The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Gunfingers]

At this point in time, anyone who says there are no such thing as aliens has to prove it. I already posted a youtube of NASA recordings.

Now here is something great, and it really speaks to the creationist mentality, especially in reference to inconsistent standards of proof. After 13 pages of evidence for evolution, one point after another, explanations and everything, he still says that there is no evidence of evolution.

By contrast all it takes is one video on youtube that claims to have quotes from astronauts talking about aliens and the presence of aliens on earth is proven beyond a doubt.

 

[CaptainBritain]

No, you cannot post 100 links, and you're just afraid that I'd point out the errors and flaws of them. I ask, have you read your own article? I don't see exactly how it forms its conclusion: He says the Molecular evidence is persuasive. Can you quote something shows how persuasive it is?

Are you aware of the fact that I've posted from Technology Review and Science daily? I've got at least 2 more links than you. I still want to see Paintedwolf explain how the conclusion and abstract of her study proves the origin of lactation in mice, I don't think it does show its origins and simply shows the properties.

Translation: "I could post 100 links for you but they wouldn't necessarily show any proof but since you won't accept it blindly at face value and accept massive gaps like bats turning into rats all of the sudden, I'm going to say you won't accept any evidence".

Peace, and try to learn to not cop out.

tell me what you would accept as evidence?
give me that frame work, I am not here to convince you, tell me what you would need besides a time machine and a video camera, thats a long article, I think a scanned it and thats it, but will give you the benefit of the doubt.

What would satisfy you,

be specific, a vague show me proof will not get a reply.

 

[Shermana]

Now here is something great, and it really speaks to the creationist mentality, especially in reference to inconsistent standards of proof. After 13 pages of evidence for evolution, one point after another, explanations and everything, he still says that there is no evidence of evolution.

By contrast all it takes is one video on youtube that claims to have quotes from astronauts talking about aliens and the presence of aliens on earth is proven beyond a doubt.

And this really speaks to the Macro-evolutionists' mentality, they don 't bother even watching the video or knowing what it says, they think that's the ONLY proof, simply because I presented one to start with, here's one of the Soviets in 1969, such great Soviet special effects they had in the 60's, dang.....or maybe not....

Russian UFO Crash in 1969, Now we have the footage!

And you simply brush off the idea, while you accept the idea of Macroevolution without any proof as demonstrated, while completely ignoring the actual video I presented. Do you want more than just these two? Did you not notice I said "This is a whole thread's worth of material?"

 

[CaptainBritain]

Now here is something great, and it really speaks to the creationist mentality, especially in reference to inconsistent standards of proof. After 13 pages of evidence for evolution, one point after another, explanations and everything, he still says that there is no evidence of evolution.

By contrast all it takes is one video on youtube that claims to have quotes from astronauts talking about aliens and the presence of aliens on earth is proven beyond a doubt.

You are right, I scrap my previous offer, what was I thinking, enough time wasted.

audio clip of aliens lolololol

on youtube, well im a convert haha

 

[Shermana]

You are right, I scrap my previous offer, what was I thinking, enough time wasted.

audio clip of aliens lolololol

on youtube, well im a convert haha

Well if you think the NASA officials were referring to illegal Mexican immigrants, and by "UFO" they meant some Secret Soviet Death Star, you're welcome to your opinion. You're also welcome to your opinion if you think the whole thing is a joke and got aired on History Channel for pure entertainment value. Do you think the Soviet 1969 KGB UFO footage was a joke too? If so, how?

Here it is in motion, the Russians should have been working for Hollywood back then if this was all special effects.This would have been bigger than Independence day, no CGI!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5w7_EjwXZw

This is a great video, the Russian government officially released its UFO investigations in 2000, it was similar to Blue Book, 5-10% were "unexplainable" and that's just what they publish. COnsidering they denied it for 40 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQMJSYLBQ5o&NR=1

 

[CaptainBritain]

Well if you think the NASA officials were referring to illegal Mexican immigrants, and by "UFO" they meant some Secret Soviet Death Star, you're welcome to your opinion. You're also welcome to your opinion if you think the whole thing is a joke and got aired on History Channel for pure entertainment value. Do you think the Soviet 1969 KGB UFO footage was a joke too? If so, how?

Here it is in motion, the Russians should have been working for Hollywood back then if this was all special effects.This would have been bigger than Independence day, no CGI!!

[youtube]_5w7_EjwXZw[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪UFO - March 1969 - Soviet Union, Sverdlovsk‬‏

An unidentified flying object is just that until its identified, you have to provide evidence wah wah, there is no proof atall wah wah, unless I touch the craft with my own hands it dont exist wah wah wah

 

[Jose Fly]

Already went through this.

No you haven't. You have not told us why we should accept your opinions and assertions over the consensus views of the professionals. You haven't told us what scholarly books on evolutionary biology you've read, what courses you've taken, what conferences or symposiums you've attended, or what scientific journals you read.

Can you prove there is no Invisible Spaghetti Monster and its Pink Unicorn steed?

Since I've not asked you to prove a negative, your question is an irrelevant non sequitur.

However, can you actually provide a single link with a single quote that conclusively states the evidence regarding anything regarding the mega-gaps (Asteroid-crater-sized) that I've mentioned?

Honestly, can you answer a single question? Why do you insist on behaving more like a guilty defendant on the witness stand than a person engaging in a discussion in good faith?

