Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[shmogie]

So, just to clarify, you believe that organizations should legally be aloud to discriminate on any ground they see fit in regards to membership? Not asking what the Bible claims, but your personal opinion.

Churches have that right, organizations that demonstrably do not provide any form of public service have that right, organizations that do not have any support from taxpayers have that right. Do you propose that the ku klux klan should be forced to have black members or the black panthers be forced to have white members ? Yes, I believe some organizations have that right, and your moral views or mine are not relevant

 

[leibowde84]

Churches have that right, organizations that demonstrably do not provide any form of public service have that right, organizations that do not have any support from taxpayers have that right. Do you propose that the ku klux klan should be forced to have black members or the black panthers be forced to have white members ? Yes, I believe some organizations have that right, and your moral views or mine are not relevant

Should the kkk be forced to accept black members, if they want to apply? Yes.

Should the black panthers be forced to consider white members? Yes.

Honestly and morally speaking, I feel that all organizations should have to consider black and white members equally. It would do a great deal of good for society in general. Do you disagree? If so, why?

And, please keep in mind, I understand the legal situation. I understand what the constitution demands. I am only asking for your position and your reasoning for it. The constitution has been amended about 27 times, so it is absurd to think that anything is set in stone. A lot has changed and we have learned a lot in the past 230+ years, so I ask for your reasoning as to this specific thing (whether an official organization should be able to discriminate based on race when it comes to membership, hypothetically).

 

[McBell]

Interesting in that I know exactly what the words I use mean. You have no evidence to submit ? Didn't think so

Post #906.
Please continue to ignore it whilst whining about no evidence.
Just further demonstrates my point.

 

[rusra02]

So your measure of design is complexity?
So if something is not complex, does that mean it's not designed?

Complexity and evident design. Even a "simple" name carved in a tree proves a carver. I am reminded of what Michael Behe wrote in the NY Times: "The strong appearance of design [in nature] allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it’s a duck.” His opinion? “Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious.”

 

[rusra02]

Isn't a naturally-occurring snowflake, for example, maybe a reason to conclude otherwise?

Not at all. What you call naturally occurring is really something created. How each snowflake is uniquely formed is not fully understood by scientists.

 

[shmogie]

Should the kkk be forced to accept black members, if they want to apply? Yes.

Should the black panthers be forced to consider white members? Yes.

Honestly and morally speaking, I feel that all organizations should have to consider black and white members equally. It would do a great deal of good for society in general. Do you disagree? If so, why?

And, please keep in mind, I understand the legal situation. I understand what the constitution demands. I am only asking for your position and your reasoning for it. The constitution has been amended about 27 times, so it is absurd to think that anything is set in stone. A lot has changed and we have learned a lot in the past 230+ years, so I ask for your reasoning as to this specific thing (whether an official organization should be able to discriminate based on race when it comes to membership, hypothetically).

It becomes a slippery slope. Erosion if a right here, and there could lead to to elimination of rights. Morality isn't the business of the government ( in the context we are speaking of ), morality is for the people.to decide, as they decide. I don;'t care about an all black golf club being forced to accept white members, though I think it is wrong. I do care about the government intruding into every facet of life trying to bend and twist the people to it;s will. This was never intended by the Founders, and the ultimate versions of this are found in hitler and stalin. Once the precedent is set and expanded, the government will come after religious liberty. In the promotion of equality. Christian churches will be forced to accept Buddhists as members, and vice versa. Stores will be forced to sell halal meat. Perhaps Protestant churches will be forced to have a Catholic priest give a homily once a month. The current renegade intrusive government has pushed the envelope as far as it can stretch. I may totally disagree with how someone exercise their rights, but I would defend their right to do just that

Post #906.
Please continue to ignore it whilst whining about no evidence.
Just further demonstrates my point.

Post #906.
Please continue to ignore it whilst whining about no evidence.
Just further demonstrates my point.

Post #906.
Please continue to ignore it whilst whining about no evidence.
Just further demonstrates my point.

 

[shmogie]

Post #906.
Please continue to ignore it whilst whining about no evidence.
Just further demonstrates my point.

Read the post. You think this is evidence of the government negating a Constitutional right ?

