Do creationists have anything new?

[Skwim]

Actually, what is quite sobering is the video I posted JoseFly.

Can you comment on the fact that none of the professors or majors in various science fields, (who all held strong beliefs in evolution) could produce ANY observable evidence at all in support of their "belief"? Who really has "blind faith"?

Gee, could it possibly be that the producers edited out all those who could point to observable evidence? Of course it could be, and it wouldn't be the first time creationists tailored the remarks of others to suite their purposes. Moreover, look at the majors of the seven undergraduate students who were asked to provide them.

biochemistry 2 students
chemistry 1
geology 1
physics 1
environmental science and policy 1
biology 1​

Think they should necessarily be able to give an example of "observable evidence" of evolution? With the possible exception of the biology major, of course not. That they are majoring in science doesn't necessarily mean they know more about evolution than those majoring in French History or applied arts.

Of course the whole thing is a set up; as if not being able to cite an example of "observable evidence" of evolution means evolution is false. Or that even if there was no such observable evidence then evolution must be false.


Then there's the interviewer's claim that bacteria becoming different bacteria (essentially speciation) is not Darwinian evolution, which is stupid beyond belief.

And of course, ask any creationist what evidence they can point to as supporting creationism and they're stuck with seven verses in a single fallible source: the Bible.


.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

What's truly sad is how they willing accept the scientific method when it comes to how their computers work or establishing that the Earth orbits around the sun, but then reject the exact same method when it comes to evolution. Not only do they claim evolution scientists are all a bunch of frauds using pseudo-science, but apparently they believe that scientist in OTHER fields of study are all too stupid to see the fraud, since 99% percent of them also accept evolution as valid.

In order to buy into the creationist's claims you have to first accept that creationists somehow understand how the scientific method works better that the actual scientists who employ it.

 

[Deeje]

And it's the undecided who the converted are afraid will be convinced by science. Hence the attempts by the converted to denigrate the findings of science where evolution is concerned. But alas, as Jose Fly points out, their attempted denigrations have zero impact on the findings of science.

Do you not listen to yourself? Its the evolutionists who are normally the ones who denigrate believers as uneducated morons who have no understanding of science......but when you do actually understand what science is 'suggesting' without a single shred of provable scientific evidence, it becomes clear who has the bigger fantasy to sell.

Please see this video in Just Accidental?

Now tell me how science has the hard evidence? See the power of suggestion in action. This what is real.

If you actually understood science you'd know that their claims seldom come without "proof." And this is because most of them are couched in terms that allow for revision and disproof. So, any "proof" would not extend any further than the limits of the claim, which often take the stated or unstated qualifying form of: "It appears," As far as known," or "According to our research." It's only the foolish and uneducated who presume that science purposely leads people to think it's infallible. And, of course, creationists sometimes claim just this in their effort to mislead the ignorant: pretending (lying) that science has all the answers and then mock them for it. The straw-man argument is a well honed weapon in the creationist's arsenal, and they delight in using it.

IOW.....''we worship science because as far as evidence is concerned, our interpretation of it MUST be right....because we said so".

Mocking evolutionary science is not difficult because no one mocks believers like evolutionists do.
Whatsamatta? Don't like a bit of your own medicine?

You need new arguments because all the others have failed.

Oh, but they haven't. They are as valid today as they were 50 years ago. The truth does not change.....evolutionary science must change because it isn't exact. Contradictory evidence emerges and a whole rethink is necessary....how can that be fact?..... Intelligent Design doesn't have that problem. Nor does it have to duck for cover when abiogenesis is mentioned.

You can't make a convincing case for creationism on its own grounds so you seek to make it on the grounds of science. It presumes that by showing science to be wrong creationism wins by default. Besides not being the case at all, creationists have NOT shown science to be wrong when it comes to evolution.

I beg to differ....both Guy Threepwood and myself were former evolution supporters, believing in it because everyone else accepted it as fact, and it sounded like they had all the evidence they needed to make it a foregone conclusion. I kept hearing that the evidence was "overwhelming" so I didn't question it......but when I really examined the evidence, it was totally "underwhelming"....it turned out to be all supposition and suggestion couched in slick language that made the suggestions appear as if they were proven....the diagrams made it all seem so simple and believable......but it was all smoke and mirrors.....nothing was based on hard evidence!

