Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

159 pages of posts...
Yet still no verifiable evidence for creation

Ha ha. Atheists will not see the evidence because they do not have faith. Like I said, it's right in front of your nose. It may not be important to you now, but it will be later on.

 

[james bond]

Hardly since such methods are from the very sources you rely upon.



You have referenceed zero philosophers nor linked any of your quotes with such ideas.



Irrelevant as we are not talking about a game show.



Speculation, nothing more. More so you are treating your theistic presupposition as if this were a reliable priori rather than fluff you claim is one.



Irrelevant



I am just pointing out your own source seems to be stuck in his own dogma yet claims everyone else is.



Point one out otherwise your claim is dismissed.



The list of 30 scientists has no information on who these people are thus there is no evidence that these 30 people are experts in a relevant field or not. People commenting outside their field is called an argument from authority and an opinion, nothing more. One link lists no names, the other link ends in a 404. I guess you didn't even bother to follow the links in your biased wiki.



No his statements are made outside of academia thus not subject to any riggers of review. Also you are making an assertion, nothing more. Provide a source



Speculation.



You are pointing out gaps in information with cosmology as supportive your an argument for God. This is a god of the gaps. Unknown therefore "God did it"



Empty assertion, nothing more.



Irrelevant for atheist but damning when you at first support KCA then undermine it in a later post.



Speculation, nothing more



Cite an example of my fallacies and attacks otherwise this is an assertion that will be dismissed. Merely claiming I have done so does not mean I have.

Do take note that I point out what fallacy you have used, why it is a fallacious point and where you reasoning breaks down. You have done nothing like this.

We'll agree to disagree. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Not irrelevant. It is an example of using a priori thinking.

I think I'll stop here. You're not trying to understand, but looking at it strictly from your own pov and then dismissing. We are done. I won't waste your time nor mine.

 

[Shad]

Not irrelevant. It is an example of using a priori thinking.

Which is irrelevant to support that your prior is correct.

I think I'll stop here. You're not trying to understand, but looking at it strictly from your own pov and then dismissing. We are done. I won't waste your time nor mine.

Nor are you trying to understand anything since you quote and make contradictory statements which shows that you do not even read nor understand your own citations. Your sources are unreliable while openly having agenda and bias yet refuse to do any work in academia to support their view points. Yet I am the one wasting your time... Hilarious.

You are dodging my points. Did your wiki run out of canned responses for you to paste here?

 

[McBell]

Ha ha. Atheists will not see the evidence because they do not have faith. Like I said, it's right in front of your nose. It may not be important to you now, but it will be later on.

*yawn*
still shoveling from that same old pile of bull?
You really need a new song and dance.

I mean, you do understand that faith is not reliable evidence, right?

Do you apply the same logic to everything else people have faith in?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Atheists will not see the evidence because they do not have faith.

My man, this is a logical fallacy - and one that I attempted to point out very clearly by using an example that you could relate to.

People are entirely entitled to their own opinion. That's true.
But the quality and value of that opinion hinges on the quality of the data that supports it. If your argument for a created universe relies on logical fallacies and a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific explanations, what does that say about the validity of your argument? I ask that sincerely.

Are Muslim opinions about the nature of god and his prohpets truthful and valid just because billions of people really really believe them?
Are Hindu opinions about the nature of reality and the number of gods in their pantheon true just because billions of people have faith in them?

Think about it from an outside perspective. If a Hindu, Muslim, or ancient Greek were making the same argument that you're making now, using their gods instead of yours, would you take them seriously?

That's not a personal attack - it's a challenge to your conclusions. If I use the exact same arguments that you're making for your god, but did so for another character (Remember Mola Raam...) it wouldn't pass muster. We established that earlier. The only reason that you believe it works for your deity is because you've already convinced yourself that it does - hence the fallacy.

 

[james bond]

*yawn*
still shoveling from that same old pile of bull?
You really need a new song and dance.

I mean, you do understand that faith is not reliable evidence, right?

Do you apply the same logic to everything else people have faith in?

You should take your own advice. Faith in evolution science is not reliable.

It's incredulous that you have not gotten it yet after almost 160 pages. Most of evolution science involves faith. The only part that is science is natural selection, but not evolution by ns.

The religion part of Christianity is faith, but the science part is science. And science backs up the Bible.

What does atheism back up? Communism. The largest group of communists in the world are in China. Which country has the largest group of evolutionists in the world? I'll stop here until you can catch up.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ha ha. Atheists will not see the evidence because they do not have faith. Like I said, it's right in front of your nose. It may not be important to you now, but it will be later on.

If the evidence was apparent then faith would not be necessary.

 

[james bond]

My man, this is a logical fallacy - and one that I attempted to point out very clearly by using an example that you could relate to.

