Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And a note to the OP, your title alone tells us that your thread is going to be nothing but pseudoscience. Do you know how and why it tells us that? It is related to my previous post.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof of Creational Science
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
stvdv
Veteran Member
So, you say there is evidence that a flea and an elephant have common ancestors?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes. Though it would look nothing like either one. That would go so far back in our history that it might look more like a sponge than anything else.
By the way, there is no question that there is evidence that supports this. I have not seen one person that disagreed with this that did not understand the concept of evidence.. I am pretty sure that you do not understand the concept of evidence. But here is a chance to show that I am wrong. In your own words please explain the concept of scientific evidence.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Thank you, that's what I expected
stvdv
Veteran Member
I wonder that you have not seen it. It's elementary biology.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What else would you expect besides reality? Have you been listening to creationist strawman arguments?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, we can test this. You can demonstrate that you understand the concepts. Why did you dodge my reasonable request? That indicates that my beliefs about you are correct.. You probably do not understand the concept of evidence.
But I will give you another chance. Please give us an observation that would qualify as scientific evidence for creationism and why it is evidence for creationism.
stvdv
Veteran Member
The universe is huge
My mind is huge too
But not that huge to understand the universe
Hence I do not try to understand it by the mind
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How can you arrive at a rational conclusion if you only use your own standards?
stvdv
Veteran Member
Not a smart deduction for someone claiming to be scientific
Too much "beliefs", too little evidence, and no knowledge
I feel no need to answer this type of questioning
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you provided the evidence. You made claims and then ran away from them. Here is a suggestion, just support your claims. Or we could discuss the nature of evidence, and specifically scientific evidence.
Really? Why not. Granted it is a tad aggressive, but that is because you made a claim and then ran away from it. That does not reflect well on you. When one makes a claim one should be able to support it.
Why don't we simply go over the concept of evidence and why it supports evolution. I have yet to see any sort of creationism supported by evidence, but I am open to that.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Glad you noticed that
I explained this before, but obviously not clear enough, so I do it again. I hope it's more clear now
Just check my signature ... all my posts are "IMHO" as per my signature, so I never make a claim, whatever I write on RF is my opinion
Signature is an official part of RF, and I use it for this purpose, because I think I should never claim something about "God" or others. You might have missed my signature, if you use a smartphone, but it still is there, since many years.
I do know the importance of the small print in official documents, if you want to claim something. We must read everything, also the small print. In my case it is not even "small print" I even put it in colors, so that people don't miss out that it's all just my opinion = No Claim
does not apply to me, see above
I agree of course...if one can not support a claim, that means one does not know
Still there is no rule on RF that imposes on us "you MUST provide evidence or proof when making a claim"
stvdv
Veteran Member
Because I feel no need to do so,
But thank you for asking so friendly. Nothing to you with you or evolution. I just don't like debating. Also I already believe in evolution, and I already got the best evidence I need that supports evolution, so why should we go over that?
IF you find any evidence or proof of creationism THEN let me know please
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now it looks as if you are claiming that you were just trolling in your earlier posts. Did you have a purpose in your comments?
stvdv
Veteran Member
I was not trolling
My original post to which you replied was short:
I just answered one question from the OP
"how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?"
I do not call this clever at all "to assume" something. To assume means "not 100% proof", hence I called it "a belief"
If the question would have been:
"how clever is it to really know that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?"
Then I would have replied differently. If they "know" and can prove it then I don't call it a belief. And if someone can prove this all by themselves, I call that clever
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem is that creationists often make the false accusation that scientists are assuming. By the way, there is no "100% proof" for anything outside of mathematics so it is a rather poor term to use. It is an unreasonable standard since people never follow it in their personal lives. Your language made it look as if you were supporting the false claims of creationists.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Sorry for not being clear enough
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And I am sorry for misunderstanding your post. I am probably to ready to go after creationists at times.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
This is great. Thanks for posting.