Gotta say, attempting to make an argument based on one's ignorance is amusing, but not at all unusual, and quite in keeping with creationist conceit. And while it may convince those ignorant of the facts, statements like these sometimes make those of us who know better want to bury our heads in disbelief and disgust.

When you have no hard evidence...try emotional blackmail and insults to people's intelligence.

Well they're certainly meant to impact the truths of science in the minds of fence sitting Christians..

This world is running out of time for fence sitters to make up their minds.....so any help we can offer the undecided is our God-given duty. Exposing an inconvenient truth can create hostility, as we see on these threads.

If there is no Creator, then our existence on this planet is meaningless and we have no hope for the future, except what man can provide....and none of that fills anyone with hope, given his pathetic track record. If that empty picture appeals to you then you are welcome to it. I have higher hopes that the Creator will do all that he said he will.

The future that is set out in scripture is not all about heaven...it is about planet earth and all living things upon it. It was created for a purpose and so were we. We are at present proving our worthiness to become permanent citizens of this earth with God as its only ruler. Humans have proven that they are useless at governing themselves and in taking care of this planet, its eco-systems and its creatures. An eviction notice has been served on corrupt and greedy humans....but its not too late.....yet.

 

[Deeje]

Gee, could it possibly be that the producers edited out all those who could point to observable evidence? Of course it could be, and it wouldn't be the first time creationists tailored the remarks of others to suite their purposes. Moreover, look at the majors of the seven undergraduate students who were asked to provide them.

biochemistry 2 students
chemistry 1
geology 1
physics 1
environmental science and policy 1
biology 1​

Think they should necessarily be able to give an example of "observable evidence" of evolution? With the possible exception of the biology major, of course not. That they are majoring in science doesn't necessarily mean they know more about evolution than those majoring in French History or applied arts.

I think you missed the point ....ALL who were asked said they believed in evolution as a fact. Why do they believe if they don't know how to provide evidence? Why do they all just blindly believe what they are told? Can you see the problem? They trust the scientists like we trust the Creator. How are you less blind in your faith than you assume we are?

Of course the whole thing is a set up; as if not being able to cite an example of "observable evidence" of evolution means evolution is false. Or that even if there was no such observable evidence then evolution must be false.

We invite you to provide the evidence then.....lets hear it. Not adaptation, but something we can test scientifically to prove that macro-evolution ever happened.

Then there's the interviewer's claim that bacteria becoming different bacteria (essentially speciation) is not Darwinian evolution, which is stupid beyond belief.

He was quoting Darwin I believe, when he said that one "kind" could change into another. Not one professor could provide evidence for this happening. In every example they gave, adaptation was the proof, macro-evolution had no proof. It is assumed. When is unprovable assumption, the same as scientific fact?

And of course, ask any creationist what evidence they can point to as supporting creationism and they're stuck with seven verses in a single fallible source: the Bible.

Scientists are your teachers and you believe them without ever needing to see the hard evidence.....that statement is a little hypocritical don't you think? We see direct evidence for our Creator everywhere, but you think it all happened by chance. That is your fairytale, not mine.

 

[Deeje]

What's truly sad is how they willing accept the scientific method when it comes to how their computers work or establishing that the Earth orbits around the sun, but then reject the exact same method when it comes to evolution.

What a pathetic argument. Science has its place and we can benefit from its achievements, but when it comes to suggestions about how life began, scientists are at a complete loss.....instead they would rather argue about how living things changed and adapted, embellishing what they can prove to cover what they can't.

Not only do they claim evolution scientists are all a bunch of frauds using pseudo-science, but apparently they believe that scientist in OTHER fields of study are all too stupid to see the fraud, since 99% percent of them also accept evolution as valid.

No, you are mistaken......the 'fraud' comes from a much more sophisticated source. He is described in the Bible as "the god of this world" and he has the ability to "blind the minds" of those who reject the Creator. It isn't the 'eyes', but the 'minds' of people that are 'blinded' so that they can't see the truth. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) Scoff if you like......you don't have to believe it. This was written almost 2,000 years ago but it is still as valid today, only on a much larger scale. This is the time for decisions.

