Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

Ha ha. I thought you did not understand science from the get go and that is what I still believe. I already falsified evo and so have the creation scientists. Is it my fault you do not understand and be able to explain science? That's okay. Nothing to be ashamed of.

What you should be ashamed of is you believe is what the leftist leaders tell you to believe. BOW DOWN BEFORE YOUR POWERFUL LEFTIST LEADERS AND THEIR COMMUNIST THOUGHTS YOU PEASANT!

What my first impressions of you is true. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. Just another shill for the evos.

Basically, the evo scientists have not proven evolution, anthropoligical global warming, not any of the mentally ill claims of leftists, atheists and evolutionists.

I think I did the better job of destroying evolution and my arguments weren't ridiculous. The conclusion I reached was you provided no answers, so I have no idea why you believe in evolution but the above. At this point, I really do not care what you believe. You'll continue to be ST and that's fine with me. We are done Mr. ST.

You have said many words and yet there is no substance. Nothing to address what was said in my post. Nothing to address the topic of the thread. No verifiable evidence for creationism. Nothing.

And for some reason, you seem very proud of yourself. Hmm.

 

[gnostic]

What you should be ashamed of is you believe is what the leftist leaders tell you to believe. BOW DOWN BEFORE YOUR POWERFUL LEFTIST LEADERS AND THEIR COMMUNIST THOUGHTS YOU PEASANT!

Straw-man, much?

Is that really the best you can do?

How many atheists that you know of, at this forum, are from communist countries? How many do you know are pro-communism?

I think you are truly desperate that you would resort to this level of insult. That's really pathetic.

Ha ha. I thought you did not understand science from the get go and that is what I still believe. I already falsified evo and so have the creation scientists. Is it my fault you do not understand and be able to explain science? That's okay. Nothing to be ashamed of.

More desperate ploys.

This thread is about creationists presenting verifiable evidences for creationism. All I have seen you do is attack evolutionary biology, which you have no understanding for, let alone present some evidences against evolution.

But even more important, is that you haven't presented a single evidence to support your belief in creationism or that of the creator god. So without evidences, you haven't shown that creationism to be falsifiable.

And that you keep associating evolution with atheism, is just more of dishonesty and desperation, because you have ignored Christians, Jews and Hindus who do accept evolution as explanation for biological changes...hence more desperate straw man. Well, not unless you accuse them of being "atheists" too. I wouldn't put it pass you.

Sorry, but this level of ignorance and dishonesty is too much for me to stomach.

 

[Vorkosigan]

w

look in the mirror and call yourself an accident....
does that seem correct?
all that complexity coming together over centuries.....in spite of the improbability....
and there you are...looking at some accident?

and then look about you...
billions of copies, each one unique
each one forming a unique spirit
and the results end up in a box, in the ground

Eternal darkness is physically real.

choose

what accident are you talking about?

 

[Thief]

w

what accident are you talking about?

some people like to post.....
all of this life had no One guiding the development

all that is around you is accidental
coincidental
non-intentional

and that includes you....and your reflection

 

[Vorkosigan]

Ha ha. I thought you did not understand science from the get go and that is what I still believe. I already falsified evo and so have the creation scientists. Is it my fault you do not understand and be able to explain science? That's okay. Nothing to be ashamed of.

What you should be ashamed of is you believe is what the leftist leaders tell you to believe. BOW DOWN BEFORE YOUR POWERFUL LEFTIST LEADERS AND THEIR COMMUNIST THOUGHTS YOU PEASANT!

What my first impressions of you is true. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. Just another shill for the evos.

Basically, the evo scientists have not proven evolution, anthropoligical global warming, not any of the mentally ill claims of leftists, atheists and evolutionists.

I think I did the better job of destroying evolution and my arguments weren't ridiculous. The conclusion I reached was you provided no answers, so I have no idea why you believe in evolution but the above. At this point, I really do not care what you believe. You'll continue to be ST and that's fine with me. We are done Mr. ST.

some people like to post.....
all of this life had no One guiding the development

all that is around you is accidental
coincidental
non-intentional

and that includes you....and your reflection

But there is no evidence that there was someONE. It could have been someTHING like natural selection.
You can say god used natural selection if you want.

 

[Vorkosigan]

But there is no evidence that there was someONE. It could have been someTHING like natural selection.
You can say god used natural selection if you want.

I don't get the "your reflection" part (it sound really profound)

 

[Thief]

But there is no evidence that there was someONE. It could have been someTHING like natural selection.
You can say god used natural selection if you want.

