# Was stumped by a Creationist



## RandomPoster

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

  He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

  My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


----------



## BlackFlag

Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.


----------



## DOTR

One of those arguments better left alone. Whats the point?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RandomPoster said:


> he responded that Evolution is not either.


Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.


----------



## cnm

RandomPoster said:


> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to.
> [...]
> Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


If evolution is not falsifiable, how are the criticisms hard to respond to?


----------



## RandomPoster

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?

I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support it and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?

This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RandomPoster said:


> The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is


But that is not actually happening with scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Maybe that is what you were saying, put another way.


----------



## RandomPoster

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not actually happening with scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Maybe that is what you were saying, put another way.
Click to expand...


  I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.  Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?  Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?

  Do you agree that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism and do you believe that is relevant to the debate?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RandomPoster said:


> I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.


Right, because believing it is "faith".  One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.



RandomPoster said:


> Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?



It isn't...?


RandomPoster said:


> Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?


It isn't....?


----------



## harmonica

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation


----------



## RandomPoster

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because believing it is "faith".  One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't...?
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't....?
Click to expand...


  Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.


----------



## jwoodie

Believing one has all the answers is indicative of profound ignorance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RandomPoster said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because believing it is "faith".  One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't...?
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.
Click to expand...

Well I think you had better find some better books, then. You could start with the confirmation of gravity waves. Then, move on the the cosmic background radiation.

Then, to go right to the successful predictions and evidence  of evolution, you could read about human chromosome 2. Then relate this knowledge to your creationist friend.

If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.

And, remember a general principle:

The arguments against evolution have, themselves, not evolved at all. The creationist deniers are all armed with the same, single shot muskets that they were popping off in 1870. Meanwhile, the science and mountains of evidence supporting evolution have grown and evolved to the point that evolution is as well known a fact as is any fact. So you can pretty easily find the information to debunk any evolution denier canard. Debunking these weak canards is what scientists have been busy doing for 150 years, after all. While the creationists, on the other hand, produce no science, no new arguments, and rely wholly on the ignorance and misunderstanding of 150 years of science to keep their archaic canards on life support.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because believing it is "faith".  One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't...?
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I think you had better find some better books, then. You could start with the confirmation of gravity waves. Then, move on the the cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Then, to go right to the successful predictions and evidence  of evolution, you could read about human chromosome 2. Then relate this knowledge to your creationist friend.
> 
> If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.
> 
> And, remember a general principle:
> 
> The arguments against evolution have, themselves, not evolved at all. The creationist deniers are all armed with the same, single shot muskets that they were popping off in 1870. Meanwhile, the science and mountains of evidence supporting evolution have grown and evolved to the point that evolution is as well known a fact as is any fact. So you can pretty easily find the information to debunk any evolution denier canard. Debunking these weak canards is what scientists have been busy doing for 150 years, after all. While the creationists, on the other hand, produce no science, no new arguments, and rely wholly on the ignorance and misunderstanding of 150 years of science to keep their archaic canards on life support.
Click to expand...

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.


----------



## Blackrook

What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.


of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blackrook said:


> What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.


Very true. Creation and evolution can easily co-exist. Simply point at nature and say, "god did that!".  Problem solved.

*Note the god-believer is the one who must adhere his stance to the established fact of evolution , and not the other way around


----------



## Blackrook

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. Creation and evolution can easily co-exist. Simply point at nature and say, "god did that!".  Problem solved.
> 
> *Note the god-believer is the one who must adhere his stance to the established fact of evolution , and not the other way around
Click to expand...

Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation.  There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.


----------



## fncceo

harmonica said:


> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation



Actually, a theoretical transporter doesn't create matter from nothing, it disassembles matter on one end, quantifies it and identifies its structure to the sub-atomic level, then recreates the same form of matter at another location using locally available matter.

The original matter is, for lack of a better term, killed and replaced by new matter with the identical structure.

One of the key actions in evolution is death.  Death is the catalyst for natural selection.


----------



## fncceo

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.



Here's the thing.... yes, there is plenty of proof that evolution happens.  We can see it happening and it best explains how life on this planet went from where it was to how it is now.

But, if you don't understand the mechanism or how it works, believing in it is no different that believing in a superstition.  Even if it's true.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you can or can't argue Evolution vs Creation.  Let people keep those beliefs that work best for them and you can keep yours.

Nothing would be gained or lost by convincing a person to change his beliefs for yours.