In order to buy into the creationist's claims you have to first accept that creationists somehow understand how the scientific method works better that the actual scientists who employ it.

No, you just have to understand that humans are good at marketing ideas that bring them personal glory. They will grab it by taking it away from the Creator. I don't think that their glory will not last for much longer though.

 

[Milton Platt]

What about the banana and the crocoduck

The most convincing arguments for creationism ever devised!!! It converted me in an instant! (NOT)

 

[Milton Platt]

I think you missed the point ....ALL who were asked said they believed in evolution as a fact. Why do they believe if they don't know how to provide evidence? Why do they all just blindly believe what they are told? Can you see the problem? They trust the scientists like we trust the Creator. How are you less blind in your faith than you assume we are?

Because science has testable, predictive theories, maybe? Because the evidence we have is material and observable as opposed to immaterial, observable, and non testable? Because the evidence from numerous different scientific disciplines dovetail and support the concept?

What do you have in contrast?



We invite you to provide the evidence then.....lets hear it. Not adaptation, but something we can test scientifically to prove that macro-evolution ever happened.

You want to see one species evolve into another in a human lifetime? Seriously?

Are you expecting someone to post over 200 years of scientific research in geology, genetics, biology, paleontology, archaeology on this site for you to ignore? You can read it at your leisure anytime you wish in numerous places. If you wanted to know the information, you would already have read it.

Outline in detail (so we do not have an eternal back and forth) what specific level and kind of evidence you will accept.

That works both ways. I expect you to provide the same level and kind of evidence for your creator. Please provide testable evidence of a god and then provide testable evidence of it creating something. Explain the mechanism in detail and provide your experimentation so others may duplicate your work. I hold you to your own stated requirements for belief.

He was quoting Darwin I believe, when he said that one "kind" could change into another. Not one professor could provide evidence for this happening. In every example they gave, adaptation was the proof, macro-evolution had no proof. It is assumed. When is unprovable assumption, the same as scientific fact?

My apologies, but I believe I saw the word "kind" used in the Bible to describe different animals, yes? But Darwin had been a Christian and I can see how he would borrow the words. I think John Ray (1600's?) was the first to use the word species, from the Greek, as a biological term, so it was out there, but no way to know if Darwin was aware of John Ray.

Macro-evolution is adaptation occurring over a longer period of time. What exactly is the barrier to small changes adding up to a larger change? Where and why does it occur? Please explain how you scientifically tested this (This is your own requirement for belief, as you have stated).

You do understand that if you could disprove the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories, this does not establish the existence of a deity (your favorite one or any other). All you would be left with is a big "we don't know". Your god would require it's own evidence based, testable, repeatable, falsifiable scientific theory. Can you provide this?

We await the scientific evidence for your god, where is it? Surly, after some 6,000 years, you must have testable, repeatable, predictive experiments which establish it's presence beyond all doubt???

I only ask this because you yourself have stated that this is the standard one must meet to be believed.

Scientists are your teachers and you believe them without ever needing to see the hard evidence.....that statement is a little hypocritical don't you think? We see direct evidence for our Creator everywhere, but you think it all happened by chance. That is your fairytale, not mine.

Preachers are your teachers and you demand not one shred of hard evidence, for their rejection of science, all the while using it daily, right? Where sis all of the scientific testing from them that your are demanding from everyone else?

I know that the science is peer reviewed and tested repeatedly and that the theories work and make testable predictions. know that I could, if I so choose, educate myself on a specific topic and study the work done by others through rigorously done papers which detail the work and would allow me to duplicate the steps.

So if I would have to have a detailed background in all of the sciences in order to accept those conclusions, should you not require the same rigor of Christians? how can they accept anything their leaders are saying unless they have developed a detailed understanding through years of study of the history, etymology, languages, etc. required to have this knowledge?

provide irrefutable evidence for your creator..........How can we scientifically test for his existence? (You yourself said that is the only way we can demonstrate something is true, right?)

Adaptation does not rely upon mere chance, it depends upon the natural laws to guide it.

Your creationism relies on mere chance. Your god just "happened" to exist, without any explanation an just "happened" to decide to create a universe. Bored with eternity, was he???