People are entirely entitled to their own opinion. That's true.
But the quality and value of that opinion hinges on the quality of the data that supports it. If your argument for a created universe relies on logical fallacies and a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific explanations, what does that say about the validity of your argument? I ask that sincerely.

Are Muslim opinions about the nature of god and his prohpets truthful and valid just because billions of people really really believe them?
Are Hindu opinions about the nature of reality and the number of gods in their pantheon true just because billions of people have faith in them?

Think about it from an outside perspective. If a Hindu, Muslim, or ancient Greek were making the same argument that you're making now, using their gods instead of yours, would you take them seriously?

That's not a personal attack - it's a challenge to your conclusions. If I use the exact same arguments that you're making for your god, but did so for another character (Remember Mola Raam...) it wouldn't pass muster. We established that earlier. The only reason that you believe it works for your deity is because you've already convinced yourself that it does - hence the fallacy.

You're taking my statement out of context. Atheists will not see God because they do not have faith in God.

From KCA, we know that God is timeless and spaceless. Can you imagine such a being existing?

Here is a video that has God in it. Do you see Him? EDIT: I'm not referring to pareidolia where one sees a face in inanimate objects.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ha ha. Atheists will not see the evidence because they do not have faith. Like I said, it's right in front of your nose. It may not be important to you now, but it will be later on.

It's hard to see something that isn't there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ha ha. Atheists will not see the evidence because they do not have faith. Like I said, it's right in front of your nose. It may not be important to you now, but it will be later on.

This post makes absolutely no sense.

 

[james bond]

If the evidence was apparent then faith would not be necessary.

We're talking about a being who is timeless, spaceless and immaterial which constitutes our afterlife. You'll believe it when the atheist scientists usurp those terms and apply it to dark matter, dark energy and quantum mechanics (invisible particles). The latter involves faith, too.

 

[james bond]

Hurricane Matthew. One of worst (or is it best) pareidolia I've ever seen.

 

[McBell]

You should take your own advice.

I am not the one claiming faith is verifiable evidence, that would be you...

Faith in evolution science is not reliable.

I do not have faith in evolution.

At least, based on commonly accepted definitions of faith.

It's incredulous that you have not gotten it yet after almost 160 pages. Most of evolution science involves faith. The only part that is science is natural selection, but not evolution by ns.

Here you once again reveal your glaring ignorance of what evolution actually is.
Perhaps one day will you have enough faith in your god to learn what evolution actually says and we can move past your bold faced lies.

The religion part of Christianity is faith, but the science part is science. And science backs up the Bible.

Now you reveal you have not grown tired of having your *** handed to you over your "science in the Bible" claims.

How is it you can honestly think that the more you are proven wrong, the more right you are?

What does atheism back up?

Nothing

Communism.

Still grasping onto this bold faced lie?

The largest group of communists in the world are in China.

and?

Which country has the largest group of evolutionists in the world?

I have no idea.

Do you?
And you will need to present your source.

I'll stop here until you can catch up.

Catch up to what?
Your lies?
Hells bells, you seem unable to keep up with them.

 

[McBell]

We're talking about a being who is timeless, spaceless and immaterial which constitutes our afterlife.

Nothing but a pile of bold empty claims.

You'll believe it when the atheist scientists usurp those terms and apply it to dark matter, dark energy and quantum mechanics (invisible particles). The latter involves faith, too.

Except I don't just take the scientists word for it.
Nice try though.

 

[McBell]

Hurricane Matthew. One of worst (or is it best) pareidolia I've ever seen.

You seem to be ignoring the part of the definition that clearly states "where none actually exists"....

 

[Sapiens]

We'll agree to disagree. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but it is not opinion that damns you, it is that you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[james bond]

I am not the one claiming faith is verifiable evidence, that would be you...


I do not have faith in evolution.

At least, based on commonly accepted definitions of faith.



Here you once again reveal your glaring ignorance of what evolution actually is.
Perhaps one day will you have enough faith in your god to learn what evolution actually says and we can move past your bold faced lies.


Now you reveal you have not grown tired of having your *** handed to you over your "science in the Bible" claims.

How is it you can honestly think that the more you are proven wrong, the more right you are?


Nothing


Still grasping onto this bold faced lie?


and?


I have no idea.

Do you?
And you will need to present your source.


Catch up to what?
Your lies?
Hells bells, you seem unable to keep up with them.

First, I have to assume this is the best dialog I can have with you since you are at great disadvantage.

One needs to have faith in order to have a worldview. In order to be an atheist, one has to have faith there is no God. Wrong, but whatever. Atheist scientists believe aliens exist based on faith. They think the vastness of the universe and their powerful, multi-million dollar telescopes and equipment will find them. I already pointed this out with links to news articles and what Carl Sagan did. They also believe mutations are the way of the future and will give us longer life when the opposite seems more likely. The USG supports it because they will have less liability to pay out if people die earlier.

