For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[ImmortalFlame]

There is a difference between accepting facts that are proven, and suggestions that are mere supposition.

How do you still not understand that theories in science are never proven?

Its not that we are "unwilling to learn",

Then why can't you learn that science doesn't deal with "proof", adaptation is a form of evolution, evolutionary theory supposes nothing about the existence or nonexistence of a God, and evolution occurs as a result of variation within the taxa?

but that we are unable to swallow what you already have.

Only because of your religious indoctrination.

There is no twisting of words on our part, science does that by calling things by names that have other meanings.

You mean, by using words?

Meeting an agenda is about selling your proposition....

Like you do when you try to dismiss science in order to inject your religious beliefs into the debate.

 

[gnostic]

There is a difference between accepting facts that are proven, and suggestions that are mere supposition.

Its not that we are "unwilling to learn", but that we are unable to swallow what you already have. There is no twisting of words on our part, science does that by calling things by names that have other meanings. Meeting an agenda is about selling your proposition....science wants to sell us something that looks like junk. I am not buying it.....you can if you think its worth what it costs.

What a lot of hypocritical craps.

Everything you said about science actually apply to you and your baseless rationality.

It is you, who has supplied a single evidence in regarding to your version of Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Where are the evidences for your mythological Creator or Designer. You have none; all you do is twist your scriptures and your twisted Watch Tower doctrines/teachings.

And you are twisting words, right now.

This topic is about creationists producing evidences FOR CREATIONISM. This topic has nothing to do with evolution or with abiogenesis. It is just about creationism.

You are trying to sidetrack this topic by bringing up evolution, when I only want creationists, like you, to talk about creationism, and creationism alone.

You cannot read, can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a lot of hypocritical craps.

Everything you said about science actually apply to you and your baseless rationality.

It is you, who has supplied a single evidence in regarding to your version of Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Where are the evidences for your mythological Creator or Designer. You have none; all you do is twist your scriptures and your twisted Watch Tower doctrines/teachings.

And you are twisting words, right now.

This topic is about creationists producing evidences FOR CREATIONISM. This topic has nothing to do with evolution or with abiogenesis. It is just about creationism.

You are trying to sidetrack this topic by bringing up evolution, when I only want creationists, like you, to talk about creationism, and creationism alone.

You cannot read, can you?

Even creationists appear to know that there is no evidence for creationism. When asked for evidence for their beliefs that sort of action is the best that they can do.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

you are dust
so was (and is ) Adam and Eve

That is a claim lacking evidence. Last I checked, I am made up of various lipids and proteins. These are very different from dirt or mud.

 

[Thief]

That is a claim lacking evidence. Last I checked, I am made up of various lipids and proteins. These are very different from dirt or mud.

until you die.....then dust

 

[gnostic]

until you die.....then dust

This thread is about creation of man, eg Adam, and me, requesting evidences that it is possible for creating man DIRECTLY from dust, soil or clay.

It is not about when and what happen to a person who died.

The reality of nature, is that humans procreate, have children as the result of sexual intercourse and reproduction (conception, pregnancy, and birthing), and it all start with two cells (gamete) - the sperm and egg (ovum) meeting, and becoming one.

Neither egg, nor sperm, are not dust.

Dust is not living matter. If dust come from organic source, then it is dead matter.

You cannot turn dead matter into living matter.

You have heard of reproduction, haven’t you?

 

[Deeje]

How do you still not understand that theories in science are never proven?

Bottom line....how do you not understand that faith is required to believe in something you cannot prove.

You have to have "faith" in science the same way that I have "faith" in an Intelligent Creator. You have to "believe" what they tell you, the same way that I "believe" what God tells me in the Bible.

My common sense and experience in life tells me that what I see exhibits design and purpose and that things that demonstrate purpose need planning.....things that are designed require an intelligence to make them all work.
Undirected accidents or blind chance could never accomplish what we see on this planet....if you think so, then you are free to believe it. To me its one colossal con job.

You choose your belief system and I will choose the one that makes the most logical sense to me. OK?

 

[Thief]

That is a claim lacking evidence. Last I checked, I am made up of various lipids and proteins. These are very different from dirt or mud.

until you die.....then dust

This thread is about creation of man, eg Adam, and me, requesting evidences that it is possible for creating man DIRECTLY from dust, soil or clay.