----------



## harmonica

fncceo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a theoretical transporter doesn't create matter from nothing, it disassembles matter on one end, quantifies it and identifies its structure to the sub-atomic level, then recreates the same form of matter at another location using locally available matter.
> 
> The original matter is, for lack of a better term, killed and replaced by new matter with the identical structure.
> 
> One of the key actions in evolution is death.  Death is the catalyst for natural selection.
Click to expand...

I knew that


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. Creation and evolution can easily co-exist. Simply point at nature and say, "god did that!".  Problem solved.
> 
> *Note the god-believer is the one who must adhere his stance to the established fact of evolution , and not the other way around
Click to expand...


Or, your definition of G-d can evolve as well.

Perhaps G-d is an entity capable of transversing a multiverse and creating a singularity.  Perhaps it wasn't clay he used to form the creatures, but the sub-atomic structure of this universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blackrook said:


> Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation. There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.


Precisely!


----------



## DOTR

RandomPoster said:


> The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?
> 
> I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support it and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?
> 
> This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.



  Evolution is not on the defensive. Some evolutionists are because their entire life is directed at debunking creationism.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.


We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.

In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:

Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.  That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:

If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution?  Be specific, "professor".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.
> 
> In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:
> 
> Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.  That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:
> 
> If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution?  Be specific, "professor".
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species. But unless you can name a mammal species that is proven to have evolved into two or distinctly different species I say it is NOT in fact proven and you have to admit it. The horse among others proves evolution exists inside a species.


----------



## RandomPoster

RetiredGySgt said:


> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.



  I believe that if you remove the restriction of scope that it has to be a mammal, as opposed to any species of living being, it would be a fair request given that an agreement could be made regarding the line of distinct speciation.  I would suggest a lack of interfertility.  It would have to be a lack of genetic interfertility, as opposed to physical limitations such a Shetland pony not being able to be bred by a Clysedale.  Even at that, the lack of an example would not completely falsify the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## Wuwei

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.
> 
> In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:
> 
> Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.  That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:
> 
> If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution?  Be specific, "professor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species. But unless you can name a mammal species that is proven to have evolved into two or distinctly different species I say it is NOT in fact proven and you have to admit it. The horse among others proves evolution exists inside a species.
Click to expand...


This is one evolutionary tree for mammals.  




There are many splits that diverge. The divergence happens very slowly. The actual divergent point is probably very fuzzy. But no doubt the original animal at the divergent point is long gone.


----------



## pinqy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.


Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?

Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

pinqy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?
> 
> Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?
Click to expand...

Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can. Do you have verifiable proof that single mammal EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species? cause I can tell you NO ONE in science can provide that evidence.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Wuwei said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.
> 
> In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:
> 
> Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.  That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:
> 
> If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution?  Be specific, "professor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species. But unless you can name a mammal species that is proven to have evolved into two or distinctly different species I say it is NOT in fact proven and you have to admit it. The horse among others proves evolution exists inside a species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one evolutionary tree for mammals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many splits that diverge. The divergence happens very slowly. The actual divergent point is probably very fuzzy. But no doubt the original animal at the divergent point is long gone.
Click to expand...

Yet not a single proven instance that any of those mammals came from another distinctly different mammal Your chart is conspicuously missing any names for  any of the supposed parent species.th


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species


Then you do not believe in evolution, sorry. And this comment by you shows a total ignorance of what evolutionary theory is.

And you dodged my question... let's say no definitive proof exists of one mammal evolving into two species. How would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? If you can't answer this question, then you don't have any argument. I mean, we know your argument will be silly and wrong, but good grief...can you even state it?

So...?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species
> 
> 
> 
> Then you do not believe in evolution, sorry. And this comment by you shows a total ignorance of what evolutionary theory is.
> 
> And you dodged my question... let's say no definitive proof exists of one mammal evolving into two species. How would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? If you can't answer this question, then you don't have any argument. I mean, we know your argument will be silly and wrong, but good grief...can you even state it?
> 
> So...?
Click to expand...

For the slow and stupid. You have no actual evidence that proves a single mammal species ever evolved into two distinctly different species, if you did you would trot it out.

Just because evolution occurs with IN a species is NOT evidence it occurs to create different species from a single source.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have no actual evidence that proves a single mammal species ever evolved into two distinctly different species


Neato!  Let's assume this is true.

