"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[sayak83]

Yeah, I never made the claim that science "proved" anything.

All I asked was why people on this thread (and Stephen Hawking) were claiming that science has provided "proof" that God does not exist or that the Genesis accounts of the Creation and Flood did not happen.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

I also asked you and others to provide the evidences that you would use to support the theories of Man evolving from filthy monkey-men and to challenge the Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Flood....

...but you guys would rather virtue signal, fling ad hominem attacks, go off on tangents and erect straw men to burn.

You still have not said what sort of evidence would convince you that filthy naked humans evolved from the glorious fur clad apes of the past.

 

[Audie]

You made that claim about Hawking, an example of bearing false witness on your part since you were not able to support that claim. It is a shame when Christians do not understand their own Commandments.

A lot of these people who claim to have this special gift for reading scripture, and getting the exact meaning
demonstrate t he most appalling inability to understand plain English.

Hawking makes a statement, and the "Prestor "
reads it and..in it goes, round and round it goes, and
it comes back out altered to something fundamentally different.

And then it is presented not just as an interpretation, but, as an actual quote!

I would not believe a freakin' thing he said.

You attempt to converse, as you like. I am done with
him, I can handle stupidity sometimes, but not that kind of
blatant dishonesty.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We all know that science does not deal in proof, but you are all acting as though it does.

Why is this such an issue for you? Most have told you that they don't consider science able to prove anything.

I don't agree, but perhaps that's because I make a distinction between science and a scientific theory. The latter cannot be proven, and the future cannot be known with certainty, but I can easily prove that an apple can fall with a single trial.

And it has been proven that evolution occurs. It like a falling apple, it has been observed.

Stephen Hawking has claimed on multiple occasions that the Laws of Physics rule out the existence of God.

Nobody would be disagreeing with you if you had produced a quotation saying that. You probably think that you proved your point, but you convinced nobody. A good definition of proof is that which convinces. If you convinced nobody, you proved nothing to any of them.

Of course, by that reckoning, one can have a falsehood proven to him if he is convinced by a faulty argument or illusory demonstration.

But when you ask for somebody to prove something to you, isn't that synonymous with you asking them to convince you? And if they do, would you say that you saw the proof of whatever was claimed?

Not once have you offered up any of the "evidence" you claim "proves" that you are right.

You've told us that there is no evidence that you would accept, since it can all be accounted for by creationism. And at least one of us has agreed with you. That's correct, but not the point. It can also be accounted for with the naturalistic biological theory. Somehow, you have dropped that option from your list of candidate hypotheses without justification.

It should not only be on your list, but higher on it than creationism, since the naturalistic hypothesis is more parsimonious. No god is needed.

I have shared the Wikipedia page which both quoted him and shared the sources twice with you now. Your unwillingness to accept the facts is no blemish on my record.

You've demonstrated your confirmation bias. You want those quotes to mean what you say they mean, so you cannot see that they do not. You've been told repeatedly that the quotes do ot support your claim, and you are apparent unable to see that.

 

[Skwim]

The use of the word "fish" is a matter of convenience
and convention. How about hagfish and lampreys?
HagFISH. And starFISH, for that matter.

So what? A lot of animals have NAMES that are misleading, such as pronghorn antelopes, koala bears, and seahorses, but we're not talking about NAMES. We're talking about a classification of animals almost universally regarded as fish---I use "almost" in deference to you and your professor.

There is a whale "fishery".

But it's not a word used to denote whales, but one that denotes an operation, just as giving a "bear hug" doesn't refer to the hug of an actual bear.

I dont care to play dueling website quote, but some
experts call them fish, others like to be more precise.

Just to be clear, none of my sources are websites.

The professor of comp anat course I took was particularly offended by the use o the word, pointing
out the sharks split from "fish" some 400 million years
ago,which by some reckoning makes us more related
to a Stegosaurus than fish are to sharks.

Are you saying I should put more stock in what offends your professor rather than the science community? AND, that sharks "split" from "fish" some 400 million years? Not that someone other than your professor may have used the word "split," but none of my sources do. In one way or another they make it clear that sharks are another evolved form of fish, which is why all my sources, including those I haven't mentioned, call them "fish," and why the class Chondrichthyes, is referred to as "cartilaginous fish." If in doubt, simply Google "Chondrichthyes."