It is not about when and what happen to a person who died.

The reality of nature, is that humans procreate, have children as the result of sexual intercourse and reproduction (conception, pregnancy, and birthing), and it all start with two cells (gamete) - the sperm and egg (ovum) meeting, and becoming one.

Neither egg, nor sperm, are not dust.

Dust is not living matter. If dust come from organic source, then it is dead matter.

You cannot turn dead matter into living matter.

You have heard of reproduction, haven’t you?

and Adam is no different than we are....except
he was the first to walk with God

evolution.....Day Six
the garden event came AFTER Day Seven
there is a declaration nothing more will be created

so Chapter Two is a story of maniplution
altering the body and mind of one specimen
and then cloning that body

Eve is indeed a clone.....no navel
not born of woman

 

[gnostic]

Bottom line....how do you not understand that faith is required to believe in something you cannot prove.

You have to have "faith" in science the same way that I have "faith" in an Intelligent Creator. You have to "believe" what they tell you, the same way that I "believe" what God tells me in the Bible.

My common sense and experience in life tells me that what I see exhibits design and purpose and that things that demonstrate purpose need planning.....things that are designed require an intelligence to make them all work.
Undirected accidents or blind chance could never accomplish what we see on this planet....if you think so, then you are free to believe it. To me its one colossal con job.

You choose your belief system and I will choose the one that makes the most logical sense to me. OK?

You keep forgetting that science, real science require testable evidences, not proofs.

Proof, in science, as I keep telling you, is merely a mathematical statement, expressed in the forms of equations and formulas.

You only need to express this proof (equation) only once, and it doesn’t valid any theory or hypothesis. Validation of hypothesis or theory can only come from verification, thus the test results of repeated experiments or through finding empirical evidences.

What you don’t seem to understand, that a scientific theory are well substantiated explanation, meaning it is supported by empirical evidences.

For instant, if a scientist had performed a specific experiment to test his current hypothesis, and it worked as many times he had performed the experiments, eg 100 times. Then this mean the hypothesis has been verified.

But such hypothesis must be tested by the outsiders, such as the peer review, independent scientists in either the same or related fields. If the independent testings should be successful, then the hypothesis.

Only then could the hypothesis be elevated as “scientific theory”.

Now if you and I should independently perform the experiments ourselves, following the procedure of the original, we should independently get the same results, regardless of your personal belief in god.

The repeatability of experiments or finding independent evidences, is the hallmark of science verification and objectivity.

1. Mathematicians “prove” their equation or proof.
2. Scientists “test” the hypothesis, through finding evidences.

Proof and evidence are different. And had gone beyond high school maths, physics and biology, you would know all this.

By relying on evidences, then science has nothing to do with “faith”.

Faith is about acceptance of belief, a conviction that don’t require evidences or proofs.

For instant, Jesus was able to heal the blind, those suffering from diseases, and even bringing back the dead (eg Lazarus) and exorcising demons, as narrated in the gospels. And they are called miracles, something that I would supernatural.

You believe the gospels, and accept these miracles on faith, not on evidences. If miracles were true and real, then you should be able to perform such miracles, yourself.

Can you? Can you perform these miracles? Can you give sight back to a blind man? Can you heal a woman suffering from cancer with the touch of your hand, or on the strength of your faith?

If you can’t, then faith is nothing more than misplaced acceptance of miracles.

Faith has nothing to do with science, because with science, you perform experiments without magic or supernatural powers. All you require is knowledge on how to perform the experiments, the right apparatus and the appropriate materials required to perform the experiment.

 

[Thief]

I believe in God because of science

 

[Deeje]

Proof and evidence are different. And had gone beyond high school maths, physics and biology, you would know all this.

By relying on evidences, then science has nothing to do with “faith”.

Faith is about acceptance of belief, a conviction that don’t require evidences or proofs.

If you don't have 'proof' for what you claim...you have to have "faith" that how the "evidence" is interpreted is correct. There is no way to know for sure....how can you not understand that?