So, again: How would the truth of this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory?  Boy, you sure are having a hard time with this simple question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no actual evidence that proves a single mammal species ever evolved into two distinctly different species
> 
> 
> 
> Neato!  Let's assume this is true.
> 
> So, again: How would the truth of this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory?  Boy, you sure are having a hard time with this simple question.
Click to expand...

I believe in evolution dumb ass. Just not one mammal species evolving into two or more distinctly different species, since you nor any scientist can actually provide any real evidence it ever happened YOU are the one that must explain why you have faith in a fairy Tale?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> I believe in evolution dumb ass.


No, you don't. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the diversity of species. You don't believe animals speciate. Therefore, no , you do not believe in evolution .


One more time:

Let's assume we have no definitive proof that any mammal has ever evolved into two, distinct species. (Your only contribution to the discussion)

How would this contradict or undermine evolutionary theory?


----------



## pinqy

RetiredGySgt said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?
> 
> Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise, what I’m trying to figure out is what your claim is. Is it your claim that speciation occurs in all other classes, phylya, and kingdoms, just not mammals? 

It seems odd to accept speciation in plants and insects but claim that it is not possible with mammals. What distinction are you claiming?


----------



## Wuwei

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet not a single proven instance that any of those mammals came from another distinctly different mammal Your chart is conspicuously missing any names for any of the supposed parent species.th


There are numbers for the parent species, probably referring to some accompanying text. The proof is probably in the DNA segment matching. Look, I really don't care what you believe, and I am not going to try to talk you out of anything.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

pinqy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?
> 
> Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said otherwise, what I’m trying to figure out is what your claim is. Is it your claim that speciation occurs in all other classes, phylya, and kingdoms, just not mammals?
> 
> It seems odd to accept speciation in plants and insects but claim that it is not possible with mammals. What distinction are you claiming?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain how we have actual proof that it happens in plants and insects BUT none in mammals?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the diversity of species. You don't believe animals speciate. Therefore, no , you do not believe in evolution .
> 
> 
> One more time:
> 
> Let's assume we have no definitive proof that any mammal has ever evolved into two, distinct species. (Your only contribution to the discussion)
> 
> How would this contradict or undermine evolutionary theory?
Click to expand...

Again RETARD you can not provide a single verifiable example of a single Mammal evolving into 2 or more distinctly different species. Without that proof there is no evidence to support the claim that mammals have done so.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


You’re easily stumped.

You’re also not required to respond to a ‘creationist’ and his errant beliefs, subjective perceptions, and anecdotal accounts because they’re devoid of fact and logic – as is ‘creationism’; such an ‘argument’ fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, consequently you’ve won the argument.

And evolution is a fact – replete with objective, documented evidence in support of the fact of evolution.

You might want to familiarize yourself with these facts should you enter into another such exchange.


----------



## cnm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.


I'm not sure they need to be debunked...

_And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.
https://scienceblogs.com/_​


----------



## Olde Europe

RandomPoster said:


> His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.



That's patently nonsense.  Scientists have never stopped to care for "verifiable evidence".

Scientific theories are evaluated based on their explanatory value, that is, the extent to which they explain the available evidence, AND, that there is no contrary evidence, that is, evidence that cannot be explained, or plainly contradicts the theory.

The main building blocks of the theory of evolution - mutation and natural selection - hold up, and are being confirmed by modern gene sequencing.  For the main building block of creationism, god's hand, there is no evidence, and it's explanatory value is therefore zero.


----------



## pinqy

RetiredGySgt said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?
> 
> Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said otherwise, what I’m trying to figure out is what your claim is. Is it your claim that speciation occurs in all other classes, phylya, and kingdoms, just not mammals?
> 
> It seems odd to accept speciation in plants and insects but claim that it is not possible with mammals. What distinction are you claiming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you can explain how we have actual proof that it happens in plants and insects BUT none in mammals?
Click to expand...

Assuming by “actual proof” you mean direct observation durin one human’s lifetime. The answer to that is: Time and the number of generations available to work with. 

If you accept recorded history, archeology, and DNA evidence, we can show speciation definitively in the case of the aurochs as ancestor to European cattle and the Indian zebu. The zebu is a distinct species from taurine cattle, but we can show common descent, since wild aurochs lived survived in Poland into the 17th century.


Your turn. Why do you think speciation happens in plants, bacteria, insects, but not mammals? And what about reptiles amphibians, birds, crustaceans, etc?


----------



## danielpalos

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


All myths are based on Creationism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Without that proof there is no evidence to support the claim that mammals have done so.


Of course there is evidence. 

