Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[AndromedaRXJ]

Are you saying that there are a few more parts to assembling a living organism than a truck?
Doesn't that depend if it's a Chevy or not?

Well "a few" is an understatement. I'm saying when reassembling life, the precision required is many magnitudes greater than reassembling a car, and the room for error is way smaller. Nevermind Chevys. We could be talking about the Koenigsegg One:1, arguably THEE most highly engineered car in the world. Even the simplest life form is far more complex than the One:1.

There's just far more to take into account, and potentially more things that can be overlooked when reassembling a life form. Compare the common Chevy to the Koenigsegg One:1 for instance. In both cases, if you take them apart and reassemble them, there's a chance that the cars won't start, because you made an error or overlooked something when putting it back together. When it comes to the One:1, the chances are even greater, because this multi-million dollar car is so complex and so highly engineered that there's more that can go wrong. With a life form, the chances are even greater for the same reason.

 

[gnostic]

Almost 1500 posts, and I still haven't seen any posts from creationists that present any evidence that support creationism. Just a lof of evasion and misdirection.

 

[Blastcat]

Well "a few" is an understatement. I'm saying when reassembling life, the precision required is many magnitudes greater than reassembling a car, and the room for error is way smaller. Nevermind Chevys. We could be talking about the Koenigsegg One:1, arguably THEE most highly engineered car in the world. Even the simplest life form is far more complex than the One:1.

There's just far more to take into account, and potentially more things that can be overlooked when reassembling a life form. Compare the common Chevy to the Koenigsegg One:1 for instance. In both cases, if you take them apart and reassemble them, there's a chance that the cars won't start, because you made an error or overlooked something when putting it back together. When it comes to the One:1, the chances are even greater, because this multi-million dollar car is so complex and so highly engineered that there's more that can go wrong. With a life form, the chances are even greater for the same reason.

Yeah I got that... life is fantastically complex.. so complex that it defies scientist's abilities to understand fully, let alone reproduce. So, the creationist response to that ignorance, of course, is to say that God did it as if that somehow resolved the mystery of life. "God did it" is NOT a mechanism, it's a belief.

I'm resorting to jokes because it's getting really hard for me to take any creationist very seriously.
Creationism represents the worst kind of thinking, as far as I'm concerned, and I've notice that it appeals to those who simply do NOT think well about it. So, I don't EXPECT they to think well about it.

I think that the best we can do with these people is to allow them to write whatever nonsense they like, and keep rebutting and rebutting with facts, dry, dry real facts over and over again, in the HOPES that someone teetering on the edge of creationism will be able to judge who are making things up, and who are telling the truth.

Creationism is a pathetic kind of thinking, as our friend who thinks that a truck is the same thing as a living organism. The best response IS serious, of course, but jeez... it makes atheists sound so SERIOUS all the time. We aren't robots or serious all the time.

We are a bit more complex than robots OR trucks.

 

[Thief]

Nope. It's all purely chemistry in the end. It's just extremely complex.

I also reckon if you could, theoretically, reassemble a dog perfectly the way it was, taking every little cell and molecule into account, it would be alive again. The moment you take the dog apart, it dies, and it's cells immediately start breaking down. The point is, it's a daunting task to reassemble a living organism complete with trillions of cells and what-not.

If the dog is put back together perfectly, then it would only be clinically dead. There's no reason it couldn't be brought back with a defibrillator device.

try some time....
you might notice....the technique you argue doesn't always work....even if the human is in one peice

 

[Thief]

Almost 1500 posts, and I still haven't seen any posts from creationists that present any evidence that support creationism. Just a lof of evasion and misdirection.

and you know the drill
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

when it comes to God....all you CAN do is reason

 

[McBell]

and you know the drill
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

when it comes to God....all you CAN do is reason

Nice strawman, substituting god for creation.
Though I suppose it amounts to the same thing.

One wonders if you slipped up or were admitting to it...

 

[Blastcat]

try some time....
you might notice....the technique you argue doesn't always work....even if the human is in one peice

I'm sorry, Thief, you have lost ALL credibility.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

try some time....
you might notice....the technique you argue doesn't always work....even if the human is in one peice

And sometimes you might reassemble a car and it still doesn't work. What's your point?

In both cases, it means something is wrong. Something isn't quite intact. Something is damaged. There's always a reason.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yeah I got that... life is fantastically complex.. so complex that it defies scientist's abilities to understand fully, let alone reproduce. So, the creationist response to that ignorance, of course, is to say that God did it as if that somehow resolved the mystery of life. "God did it" is NOT a mechanism, it's a belief.

I'm resorting to jokes because it's getting really hard for me to take any creationist very seriously.
Creationism represents the worst kind of thinking, as far as I'm concerned, and I've notice that it appeals to those who simply do NOT think well about it. So, I don't EXPECT they to think well about it.