"Evidence is not proof" as you all keep saying....realize what that means and stop making excuses.
You can "suggest" whatever you like, but you cannot provide substantiated evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone responsible for all life on this planet. Admit it.

For instant, Jesus was able to heal the blind, those suffering from diseases, and even bringing back the dead (eg Lazarus) and exorcising demons, as narrated in the gospels. And they are called miracles, something that I would supernatural.

You believe the gospels, and accept these miracles on faith, not on evidences. If miracles were true and real, then you should be able to perform such miracles, yourself.

I believe that there are supernatural elements in this world....science can't test for them so they won't acknowledge them. That makes no difference to what I believe. I believe that the one who created the laws of nature can circumvent them if he wants to. What makes you think he can't? You put limits on a Being that you don't really know if he exists or not. I assume that you are hoping that he doesn't exist....will that make him disappear though?

I can assure you that he does exist and has spent a large part of my life proving himself to me over and over again. I am sorry that you have never experienced his intervention in your life because if you had, there could be no doubt. Faith is stronger than a wall if God is with you.

Can you? Can you perform these miracles? Can you give sight back to a blind man? Can you heal a woman suffering from cancer with the touch of your hand, or on the strength of your faith?

If you can’t, then faith is nothing more than misplaced acceptance of miracles.

I accept that miracles are very possible but I don't need to see one to know that they are true. The Bible was written by eye witnesses to all the events that are mentioned. I believe the Bible way more than I believe the assumptions of pompous men who think they know more than the one who created them. You can believe them if you wish.....assumption can often turn out to be dead wrong.

Are you prepared for that outcome?

Faith has nothing to do with science, because with science, you perform experiments without magic or supernatural powers. All you require is knowledge on how to perform the experiments, the right apparatus and the appropriate materials required to perform the experiment.

Actually, all you need is the means to interpret what you perform by way of experiments. If you are led to believe that XYZ will be the result of a given experiment, then XYZ is what you will look for....and no doubt find....but ACB was hiding from your view because you weren't trained to look for it.

If you can find me one single bit of real "evidence" for macro-evolution that requires no 'faith' or reliance on 'conjecture', 'suggestion' or 'assumption' then present it. Please!

I have asked for this on all these threads and not once has anyone produced a single thing that reinforces the belief that single celled organisms morphed into all the life forms we see on earth.

Show us gnostic.....or anyone else.....it is the only way to settle this contentious issue that is at the heart of all human existence.

Faith has as much to do with science as it does for ID. You just can't come to terms with that can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Deeje, what are you going to do when you run out of people to debate since you keep putting them on ignore? You keep using the same failed arguments and make the same amazingly incorrect claims. I can't see the two remaining people that you are arguing with maintaining their patience for too much longer.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bottom line....how do you not understand that faith is required to believe in something you cannot prove.

Because you can still have good, rational reasons to accept it as true, even if you aren't certain. I have many, many good reasons to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but I cannot say for absolute certain that it will. Regardless, if the sun did not rise tomorrow, I would be extremely surprised - but it is not because I have "faith" that it will rise, it's because every day of my life the sun has risen in a predictable way in accordance with my understanding of how the world works. It is a predictable, testable phenomenon.

You have to have "faith" in science the same way that I have "faith" in an Intelligent Creator. You have to "believe" what they tell you, the same way that I "believe" what God tells me in the Bible.

No, I don't. I can look at and evaluate the evidence on my own, because - unlike the Bible - scientists shows their working and explain it.

My common sense and experience in life tells me that what I see exhibits design and purpose and that things that demonstrate purpose need planning.....things that are designed require an intelligence to make them all work.

If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. It's fallacious, but if it's true to you, fill your boots.

Undirected accidents or blind chance could never accomplish what we see on this planet....if you think so, then you are free to believe it. To me its one colossal con job.

It's a good thing that evolution isn't "undirected" or based on "blind chance" then, isn't it? Maybe you should understand something before dismissing it.

You choose your belief system and I will choose the one that makes the most logical sense to me. OK?

Except you're not only telling me that your belief is superior, but that my belief - based on science - isn't even scientifically or logically viable. You have been refuted in this and exposed as ignorant, yet you refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly exclaim falsehoods that have already been debunked.

