Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

BTW algae was created on the 3rd day.

Oh yes they can be.

Sure, they can hee hee.

 

[james bond]

your being stuck on the word "create" is your problem, not mine.

I have no problem saying "I do not know".
Why do you?

Well, create is a good state and a powerful one. Instead of "I do not know," I'm in the create state which is the superior position.

 

[james bond]

You need to rethink this.

It's still the same after rethink.

 

[McBell]

Well, create is a good state and a powerful one. Instead of "I do not know," I'm in the create state which is the superior position.

Actually, it is not a "superior" position.
It is nothing but a bold empty claim based on wishful thinking to make you feel superior.

 

[james bond]

Yes evolution "created" bacteria. They are all (those that are extant) here. Your question is more that a bit odd.

Not odd at all since there is no evidence of evolution doing any creating. God created algae on the third day as stated in The Ancient Book. The proof is in the pudding or extamt. teeming algae in the oceans.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, create is a good state and a powerful one. Instead of "I do not know," I'm in the create state which is the superior position.

Naw, the superior position is the one that present verifiable evidence, so far you've produced none.

 

[james bond]

Actually, it is not a "superior" position.
It is nothing but a bold empty claim based on wishful thinking to make you feel superior.

Not bold, nor empty or wishful thinking to make me feel superior. When I said superior, I meant the high ground vs the low ground in terms of strategic position. Not moral or egotistical grounds.

The evidence is today, we can reproduce algae or modify it. We can't create it from scratch. All of it is done with GMO such as bacteria and foods. The evo scientists, such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, consider it safe, but I have questions in regards to people developing allergies from GMO foods. Furthermore, GMO bacteria is "supposed" to be safe according to evo scientists. What one has to watch out for is not the bacteria, but it mutating into a pathogen and infection through ingestion, cut or sexual transmission. We already have a release of it in the Gulf of Mexico to combat the Gulf oil spill. It's not a pretty picture of mutation.

Evo scientist Craig Venter

Mutation

 

[james bond]

Naw, the superior position is the one that present verifiable evidence, so far you've produced none.

The evidence is in front of your nose. To be able to state that is quite superior. All of it, such as light (electromagnetic spectrum), hydrogen, Planck's constant was created on the 1st day. We can manipulate and use it using the energy that is already there, but cannot create it.

 

[Sapiens]

The evidence is in front of your nose. To be able to state that is quite superior. All of it, such as light (electromagnetic spectrum), hydrogen, Planck's constant was created on the 1st day. We can manipulate and use it using the energy that is already there, but cannot create it.

All you've done is engage in a game of Pigeon Chess.

 

[shmogie]

you are well versed in deflection.
To bad that does not help you either.

One must have something to deflect before one can employ deflection. you have said nor produced anything

 

[shmogie]

Argument from incredulity.

OK

 

[McBell]

One must have something to deflect before one can employ deflection. you have said nor produced anything

Now denial.
You are literally as predictable as my three year old niece.

 

[Zosimus]

Naw, the superior position is the one that present verifiable evidence, so far you've produced none.

Please present verifiable evidence to support the claim that "the superior position is the one that present(sic) verifiable evidence."

 

[McBell]

Please present verifiable evidence to support the claim that "the superior position is the one that present(sic) verifiable evidence."

rotflmao
is that all the better you got?
seriously?
rotflmao

 

[Parsimony]

Sure, they can hee hee.

So no refutations then.

 

[shmogie]

Now denial.
You are literally as predictable as my three year old niece.

Now stupididty. You are literally as predictable as the koi in my pond

 

[McBell]

Now stupididty. You are literally as predictable as the koi in my pond

*yawn*
now you are just boring.

 

[gnostic]

You do what is called projecting.

Sorry, but what do you think all theists and religious people (including those dishonest and obnoxious creationists) do when they believe in the existence of deity that they worship and believe in, even though they have never directly seen, heard or felt God? Through their faith and belief they are "projecting".

I am what people consider weak agnostic or empirical agnostic. I don't know if God exist, but given there are no evidences to support his existence, then I would have to say doesn't exist on that basis alone (the "no evidence" part). HOWEVER, should there be real evidences for his existence, my view would obviously changed. Until then, I would suspend my choice.

My agnosticism is like my method through applied science. Everything (statement, claim, hypothesis, theory, belief) is FALSE by default, unless there are verifications - like observation such as test or evidence - that it is TRUE.

Clearly if tests or evidences go against the statement, then the statement is FALSE. But the statement is also FLASE if there are absence of evidences.

So by default, statement are never true, until there are verifiable evidences.

And there are never evidences for the existence of any deity, including the one in the bible.

All I see is that believers are "projecting", when they believe or make excuses or use fallacious reasons for god's existence. The whole creation requires the Creator or design needs Designer, are doing exactly what you are accusing me of - "projecting".