But suture self; you say math is science, I say it is not.
I dont care to play lumper v splitter.

In other words you have no standard by which you judge sharks not to be fishes, other than that your professor doesn't like it. Okay, understood.

But my interest is still piqued in your treatise on "not fish," which you indicted you'd be willing to share, and I'd be delighted to read. I await.

.

 

[Audie]

So what? A lot of animals have NAMES that are misleading, such as pronghorn antelopes, koala bears, and seahorses, but we're not talking about NAMES. We're talking about a classification of animals almost universally regarded as fish---I use "almost" in deference to you and your professor.


But it's not a word used to denote whales, but one that denotes an operation, just as giving a "bear hug" doesn't refer to the hug of an actual bear.


Just to be clear, none of my sources are websites.


Are you saying I should put more stock in what offends your professor rather than the science community? AND, that sharks "split" from "fish" some 400 million years? Not that someone other than your professor may have used the word "split," but none of my sources do. In one way or another they make it clear that sharks are another evolved form of fish, which is why all my sources, including those I haven't mentioned, call them "fish," and why the class Chondrichthyes, is referred to as "cartilaginous fish." If in doubt, simply Google "Chondrichthyes."


In other words you have no standard by which you judge sharks not to be fishes, other than that your professor doesn't like it. Okay, understood.

But my interest is still piqued in your treatise on "not fish," which you indicted you'd be willing to share, and I'd be delighted to read. I await.

.

Await away, coz to me it is a whatevs. If a last common ancestor 400
million y.a.aint enough, maybe 450 would be.

Dwana argue with, ya, ya swab.

You might, though, say if you would consider lamprey and hagfish to be fish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Await away, coz to me it is a whatevs. If a last common ancestor 400
million y.a.aint enough, maybe 450 would be.

Dwana argue with, ya, ya swab.

You might, though, say if you would consider lamprey and hagfish to be fish.

The problem with the word "fish" is that it is not used in a monophyletic manner. If one would use it that way then we would be "fish" too.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not once have you offered up any of the "evidence" you claim "proves" that you are right.

Polymath 257 is the only forum member here who actually wanted to have a conversation.

After you stated "I do not see any evidence that proves that one species evolves into another", I provided you with links to multiple documented examples of the evolution of new species. Then after you asked "What do you want me to take out of that thread?" and I responded "the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact", you simply walked away.

And now you're claiming that no one has offered up any evidence?

Look, I know how this works at RF. There are about 15 "evolutionists" per 1 creationist, so it's quite easy for creationists to engage one or two of us, and when the conversation doesn't go your way, simply leave that discussion, wait a bit, and start up another with a different "evolutionist" who's eager for interaction (because of the lack of creationists). Pretty much every creationist here does that. It's the main reason I don't post here much.

But it's still dishonest.

 

[Prestor John]

You showed no hypocrisy on the part of others, not with your utter falsehoods

How is my pointing out that you, on one hand, claim that science does need deal with proof, and then on the other hand, claim that my beliefs concerning a Creation and a world-wide Flood have been refuted by science not display your hypocrisy?

You have been trying to divert attention from what you said earlier (about my beliefs being refuted by science) by focusing on your false claim that Hawking did not say what I quoted him saying.

You have not even attempted to explain how my claim about what Hawking said was false.

All you have had to offer are your attempts at assassinating my character with your ad hominem attacks.

You never once provided any evidence to back-up your claims that my beliefs had been refuted by science.

You are a hypocrite. You are in denial.

You showed yourself to be a person just makes things up and then tries to put the fault on others.

It is impossible for you to claim that I made Hawking's claims up since I provided adequate proof and there are even more examples out there (which would be pointless for me to share since you would simply deny them as well).

Unless, of course, you are referring to something else. Are you claiming that I made something else up or is this in reference only to Hawking's claim?

That fault for you being in denial about being a hypocrite lies on you alone. I don't have to "try" to put it there.

That is contemptible.