Why is that? Why do you have to ignore, distort and lie in service of your own beliefs if, when it comes down to it, you're willing to accept it as mere difference of opinion? The answer is simple: because you believe that evolution cannot possibly be true if your beliefs are, and you want your beliefs to be true, so you attack evolution in a desperate attempt to salvage your beliefs, without ever considering the possibility that you can believe both.

But, that's not what The Watchtower tells you, so you can't believe that. And you are a devoted follower of The Watchtower - not a believer in God, or Jesus, just a believer in the irreversible word of The Watchtower, which you follow with total, blind obedience.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Deeje]

Because you can still have good, rational reasons to accept it as true, even if you aren't certain. I have many, many good reasons to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but I cannot say for absolute certain that it will.

I can....I may be dead tomorrow and not see it...but the sun will do what it has done since before a human set foot on this planet.

I have good reasons to believe in an intelligent Creator, but like you I haven't got proof.

I can look at and evaluate the evidence on my own, because - unlike the Bible - scientists shows their working and explain it.

God shows his workings in the Bible. He gave us the order of creation and explained that he fashioned each individual creature over incredibly long period of time that he called "days". Sentient life began in the oceans and man was the last of the land dwellers to appear.We know that each "kind" will only reproduce replicas of itself.

It's a good thing that evolution isn't "undirected" or based on "blind chance" then, isn't it? Maybe you should understand something before dismissing it.

Science claims that there was no 'intelligent' direction. But intelligence is demonstrated in the way all things work. The eco-system is an amazing integrative piece of engineering.
I understand what science suggests and assumes, but my dismissing of its findings has more to do with finding it all very badly supported by any actual substantive evidence. Nice diagrams though.

Except you're not only telling me that your belief is superior, but that my belief - based on science - isn't even scientifically or logically viable. You have been refuted in this and exposed as ignorant, yet you refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly exclaim falsehoods that have already been debunked.

"Debunked"?

In every thread I have asked for the evidence, which has been described as "overwhelming"....I am still waiting to be "overwhelmed". Why have none of you been able to find all this evidence that doesn't rely on belief, faith, suggestion, assumption and conjecture?

All I get is more of the same.....you can settle this once and for all....just show us that science is right and that it doesn't rely on exactly the same level of "belief" that we do.

Why is that? Why do you have to ignore, distort and lie in service of your own beliefs if, when it comes down to it, you're willing to accept it as mere difference of opinion? The answer is simple: because you believe that evolution cannot possibly be true if your beliefs are, and you want your beliefs to be true, so you attack evolution in a desperate attempt to salvage your beliefs, without ever considering the possibility that you can believe both.

I am attacking evolution? OMGoodness! That's a first. Evolution is now the victim????

Who knew?

But, that's not what The Watchtower tells you, so you can't believe that. And you are a devoted follower of The Watchtower - not a believer in God, or Jesus, just a believer in the irreversible word of The Watchtower, which you follow with total, blind obedience.

The Watchtower is a Bible Society that prints Bible literature. I am not a follower of the Watchtower.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible is my only source of belief. I am not blind because I know what I believe and why I believe it.....this sounds very familiar to me. Here you are, a blind follower of men of science accusing me of being a blind follower of the men who print Bibles.

Priceless.

Prove me wrong.

Who could ever do that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can....I may be dead tomorrow and not see it...

That's not a good reason to believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow - unless you had a good reason to conclude that your death would somehow suddenly stop the rotation of the earth.

but the sun will do what it has done since before a human set foot on this planet.

And we have good reason to believe that, even if we can't say for certain, it will raise tomorrow.

I have good reasons to believe in an intelligent Creator, but like you I haven't got proof.

Then give me a good, rational, evidence-based reason to believe in a Creator.

God shows his workings in the Bible.

There are many books proported to come from the Creator. Prove that the Bible is the correct one.

He gave us the order of creation and explained that he fashioned each individual creature over incredibly long period of time that he called "days". Sentient life began in the oceans and man was the last of the land dwellers to appear.We know that each "kind" will only reproduce replicas of itself.

Anyone can claim whatever they want. Where is the actual evidence? Also, the Bible states that birds pre-date land animals, which completely contradicts what we know about their origin.