I don't confuse dead substance ( a thing) with living entity ( a living thing)

and if that life has a notable spirit.....I say as much

 

[Vorkosigan]

I still don’t see any evidence for creationism

 

[Thief]

I still don’t see any evidence for creationism

then the flip of the coin you must take.....
without a Creator in the background.....all of life is an accident
including you

 

[Vorkosigan]

then the flip of the coin you must take.....
without a Creator in the background.....all of life is an accident
including you

and you dislike that possibility therefor is false? Is that your logic?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Has the window closed on Darwinism? Darwinburnsinhell? Yup.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Hell, as that document is written, even I'd sign it. There are a whole host of factors that play into the diversity and complexity of ecosystems and organisms on this planet - more than just the breadth of random mutation and Natural Selection can account for. This has been known for a very long time. And of course careful examination of the evidence should be encouraged. That's true of all science...

But so what? What does this list of a couple hundred names really mean for your greater argument? Let's just expand it, and credit it with 1,000 names!

1,000 such is a whole bunch!

The other 499,000 Earth and Life scientists in the US alone side with Natural Selection as being the best and only viable explanation for observations found in the real world... How do you respond to that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

 

[Vorkosigan]

Hell, as that document is written, even I'd sign it. There are a whole host of factors that play into the diversity and complexity of ecosystems and organisms on this planet - more than just the breadth of random mutation and Natural Selection can account for. This has been known for a very long time. And of course careful examination of the evidence should be encouraged. That's true of all science...

But so what? What does this list of a couple hundred names really mean for your greater argument? Let's just expand it, and credit it with 1,000 names!

1,000 such is a whole bunch!

The other 499,000 Earth and Life scientists in the US alone side with Natural Selection as being the best and only viable explanation for observations found in the real world... How do you respond to that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

I appreciate your point, being a creationist (specially the “young earth” type) is equivalent to believing the earth is flat.
But I think the nature of reality is not subject to vote. The number of supporters doesn’t make a claim true, only the evidence acquired by means of the scientific method.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I appreciate your point, being a creationist (specially the “young earth” type) is equivalent to believing the earth is flat.
But I think the nature of reality is not subject to vote. The number of supporters doesn’t make a claim true, only the evidence acquired by means of the scientific method.

Yeah man, that was my whole point. Essentially, the citing of a "SCIENTIFIC DISSENT TO DARWINISM" is just as pointless with 200 names as it would be with 10,000,000.

That's my challenge...

"So what?"

(The same is true for Naturalistic explanations. Consensus doesn't mean anything. It's the science that matters - not the scientists.)

 

[viole]

This is a stupid question. Let me answer your question with a question: If I could show Creationism in the Bible, would you believe it?
If not, would that be any bar from you using the Bible to argue against a point made by a Christian?

This is a stupid reply. I was addressing scientific peer reviewed studies. So, in order to make it look more undestandable: what criteria do you use to reject scientific peer reviewed research is some area and not in others?

Yes, exactly. You don't understand at all how to make a sensible decision. I have provided you with resources to indicate the recommended method, but you either haven't read them or haven't understood them. Let's take a simple decision: Let's assume that you want to lose weight. A friend comes to you and says that she tried product X, and she lost 15 kilos. Your next logical decision is not to ask for scientific studies that prove the method is safe and effective but rather to ask how much the product costs. Why? Because at a certain number the product, even if it could be proved to work, is simply not worth buying because you don't want to lose weight enough to pay that price.

And what is the next logical step after you found out you can afford it? Do you google around to check common people feedback or scientific feedback?

You've been doing this throughout the thread. You have cast aspersions on the GMAT test since the first time you heard about it. Yet empirical studies indicate that the GMAT score is one of the best predictors of success for students in the program. Later studies have suggested that the Analytical Writing Assessment is a better predictor of academic success in an MBA program. Additionally, all schools who accept GMAT scores have their own, proprietary internal scores that allow them to properly weight the various GMAT test indications in line with their experiences of what predicts success for candidates for their personal program. However, although you know literally nothing about the system and have nothing to back up your opinion except a hunch or two have decided that it's all a bunch of BS because you once beat somebody in a baseball trivia multiple choice contest?

Show a little humility. Reserve judgement about things you know nothing about.

I can only base my knowledge on your examples. And they are, honestly, trivial even without multiple choices. If they are all like that, it is ming boggling that there are organization asking money to prepare people to pass it.

And I will show some humility when you will show the same humility for things you know nothing about. E.g. Relativity or science in general.

So you have taken a randomized statistical sampling of all business managers on the planet and correlated their confusion when you ask them questions to their GMAT scores? No? Then why do you feel entitled to have an opinion on the subject? You know what, even if you had done a randomized sampling you still wouldn't be entitled to an opinion.

Nope. I ask how much they cost. And usually their cost is proportional to them having an MBA or not. Not to their ability to solve problem which in most cases do not show any obvious list of choices.

Google it.

Looks like plenty of time for questions of that "complexity"

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes, it's nice that you've learned how to spell ironic. You haven't learned the meaning of the word, but at least you can spell it now. Now you need to learn how to spell "all right."

i think my use of "ironic" is perfectly valid in this case.