No.

What is contemptible is you claiming that there is scientific evidence that refute my beliefs, yet instead of ever backing up that claim, you have tried to divert attention away from the argument by fling one ad hominem attack after another at me.

As if my character alters the facts at all!

Hawking DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH CLAIM.

Prove it.

You have no example on anyone on the forum doing so either.

Are you kidding?

Almost all of the comments directed at me were claims that there were scientific evidences that refuted my beliefs.

Apparently those claims were baseless since no one has, of yet, provided a single one of those evidences.

You are worthy of no further response.

I'm not the one who claimed to have evidence for their claims and then never provided them.

If there is any question of "worthiness" here is about you and those other bullies with you in your Echo Chamber.
​

 

[Prestor John]

What do you want evidence for?

All I asked was for you to share the evidence you claimed to have.

If I remember correctly you already demonstrated that you did not understand the concept of evidence.

There is no need for you to rely on your memory since everything we both said is recorded on this thread.

So it should be easy for you to quote me.

Didn't you deny that there was evidence for human evolution?

No I did not.

What I said was that I disagreed with the conclusions made about the evidence.

Quote me saying otherwise.

You made that claim about Hawking, an example of bearing false witness on your part since you were not able to support that claim.

You have a nasty habit of claiming that people are wrong, ignorant or are being deceitful without ever providing any evidence to back-up those claims.

First, you should provide all the evidence that you claimed refuted my beliefs, then after that explain how my claim about what Hawking has said (repeatedly) was in error.

It is a shame when Christians do not understand their own Commandments.

It's a shame when someone claims to rely on evidence, yet has none.

 

[Prestor John]

After you stated "I do not see any evidence that proves that one species evolves into another", I provided you with links to multiple documented examples of the evolution of new species. Then after you asked "What do you want me to take out of that thread?" and I responded "the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact", you simply walked away.

And now you're claiming that no one has offered up any evidence?

Look, I know how this works at RF. There are about 15 "evolutionists" per 1 creationist, so it's quite easy for creationists to engage one or two of us, and when the conversation doesn't go your way, simply leave that discussion, wait a bit, and start up another with a different "evolutionist" who's eager for interaction (because of the lack of creationists). Pretty much every creationist here does that. It's the main reason I don't post here much.

But it's still dishonest.

I forgot about you. So sue me.

Point out the most convincing evidence in the thread you supplied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I asked was for you to share the evidence you claimed to have.

You have demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. I offered to discuss it with you. I will not lecture since lectures are ignored by creationists. You need to participate if you want to be able to make a valid demand to see evidence.

There is no need for you to rely on your memory since everything we both said is recorded on this thread.

So it should be easy for you to quote me.

Yes, but I do not feel like sifting through pages of ignorant and at times dishonest posts to dig up that particular nugget. You could have simply confirmed or denied. But instead you act coy again. That is not an honest approach to debate.

No I did not.

What I said was that I disagreed with the conclusions made about the evidence.

Quote me saying otherwise.

Okay, so then you simply did not understand or ignored the evidence.

You have a nasty habit of claiming that people are wrong, ignorant or are being deceitful without ever providing any evidence to back-up those claims.

First, you should provide all the evidence that you claimed refuted my beliefs, then after that explain how my claim about what Hawking has said (repeatedly) was in error.

It's a shame when someone claims to rely on evidence, yet has none.

Wrong again, I will back up any of my claims. As to your dishonesty that has been shown time and time again with your false claims about Hawking. And no, there is no need for me to support all of my claims. By that "logic" your God does not exist since you cannot back up one claim about him. You made a false claim about Hawking. You provided the links that led you to making that clam though I and others have shown that those links in no way support your claim since the links do not have Hawking make the claim that you said he made. I have explained this to you as have others. Ignoring your error does not make it go away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is my pointing out that you, on one hand, claim that science does need deal with proof, and then on the other hand, claim that my beliefs concerning a Creation and a world-wide Flood have been refuted by science not display your hypocrisy?