Science claims that there was no 'intelligent' direction.

False. Science makes no such claim, it just doesn't claim that there WAS intelligent direction, because it has no need to. It makes no statement one way or the other.

But intelligence is demonstrated in the way all things work. The eco-system is an amazing integrative piece of engineering.

Prove that eco-systems require intelligence without inaccurate analogies to things we already know are designed.

I understand what science suggests and assumes, but my dismissing of its findings has more to do with finding it all very badly supported by any actual substantive evidence. Nice diagrams though.

And yet you know very little about it and the best argument against the evidence that is presented is either to deny its existence or claim its use of uncertain clauses renders it all lies.

"Debunked"?

In every thread I have asked for the evidence, which has been described as "overwhelming"....I am still waiting to be "overwhelmed".

Because you ignore it. You still insist evidence hasn't been presented when it has.

Why have none of you been able to find all this evidence that doesn't rely on belief, faith, suggestion, assumption and conjecture?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Your inability to accept reality is not the fault of people pointing it out to you.

All I get is more of the same.....you can settle this once and for all....just show us that science is right and that it doesn't rely on exactly the same level of "belief" that we do.

Okay then, exactly what would it take to convince you of that? Give us a hypothetical example of the bare minimum form of evidence required that would convince you common ancestry was true, and be specific.

The Watchtower is a Bible Society that prints Bible literature. I am not a follower of the Watchtower.

And yet you swallow every word of it without question. Earlier you reproduced examples of arguments it made, verbatim, and when asked what their sources were you failed to respond. You clearly just accepted it at face value without questioning it - it is your holy text.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible is my only source of belief.

So how often do you question The Watchtower?

I am not blind because I know what I believe and why I believe it.....this sounds very familiar to me.

You're blind because you accept propositions without reason and dismiss opposing views without understanding them.

Here you are, a blind follower of men of science accusing me of being a blind follower of the men who print Bibles.

Priceless.

I'm not blind - I question what is put in front of me thoroughly and can debate it fluently with reference to actual facts. You, on the other hand, result to lying, ignoring, manipulating and childish emotes to make your case.

Who could ever do that?

So you can't, then? Therefore you admit that you are delusion and biased, correct?

 

[ecco]

Bottom line....how do you not understand that faith is required to believe in something you cannot prove.

I cannot prove the Eiffel Tower exists. I have not been to Paris, nor do I plan to go there.

I have faith* that the Eiffel Tower exists because there is overwhelming evidence that it does exist.


* As everyone knows, there are two completely different definitions for the word "faith". This is the case for many words in the English language.

As everyone knows, religious people intentionally conflate the two. They do this in an attempt to make it seem that rational confidence is the same thing as religious "blind faith".

It's an old, worn out tactic, but that doesn't stop them.

faith
fāTH/
noun.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

[ecco]

You choose your belief system and I will choose the one that makes the most logical sense to me. OK?

Logical sense requires you to recognize that the world is flat.
Logical sense requires you to recognize that, if the world was a sphere, people would fall off the bottom.
Logical sense requires you to recognize that, if the world is spinning at 24,000 mph, people would be thrown off.

You don't believe any of those things, do you?

If not, why not?

 

[ecco]

I have asked for this on all these threads and not once has anyone produced a single thing that reinforces the belief that single celled organisms morphed into all the life forms we see on earth.

Actually, this thread was a challenge to creationists to show evidence for the creation of man.
All you have done is post pictures of nature and say "See, there's the source of my belief".
All others have done is make assertions.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

until you die.....then dust

You are saying that we are made of dust, not that we turn to dust after we die. You are saying that we are dust right now, and that simply isn't true.

and Adam is no different than we are....except
he was the first to walk with God

evolution.....Day Six
the garden event came AFTER Day Seven
there is a declaration nothing more will be created

so Chapter Two is a story of maniplution
altering the body and mind of one specimen
and then cloning that body

Eve is indeed a clone.....no navel
not born of woman

Any evidence for these claims?

 

[Thief]

You are saying that we are made of dust, not that we turn to dust after we die. You are saying that we are dust right now, and that simply isn't true.



Any evidence for these claims?

I feel like I'm dragging a bag of dirt