"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Audie]

by who

God didnt lie he never said the fossils were the remains of living creatures.

And the critical difference in honesty between falsifying evidence in order to mislead, and a lie is...?

God the Fraud is not much of a belief, if you actually respect said God.

 

[allright]

He didn't have to. Please, if you can't be serious why even try?

Really. If I put a cut a circle in my lawn and someone comes along and says aliens did it that makes me a liar

 

[allright]

And the critical difference in honesty between falsifying evidence in order to mislead, and a lie is...?

God the Fraud is not much of a belief, if you actually respect said God.

Gods not lying he directly says in the Bible if you reject the truth he'll give you a lie to believe in. hows it a lie if he tells you before hand exactly what hes going to do and you make the choice

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Gods not lying he directly says in the Bible if you reject the truth he'll give you a lie to believe in. hows it a lie if he tells you before hand exactly what hes going to do and you make the choice

How can he give you a lie to believe in if there is no intent of misleading people? That's literally an oxymoron.

Either God lied, or the Bible is wrong. Which is it?

 

[Audie]

Gods not lying he directly says in the Bible if you reject the truth he'll give you a lie to believe in. hows it a lie if he tells you before hand exactly what hes going to do and you make the choice

What is the difference in honesty between lying, and
deliberate deception? (falsifying evidence)

 

[Thief]

(it's only 2:30 long)​

I'm not so interested in Dawkins reply to the request to come up with one sentence to convince the creationist to doubt their theory, but rather his observation of the intractable stance creationists take against the evidence supporting evolution. Dawkins says creationists "simply don't listen They simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la' " Dawkins calls this a disgrace to the human species.

So my question to the RF creationists here is, is this your stance as well? There is absolutely no fact, or set of facts, or bushels of facts that will ever convince you to doubt creationism. Personally, I believe it is. To admit the possibility that creationism might be wrong is to open a chink in the armor of one's faith. And fearing such a possibility the creationist's best defense is to stick ones fingers in one's ears.

So, am I right or am I right?

.

​

How about?.....evolution is real......God did it

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, that is assumed in evolutionary theory. All species evolved from prior species.

The idea that man evolved from ancestral apes is also well supported by the fossil and genetic data. That we, like the other apes, evolved from non-primate ancestors is supported by comparative anatomy studies, comparative physiology studies, comparative embryology studies, and comparative biochemistry.

Evolutionary theory predicts the presence of this connectedness - these nested hierarchies. It is a necessary consequence of universal descent from a single ancient ancestral population.

Yes, exactly as I said. Huge assumptions.

Proof isn't necessary. The evidence is robust - so much so that if Darwin's theory were falsified, there would be no alternative hypothesis apart from some type of intelligent design by a devious entity that wanted it to appear to us that we had evolved, but either made a mistake and accidentally put a rabbit in a pre-cambrian layer that we discovered, or was playing an elaborate hoax on us including planting Easter eggs for us to find to blow our minds.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I believe you have come to these conclusions simply because you never considered the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Nothing that has been discovered denies the idea of a Supreme Creator or a Creation event.

If you find those scenarios plausible, you might also consider vat-in-a-brain scenarios, matrix scenarios, and forms of last Thursdayism. It's pretty much all that we would be left with, none of which is consistent with Christian theology. That is, whether Darwin's theory is falsified or not, Christianity simply isn't consistent with what's been found to date, none of which goes away with falsification of the theory.

You do not need to be Christian or agree with mainstream Christian theology in order to believe in the Creation.

Of course. Don't you?

No. Slavery was prevalent in the world inhabited by the ancient Israelites.

I would be surprised if He did not give instruction on the practice.

 

[Audie]

Yes, exactly as I said. Huge assumptions.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I believe you have come to these conclusions simply because you never considered the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Nothing that has been discovered denies the idea of a Supreme Creator or a Creation event.

You do not need to be Christian or agree with mainstream Christian theology in order to believe in the Creation.

No. Slavery was prevalent in the world inhabited by the ancient Israelites.

I would be surprised if He did not give instruction on the practice.