​

Let me explain this to you. The sciences cannot show specific claims to be true. It can shown specific claims to be false. Do you understand the difference? If I throw a die and say that it shows a six, but you cannot see the six, showing that I can see a five and a two (obviously not at the same time) on the side does not confirm that a six is on top. That observation can be used as supporting evidence for my claim, it is not proof positive. But if I throw a die that again we cannot see the top of and you say that it shows a six but yet I can see a six on the side it refutes your claim if it is a fair die.

Ideas can be refuted in the sciences, but they cannot be "proven", at least not in a mathematical sense. Concepts can be "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt". But creationists often demand that which does not exist in reality. Your flood beliefs can be shown to be wrong, assuming that God does not lie.

 

[Jose Fly]

I forgot about you. So sue me.

Point out the most convincing evidence in the thread you supplied.

It's right there in my post you just responded to (click the links).

 

[Prestor John]

You have demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

You have yet to prove that.

I offered to discuss it with you.

Yet, you won’t. I have given you the “green light” numerous times and you won’t.

I will not lecture since lectures are ignored by creationists.

Another baseless judgment. Another ad hominem.

You need to participate if you want to be able to make a valid demand to see evidence.

You misunderstand what we are doing here.

This “debate” (if it can even be called that at this point) between you and I began when you claimed that my beliefs I shared with another forum member were false.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim and you have yet to do so.

I shared a belief, a personal opinion, while you made a statement of supposed fact.

I should not have to ask you to provide your evidence to back up your claim because if you were so confident you would be eager to share, but yo won’t.

Yes, but I do not feel like sifting through pages of ignorant and at times dishonest posts to dig up that particular nugget.

More ad hominem attacks and an admission of your laziness/incompetence.

You have never once showed an example of my supposed ignorance or dishonesty.

If you cannot quote me saying it then you cannot claim that I said it.

Prove that I do not understand the concept of evidence.

You could have simply confirmed or denied.

You are confused.

But instead you act coy again. That is not an honest approach to debate.

You have yet to provide an example of how I am being “coy”, so it’s just another ad hominem attack.

As far as I am concerned this has not been a “debate”.

It began as my sharing a personal belief and you claiming that it was wrong and then never providing evidence to prove that it was wrong.

Okay, so then you simply did not understand or ignored the evidence.

That nasty habit again.

You’d be a horrendous teacher.

Wrong again, I will back up any of my claims.

No, you won’t. You just like trying to put others down.

As to your dishonesty that has been shown time and time again with your false claims about Hawking.

You sharing your opinion about what Hawking has said does not prove my claims false.

And no, there is no need for me to support all of my claims.

Oh really? Then how about just one?

By that "logic" your God does not exist since you cannot back up one claim about him.

The obvious differences being that my belief in God is an opinion that I never claimed to be able to prove.

While you, on the other hand, keep stating that you can prove your claims.

You don’t seem to know what “logic” is.

You made a false claim about Hawking.

Prove it.

You provided the links that led you to making that clam though I and others have shown that those links in no way support your claim since the links do not have Hawking make the claim that you said he made. I have explained this to you as have others. Ignoring your error does not make it go away.

I shared only the one link.

You and others claiming that the link does not support my claim does not prove anything.

Without further explanation or evidence, that’s just you guys sharing your opinion.

Let me explain this to you. The sciences cannot show specific claims to be true. It can shown specific claims to be false.

That sounds like something I would have said, but you don’t actually believe it, do you?

You have been claiming that Man evolving from another species is a scientific fact.

Yet, you’ve been too lazy or incompetent to actually share any evidence to support this “fact.”

Ideas can be refuted in the sciences, but they cannot be "proven", at least not in a mathematical sense.

What purpose do you have for pointing this out in light of the fact that you have never, nor will ever, share any of these scientific evidences that refute anything I believe.

Concepts can be "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

We have come right back into the realm of opinion. Did we ever really leave?

But creationists often demand that which does not exist in reality.

I cannot speak for other Creationists, but all I really want is for you to present your argument, but you haven’t.

You just like to hear yourself talk.

Your flood beliefs can be shown to be wrong, assuming that God does not lie.