Atheism leads to communism. This is a fact. It also led to mass murder. The biggest mass murderer of them all was Mao Zedong and his Great Leap Forward in 1958. It ended up killing at least 45 million people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

Yet, China did rise and today they are the #2 nation in terms of money and national wealth. If one includes accumulated borrowing and and assets of the federal and state governments, then the US is not #1 anymore and China rises to the top. And what do they think about the ToE? They think it's the greatest truth in the world and will use it to exploit and kill more people in order to remain #1 in my opinion. They will want to lead the world in mutations. Expect to see horrible experiments and food sources being experimented with. The difference between the US and China is we have "In God We Trust" on our money and we are still a nation of believers.

As for the rest, you have no idea as usual so we'll can conclude this dialog ha ha.

 

[McBell]

First, I have to assume this is the best dialog I can have with you since you are at great disadvantage.

Are you capable of a single post without the ego masturbation?

One needs to have faith in order to have a worldview. In order to be an atheist, one has to have faith there is no God. Wrong, but whatever. Atheist scientists believe aliens exist based on faith. They think the vastness of the universe and their powerful, multi-million dollar telescopes and equipment will find them. I already pointed this out with links to news articles and what Carl Sagan did. They also believe mutations are the way of the future and will give us longer life when the opposite seems more likely. The USG supports it because they will have less liability to pay out if people die earlier.

Atheism leads to communism. This is a fact. It also led to mass murder. The biggest mass murderer of them all was Mao Zedong and his Great Leap Forward in 1958. It ended up killing at least 45 million people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

Yet, China did rise and today they are the #2 nation in terms of money and national wealth. If one includes accumulated borrowing and and assets of the federal and state governments, then the US is not #1 anymore and China rises to the top. And what do they think about the ToE? They think it's the greatest truth in the world and will use it to exploit and kill more people in order to remain #1 in my opinion. They will want to lead the world in mutations. Expect to see horrible experiments and food sources being experimented with. The difference between the US and China is we have "In God We Trust" on our money and we are still a nation of believers.

As for the rest, you have no idea as usual so we'll can conclude this dialog ha ha.

and now you are not using the words "faith" and "atheist" in a manner consistent with their common use definitions.

Your "throw a bunch of bull **** against the wall in hopes that something will stick" tactic does not work against those who know you are merely throwing a bunch of bull **** against the wall hoping something will stick.

Now that you have so thoroughly demonstrated that honest discourse with you is impossible...

 

[Sapiens]

You should take your own advice. Faith in evolution science is not reliable.

If faith were a requirement then consideration of your claim might be in order. But since the TOE has withstood century and a half of attempts at falsification, faith is irreverent, as is your claim.

It's incredulous that you have not gotten it yet after almost 160 pages. Most of evolution science involves faith. The only part that is science is natural selection, but not evolution by ns.

That is idiotic: NS is real but the TOE based on NS is not. You claim is self contradictory.

The religion part of Christianity is faith, but the science part is science.

What part of Christianity eschews faith in favor of empiricism?

And science backs up the Bible.

Not as long as it sets Pi equal to 3.0, sets the age of the earth at about 6000 years, claims an exodus of two million that left not evidence, etc., etc.,. etc.

What does atheism back up? Communism.

Then why has atheism grown while communism has shrunk?

The largest group of communists in the world are in China. Which country has the largest group of evolutionists in the world? I'll stop here until you can catch up.

I don't know how many evolutionists there are in China, but I do know that there are not many communists there today.

 

[james bond]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but it is not opinion that damns you, it is that you are not entitled to your own facts.

Interesting choice of words, Sapiens. "It is not opinion that DAMNS you, it is that you are not entitled to your own facts."

You still do not understand facts, Sapiens. If something is a fact or a statement is a fact, then we can all use it. For example, Noah was warned not to eat meat that still had blood in it. At the time, they were not aware of diseases and sickness that could be caused from blood. Today, we still have to be careful in handling raw meat that still has blood in it. We have advanced more, but care still has to be taken. We wear plastic or latex gloves or wash our hands after its handling. We base how raw meat is cooked on the temperature inside and are more careful in how the animal was raised and keep logs from birth, feed and slaughter. Today, we can eat rare meat with the blood taken out. Meat with blood taken out may look blood rare, but it's not blood. One can hunt wild game or fish, but you would have to take heed of the facts about draining the blood and of air and water pollution. The wild game or fish could be unfit for consumption. God said Satan is the prince of the air, i.e. atmosphere, and there are prophecies based on the water turning blood red. Water can turn red from natural and man-made (pollution) causes. The one that turns red from the supernatural will signify the end times. The first two you accept as fact, but the last is the one only believers accept.