 

[Jon916]

I created my ham and cheese omelet this morning. Prior to that, the Ham and Cheese, Bread and mayo, had know inkling that the other existed. I therefore became a god for a few minutes before I ate my creation. There were protesters, some of the iceberg lettuce fell (or jumped) out, but I put it back and ate it anyway. As the great creator, all of the sandwich all now resides within my divine body. Some, or a lot of it will soon be ejected to the sewage system below my house as waste product. I expect none of them wanted to end up there. Those that don't end of there, are burned alive by my metabolism. There is no heaven for any of them.

 

[Thief]

I created my ham and cheese omelet this morning. Prior to that, the Ham and Cheese, Bread and mayo, had know inkling that the other existed. I therefore became a god for a few minutes before I ate my creation. There were protesters, some of the iceberg lettuce fell (or jumped) out, but I put it back and ate it anyway. As the great creator, all of the sandwich all now resides within my divine body. Some, or a lot of it will soon be ejected to the sewage system below my house as waste product. I expect none of them wanted to end up there. Those that don't end of there, are burned alive by my metabolism. There is no heaven for any of them.

one with the creator is heaven......so some people say

 

[SkepticThinker]

Complexity and evident design. Even a "simple" name carved in a tree proves a carver. I am reminded of what Michael Behe wrote in the NY Times: "The strong appearance of design [in nature] allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it’s a duck.” His opinion? “Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious.”

Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted.

What does "evident design" even mean? Is a snowflake "evidently designed?" How about a rock? How about a paperweight? If everything is designed anyway, how are you judging that a name carved in a tree is designed versus say, a grain of sand? Is a grain of sand "evidently designed?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not at all. What you call naturally occurring is really something created. How each snowflake is uniquely formed is not fully understood by scientists.

So is god supposed to be uniquely forming every single one of them?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Nope, can't produce an article. Being that kind of satanist is not inherently illegal. I learned about these groups through an FBI intelligence document that I do not have, as all copies were collected after they were discussed. I have had no personal contact with them. I am aware of a case in the town I used to live in, where a city owned heritage victorian home alledged to be haunted was broken into, by passing the fairly sophisticated alarm system, and there was evidence of a group of people, many used votive candles, various satanic emblems on the walls, and some dead animals. Kids or satanists ? no one ever found out

Thats a neat story. It should be a movie. But a hard cry from evidence assuming that there are tons of people worshiping the Christian Satan. Nothing really saying it wasn't the first kind of satanist either if it was satanists at all. Those could actually have been any number of different occult practices. Satanism isn't the be all end all for the occult. Its a vast and diverse umbrella term that most people aren't familiar with.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Complexity and evident design. Even a "simple" name carved in a tree proves a carver. I am reminded of what Michael Behe wrote in the NY Times: "The strong appearance of design [in nature] allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it’s a duck.” His opinion? “Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious.”

The reason that we know the name carved into a tree is made by someone who carved it is only ever clear because it is against a backdrop that clearly wasn't "carved". No one see's a tree and thinks how great a statue it was. I bet someone came out here and carved this whole forest. I"m so impressed at that individual's talent.

No. We know trees grow and develop from seeds in the ground. We have a very through understanding of how self sufficient they are at continuing their own existence without the need of a backdrop of design.

 

[james bond]

That's outright false. You've not demonstrated anything - just posted a link to a website which doesn't support anything you have claimed about evolution. Posting a link is not a demonstration that you actually understand the theory of evolution, and the fact is that you have repeatedly made claims that betray a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. You have failed to answer my challenges.


Again, no. All you did was post a single video which creatively interpreted the Genesis account and cosmology in order to make them fit, as well as demonstrating little to no understanding of Big Bang theory itself.


I've linked you to several science sites and backed up my claims with actual information.


You asked for evidence of Big Bang theory, and I provided a link. What else do you think that link could have contained?


How on earth are you equating "redshift microwave background radiation" with anything the Bible said? Where, exactly, does the Bible mention cosmic background radiation?


You asked me for evidence that the Big Bang happened, now you're asking me to explain HOW it happened? Try consulting a physicist. As far as I am aware, the precise "how" of the Big Bang is still largely debated.


Except there is no evidence to suggest that the Big Bang was really "the beginning" of anything, as I have repeatedly explained and you have repeatedly ignored. We have no reason to assume that what exists hasn't "always" existed in some form.


And yet Dr. Craig evokes an infinite cause for the Universe - effectively destroying his own argument.


