A Challenge To All Creationists

[SkepticThinker]

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

I accept the prevailing science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you cut and pasted was not evidence. It was only parroting what the link said.

No, it was the evidence, provided in the link you were too lazy to open.

There is no empirical evidence.

There are mountains of it. I'm not sure how you would know anyway, since your refuse to look.

I accept they are sciences, I do not accept everything they say. It seems you do.
You said the theory of evolution is not real science. Yet, you accept that the fields of science I named are real science. Said fields of science have all contributed supporting evidence to the theory of evolution (including many others that I didn't mention). You can't have it both ways, unless you enjoy cognitive dissonance.

What parts don't you accept and what justification do you have for not accepting them? They conflict with your religious beliefs?

We have a different definition of "evidence." Evidence can be repeated and observed.

We're talking about empirical evidence here. There is one definition:

"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method."
Empirical Evidence: A Definition

When this discussion gets to this point, it is time to quit.

However, if you wan't to continue, I will make it simple and just discuss one standard evolution doctrine---mutations.

Post the evidence that mutations are a mechanism for a change of species.

Why would I bother posting evidence for someone who doesn't accept evidence? Been there, done that. Don't feel like wasting my time. It's easier to find for anyone who has an ounce of curiosity.

This is accepted science. Feel free to challenge it with your own carefully collected evidence. If creationism is so obvious, it should be easy to demonstrate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's a cop-out. The TOE started by trying to explain the origin of life: Darwin---the ORIGIN of the Species. Have you never heard of the "primordial swamp?"

No, it did not. It's called on the Origin of Species, NOT, On the Origin of Life. Try reading the book sometime.

This discussion is not about religion, it is about science.

Actually, the discussion is about providing evidence for CREATIONISM without invoking the TOE. Creationism is a religious idea.

When you produce the empirical evidence for a change of species, I will believe it , not before.

This has been done, which is why the theory of evolution is the only available scientific theory that best explains the available evidence.

Feel free to expand your mind and start reading about it.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
ActionBioscience - promoting bioscience literacy

 

[Reggie Miller]

I accept the prevailing science.

Of course you do.

Which or what prevailing science to you accept? There is more than one version of evolution, you know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course you do.

Which or what prevailing science to you accept? There is more than one version of evolution, you know.

There's one theory of evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Haha, that's a laugh. Most scientific principles are not proven and a lot of them cannot be proven. Most science is guesswork, then an attempt to confirm the guess to a high degree of accuracy. What I hate is basing the accuracy on assumption, which scientists are famous for doing.

When something is a principle it has been proven. Real science advances on the principles proven in the past. Real science is not guess work; all evolution beliefs are guess work.

 

[Reggie Miller]

There's one theory of evolution.

Okay so why don't you post your one evolutionary tree?

 

[Reggie Miller]

When something is a principle it has been proven. Real science advances on the principles proven in the past. Real science is not guess work; all evolution beliefs are guess work.

According to your definition there isn't much "real science."

 

[omega2xx]

No, it was the evidence, provided in the link you were too lazy to open.

It is not laziness. It comes from the experience of 20+ years of opening the link and just finding the usual evo , talking points.

There are mountains of it. I'm not sure how you would know anyway, since your refuse to look.

Then it should be easy for you to post the evidence for mutations being the mechanism for a change of species, and you can't do that. I have ask several to post the evidence for that, and none have done it yet. Would you like to try?

I have donned my prophecy hat and predict he will not be ab le to post the evidence for that opinion.

 

[omega2xx]

No, it did not. It's called on the Origin of Species, NOT, On the Origin of Life. Try reading the book sometime.

DUUH. Teh firsst life ws the origin of the species. Try understanding what you read.

Actually, the discussion is about providing evidence for CREATIONISM without invoking the TOE. Creationism is a religious idea.

This has been done, which is why the theory of evolution is the only available scientific theory that best explains the available evidence.

The only objective evidence is the creation itself, unless you can explain a different source for the existence of matter, energy and life.

]Feel free to expand your mind and start reading about it.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
ActionBioscience - promoting bioscience literacy

Feel free to use you mind to evaluate what is evidence and what is opinion.l Hint---Opinions are not evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

DUUH. Teh firsst life ws the origin of the species. Try understanding what you read.



The only objective evidence is the creation itself, unless you can explain a different source for the existence of matter, energy and life.



Feel free to use you mind to evaluate what is evidence and what is opinion.l Hint---Opinions are not evidence.

We will take that then as your admission that you have no evidence what-so-ever.

 

[Skwim]

When something is a principle it has been proven. Real science advances on the principles proven in the past. Real science is not guess work; all evolution beliefs are guess work.

"Real science," as you put it, does not advance only on proven principles as you imply, but on a lot of experimentation, investigation, fact gathering, hypothesis, and theories. And, of course all evolution beliefs are not guesswork. Might do you some good to delve into a little bit of the philosophy of science before making wild statements such as these, amusing as they may be.


.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Okay so why don't you post your one evolutionary tree?

There are a few different iterations but they should look something like this

or this.

Mostly just depending on your person preference. Both are the same I just think the circular one looks better.

 

[Janet Waters]

I still haven't seen a single verifiable evidence that would verify a creator god is real.

It is not meant for a natural man to know the things of God.

• 1 Corinthians 2:14
  14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Skwim]

It is not meant for a natural man to know the things of God.

Yet Christians have absolutely no problem with ascribing this, that, and some other thing to god.


.

 

[savagewind]

Yet Christians have absolutely no problem with ascribing this, that, and some other thing to god.


.

Natural man versus spiritual man.

 

[SkepticThinker]

DUUH. Teh firsst life ws the origin of the species. Try understanding what you read.

Yeah, it's not about the origin of life. Pay attention to the title of the book. And then maybe read it.

The only objective evidence is the creation itself, unless you can explain a different source for the existence of matter, energy and life.

Sorry but you don't just get to call it "creation" and call it a day. That word smuggles in the very thing you actually need to demonstrate. So I guess what you're saying is that you don't actually have any evidence for creationism.

Feel free to use you mind to evaluate what is evidence and what is opinion.l Hint---Opinions are not evidence.

And once again, you completely avoid review of the provided evidence. LOL

 

[Reggie Miller]

There are a few different iterations but they should look something like this

or this.

Mostly just depending on your person preference. Both are the same I just think the circular one looks better.

What is that organism at the very end, or shall I say, beginning?

 

[McBell]

What is even sadder is that the evolutionist are blowing a horn that makes no sound.

WE don't need something new, when the old is good enough. If we added something new, it would be admitting what we originally and continually say was wrong.

I love to tell the story to those who know it best, seem hungering and thirsting to hear it like the rest.

Choir sermons only convince the choir.
Thus the reason they are called choir sermons.

One wonders why it is so difficult for you to understand that non choir members are not convinced by choir sermons,,,

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is that organism at the very end, or shall I say, beginning?

Early bacteria.