Regarding part in bold: How true. Nothing disproves the Great Raven, either.

However, certain specifics in the bible, as interpreted by certain persons,
certainly shown to be incorrect, a thousand times over.

Among those would be the 6 day poof, and the flood. Non-events, did not happen.

 

[Prestor John]

You are wrong. You are either incredibly ignorant or openly lying.

Or I do not see the facts directly supporting the theory.

Ignorance can be cured with education.

That depends on the student.

But like I said you probably do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Upon what fact do you make this claim?

This is another example of your confirmation bias.

Why don't we discuss that first?

You are free to discuss whatever you like.

If you understand we should be able to move on. If not you will have an opportunity to learn.

I have doubts concerning your ability to teach. Condescension is not an attribute of a good teacher.

Actually I do. It appears that you do not understand the concept. It is not lying. It goes further than that. In fact lying about yourself that does not involve others is not a violation of that commandment.

Yet another person who claims to know more about what I believe than I do.

In light of your understanding, would you mind explaining how I supposedly broke that commandment earlier?

Well it is nice to hear you make the first admission, but your second claim is demonstrably wrong.

Yes, it is nice to be humble and grounded in reality. Nothing in this world is perfect.

You are displaying the same amount of misplaced fanaticism that you are trying to label me with.

You simply believe that the idea of a Creation event has been refuted.

Once again you should try to learn why and how we know that the Genesis stories are myths.

Another assumption about me and what I believe.

My claim that you like to make assumptions is well-founded.

The Genesis account never claims to be the complete and whole record of the Creation event.

There are many myths and false assumptions made about the Genesis account, of which there may be evidence that contests them, but there is nothing that refutes the claim of a Creation.

We are discussing Genesis, aren't we?

We are discussing the Creation. The Genesis may cannot a brief account of it, but no where does it claim to be the only or complete account of the Creation.

You can keep repeating this error, that will not make it correct.

You still have yet to explain this commandment (according to you) nor how I have violated it.

That is only because you lack the education to understand how you are wrong. Are you willing to learn?

Again you showcase your tendency to make assumptions about me and your religious zealotry.

I am always willing to learn, but I doubt your ability to teach.

First you must understand the nature of evidence. Creationists are too apt to lie or deny evidence when they do not understand the concept. Others have given you links. I want to go over the very basics first.

Again. "Sock it to me".

 

[Prestor John]

Regarding part in bold: How true. Nothing disproves the Great Raven, either.

Why, then, do so many claim that those things discovered refute the idea of a Supreme Creator or the Creation event?

You don't see how opening with an impossible conclusion could be problematic?

However, certain specifics in the bible, as interpreted by certain persons, certainly shown to be incorrect, a thousand times over.

None of this really matters.

No where in the Bible does the Bible claim to be the complete, whole and perfect record of everything, so why treat it as though it had?

Who claimed that the interpretations of these certain persons were worth anything?

Even if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed and all Christian history was somehow torn out of the fabric of space/time; nothing that has been discovered refutes the idea of a Supreme Creator or the Creation event.

Among those would be the 6 day poof, and the flood. Non-events, did not happen.

The idea of a "6 day poof", as you put it, is also not supported by the original Hebrew of the Genesis account.

Even though I personally believe in a worldwide Deluge event (which I believe is supported by scripture and prophetic ministrations both ancient and modern), the Genesis account alone does not rule out a localized Flood.

I don't think you realize the wealth of information concerning these kinds of things found outside of the Bible.

 

[Prestor John]

Have you looked at the evidence? Or just dismissed it out of hand because it conflicts with your dogma?

If you actually read my comment you would know that I have looked at evidence, but I just feel that nothing discovered conflicts with my beliefs concerning God, Mankind, the Creation or the Universe.

I never claimed to have seen all the evidence or that I know all things.

Of course, the assumption was that mankind started out as, mankind. That assumption has been challenged with evidence.

I do not see how said evidence challenges the idea that Mankind started out as Mankind.

The scriptures may be true, but everyone has his own "true" interpretation, dont you think so?

