Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[Dirty Penguin]

Would this be subjective anectodal evidence?
Or objective empirical evidence?

Dang it.... You beat me to the question...:sad:

 

[Big_TJ]

Gday,

So,
here is another ignorant creationist's attempt to explain evolution :




Wow.
This is complete and utter nonsense.
It is NOT what evolution says.

This is a fundamental problem with creationists - they are mentally unable to grasp the question and answer it.

Every time we ask a creationist what evolution says, we get the same result :

A bunch of stupid creationist preaching that is NOT what evolution says at all !

All creationists know is their CREOvolution - their own silly misunderstanding of evolution.

But sadly, we have seen that NOT ONE SINGLE creationist can actually explain what evolution really says.

Pathetic.


Iasion

Well, I did ask what their understanding was; i am not really interested to know whether they are right or wrong at this point. I am more interesting in what their understanding is.

 

[outhouse]

Well, I did ask what their understanding was; i am not really interested to know whether they are right or wrong at this point. I am more interesting in what their understanding is.

really, try again.

("evolutionists") may be able to point out any misconceptions.

 

[Big_TJ]

really, try again.

Right; Therefore, i was not looking for "you are wrong!" responses from those who know; i was expecting a more educational approach where we could point out where they are wrong; not that they are wrong.

Interestingly, we did not even get enough to start helping

 

[outhouse]

Right; Therefore, i was not looking for "you are wrong!" responses from those who know; i was expecting a more educational approach where we could point out where they are wrong; not that they are wrong.

Interestingly, we did not even get enough to start helping

did you think one would stand up like a man and state what he/she truely believes in their heart took place??????.

creationist cannot use reality or reason because it fights them on a daily basis

 

[outhouse]

the creationist bar of reality has been pushed back from 6000 years all the way to 13.6 billion years ago.

all a creationist has for their explanation is, what man doesnt know with cetainty. When you get to that point they fill the gaps with magic man and say he did it.

 

[Thief]

So, that would be a "no"...right?....There's no testable evidence for "God".....right?....:sad:

So you do understand there will never be a test?

Repeating it over and over does not make it so. Can you present any testable evidence for the "cause".....?

And yet you ask for testable evidence?

Who then is redundant?

Science expects repetition.....
So does theology.

Repeat after me.....'God did it'....'God did it'....'God did it'....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And yet you ask for testable evidence?

Who then is redundant?

What's redundant about requesting empirical evidence?

Science expects repetition.....
So does theology.

No theology doesn't....

Most theological claims are static. Science isn't

Repeat after me.....'God did it'....'God did it'....'God did it'....

Who - is not important. How is the most important.

Even though you have no empirical evidence for your claim that "God did it" let's "assume" a god did do (it)...How did this god do (it)..?

 

[Thief]

What's redundant about requesting empirical evidence?

To ask for an evidence that is testable and know at the same moment no such test can exist.....creates a loop.
Stop asking for testable evidence when you know it cannot be handed to you.
From this hour forward...any asking would be redundant.

Most theological claims are static. Science isn't

Theology is ever changing.
What? ....you don't see diversity?....variety?....historical reformations?

Who - is not important. How is the most important.

'Who' is always important.
But addressing the personage of God is not needed for this topic.

Even though you have no empirical evidence for your claim that "God did it" let's "assume" a god did do (it)...How did this god do (it)..?

Oddly enough...'how'....is not important.

The relationship between the Creator and His creation is.
Separating the Cause from the effect?
Not likely.

Do you really believe all that you see...is an accident?
Including....'you'?

 

[outhouse]

Do you really believe all that you see...is an accident?
Including....'you'?

your right its not a accident, mankind evolved end of story.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To ask for an evidence that is testable and know at the same moment no such test can exist.....creates a loop.
Stop asking for testable evidence when you know it cannot be handed to you.
From this hour forward...any asking would be redundant.

Hey, you're the one who started off with the presumption that a god is the cause.

Theology is ever changing.
What? ....you don't see diversity?....variety?....historical reformations?

Anything outside the bible in regards to change is due to man trying to conform his outdated and inaccurate holy text to what we currently know about the natural world. Your particular scripture does not give one the impression it is capable, in certain areas, it's "ever changing".....Case in point would be Adam and Eve. We know that it is genetically impossible to take a man and make a woman (genetically speaking). mtDNA is not passed from males to offspring.

'Who' is always important.
But addressing the personage of God is not needed for this topic.

The who is not important to this debate considering we can, for the sake of this debate, make the assumption 1.) a god exist and 2.) it is responsible for the "whatever". The question then becomes (How). We know that influenza exist because we have the evidence to show for it and we know it has certain effects on humans. We strive to know how they effect us.

Oddly enough...'how'....is not important.

Yes it is. You posit a god as "creator"...ok.....How?

The relationship between the Creator and His creation is.
Separating the Cause from the effect?
Not likely.

You have no idea what the cause is. All you have is a notion, a hypothesis with no way to verify your claim. So what do we do? Do we just accept your claim on faith alone?

Do you really believe all that you see...is an accident?
Including....'you'?

No it (is) Evolution......

 

[Thief]

your right its not a accident, mankind evolved end of story.

And God set it in motion.....

The story continues.....

 

[andys]

Thief,
Your inability to reason is really fascinating to me. I wonder if you would indulge me and play a simple logic game:
Which of the following argument forms is valid (i.e., the conclusion follows from its premises)?

1) If I study, then I will pass.
I studied, therefore, I will pass.

OR

2) If I study, then I will pass.
I passed, therefore I studied.

Don't be afraid; you have a 50-50 chance to guess the correct answer (#1 or # 2).
Good luck.

 

[outhouse]

And God set it in motion.....

The story continues.....

then what is your understanding?

just when did "your" deity step in and do something???.

where is "your" bar set????

obviously "your" personal view goes against the bibles view, so why just cherry pick the bible for only as much of the creation story as you feel is real????? if you know its wrong to start with????

 

[Thief]

then what is your understanding?

just when did "your" deity step in and do something???.

where is "your" bar set????

obviously "your" personal view goes against the bibles view, so why just cherry pick the bible for only as much of the creation story as you feel is real????? if you know its wrong to start with????

It isn't wrong.
You just assume it's a myth.

 

[Thief]

Thief,
Your inability to reason is really fascinating to me. I wonder if you would indulge me and play a simple logic game:
Which of the following argument forms is valid (i.e., the conclusion follows from its premises)?

1) If I study, then I will pass.
I studied, therefore, I will pass.

OR

2) If I study, then I will pass.
I passed, therefore I studied.

Don't be afraid; you have a 50-50 chance to guess the correct answer (#1 or # 2).
Good luck.

It would have been better to argue the point.

 

[outhouse]

It isn't wrong.
You just assume it's a myth.

answer the questions please

then what is your understanding?

just when did "your" deity step in and do something???.

where is "your" bar set????

 

[Thief]

answer the questions please

God is creator.

He did it a long time ago.

 

[outhouse]

God is creator.

He did it a long time ago.

that does not answer these questions now asked 3 times state your case

then what is your understanding?

just when did "your" deity step in and do something???.

where is "your" bar set????

if you cant be specific its only because you dont know!

 

[Thief]

that does not answer these questions now asked 3 times state your case

then what is your understanding?

just when did "your" deity step in and do something???.

where is "your" bar set????

Apparently my 'bar' is well over your head.

Your denial is noted.