prove in the premises, hoping nobody will notice (a Craig specialty)
• Asserting that ample, indirect evidence doesn't "prove anything," unless it is on your own side of the argument
• Asserting that what unknown writers, under false names, provide any evidence of anything at all, except for their own agenda

All boring.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You may perhaps be surprised that I am very familiar with ICR. I am also very familiar with William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" apologetics site. Unlike Christians who I try to send to site's where they might learn something, I actually do go to sites with which I disagree, to see if I can find reason to doubt my worldview. And I read it -- by the ton!

And you know what? Even though I'm neither a scientist nor a scholar, I've found very little that I couldn't debunk with one side of my brain tied behind my back. This is most easily done by looking for the following:

• Statements that claim "something might have happened," and then assuming that it therefore did, without providing any further evidence
• Hiding what you are trying to prove in the premises, hoping nobody will notice (a Craig specialty)
• Asserting that ample, indirect evidence doesn't "prove anything," unless it is on your own side of the argument
• Asserting that what unknown writers, under false names, provide any evidence of anything at all, except for their own agenda

All boring.

Sounds like you've described every evolutionist site out there to me.

 

[Jose Fly]

www.icr.org

ICR declares right up front on their Foundational Principles page that they are not a scientific organization. Their entire framework is based on supernatural causation for phenomena, which is completely untestable.

You may as well have linked to a site that declares "We believe everything was magically created 2 days ago".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sounds like you've described every evolutionist site out there to me.

Ah, but have you actually read and understood them, as I have ICR and Reasonable Faith? Have you tried to track down those claims of evidence that you think are useless?

And will you answer me this ONE SINGLE QUESTION?

Why is all the scientific study and research in one particular science (evolution) wrong, and those who don't study it right, while the study and research in every other science correct, even when those who didn't study it and don't understand it wrong? Should be simple enough, if you're as knowledgeable as you try to make yourself seem.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Ah, but have you actually read and understood them, as I have ICR and Reasonable Faith? Have you tried to track down those claims of evidence that you think are useless?

And will you answer me this ONE SINGLE QUESTION?

Why is all the scientific study and research in one particular science (evolution) wrong, and those who don't study it right, while the study and research in every other science correct, even when those who didn't study it and don't understand it wrong? Should be simple enough, if you're as knowledgeable as you try to make yourself seem.

You assume I believe everything scientists tell me except evolution? Well, I don't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You assume I believe everything scientists tell me except evolution? Well, I don't.

Fine, what else don't you believe? TV signals flying through the air? The ability of a surgical team to keep a woman alive for 6 days -- without lungs! -- until a transplant was available? That heavier-than-air machines can fly? That the Salk vaccine has almost completely eliminated a vicious killer/disabler -- polio? That antibiotics have saved literally millions upon millions of lives?

Do you disbelieve that it is possible to know how fast a cesium atom vibrates, and thus to power clocks to tell the exact time? Do you suppose that no scientist could develop (in 1900) a completely synthetic compound that would revolution the world (it's called "plastic," by the way).

Science that has radically transformed agriculture, or medicine, do you disbelieve those, too?

Or maybe it's the science that tells us how yeast helps to make bread dough rise, as well as to give us beer (and women an itchy problem). Is that what you don't believe?

Do tell. What science, other than evolution, do you not accept?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not rocket science and I don't believe you don't know all about Lucy.

lucy fossil hoax - Google Search

fossil hoax - Google Search

Ah, yes, Piltdown Man.

Lucy isn't a hoax. Like I said, it's not like there is just one of them. Over 300 other Australopithecus afarensis individuals have been found and documented. That's not a hoax.

Lucy and Piltdown Man are not one in the same. And guess what? The people who exposed Piltdown Man as fraudulent were ... scientists! Not creationists.


Also, you should try reading some of those links:

"Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged by some researchers."

"From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[11] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1]"
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

 

[Reggie Miller]

Lucy isn't a hoax. Like I said, it's not like there is just one of them. Over 300 other Australopithecus afarensis individuals have been found and documented. That's not a hoax.

Lucy and Piltdown Man are not one in the same. And guess what? The people who exposed Piltdown Man as fraudulent were ... scientists! Not creationists.

Lucy was a fake in that a baboon bone was inserted into the skeleton in an attempt to make it look more "human." Oops.

The fact that scientists discovered Piltdown Man as a fraud doesn't cover up the fact that scientists lied about it.

It is impossible that God should lie.

 

[Jose Fly]

Lucy was a fake in that a baboon bone was inserted into the skeleton in an attempt to make it look more "human." Oops.

???????????? Where did you get that from? That's quite the accusation, so how about some actual support for it?

The fact that scientists discovered Piltdown Man as a fraud doesn't cover up the fact that scientists lied about it.

So? Are you saying that dishonest behavior by some members of a group are indicative of the entire group over all time? Be careful and think a bit before you answer....

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lucy was a fake in that a baboon bone was inserted into the skeleton in an attempt to make it look more "human." Oops.

The fact that scientists discovered Piltdown Man as a fraud doesn't cover up the fact that scientists lied about it.

Nope, Australopithecus afarensis is not fake. Unless you're trying to declare that all 300 specimens are also fakes.

People are people. Some lie, some don't. One scientist misleading people doesn't mean all scientists do it, in the same way that one creationist acting dishonestly on a message board doesn't make all creationists dishonest. The important point to note is the self-correcting mechanism that is built into the scientific method so that any errors or wrongdoing always end up coming to light, upon further scrutiny and investigation. Not only that, but the person who perpetuated any dishonesty ends up being marginalized and ostracized from the scientific community for intentionally engaging in dishonest behavior.

It is impossible that God should lie.

Says who?

I still see no reason to believe the specific god you believe in exists at all.

 

[Shad]

It is impossible that God should lie.

No you have trust in a book created by men that tell you it is from God does not contain a lie. So all you have are assertions you accept as true.

 

[McBell]

Says who?

God does not need to lie.
So many of his followers are all to eager to lie for him.

 

[Reggie Miller]

????????????
So? Are you saying that dishonest behavior by some members of a group are indicative of the entire group over all time? Be careful and think a bit before you answer....

Have you ever met a man incapable of telling a lie?

Meet God. He is most holy and He loves you. Your life isn't a random occurrence. You are here for a reason. You were created with purpose.