*YAWN*

Please support…your claim…with….eviden-……………………

ZZZzzzzZZZzzzzZZZzzzz
​

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have yet to prove that.​

That was an observation. No proof needed. If you did not understand you should have asked.

Yet, you won’t. I have given you the “green light” numerous times and you won’t.

It takes two. You won't follow through. I will not lecture, I will discuss. You have to agree to the discussion and approach the topic properly. I already explained this to you.

Another baseless judgment. Another ad hominem.

No, again an observation. You could surprise me and be honest and discuss this with me. There will be rules for the discussion that apply to both of us. One is no excessively breaking up of posts as you have done here.

You misunderstand what we are doing here.

No, I understand perfectly well.

This “debate” (if it can even be called that at this point) between you and I began when you claimed that my beliefs I shared with another forum member were false.

Actually there is no debate. Your side lost the debate a long long time ago. Now all remains is correction of the errors of creationists.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim and you have yet to do so.

I shared a belief, a personal opinion, while you made a statement of supposed fact.

I should not have to ask you to provide your evidence to back up your claim because if you were so confident you would be eager to share, but yo won’t.
More ad hominem attacks and an admission of your laziness/incompetence.

You have never once showed an example of my supposed ignorance or dishonesty.

If you cannot quote me saying it then you cannot claim that I said it.

Prove that I do not understand the concept of evidence.
You are confused.
You have yet to provide an example of how I am being “coy”, so it’s just another ad hominem attack.

As far as I am concerned this has not been a “debate”.

It began as my sharing a personal belief and you claiming that it was wrong and then never providing evidence to prove that it was wrong.
That nasty habit again.

You’d be a horrendous teacher.
No, you won’t. You just like trying to put others down.

You sharing your opinion about what Hawking has said does not prove my claims false.
Oh really? Then how about just one?
The obvious differences being that my belief in God is an opinion that I never claimed to be able to prove.

While you, on the other hand, keep stating that you can prove your claims.

You don’t seem to know what “logic” is.
Prove it.
I shared only the one link.

You and others claiming that the link does not support my claim does not prove anything.

Without further explanation or evidence, that’s just you guys sharing your opinion.

That sounds like something I would have said, but you don’t actually believe it, do you?

You have been claiming that Man evolving from another species is a scientific fact.

Yet, you’ve been too lazy or incompetent to actually share any evidence to support this “fact.”

What purpose do you have for pointing this out in light of the fact that you have never, nor will ever, share any of these scientific evidences that refute anything I believe.
We have come right back into the realm of opinion. Did we ever really leave?

I cannot speak for other Creationists, but all I really want is for you to present your argument, but you haven’t.

You just like to hear yourself talk.
*YAWN*

Please support…your claim…with….eviden-……………………

ZZZzzzzZZZzzzzZZZzzzz

I got tired, TLDR. When you are ready to honestly discuss the subject I will gladly help you. Otherwise I will merely point out the countless errors that you will make.

By the way, disagreeing with the conclusions of evidence when you have nothing to offer in its place is a loss on the side of the person that makes that claim. All that one is stating it that he rejects reality.

 

[Prestor John]

That was an observation. No proof needed. If you did not understand you should have asked.


It takes two. You won't follow through. I will not lecture, I will discuss. You have to agree to the discussion and approach the topic properly. I already explained this to you.


No, again an observation. You could surprise me and be honest and discuss this with me. There will be rules for the discussion that apply to both of us. One is no excessively breaking up of posts as you have done here.



No, I understand perfectly well.


Actually there is no debate. Your side lost the debate a long long time ago. Now all remains is correction of the errors of creationists.

​

I got tired, TLDR. When you are ready to honestly discuss the subject I will gladly help you. Otherwise I will merely point out the countless errors that you will make.

By the way, disagreeing with the conclusions of evidence when you have nothing to offer in its place is a loss on the side of the person that makes that claim. All that one is stating it that he rejects reality.

If you truly observed me exhibit some kind of behavior, then it should be really easy for you to reference where I did so.

Also, your demand that I agree to some vague conditions before you will present your case is based on your false "observations" about me.

Your "observations" (i.e. ad hominem attacks) about me are irrelevant to the topic.