 

[Shermana]

No you haven't. You have not told us why we should accept your opinions and assertions over the consensus views of the professionals. You haven't told us what scholarly books on evolutionary biology you've read, what courses you've taken, what conferences or symposiums you've attended, or what scientific journals you read.


Since I've not asked you to prove a negative, your question is an irrelevant non sequitur.


Honestly, can you answer a single question? Why do you insist on behaving more like a guilty defendant on the witness stand than a person engaging in a discussion in good faith?

I think your post proves that you cannot actually back your claims. I don't have to look up every single possible source in every language on Earth to say that there's no evidence for your claims. As far as the "Scientific Concensus", there are in fact detractors, and Appeal to Authority only goes so far as to confirmation of facts, not theory based on facts which ignores critical gaps.

You are the one behaving like a guilty defendant because you skip over the part that I claim that there really is no proof for these claims, and the burden of proof for the one relying on implausible theory as answer for critical gaps in their theory is on them.

You accuse me of not answering a single question, that's nice, why don't you kindly admit that the evidence simply doens't exist instead of insisting it does somewhere without providing any sources.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think your post proves that you cannot actually back your claims. I don't have to look up every single possible source in every language on Earth to say that there's no evidence for your claims.

So basically your approach is that you demand everyone answer your questions, take the time to fully explain to you the entire evolutionary history of complex traits, and blindly accept you as a supreme authority in all manner of subjects....all the while you will not answer even the most simple question such as "What books have you read"?

And you wonder why no one here is taking you seriously?

 

[Skwim]

 

[Jose Fly]

All right, I'll tell you what Shermana...let's approach this differently.

I've provided you with links to observed cases of populations evolving new traits that result in increased fitness. Thus, the evolution of new traits is a repeatedly observed fact.

We also know that the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact:

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic... [J Hered. 1990 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization... [BMC Evol Biol. 2003] - PubMed result

Reproductive character displacement and speciation... [Evolution. 2000] - PubMed result

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

So, if we know for a fact (because we see it happen) that new traits and species arise via evolutionary mechanisms today, why in the world would we ever consider that new traits and species arose completely differently in the past when we weren't looking?

 

[Shermana]

So basically your approach is that you demand everyone answer your questions, take the time to fully explain to you the entire evolutionary history of complex traits, and blindly accept you as a supreme authority in all manner of subjects....all the while you will not answer even the most simple question such as "What books have you read"?

And you wonder why no one here is taking you seriously?

So basically your approach is to try to dismiss any attempt at showing the major gaps in the theory and the fact that there is absolutely no conclusive data to explain them. As well as use Appeal to Authority to silence dissenting opinion as opposed to discussing the many specifics.

When you say "no one here", you mean the Atheists posting, I don't care about their opinion because they can't back any of their claims or even discuss their sources properly, their opinion means as little to me as mine does to them. The objective reader's is another story and they can plainly see all the shucking and jiving going on and how I've made many legitimate statements and points which I can repost if you're having trouble looking at the many specifics I've mentioned.

 

[outhouse]

So basically your approach is to try to dismiss any attempt at showing the major gaps in the theory

what gaps

we know species evolve

yes there are questions that can be answered but it doesnt change ToE at all

 

[Shermana]

All right, I'll tell you what Shermana...let's approach this differently.

I've provided you with links to observed cases of populations evolving new traits that result in increased fitness. Thus, the evolution of new traits is a repeatedly observed fact.

We also know that the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact:

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic... [J Hered. 1990 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization... [BMC Evol Biol. 2003] - PubMed result

Reproductive character displacement and speciation... [Evolution. 2000] - PubMed result

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

So, if we know for a fact (because we see it happen) that new traits and species arise via evolutionary mechanisms today, why in the world would we ever consider that new traits and species arose completely differently in the past when we weren't looking?

Have you read any of my posts where I say I believe in Micro-evolution and Micro-speciation by chance? How do any of these prove that the traits change enough to radically alter the boundaries of the chassis? Do you want to try answering any of the specific questions I've brought up like how rats got wings?

 

[painted wolf]

Where did the aliens come from? Did other aliens make them as well?

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

what gaps

we know species evolve

yes there are questions that can be answered but it doesnt change ToE at all

Gap #1, bats. How do you grow wings? I like the theory that the Fruit Bat is related to primates, but it only exists to explain why some are vegetarians.

Gap #2: Exploding Carpenter Ants and Bombardier Beetles.

We can make this a 10 part series.

 

[Storm]

So basically your approach is to try to dismiss any attempt at showing the major gaps in the theory and the fact that there is absolutely no conclusive data to explain them. As well as use Appeal to Authority to silence dissenting opinion as opposed to discussing the many specifics.

When you say "no one here", you mean the Atheists posting, I don't care about their opinion because they can't back any of their claims or even discuss their sources properly, their opinion means as little to me as mine does to them. The objective reader's is another story and they can plainly see all the shucking and jiving going on and how I've made many legitimate statements and points which I can repost if you're having trouble looking at the many specifics I've mentioned.

Here's a devout believer who isn't taking you seriously for all the reasons listed above.

ETA: And painted wolf is a theist.

 

[Shermana]

Where did the aliens come from? Did other aliens make them as well?

wa:do

The Great Spirit.

 

[painted wolf]

Lols... rats with wings are cute...

wa:do

http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded

 

[Shermana]

Lols... rats with wings are cute...

wa:do

Gliding and flying are two different mechanisms.