By the way, you seem to ignore that "alright" is actually an English word. Not standard, but correct. With "English", I mean from Cambridge UK, not from Peru, obviously.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/alright

Tell me how I could take seriously anything you say in this area when you seem to ignore your (alleged) mother tongue, as well.

Last I checked neither Barack nor Obama were words. I couldn't find either in my dictionary.

I guess it is not on your automatic spell checker for the same reason, either. i wonder what you would output without it. Can you use spell checkers during a GMAT test, assuming there are general culture questions in it ?

By the way, let me briefly turn it on and check the word alright. Nope, no corrections, I am afraid. My iPad knows English better than you

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

I see none of what you speak of. Direct quote.

Then you're not going to find an answer to this thread from me. Yet, the truth is always in front of you all along. I found the answer while during college, but it took me until 2012 to put it all together. Maybe if you'll follow Jesus, you'll find the answer.

 

[james bond]

You have said many words and yet there is no substance. Nothing to address what was said in my post. Nothing to address the topic of the thread. No verifiable evidence for creationism. Nothing.

And for some reason, you seem very proud of yourself. Hmm.

I don't do this for pride, but it's more like service. The substance is what you have to provide in order to see the truth. Too many people have put their faith instead on atheism, their wrong science (evolution) and living their all too short lives in despair. In the end, that is what you'll end up with.

"According to the Bible, do you reap what you sow? The principle of sowing and reaping is common throughout the Bible, because it is something that humanity can relate to. The practice of working the ground to gain a harvest is nearly as old as humanity itself. Part of Adam’s curse was that the ground would bring forth thorns and thistles in response to his work and that “by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food” (Genesis 3:19). Adam understood the concept of “you reap what you sow” both literally and figuratively."

 

[james bond]

But there is no evidence that there was someONE. It could have been someTHING like natural selection.
You can say god used natural selection if you want.

Natural selection is part of creation science. See Alfred Russel Wallace. The difference between creation science's version and evolution's version is it doesn't lead to evolution. So God didn't make it for your worldview.

 

[Vorkosigan]

Natural selection is part of creation science. See Alfred Russel Wallace. The difference between creation science's version and evolution's version is it doesn't lead to evolution. So God didn't make it for your worldview.

again, what is the evidence for creation?

 

[Zosimus]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm admittedly cherry-picking. I'll come back for the rest later.

Cherry picking is fine. Keep at it.

This whole conversation came from you attempting to dispute an evolutionary prediction made well-before our ability to test it with DNA. It has been validated through more recent discoveries, which you are obviously agreeing to. Yet somehow it doesn't make the point that Natural Selection makes testable predictions?

This comment completely ignores the point of my post. There is nothing inherent in natural selection that predicts what you claim was predicted. The prediction came as a result of tacking together multiple theories into what is commonly called the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, a theory I call neo-Darwinism. You appear to claim that when hypothesis A&B&C make prediction P, observing prediction P in the real world confirms not just theory A but also theories B and C. Yet you have provided no reason for me to believe that P is logically inferrable from A&B&C but not from A&B or A&C. Somehow in your mind the idea that a prediction was made before we knew how to determine whether it was true is relevant. I don't see the connection.

Dumb luck.... So, Polar bears, with their white coats, aren't found in wooded and warmer environments simply because of dumb luck, correct? It has nothing at all to do with, say, environmental factors more conducive to their survival?

Speak of cherry picking and the devil will appear (or something like that). Polar bears are often found in arctic regions. This is true. However, white tigers are rarely found in arctic regions. Scientists once figured that such tigers did not survive in the wild, but we now know that white tigers do just fine. So here we have two situations, one in which the theory was confirmed and another in which the theory was not confirmed. Strangely enough, you seem to fixate on confirmations and ignore evidence that runs contrary to your theory. I believe the technical term for this is confirmation bias.

Knowing nothing at all about you and your wife I'm going to predict, using the principles of Natural Selection, that her ancestors came from a predominantly warmer and arid climate, where the yearly cycle is dominated by the extremes of heat. I'm going to predict that your ancestors are of Northern European decent. I'll also predict that your DNA contains a higher concentration of Neanderthal-specific genes than does your wife's.

Well, I can't say much about my geneology or that of my wife except to say that my cousin ran his through some sort of a DNA geneology tracker and sent me a report indicating that we are some 8 percent Indian (from India). I don't pay attention to such nonsense. My wife, however, comes from Lambayeque and bears two last names. The first one, Burgos, is the 267th most common last name in Spain and Martinez is the 6th most common last name in Spain. Presumably a great deal of her DNA is from Spain. The rest of it must come from either the Chimú or the Moche culture. As for the climate of the area, Lambayeque has a subtropical climate thanks to the strong winds in the area. Outside the Chiclayo area, the climate returns to normal selva zone of extremely humidity with excessive rainfall typical of other Amazon areas. This information tends to run counter to your claims.