As I have repeatedly explained, nobody claims that the Universe "comes from nothing". In fact, we're not even sure that "nothingness" is even a viable concept, so not only does science not assert anything about it, but it also means that Craig can't make any assessment of it.


We don't know.


The Cosmological argument (in any form) is, at best, an argument from ignorance. It's a poorly executed argument that can't demonstrate a single one of its premises and is built entirely upon a lack of understanding of Big Bang cosmology, quantum physics, and basically all the general concepts it evokes. We have no basis on which to assert any of the premises are true - but even if we grant them for the sake of argument, there is absolutely no possible way of concluding any kind of God's existence. At best, all you have is "something existed that caused the Universe" without any means to identify or characterize any aspect of this thing and whether it fits any meaningful definition of God or not.

You act as if we haven't been presented with this garbage before. Do you honestly think we're that ignorant?

Calling me a liar in your other posts just makes you look bad as it's more ad hominems and it means you lost all of those points. Instead, make an argument to show where my statement is not correct. I'll choose to ignore the rest of your posts.

I'll try to address this post as best as I can.

Last point first. Yes. I'm here to fight ignorance and point out stupidity (since 2012). However, most of the time I can only laugh at stupidity.

As for the redshift, CMB, etc., I already stated that the Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible. How are people from the 1st century suppose to understand if redshift, CMB, and so on if they were mentioned? Instead, it is covered by how they are described in Genesis.

As for providing a link, you have to provide an explanation. I tried to read your links and it does not explain your points.

But my posts do explain. I posted a video and explained BBT and Genesis and Dr. Craig's videos and points he makes. OTOH, not one complainer caught the Anthropic Principle and it's there at the evo website I linked. The AP states that "planets are common, that many of them are found within their stars' habitable zones, and that organic materials are common in the Universe, there ought to be many places that are suitable for life." This is not true. There is no evidence for life elsewhere. The Bible disputes it and the Fine Tuning Theory backs up the Bible. I was going to present this next, but you guys can't get past Genesis lol.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/astrobio_habitat_04

You mentioned singularity, but didn't explain. Here is your chance to explain it and what it is suppose to mean. Again, I read about a page of your link and it did not explain the point you were making.

I didn't ignore, but did address the Steady State Theory and that's what Einstein thought early on with his cosmological model. It's been debunked as pseudoscience. I explained why BBT has been valid so far. You can't deny Lemaitre, Hubble, Nobel Prize winners Mather and Smoot, and even Einstein. It's not I that lie.

Even the evo website has it. Scant mention (probably because it goes against evo thought), but it's there.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/astrobio_habitat_06

As for your arguments against Dr. Craig, they are ridiculous and just full of ignorance and caca. In reality, there is no infinity unless it's mathematics. In all other cases, it's a countable infinite such as the grains of sand on earth.

Beauty and complexity are arguments for intelligent design in nature. We find that nature could just not have produced it by itself and there is no explanations through science or logic. However, we do find mathematics in nature. Yet, mathematics itself was created by humans. One of the mysteries of mathematics.

 

[shmogie]

Thats a neat story. It should be a movie. But a hard cry from evidence assuming that there are tons of people worshiping the Christian Satan. Nothing really saying it wasn't the first kind of satanist either if it was satanists at all. Those could actually have been any number of different occult practices. Satanism isn't the be all end all for the occult. Its a vast and diverse umbrella term that most people aren't familiar with.

I never said "tons of people" If they weren't satanists, they were using satanist symbols

 

[Midnight Rain]

I never said "tons of people" If they weren't satanists, they were using satanist symbols

such as?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Calling me a liar in your other posts just makes you look bad as it's more ad hominems and it means you lost all of those points.

You still don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. It's when you attack the character of the other person instead of attacking their argument. Since I have been attacking your argument this whole time, I am not committing an ad hominem fallacy. Also, calling someone "a liar" based on the fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated that they have lied is also not an attack on character. It is an assessment of their character based on the information available. If you lie, you are a liar. It's a statement of fact.

Instead, make an argument to show where my statement is not correct. I'll choose to ignore the rest of your posts.

Considering that's exactly what I have done, at length, this counts as another lie.

I'll try to address this post as best as I can.

Last point first. Yes. I'm here to fight ignorance and point out stupidity (since 2012). However, most of the time I can only laugh at stupidity.

So you've no interest in correcting your own?