Finally, the OP was asking if you have anything new. Evidently, you do not.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What a pathetic argument. Science has its place and we can benefit from its achievements, but when it comes to suggestions about how life began, scientists are at a complete loss.....instead they would rather argue about how living things changed and adapted, embellishing what they can prove to cover what they can't.



No, you are mistaken......the 'fraud' comes from a much more sophisticated source. He is described in the Bible as "the god of this world" and he has the ability to "blind the minds" of those who reject the Creator. It isn't the 'eyes', but the 'minds' of people that are 'blinded' so that they can't see the truth. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) Scoff if you like......you don't have to believe it. This was written almost 2,000 years ago but it is still as valid today, only on a much larger scale. This is the time for decisions.



No, you just have to understand that humans are good at marketing ideas that bring them personal glory. They will grab it by taking it away from the Creator. I don't think that their glory will not last for much longer though.

Wow, every single one of your responses is just plain wrong. How sad.

 

[Deeje]

Preachers are your teachers and you demand not one shred of hard evidence, right?

No, the Bible is our teacher and it provides all the evidence we need to believe in an Intelligent Designer of the universe, this earth, and everything upon it. He doesn't force anyone to believe in him, nor does he force anyone to do a thing against their free will. Its our choice to accept him and his creation, or reject him in favor of what man can accomplish. Personally I can't compare them, but scientists obviously think their intelligence is superior......let's wait and see.

provide irrefutable evidence for your creator..........How can we scientifically test for his existence? (You yourself said that is the only way we can demonstrate something is true, right?)

Milton Platt, I have made the argument many times that evolutionists and ID'ers are basically in the same boat. Neither of us can produce the "proof" for what we want to believe in. We each have belief systems based on faith in our teachers. What makes scientists think they have the high ground on this issue? They have nothing real to prove their theory, any more than we can produce God for them. Faith is required on both sides of this issue.....that is a fact.

We see the same "evidence" but have vastly different interpretations for it. This is what I want to make clear. Science has no more solid evidence for macro-evolution than we do for our Intelligent Designer. We choose the belief system based on what is in our own hearts and minds.

I am not here to convert anyone, but simply to tell the truth, which science seems reluctant to do. No one can make a decision about the existence of God without the whole story being told. I am here to tell the other side and to expose the fraud that science has perpetrated for decades.

 

[hzcummi]

You have been interacting with "creationist clowns", and not those that adhere to the truth of Genesis. All creationist doctrines are foolish, in error, and misrepresent the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis does not have any "Creation accounts". Genesis chapter two is about the history of modern mankind, starting in 7200 BC, with the making of Adam, then the modern animals, and then Eve. Chapter one is not "Creation Week", but seven different days, taken from seven different weeks, taken from seven different time periods of Earth.

Before trying to learn about the seven days in Genesis, first become familiar with the Seven Feasts of Yehovah, as given to the nation of Israel. The order of the days in Genesis follow the order of the feasts. Only the Fourth Day was from Creation Week.

Herman Cummings
[email protected]

 

[TDselector]

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

Well, since you asked: http://physiology.by/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Morales_WHO-IS-TELLING-THE-TRUTH.pdf

 

[LuisDantas]

So the consensus view seems to be that no, creationists do not have any new arguments or anything else. And that means all discussions or debates with creationists will be nothing more than rehashes of topics that have been done to death for decades or even centuries, and have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Rather sobering, isn't it?

The so-called "controversy" is, at its core, a confrontation between people who value their symbolic narrative more than actual knowledge and people who do not. There is no avoiding that.

 

[shmogie]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).
One could reverse the question, and get the same result. What is new in evolutionary theory that nails it down as a fact, or it's cousin, the elephant in the room, abiogenesis ? Here are indisputable facts, it is totally unproven by overwhelming, or even significant evidence that macro evolution ever took place, and it certainly is the same for that enigma, wrapped in a mystery, encased in a conumdrum, abiogenesis. So, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had zero impact on those who see no reason to accept as fact, ideas that are linked together by ropes of sand , speculation, it must be, ignore that, we are superior ? When one precludes alternatives, one accepts whatever is left, no matter how shoddy the evidence for it. If the physical evidence for two possible alternatives is lacking, then one must look to other systems of evaluation for further knowledge. Thus, believers in the self creation of life from chemicals ,or the resultant primitive and simple organisms ultimately morphing into all of the complicated and diverse life that has existed, based upon accidental mutations, have a fantasy to explain that is no less bizarre than the fantasy that life was the result of a creative act by an unknown intelligent force or being
For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

 

[sysint]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same....

