Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

What claims?
The last general one was a question in regards to chimpanzees going bipedal. Can you answer it? What would make them want to do that when they were perfectly capable of reaching their food with their locomotion. How did giraffes change in order to reach their food? If a chimp learned to walk, then they would have to use a tool to reach for a banana. Walking isn't the best method for getting from point A to point B in the fastest or most economical manner. All of this should be second nature to evos if evolution was valid.

The claim that evolution is just a theory.

Good grief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think we've given enough time to respond. It's avoiding the question or issue fallacy. There are questions that evos can't answer so they avoid it. So far, they avoided origins of life, origins of the universe, men are fish and birds are dinosaurs and apes to man hypotheses questions. Yet, in their minds evolution is perfectly valid. That's faith.

The origin of life and origin of the universe are not covered by the theory of evolution. Yet another thing that's been pointed out zillions of times before in this thread and on this forum.

Evolution is valid because it's observable, demonstrable and testable, with evidence spanning across most fields of science. Faith is not required. Stop trying to compare scientific theories to your religious beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What a boring thread. 140 pages, still no evidence for the affirmative, and the usual weasels diverting with clumsy jabs at science.

****ing YAWN.

This ^^^

 

[Zosimus]

What a boring thread. 140 pages, still no evidence for the affirmative, and the usual weasels diverting with clumsy jabs at science.

****ing YAWN.

Maybe that's because it's not possible to have evidence for something. It's only possible to have evidence against something.

That's why scientific theories have to be falsifiable.

 

[Zosimus]

The origin of life and origin of the universe are not covered by the theory of evolution. Yet another thing that's been pointed out zillions of times before in this thread and on this forum.

Evolution is valid because it's observable, demonstrable and testable, with evidence spanning across most fields of science. Faith is not required. Stop trying to compare scientific theories to your religious beliefs.

Big whoop. Christians will tell you that God's love is observable, demonstrable, and testable.

"For God so loved the world..." etc. Love demonstrated.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Maybe that's because it's not possible to have evidence for something. It's only possible to have evidence against something.

That is simply not true. Good thing too or we might be having this conversation with grunts and gestures around a fire, as science and technology wouldn't be a thing. Moving on...

 

[Zosimus]

That is simply not true. Good thing too or we might be having this conversation with grunts and gestures around a fire, as science and technology wouldn't be a thing. Moving on...

Oh like how death is evidence for Set and the Sun is evidence for Ra? I suppose the moon is evidence for Horus?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Big whoop. Christians will tell you that God's love is observable, demonstrable, and testable.

"For God so loved the world..." etc. Love demonstrated.

Except that one of them actually is observable, testable and demonstrable.

 

[Thief]

The origin of life and origin of the universe are not covered by the theory of evolution. Yet another thing that's been pointed out zillions of times before in this thread and on this forum.

Evolution is valid because it's observable, demonstrable and testable, with evidence spanning across most fields of science. Faith is not required. Stop trying to compare scientific theories to your religious beliefs.

cause and effect....is very scientific

the universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Oh like how death is evidence for Set and the Sun is evidence for Ra? I suppose the moon is evidence for Horus?

No, more like if there is dog fur on your carpet, dog **** on your floor and it smells like dog in your house, that is evidence a dog has probably been there.

I don't suppose they have police detectives where you live?

Wait..why am I talking to you like you are capable of being reasoned with? My bad. You may continue making your awkward jabs at science and whatnot now. I'm sure it'll be just a couple more and science will cave, leaving the one and only alternative: whatever shade of Fundy YOU are! See you at the megachurch!

 

[McBell]

the universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

Bold empty claim.

Is this to springboard you into your old outdated song and dance about which came first?

 

[gnostic]

You see? You run off at the mouth about things that you claim to "know" but you really don't know.

You say that a six-day creation is impossible, but I say that a supernatural being could sneeze out a universe exactly as we see it in a microsecond, and we'd never know the difference.

You say that a worldwide flood is impossible, but I say that if the land mass of the Earth were perfectly spherical, the water would cover the Earth and be 2.5 km deep everywhere (excluding calculations for tides). A worldwide flood is hardly impossible.

You say that it's impossible for people to speak one language one day and another language another day. Yet all of this is supposedly caused by a being that can create the entire universe out of thin air. Impossible? No.

So you don't like God's answers to Job. Personally, I've never read them. However, that doesn't mean that A) God couldn't have said them, B) God couldn't have said something else but gotten misquoted, or C) that the Book of Job is pure fabrication, but God still exists. Even if you could definitively prove that the entire book of Job was written by an insane guy high on opium, what would that prove about whether God exists? Nothing.

As for whether someone witnessed God's wager with Satan, assuming that such a wager existed, surely you realize that with our level of technology we can videotape things and play them back. What might God and his angels be capable of with their level of technology? Who can say? Or go back to the previous question and realize that even if the book of Job is pure fabrication, what does that say about whether God exists? Nothing.