 

[shmogie]

Sorry, but what do you think all theists and religious people (including those dishonest and obnoxious creationists) do when they believe in the existence of deity that they worship and believe in, even though they have never directly seen, heard or felt God? Through their faith and belief they are "projecting".

I am what people consider weak agnostic or empirical agnostic. I don't know if God exist, but given there are no evidences to support his existence, then I would have to say doesn't exist on that basis alone (the "no evidence" part). HOWEVER, should there be real evidences for his existence, my view would obviously changed. Until then, I would suspend my choice.

My agnosticism is like my method through applied science. Everything (statement, claim, hypothesis, theory, belief) is FALSE by default, unless there are verifications - like observation such as test or evidence - that it is TRUE.

Clearly if tests or evidences go against the statement, then the statement is FALSE. But the statement is also FLASE if there are absence of evidences.

So by default, statement are never true, until there are verifiable evidences.

And there are never evidences for the existence of any deity, including the one in the bible.

All I see is that believers are "projecting", when they believe or make excuses or use fallacious reasons for god's existence. The whole creation requires the Creator or design needs Designer, are doing exactly what you are accusing me of - "projecting".[/QUOTE

Your statement "there never is any evidences for the existence of a Deity". Totally destroys your rather pompous claim " clearly if tests or evidence go against that statement ( all things are false ) then the statement is false " You are trying to use a circuitous route to set up your strawman. There can't be evidence of a Deity, but you, being so magnanimous and objective, would change your view if there was. One must assume that you have read every book, paper, and article on intelligent design, since you can speak with such authority. One must further assume that after a comprehensive and totally complete reading of everything there is regarding abiogenesis, you recognize that as a fairy tale also. So one might be perfectly right in saying that your head is totally empty of any concept of how life came about. That certainly is fair as far as I am concerned. That, of course, begs the question, why are you here ? You know nothing on the matter, the flame has burned out, you are utterly ignorant of, and defeated by, the issue. Have you ever read the book "Flatland"? a people who only lived in three dimensions, width, length and time. You remind me of some of its citizens, when things occurred that could be interpreted as indicating height, "they just couldn't see it " Sit in the corner, this isn't for you

 

[gnostic]

Your statement "there never is any evidences for the existence of a Deity". Totally destroys your rather pompous claim " clearly if tests or evidence go against that statement ( all things are false ) then the statement is false " You are trying to use a circuitous route to set up your strawman. There can't be evidence of a Deity, but you, being so magnanimous and objective, would change your view if there was. One must assume that you have read every book, paper, and article on intelligent design, since you can speak with such authority. One must further assume that after a comprehensive and totally complete reading of everything there is regarding abiogenesis, you recognize that as a fairy tale also. So one might be perfectly right in saying that your head is totally empty of any concept of how life came about. That certainly is fair as far as I am concerned. That, of course, begs the question, why are you here ? You know nothing on the matter, the flame has burned out, you are utterly ignorant of, and defeated by, the issue. Have you ever read the book "Flatland"? a people who only lived in three dimensions, width, length and time. You remind me of some of its citizens, when things occurred that could be interpreted as indicating height, "they just couldn't see it " Sit in the corner, this isn't for you

Look, shmogie.

I have never said that I believe in ABIOGENESIS, so that's a straw man from you.

Abiogenesis is still a relative new hypothesis or theoretical biochemistry theory. There have been testing going on, with regards to abiogenesis. And I am willing to wait for more conclusive data and evidences, before I accept it as a valid scientific theory.

But what I do keep telling creationists, is that there are distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, because they are two different fields.

Even if abiogenesis was refuted or debunked today or tomorrow, doesn't mean evolution has been debunked. There are just too many evidences for evolution, for it to be refuted.

And as far as I have been able to learn, none of the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift) have been refuted, and certainly have not been debunked by advocates for Intelligent Design or the dishonest and superstitious creationists.

Actually the Intelligent Design advocates are just plain dishonest.

Have you read the Discovery Institute's manifesto - Wedge Document?

It clearly outline that it is Christian creationism, disguising itself as "scientific" endeavour. Except nothing about

It clearly demonstrate that are not interested in showing evidences for a Designer. The whole agenda of Discovery Institute, is to discredit evolution with PR, with legislation, and hiding the fact that ID is not science, and yet want ID AND Creationism to be taught in the science classroom.

Nothing in ID is scientific, because they can't provide a testable methodology for this Designer. There are no verifiable evidences for Designer. The Intelligent Designer is no more credible than leprechauns or teletubbies.

You are "projecting" if you cannot provide a single evidence for Designer.

What you are saying about Designer is similar to Vikings believing whenever there is a storm with thunder and lightnings, then Thor must be using his hammer, bashing frostgiants, or whenever they see rainbow, then it must be Bifrost, a bridge between Midgard and Asgard.

Like creationism, ID is as much about superstition than science.