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

I see that you are excellent at being a troll. I find most people who think they know something about evolution don't. They have no idea how far fetched the actual findings are not having gone through drawers of very little with very big conclusions. And of course there is this convenient little thing with evolution where origin of life is really not part of the study so why people like you think you have anything to offer those who believe in a creation and then talk about evolution makes little sense.

I don't know what the creationists believe. I don't think either should be taught in schools as its a waste of time when students could be learning more defined and useful science such as math, chemistry and physics. Evolution theory is like reality TV and its ridiculous the emphasis on it.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

You make a mistake in assuming that all who reject evolution are creationists. Creation science is an evangelical thing. I am not evangelical, nor do I subscribe o ll of their ideas, like a young earth. But anyway, you act really smug, as if you and those who think like you, are so bored with proponents of creation. Like you are all so intellectually superior. Well some of us are bored with the things evolutionists keep saying. There are good rebuttals for your arguments.

 

[Kapalika]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but the existence of "Creationists" in this day and age really baffles me.

It's like having a cult that denies that Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks ever existed (please tell me there's no such cult...).

Go ahead and offend them. Bonus points since many of the Christians you are talking about themselves probably think we live in a "PC culture". Lack of self-awareness is what Christianity thrives on.

 

[Skwim]

I think you missed the point ....ALL who were asked said they believed in evolution as a fact. Why do they believe if they don't know how to provide evidence?

Who says they don't? All they'd have to do is point you toward the evidence in their library. That they don't have it at hand or in their head certainly doesn't mean they're incapable of getting it.

Why do they all just blindly believe what they are told?

Why do you insist on calling it "blindly" believe? (no need to answer, I know why) I would bet good money they don't. My bet is that they believe because they have good reason to, which is not "blindly believing."

Can you see the problem?

Sure. The problem is that you can't make a case without setting up a strawman to do so.

They trust the scientists like we trust the Creator.

Hardly. Unlike your trust in god, they know that scientists can make mistakes, so their trust is a cautious trust. Think your god can make mistakes?

How are you less blind in your faith than you assume we are?

Never said your faith was blind, did I.

We invite you to provide the evidence then.....lets hear it. Not adaptation, but something we can test scientifically to prove that macro-evolution ever happened.

Are you saying that you're capable of making such a scientific test? Before going to the trouble you'll have to convince me of your expertise.

He was quoting Darwin I believe, when he said that one "kind" could change into another.

Yeah, and I'm J. C. himself. MOREOVER, I wasn't referring to any use of the word "kind," but to the fact that in reference to the statement that bacteria becoming different bacteria (essentially speciation), he said "that's not Darwinian evolution."

Not one professor could provide evidence for this happening.

P. Z. Myers did in his example of bacteria. (at the 6:22 mark) That the idiot doing the interview can't accept this is his problem.

In every example they gave, adaptation was the proof, macro-evolution had no proof. It is assumed. When is unprovable assumption, the same as scientific fact?

You mean because they didn't offer up the proof right then and there? You have got to be kidding.

Scientists are your teachers and you believe them without ever needing to see the hard evidence.....that statement is a little hypocritical don't you think?

No, the scientists who have come to these conclusions have seen the hard evidence. The beliefs of everyone else, and even the conclusions of the scientists themselves, are always open to revision by new evidence. Yours are not.

We see direct evidence for our Creator everywhere..

Reminds me of the old cartoon.

.​

 

[Deeje]

Who says they don't? All they'd have to do is point you toward the evidence in their library. That they don't have it at hand or in their head certainly doesn't mean they're incapable of getting it.

There is no evidence for macro-evolution in any library.....it doesn't exist. All of the students interviewed said that they strongly believed in evolution, yet none of them could think of one example of macro-evolution, that didn't require faith or belief in what someone else had told them, despite all of them expressing absolute faith in it. That is very telling IMO. I think they call that "brainwashing".