As for the redshift, CMB, etc., I already stated that the Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible. How are people from the 1st century suppose to understand if redshift, CMB, and so on if they were mentioned? Instead, it is covered by how they are described in Genesis.

Where is redshift radiation mentioned or alluded to in Genesis?

As for providing a link, you have to provide an explanation. I tried to read your links and it does not explain your points.

You asked for evidence of the Big Bang, I provided you with a website that lists evidence of the Big Bang. How does that fail to explain my point?

But my posts do explain. I posted a video and explained BBT and Genesis and Dr. Craig's videos and points he makes.

No, you just parroted them.

OTOH, not one complainer caught the Anthropic Principle and it's there at the evo website I linked. The AP states that "planets are common, that many of them are found within their stars' habitable zones, and that organic materials are common in the Universe, there ought to be many places that are suitable for life." This is not true. There is no evidence for life elsewhere. The Bible disputes it and the Fine Tuning Theory backs up the Bible. I was going to present this next, but you guys can't get past Genesis lol.

You do realize that your argument doesn't refute the anthropic principle, right? "Not yet finding something" is not a good defence of the claim "That thing doesn't exist". As for the "Fine Tuning Theory", it's utterly defeated by the anthropic principle. It is, at best, an argument from ignorance.

You mentioned singularity, but didn't explain. Here is your chance to explain it and what it is suppose to mean. Again, I read about a page of your link and it did not explain the point you were making.

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

I didn't ignore, but did address the Steady State Theory and that's what Einstein thought early on with his cosmological model. It's been debunked as pseudoscience. I explained why BBT has been valid so far. You can't deny Lemaitre, Hubble, Nobel Prize winners Mather and Smoot, and even Einstein. It's not I that lie.

Why do you keep bringing up steady state theory? I've never brought it up and it has never been a part of any of my arguments.

Even the evo website has it. Scant mention (probably because it goes against evo thought), but it's there.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/astrobio_habitat_06

What are you even talking about? What is it "barely mentioning"? Big Bang theory? Steady State theory? What "goes against evo thought"? Now YOU'RE the one not explaining anything.

As for your arguments against Dr. Craig, they are ridiculous and just full of ignorance and caca. In reality, there is no infinity unless it's mathematics. In all other cases, it's a countable infinite such as the grains of sand on earth.

Prove it.

Also, it's hilarious that you accuse me of making ad hominems when you honestly think a suitable response to my arguments is that they are "full of ignorance and caca". I suggest you grow up.

Beauty and complexity are arguments for intelligent design in nature.

They are incredibly poor arguments because they rely entirely on subjective qualities that are not inherent or measurable in any way.

We find that nature could just not have produced it by itself and there is no explanations through science or logic.

Please demonstrate that nature cannot be produced "by itself".

As for you ignoring the rest of my posts - how incredibly convenient for you. Your entire argument got absolutely destroyed by facts, and you got exposed as a liar, and you're "choosing to ignore" it. I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

 

[rusra02]

Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted.

What does "evident design" even mean? Is a snowflake "evidently designed?" How about a rock? How about a paperweight? If everything is designed anyway, how are you judging that a name carved in a tree is designed versus say, a grain of sand? Is a grain of sand "evidently designed?"

I do not believe irreducible complexity has been successfully refuted. I do believe all things have been designed or the natural events producing them have been designed to do so.

 

[rusra02]

So is god supposed to be uniquely forming every single one of them?

The true God created the processes by which such things as rain, snow, and hail occur. As Jehovah asked Job; "In which direction does the light reside? And where is the place of darkness, That you should take it to its territory and understand the paths to its home? Do you know this because you were already born and the number of your years is great? Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail." (Job 38:19-22)

 

[rusra02]

The reason that we know the name carved into a tree is made by someone who carved it is only ever clear because it is against a backdrop that clearly wasn't "carved". No one see's a tree and thinks how great a statue it was. I bet someone came out here and carved this whole forest. I"m so impressed at that individual's talent.

No. We know trees grow and develop from seeds in the ground. We have a very through understanding of how self sufficient they are at continuing their own existence without the need of a backdrop of design.

That does not explain how the seed came to be, or the complex processes that cause that seed to sprout and grow into a fruit tree, or perhaps a mighty oak. As the poet said, "Only God can make a [living] tree." Are we to believe what is beyond man's reach and ability to do, mere unintelligent processes did, millions of times over? That is not science, but wild speculation, IMO.