What if you could definitively prove that the Bible, Qur'an, and every other holy book was completely wrong. What would that indicate about whether God exists? Nothing.

For all you know, we are just part of the dream of an alien that sleeps for centuries at a time. Perhaps when that alien awakens, we will cease to exist. For all you know, you are a brain in a vat receiving electrical signals so that alien scientists can better understand how the human brain works.

You see, my problem is not that you believe something. I'm happy that you believe it. My problem is that you run around claiming to know it and furthermore you claim that evidence is involved somehow. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is zero logical basis for using evidence to confirm beliefs.

Good grief.

Zosimus. Did some fairy godmother instructed to write all this?

You haven't showed me anywhere in that whole absurdity of your post, one shred of evidence.

All you have done was just give me a whole bunch of less than credible what-ifs scenes, followed by some half-assed circular-reasonings and apologetic excuses, that "God did it". That the answer of someone who believe in superstition.

You have claimed in earlier reply that I might not be a real agnostic, but the truth is that I don't think you are one, even more so.

A true agnostic is actually one who skeptical of both atheism and theism, hypothetically he wouldn't take side. You are clearly taking side of theism, which make you are not neutral at all.

What I find truly funny about every posts (from you) with regarding to science, on how you think it is (science) all logical fallacies, and that you are very skeptical of science - you as agnostic. And all your claims regarding to science seemed to implicitly equate with atheism. And because you are implicitly equating atheism and science as being the same, you are attacking science as if it science is atheism. And the way you treat science with hostility, it make you sound like a "creationist", not at all like agnostic.

But here you are defending religious belief as if all the supernatural creation and miracles are evidences of God's existence. I think you are lying to me and to us, pretending to be agnostic, when you are truly a creationist.

Your points against mine, regarding to the six-day creation, to the flood and to Tower of Babel episode, sound very much like what I would expect a creationist would say or write.

Are you a creationist, zosimus?

 

[gnostic]

What a boring thread. 140 pages, still no evidence for the affirmative, and the usual weasels diverting with clumsy jabs at science.

Doesn't zosimus' reply to me, sounds like the sort of arguments made by a creationist?

He say that he is an "agnostic", but this post 2799, make him sounds more like theistic creationist. I think he only pretending to be agnostic, so he can pretend to be neutral, as defence when someone is disagreeing with him.

 

[McBell]

Zosimus spouts so much nonsense I suspect he is merely bored and gives not one iota about his credibility.

 

[gnostic]

Zosimus spouts so much nonsense I suspect he is merely bored and gives not one iota about his credibility.

That's a possibility too.

But from the way (A) he continually trash science, which have nothing to do with atheism, theism or agnosticism, and (B) the way he continually defend creationism, using as circular reasonings as one expect from any creationist here, I am beginning to suspect that he is lying about what he claim to be - "agnostic".

Doesn't post 2799 sound like one made by a creationist to you?

 

[Zosimus]

Except that one of them actually is observable, testable and demonstrable.

Sure. Like all those Buddhists who chant to improve their karma. Later they tell one another all the good things that have happened to them since they started chanting. To them, it's all part of the overwhelming evidence that saying nam-myoho-renge-kyo brings good things into your life.

The funny thing is that when I point out that all their "evidence for" chanting is actually neutral to the theory that chanting makes your life better, they react exactly as you do.

Peas in a pod, don't you think?

 

[McBell]

Doesn't post 2799 sound like one made by a creationist to you?

Yes, it does.
Though if you look, you will find posts that make him sound like an atheist.

He switches it up based upon which he thinks will get the biggest reaction.

 

[Zosimus]

No, more like if there is dog fur on your carpet, dog **** on your floor and it smells like dog in your house, that is evidence a dog has probably been there.

I don't suppose they have police detectives where you live?

Wait..why am I talking to you like you are capable of being reasoned with? My bad. You may continue making your awkward jabs at science and whatnot now. I'm sure it'll be just a couple more and science will cave, leaving the one and only alternative: whatever shade of Fundy YOU are! See you at the megachurch!

Oh sure. Like if you find hair on your carpet and think it might be dog hair, you can give it to the FBI and have them analyze it.

Oh wait... the FBI admits that hair analysis was a crock of shoot and that the "experts" overstated the evidence in favor of the prosecution in more than 95 percent of the trials.

So basically, I think you've watched one too many Hollywood movies. In the real world, it's not nearly as cut and dried as you want to pretend. Human bias, lack of standards, and wishful thinking is a more accurate description.

So I'm going to call for a hand check because you just seem too excited over forensic (pseudo-)science.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, it does.
Though if you look, you will find posts that make him sound like an atheist.

He switches it up based upon which he thinks will get the biggest reaction.

Then Zosimus is simply a troll, is that what you are saying?

I'd guess that's a possibility too.

 

[McBell]

Then Zosimus is simply a troll, is that what you are saying?

that is my conclusion based on his posts.