Why do you insist on calling it "blindly" believe? (no need to answer, I know why) I would bet good money they don't. My bet is that they believe because they have good reason to, which is not "blindly believing."

"Blindly believing" in something is taking someone else's word for it without researching it yourself. All of the students took science's word for it that evolution was a fact.....it clearly isn't. It is nothing but unsubstantiated suggestion. If you are going to present something as fact, it has to be true....not a best guess with diagrams about how it might have taken place all those millions of years ago when no one was around to attest to any of it.

Hardly. Unlike your trust in god, they know that scientists can make mistakes, so their trust is a cautious trust. Think your god can make mistakes?

If it is a given that science can make mistakes, then why teach it as fact? What is factual about something that can all change tomorrow? Teach it for what it actually is...a unprovable theory. Stop pretending that there is a pile of evidence when no such thing exists outside of the scientist's imagination.

And no, my God doesn't make mistakes. Omniscience make that impossible.

Are you saying that you're capable of making such a scientific test? Before going to the trouble you'll have to convince me of your expertise.

Was that a dodge?
Please present the provable facts for us....I'm sure we would all like to see them. We don't want examples for adaptation, but substantiated proof that one species can actually morph into another kind of creature altogether. That means we need all the intermediate species as well. All we need is one example. We'll wait.

I wasn't referring to any use of the word "kind," but to the fact that in reference to the statement that bacteria becoming different bacteria (essentially speciation), he said "that's not Darwinian evolution."

And he was right. Darwin's finches did not become another kind of anything...they were all still finches....the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises.....just as bacteria is still bacteria. Having a variety of species within a "kind" is what is observed......but never do we see one "kind" becoming a totally different "kind" of creature altogether. Darwin suggested that one "kind" could become some other "kind" given enough time, but that has never been substantiated. If you have proof for that we'd love to see it.

Science would have us believe that amoebas can become dinosaurs.......do you really believe that?

P. Z. Myers did in his example of bacteria. (at the 6:22 mark) That the idiot doing the interview can't accept this is his problem.

The 'idiot doing the interview' did a great job at showing us what science really teaches its students and how knowledgable their professors are as well. How many of them gave examples of adaptation for macro-evolution.....they don't seem to know the difference.

No, the scientists who have come to these conclusions have seen the hard evidence. The beliefs of everyone else, and even the conclusions of the scientists themselves, are always open to revision by new evidence. Yours are not.

Truth never needs revision. It is unalterable. The scientists have come to their conclusions by fudging the evidence and interpreting it to fit their theory. There IS no hard evidence.....they want you to think there is......but there is nothing in the fossil record to prove that all the species were not separately created in different time periods. Their evidence relies heavily on suggestion...NOT fact.

 

[psychoslice]

Have they ever had anything new ?.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

ALL who were asked said they believed in evolution as a fact.

Evolution is a fact, and has an explanatory theory to explain it.

Why do they believe if they don't know how to provide evidence?

Why do we need to "know how to provide evidence"? You have a computer. It's all over the Internet.

And what difference does evidence make to you? You took your position by faith.

Why do they all just blindly believe what they are told?

We don't. We leave that to the faith based thinker. Isn't that the definition of faith based thought?

They trust the scientists like we trust the Creator.

No, you don't trust a creator. You ttrust a book that tells you about a creator, a book that has never answered a scientific question or helped man understand, predict, or at times control his world as science has. Science has done that repeatedly. It has given man the opportunity to live longer, healthier, more functional, safer, and more interesting lives.

Religion cannot do that. It can only offer promises that it doesn't need to keep.

Scientists have an excellent track record. Religion, like other modes of faith based thought, has been sterile.

If you knew nothing else about the world but that, you would have confidence in the scientists' method, and know which choice to make.

How are you less blind in your faith than you assume we are?

How would that put evolutionists at a disadvantage were it true? Would that just make us the same.

Do you understand that most of us feel no burden to bring the faithful over? It's pretty much impossible without your cooperation. If you cannon bring an impartial and open mind to the process, i.e., one willing and able to examine evidence without preconception and capable of understanding and willing to be convinced by a compelling argument, you cannot join us. A man cannot be made to believe that which he has a stake in not believing and that which will not cooperate in understanding. We simply part ways once you choose to think like that.