Yes, just like how the evidence may be true, but everyone has their own "true" interpretation of the evidence.

As for you personally not seeing evidence, that may be much like me saying that I've not seen any evidence that Australia is really where they say it is.

I guess, but I can only comment on what I know, not what I don't know.

Would it make sense for me to say that I came to my conclusion based on evidence that I was unaware of?

I have yet to see anything that refutes or conflicts with what I believe.

If you think there is something out there that does, please share it, but that may be difficult for you because you do not know exactly what I believe in.

 

[Polymath257]

If you actually read my comment you would know that I have looked at evidence, but I just feel that nothing discovered conflicts with my beliefs concerning God, Mankind, the Creation or the Universe.

I never claimed to have seen all the evidence or that I know all things.

I do not see how said evidence challenges the idea that Mankind started out as Mankind.

OK, do you consider Homo erectus as 'mankind'? How about Homo habilis? And the Australopithecines?

Are you claiming that these are NOT human ancestors? in spite of the evidence? How about if we go back further, to the earlier primates that were also our ancestors? Were they 'Mankind'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or the I do not see the actual facts directly supporting the supposed theory.

Your posts tell us that is not so.

That depends on the student.

Please note that I said "can" and not "will". "Can" does not guarantee success. I have seen far too many dishonest and cowardly creationists to claim that they will change their mind.

Upon what fact do you make this claim?

This is another example of your confirmation bias.

No, it is not. It is the voice of experience. One cannot honestly claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That is either the product of a lie or ignorance. I can and have supported my claim. The few creationists that discussed the concept of evidence with me ran away when it became obvious even to them that I am right.

You are free to discuss whatever you like.

I have doubts concerning your ability to teach. Condescension is not an attribute of a good teacher.

Condescension arises when a student refuses to learn. One reaps what one sows. One should not complain about well earned condescension, it is hypocritical.

Yet another person who claims to know more about what I believe than I do.

In light of your understanding, would you mind explaining how I supposedly broke that commandment earlier?

Again your posts tell us this. And you, you made claims against others that you cannot support. That is "bearing false witness". False witness is not limited to lying.

Yes, it is nice to be humble and grounded in reality. Nothing in this world is perfect.

You are displaying the same amount of misplaced fanaticism that you are trying to label me with.

That may be, but I sincerely doubt it. Tell me what parts of reality you reject. Do you accept the fact that life is the product of evolution? At best you have been coy in your beliefs which is a very moderate attempt to be dishonest.

You simply believe that the idea of a Creation event has been refuted.

Wrong, I know that the story as told in the Bible is false. You have mere belief, I can support my claims. You need to learn the difference between knowing and believing.

Another assumption about me and what I believe.

My claim that you like to make assumptions is well-founded.

The Genesis account never claims to be the complete and whole record of the Creation event.

There are many myths and false assumptions made about the Genesis account, of which there may be evidence that contests them, but there is nothing that refutes the claim of a Creation.

We are discussing the Creation. The Genesis may cannot a brief account of it, but no where does it claim to be the only or complete account of the Creation.

If I made an error it is due to your dishonest approach here. You need to honestly lay out your beliefs if you want to make this claim about others. Otherwise we have to go by the ignorant posts that you have made.

You still have yet to explain this commandment (according to you) nor how I have violated it.

Actually I believe that I did that earlier and I have done so here. If you want a more thorough explanation you need to ask properly and politely. That means one question in a post. In a long post like this where you jump from subject to subject only gets the lightest of explanations.

Again you showcase your tendency to make assumptions about me and your religious zealotry.

I am always willing to learn, but I doubt your ability to teach.

Again. "Sock it to me".

First you need to demonstrate that you can be honest and polite. Your rude response of excessively breaking up a post does not bode well.

To repeat, if you want to go over a point in more detail you need to bring up the points you do not understand separately, one at a time. Let's keep it simple and polite and I will have no problem in helping you to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really. If I put a cut a circle in my lawn and someone comes along and says aliens did it that makes me a liar

That is a really bad analogy. If you went out into every farm field on the face of the Earth in one night and cut a circle in the crops then you might be called a liar. You do not appear to understand the literal mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution and no reliable evidence at all for the concept of creationism.

