WordSpeaks
Member
Why is it that evolutionist proponants on this forum demand creationist proponants use google to find answers to their questions, but then demand the creationists answer the evolutionist questions?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
Why is it that evolutionist proponants on this forum demand creationist proponants use google to find answers to their questions, but then demand the creationists answer the evolutionist questions?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I am not the one attacking well established scientific facts.
You are.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
(And I never "demanded" you do anything. You asked for info on those methods. As well established scientific methods, the information are readily available to you.)
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Because creationists' questions are usually ones that require something akin to an entire book to answer. Questions like, "Explain how the eye evolved" or "Explain how intelligence evolved" don't lend themselves to being answered on internet forums. So rather than ignore them, some people try and direct the creationist to a variety of resources that can help.
OTOH, it's been my experience that your standard internet creationist does everything he can to avoid answering questions. They tend to behave more like a guilty defendant on the witness stand than someone engaging in an open discussion.
WordSpeaks
Member
To be fair, I didn't ask. Someone else did.
The forum here is called "Evolution vs Creation." It is a sub-category under "Religious Debates." I don't think I'm off base by thinking this part of the forum is for debate about evolution and creation.
The rules of a debate can vary widely, but typically both participants are required to abide by the same rules. It seems to be a bit of a cop out to suggest, "look it up for yourself" when faced with something you are unwiilling or unable to answer.
I'm not suggesting that in an online many-to-many debate like this that you're required to answer every single question someone posses. But time and time again I see "The answer is out there. Go find it yourself." That type of a response suggests you're not really interested in debate. If that's not why you're here, what is your purpose in posting?
The forum here is called "Evolution vs Creation." It is a sub-category under "Religious Debates." I don't think I'm off base by thinking this part of the forum is for debate about evolution and creation.
The rules of a debate can vary widely, but typically both participants are required to abide by the same rules. It seems to be a bit of a cop out to suggest, "look it up for yourself" when faced with something you are unwiilling or unable to answer.
I'm not suggesting that in an online many-to-many debate like this that you're required to answer every single question someone posses. But time and time again I see "The answer is out there. Go find it yourself." That type of a response suggests you're not really interested in debate. If that's not why you're here, what is your purpose in posting?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Also keep in mind that many of the science defenders here have extensive experiences with creationists coming into the forum and asking a question like "Where are the transitional fossils", only to ignore the responses that people take the time to post. Similar to what I described above, the creationist isn't asking about transitional fossils because he's truly interested in the data, rather he asks because he's already convinced they don't exist and is trying to "stump the evolutionist". Once it's obvious that you're dealing with that sort of person, it's simply a waste of time to bother answering their questions.
WordSpeaks
Member
I see where you're coming from. It's actually the reverse of what I've experienced (in other forums more often than here.. I'm still fairly new) of "stump the creationist" attitudes.
I also don't have a ready solution. I do try to see where the other side is coming from when having these conversations. People rarely change their minds (and online forums such as these are perhaps the worst medium for doing so.) But again, if we're not going to actually participate in a debate, why bother?
I also don't have a ready solution. I do try to see where the other side is coming from when having these conversations. People rarely change their minds (and online forums such as these are perhaps the worst medium for doing so.) But again, if we're not going to actually participate in a debate, why bother?
McBell
Unbound
Perhaps it is just me, but I see that type of response more as them not wanting to have to educate someone to the level of actually being able to effectively debate the subject at hand.
Happens quite a bit when debating with creationists.
WordSpeaks
Member
I'm torn. I've seen some of the ignorance you mention. At the same time, I've seen a lot of the condensation above, and not all of it warrented.
McBell
Unbound
As have I.
The thing is, some of the older members have been through the hoops, some more than a few times, and yet nothing ever gets accomplished.
Autodidact, and I only mention her specifically because I have learned tons about evolution from her, has on several occasions started a new thread to provide one on one explanations and detailed descriptions of what evolution is, yet every time it ends in the person wanting to hold on to their strawman version of evolution instead of learning what evolution actually says and is all about.
Painted Wolf is another member I have learned tons from concerning evolution.
I guess it is to the point where certain members are so tired and frustrated at explaining the same thing over and over ad naseum to no avail that it is actually easier to tell them to go learn about it and come back when they know what they are talking about.
Is this a deserved response to everyone?
No, but it is not something that is unexpected.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
OK, lets start with Chronometric Dating.
Chronometric Dating includes...
The methods mentioned above can be used to not only confirm each other, but also the many other dating techniques, such as carbon-14 and the multitude of other radiometric dating techniques.
Also, the varve analysis can date back 15,000 years to the retreat of the glaciers in Scandinavia, without any trace at all of a global flood. Much less a simple Scandinavian-wide flood. (Dendrochronology also shows absolutely no traces of a worldwide flood.)
Chronometric Dating includes...
- The written record. (Mayan tablets written 5000 years ago, Sumerian Tablets, etc..)
- Dendrochronology. (Tree ring dating, which actually not only records time, but also rainfall amounts.)
- Amino Acid Racemization (L-Amino acids change to D-Amino acids at a steady rate after the death of an organism. The higher the ration of D-Amino acids, the longer the time since death. This can be accurate for dating back as far as 200,000 years.)
- Paleomagnetic Dating. (A reliable method of finding where exactly magnetic north was at the time of formation of volcanic rock. Magnetic north "wonders" predicatively through time. It has also reversed to the south at certain points in history. And will so again.)
- Potassium-Argon Dating (Potassium-40 decays into the gas argon-40 and calcium-40 at a known rate.)