I think that the best we can do with these people is to allow them to write whatever nonsense they like, and keep rebutting and rebutting with facts, dry, dry real facts over and over again, in the HOPES that someone teetering on the edge of creationism will be able to judge who are making things up, and who are telling the truth.

Creationism is a pathetic kind of thinking, as our friend who thinks that a truck is the same thing as a living organism. The best response IS serious, of course, but jeez... it makes atheists sound so SERIOUS all the time. We aren't robots or serious all the time.

We are a bit more complex than robots OR trucks.

A lot of it is due to emotional-based beliefs. People invoke a supernatural cause for life because they want to believe that. They don't want to disbelieve it. It's the very definition of irrational.

 

[Thief]

And sometimes you might reassemble a car and it still doesn't work. What's your point?

In both cases, it means something is wrong. Something isn't quite intact. Something is damaged. There's always a reason.

when the life leaves the chemistry.....there's nothing wrong

that's how it works.....

 

[Thief]

I'm sorry, Thief, you have lost ALL credibility.

so you can do the Frankenstein routine.....for real....?

 

[Thief]

Nice strawman, substituting god for creation.
Though I suppose it amounts to the same thing.

One wonders if you slipped up or were admitting to it...

no slip....Spirit first
God AS creator

 

[gnostic]

and you know the drill
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

...AND NO GOD!

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I have already heard you the first time, and your point is a very weak argument and unsubstantiated belief/opinion that only the insanes would accept.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

when the life leaves the chemistry.....there's nothing wrong

that's how it works.....

You took me saying "something's wrong" out of context, probably deliberately. What I meant was, if a car fails to start, it means there's something mechanically faulty. If an organism is failed to be resuscitated, it means there's something physiologically faulty.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No.

Just a refresher on what the word god means.

God: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

So you would rather ignore me then admit a mistake?

 

[Blastcat]

so you can do the Frankenstein routine.....for real....?

Even IF I were doing the "Frankenstein routine" whatever you imagine THAT to be, you would have got NO CLOSER to make your own case credible. Your snipping is nonsensical.

And you have NOT even tried to answer my honest question about anthropomorphism, although, I suspect, you probably think that you did.

You defend your beliefs behind what you might think are deep SOUNDING pronouncements, but which offer nothing in the way of content. And for the record, I don't think that FANTASY FICTION is real. Not Frankenstein, not Bible.

And certainly not creationism.

Offering more bad poetic pronouncements is digging yourself deeper.
I have no interest in your closed mindedness.

There is NO real possibility of a mature discussion with a person like that.

 

[Thief]

Even IF I were doing the "Frankenstein routine" whatever you imagine THAT to be, you would have got NO CLOSER to make your own case credible. Your snipping is nonsensical.

And you have NOT even tried to answer my honest question about anthropomorphism, although, I suspect, you probably think that you did.

You defend your beliefs behind what you might think are deep SOUNDING pronouncements, but which offer nothing in the way of content. And for the record, I don't think that FANTASY FICTION is real. Not Frankenstein, not Bible.

And certainly not creationism.

Offering more bad poetic pronouncements is digging yourself deeper.
I have no interest in your closed mindedness.

There is NO real possibility of a mature discussion with a person like that.

and you are a better example?
try sticking to the terms offered.....and rebuttal

you know the difference between the living and the dead?

 

[Thief]

You took me saying "something's wrong" out of context, probably deliberately. What I meant was, if a car fails to start, it means there's something mechanically faulty. If an organism is failed to be resuscitated, it means there's something physiologically faulty.

another lack of terms.....
I can rebuild the car.....it will start
I cannot dissect my dog and expect the animal to come back to life

life is more than chemistry

 

[Blastcat]

and you are a better example?
try sticking to the terms offered.....and rebuttal

you know the difference between the living and the dead?

NONSENSE.

Even IF I didn't know anything AT ALL it would STILL not make your case for you. You have everything to prove, and nothing TO GAIN by putting people down. As I said, you have lost all credibility.

You might regain it by answering my honest question and stop AVOIDING by asking irrelevant ones, instead.

Even IF I didn't know the difference between the living and the dead, which would make me an IDIOT, it still would NOT even come close to making your case. Digging yourself in deeper isn't a sign of honesty.

I don't need to have silly discussions with people like that.

 

[Blastcat]

another lack of terms.....
I can rebuild the car.....it will start
I cannot dissect my dog and expect the animal to come back to life

life is more than chemistry

Maybe this will come as a shock to you, but your CAR isn't ALIVE so your analogy FAILS MISERABLY.
You have lost all credibility.