I am on neither side. I do not see sides. I have yet to see any scientific evidence conflict with my beliefs.

I am not asking for your "help", I am demanding that you back up your assertion that my beliefs are false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you truly observed me exhibit some kind of behavior, then it should be really easy for you to reference where I did so.

Also, your demand that I agree to some vague conditions before you will present your case is based on your false "observations" about me.

Your "observations" (i.e. ad hominem attacks) about me are irrelevant to the topic.

I am on neither side. I do not see sides. I have yet to see any scientific evidence conflict with my beliefs.

I am not asking for your "help", I am demanding that you back up your assertion that my beliefs are false.

Please, you keep misusing the word ad hominem, and correcting your errors is not an attack. So far you have not debated honestly. As I pointed out in the past you broke up posts excessively. When one has to respond to every separate sentence that is the same as quoting out of context. It is not honest or proper.

At least you admit that there is no evidence for your side and it appears that you do not know how to evaluate the existing evidence. And people have given you evidence. Evidence that you have no answer to. To date you have ignored it. They have even repeatedly given you the same links over and over again. I could see this tendency in you which is why I wanted to start with a discussion on what is and what is not evidence. But I can't have this discussion if you keep posting in the manner that you have used in the past.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You and others claiming that the link does not support my claim does not prove anything..

You use the word prove a lot. Proof is not the standard for belief. In the case of the creationist, it's faith. In the case of the rational skeptic, it's evidence. Proof is necessary for certitude, but we seldom have this, nor do we need it to have justified belief.

What many others have told you is that the citations from Hawking that you presented don't mean what you claimed they do. Why you don't agree is a mystery, but it doesn't change the consensus viewpoint about your claim, which is not going to change. Absolutely nobody agreed with you, and none of us have any reason to change our minds. We can read your claims, your supporting evidence, understand both, and reject your conclusion quite easily and steadfastly.

And for the record, there is no duty to support any opinion unless you want to be believed and are working with a person whose conclusions are routinely grounded in reason applied to evidence. When dealing with faith based thinkers, there is no hope of convincing them with evidence, so there is no point trying.

I may someday encounter an exception to that - a creationist who really is open to considering evidence impartially and with a the ability and willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. So, my response is always to ask the creationist to make a good faith effort to show me that he is sincere and eager to learn by going to the Internet, Googing the topic, finding web sites with answers to some or all of his question, and reporting back what he learned, what he agrees with, and what he doesn't understand and could use help with.

Guess how many times the creationist has taken me up on that? Never.Not once. I've saved an equivalent amount of pointless effort.

Some call this the creationist shuffle - ask for evidence, don't look at it, say that you weren't convinced, and then claim that nobody can prove anything as if that were due to a deficiency in the offered evidence rather than the creationist doing the shuffle.

Earlier you said that you had not seen any evidence that "one species evolves into another". I posted numerous documented examples of the evolution of new species. Since then you have done nothing to address that data.

And that is the shuffle.

Without further explanation or evidence, that’s just you guys sharing your opinion.

You use the word opinion in a peculiar way too. If you are going to call all statements opinions, I won't quibble with that. Yes, it is my opinion that the sun will dawn tomorrow morning, but it's more than just an opinion. It's a justified belief. If your opinion were the opposite, it would also be an opinion, but should not be considered equal.

Likewise in this matter. The conclusions of about a half dozen judges in agreement that the citations you provided don't support the claim you made has the status of the sun dawning. None will be moved by you merely disagreeing and calling it all opinion.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have yet to see any scientific evidence conflict with my beliefs.

Earlier you said that you had not seen any evidence that "one species evolves into another". I posted numerous documented examples of the evolution of new species. Since then you have done nothing to address that data.

 

[Prestor John]

You still have not said what sort of evidence would convince you that filthy naked humans evolved from the glorious fur clad apes of the past.

I have said multiple times that I do not know.

I don't know what I don't know.

Besides a Neanderthal walking up to me claiming to be my distant relative, I don't know.

What evidence would convince someone that God existed, besides Him floating down and showing Himself to anyone.

Humans were created in God's image, after His likeness, and are therefore not animals.