 

[Prestor John]

OK, do you consider Homo erectus as 'mankind'? How about Homo habilis? And the Australopithecines?

Are you claiming that these are NOT human ancestors? in spite of the evidence? How about if we go back further, to the earlier primates that were also our ancestors? Were they 'Mankind'?

I believe that they were not human ancestors or members of Mankind.

I do not believe this "in spite" of any evidence because I have not yet seen anything that should convince anyone that those creatures were our ancestors.

I am always willing to learn more, so if you think there is evidence that proves that they were our ancestors, please share it.

 

[Audie]

Why, then, do so many claim that those things discovered refute the idea of a Supreme Creator or the Creation event?

You don't see how opening with an impossible conclusion could be problematic?

None of this really matters.

No where in the Bible does the Bible claim to be the complete, whole and perfect record of everything, so why treat it as though it had?

Who claimed that the interpretations of these certain persons were worth anything?

Even if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed and all Christian history was somehow torn out of the fabric of space/time; nothing that has been discovered refutes the idea of a Supreme Creator or the Creation event.

The idea of a "6 day poof", as you put it, is also not supported by the original Hebrew of the Genesis account.

Even though I personally believe in a worldwide Deluge event (which I believe is supported by scripture and prophetic ministrations both ancient and modern), the Genesis account alone does not rule out a localized Flood.

I don't think you realize the wealth of information concerning these kinds of things found outside of the Bible.

Does anyone say that anything refutes a supreme creator?

Really? Who? It is pretty stupid if they do.
I'd not say the opinions of such persons is worth anything.

Whose opinion of what the bible really means is wort h sometime?


If you believe in a world wide flood I'd say it is most evident that you are unaware of t he wealth of information that shows beyond the trace of a reasonable doubt that there was no such flood.

Unaware, for lo, we dont wish to suggest intellectual dishonesty, which would be called for to deny the validity of such data.

 

[Audie]

I believe that they were not human ancestors or members of Mankind.

I do not believe this "in spite" of any evidence because I have not yet seen anything that should convince anyone that those creatures were our ancestors.

I am always willing to learn more, so if you think there is evidence that proves that they were our ancestors, please share it.

What you've seen, and what is there are not really the same. I kind of dont think you've looked very hard,
much as you've not looked at data that falsifies the flood story.

It may not be safe to look if one's faith relies certain readings of scripture.

As for "proves... ancestors" that is moving the goal post. Science does not do proof. Neither do courts,
Math does. I guess whiskey does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you actually read my comment you would know that I have looked at evidence, but I just feel that nothing discovered conflicts with my beliefs concerning God, Mankind, the Creation or the Universe.

I never claimed to have seen all the evidence or that I know all things.

I do not see how said evidence challenges the idea that Mankind started out as Mankind.

Yes, just like how the evidence may be true, but everyone has their own "true" interpretation of the evidence.

I guess, but I can only comment on what I know, not what I don't know.

Would it make sense for me to say that I came to my conclusion based on evidence that I was unaware of?

I have yet to see anything that refutes or conflicts with what I believe.

If you think there is something out there that does, please share it, but that may be difficult for you because you do not know exactly what I believe in.

By the way it is rude to excessively break up a post. You need to deal with what the evidence addresses. No one has claimed that a "creation event" has not happened. The creation myth as in the Bible has been clearly refuted. You may attempt to reinterpret that but by doing so you agree that it is not true by the mere act of reinterpreting the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that they were not human ancestors or members of Mankind.

I do not believe this "in spite" of any evidence because I have not yet seen anything that should convince anyone that those creatures were our ancestors.

I am always willing to learn more, so if you think there is evidence that proves that they were our ancestors, please share it.

Ah, so I was correct and was not jumping to conclusions when I made my statements about you.

 

[Skwim]

How about?.....evolution is real......God did it

Possibly. In simple terms, evolution is the process by which changes in a population arise. Now, whether or not god started it off or not is irrelevant.

.