- Fission Track Dating. (Fission like "tracks" in glass like minerals, such as obsidian, caused by the decay of uranium-234. The number of fission tracks is directly proportional to the amount of time since the glassy material cooled from a molten state.)
- Varve Analysis. (Using silt deposits from former lakes to calculate age and glacial melts.)
The methods mentioned above can be used to not only confirm each other, but also the many other dating techniques, such as carbon-14 and the multitude of other radiometric dating techniques.
Also, the varve analysis can date back 15,000 years to the retreat of the glaciers in Scandinavia, without any trace at all of a global flood. Much less a simple Scandinavian-wide flood. (Dendrochronology also shows absolutely no traces of a worldwide flood.)
outhouse
Atheistically
excellent explanation.
I might add many of us are somewhat educated on the subject or subjects at hand, when we see someone that lacks that education we would love to see them learn the facts and join the crowd so we can debate on even ground.
when we see someone that adds 2 + 3 and keeps answering 7 no matter how many times you show them in different ways the answer is 5 it can get frustrating
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I completely agree here. Auto is very knowledgeably. PW obviously is seeing as though she is our resident biologist. We also have a geologist that has joined in on these debates from time to time sharing his knowledge in his respective field. We even have a physicist in the forum commenting from time to time.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
We have real creationists to deal with, dude, spare us the poeing.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Isn't that the point of a "Poe", i.e. that creationists are so ridiculous, you can't tell the difference between a real one and a spoof of one?
I thought they were all spoof.
Astrid000
Member
Actually Fantom Profane, it is comments like this that immediately make obvious some evolutionists are as lacking knowledge of creationist science as they charge creationists as being of theirs.
I expect a 'what science?' style response.
The best sign of demonstrated lack of knowledge about creationists claims is to plea that creationists are ignorant of the facts evolutionists use to support their theory. In actual fact creationists accept what has been observed and deny that this will lead to macroevolution. eg a bushy tailed squirrel like creature evolved into a human, and an ape.
Evidence for creation is implicit in the creation. I am sure you have heard it all before. The planet earth has the best address in the universe. Every stage of its formation was required to be as such for life to have evolved, right down to the iron core, seasons, magnetic field, hydrolic cycles and earths crust cycles and the many cycles required.
There are 4 terestrial planets in our solar system. Only one sprung life, regardless of them all being as inhospitable to begin with and having equal opportunity to evolve life. Despite all the science gone into showing how life can live in lava, ice, sunless environments, environments poison to us etc there is not so much as a bacteria confirmed on any of the 3 planets. I am sure this was disappointing.
Does this provide proof of creation? No. However it does provide a basis for support for creation that perhaps some higher intelligence actually knew what they were doing when pulling it all together.
This plus evolutionists use of using different species from any phyla as an intermediate can be discredited. ERV's can be discredited, so can the genetic similarity be disputed as a basis for common descent. Why? Because the theory of evolution evokes just as much speculation as creationist assertions.
Take baramins for example. Erectus can be easily separated out due to lack of sophisticated language, possible lack of foxp2 human variation, Ardi and Turkana Boy being male and female of the same species demonstrating extreme sexual dimorphism like gorillas and other non human primates do.
I think creationists can supply much the same theoretical backing for their views which make creation theory just as scientific as TOE. Both can claim they have the facts, accredit what has been observed, and enough theory to assert their science as a psuedo 'fact', just like TOE.
I expect a 'what science?' style response.
The best sign of demonstrated lack of knowledge about creationists claims is to plea that creationists are ignorant of the facts evolutionists use to support their theory. In actual fact creationists accept what has been observed and deny that this will lead to macroevolution. eg a bushy tailed squirrel like creature evolved into a human, and an ape.
Evidence for creation is implicit in the creation. I am sure you have heard it all before. The planet earth has the best address in the universe. Every stage of its formation was required to be as such for life to have evolved, right down to the iron core, seasons, magnetic field, hydrolic cycles and earths crust cycles and the many cycles required.
There are 4 terestrial planets in our solar system. Only one sprung life, regardless of them all being as inhospitable to begin with and having equal opportunity to evolve life. Despite all the science gone into showing how life can live in lava, ice, sunless environments, environments poison to us etc there is not so much as a bacteria confirmed on any of the 3 planets. I am sure this was disappointing.
Does this provide proof of creation? No. However it does provide a basis for support for creation that perhaps some higher intelligence actually knew what they were doing when pulling it all together.
This plus evolutionists use of using different species from any phyla as an intermediate can be discredited. ERV's can be discredited, so can the genetic similarity be disputed as a basis for common descent. Why? Because the theory of evolution evokes just as much speculation as creationist assertions.
Take baramins for example. Erectus can be easily separated out due to lack of sophisticated language, possible lack of foxp2 human variation, Ardi and Turkana Boy being male and female of the same species demonstrating extreme sexual dimorphism like gorillas and other non human primates do.
I think creationists can supply much the same theoretical backing for their views which make creation theory just as scientific as TOE. Both can claim they have the facts, accredit what has been observed, and enough theory to assert their science as a psuedo 'fact', just like TOE.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
you mean like this?
[youtube]ajDlvILowpM[/youtube]
‪Fun With Creationist Arguments for God Part II‬‏ - YouTube
:biglaugh:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
evidence for this please? What evidence do you have on the language abilities H.erectus had?
Evidence? This sounds like a guess.
Nope... They are clearly not the same species. Have you seen either one?
Also, we haven't looked for single celled life on other planets... ever. There are plans to do so in the future but we haven't be able to yet. Europa in particular shows great promise for such a mission.
wa:do