But again....assuming as true we have no proof of this.... How would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? That IS the point you are trying to make, right?

So, make it .


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.
Click to expand...


Name one that did, then.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one that did, then.
Click to expand...

That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one that did, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.
Click to expand...


Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one that did, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.
Click to expand...

That's not why your question makes little sense. You aren't equipped to have a discussion about this topic.

Chimps and bonobos are two different species. We know they split a couple of million years ago. But you are about to give us your alternative explanation for this.

And....go!


----------



## rightwinger

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


Ask him to recreate his theory


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him to recreate his theory
Click to expand...

First you recreate an actual mammal becoming 2 distinctly different mammals.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.
> 
> 
> 
> of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one that did, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not why your question makes little sense. You aren't equipped to have a discussion about this topic.
> 
> Chimps and bonobos are two different species. We know they split a couple of million years ago. But you are about to give us your alternative explanation for this.
> 
> And....go!
Click to expand...

Really and where is your proof?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one that did, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That question doesn't make sense. And I'm sure you have no idea why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide a recorded instance of it happening. You can't, because it never has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not why your question makes little sense. You aren't equipped to have a discussion about this topic.
> 
> Chimps and bonobos are two different species. We know they split a couple of million years ago. But you are about to give us your alternative explanation for this.
> 
> And....go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really and where is your proof?
Click to expand...

Stop repeating yourself. It's time for you to make your point.

If it is assumed as true that there is no proof of one mammal species evolving into two distinct mammal species....how would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory?

Man, you sure are having a hard time with this. Odd, since it seems to be the only point you are able to reference. Yet you can't even state it? How embarrassing.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him to recreate his theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you recreate an actual mammal becoming 2 distinctly different mammals.
Click to expand...

I have plenty of evidence of evolution in biology, DNA, Geology, fossils

You have no evidence of creation


----------



## Olde Europe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If it is assumed as true that there is no proof of one mammal species evolving into two distinct mammal species....how would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory?



Obviously, this would undermine the theory of evolution at least as it pertains to mammals, as seemingly mutations in mammals would not occur (the precondition for different species to emerge), and thus the diversity of mammal species would be rendered beyond explanation.

That, however, is bullshit from beginning to end, as the diversity of mammal life proves that mammals do evolve, from the first occurrence of a mammal species to the diversity we see today.  Our own species, which has a common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees, should be proof enough, but...

As far as my reading goes, creationist crap peddlers seem as block-headed as climate science deniers - maybe they are not really distinct species after all...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Olde Europe said:


> Obviously, this would undermine the theory of evolution at least as it pertains to mammals, as seemingly mutations in mammals would not occur (the precondition for different species to emerge), and thus the diversity of mammal species would be rendered beyond explanation.


But mutations do occur. We know that for a fact. He is saying there is no definitive proof that any mammal has ever speciated. We have never seen this happen (for reasons which are obvious to you and me, but apparently not so obvious for our friend, here).

But it seems he is arguing that this undermines evolution. I still don't see how. And he sure isn't going to try to tell us how. Just ask these deniers for any kind of detailed explanation or argument, and they run for the hills. Well, the ones possessing at least an ounce of honesty or shame run for the hills. Then you have posters like JBond, who are plenty shameless enough to just repeat the same debunked lies over and over and over.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

And yet NOT A SINGLE proven case NONE NADA ZIP. We have examples of in species evolution why none for other species? By the way you retards even if you prove it it does not mean God did not just use that method as his method. Science says that something happened but in this case can not verify it can not prove it can not duplicate it all required of GASP science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NOT A SINGLE proven case NONE NADA ZIP.


...of speciation of mammals. Got it. You said it ten times.

Now: how does not having a "proven" case of this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? You sure are having a hard time stating the only argument you are bringing to the topic.


----------



## ThisIsMe

harmonica said:


> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation


Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe. 

What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.


----------



## ThisIsMe

One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place. 

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking. 

We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.


----------



## Olde Europe

ThisIsMe said:


> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.
> 
> What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.



Of course, there is evidence of the Big Bang.  Why don't you do a bit of research, for instance on cosmic background radiation?



ThisIsMe said:


> One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.
> 
> If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.
> 
> We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.



Maybe mutations are random, but natural selection most assuredly is not.  And that is why evolution also is not random.  Why don't you do a bit of research?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Olde Europe said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.
> 
> What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there is evidence of the Big Bang.  Why don't you do a bit of research, for instance on cosmic background radiation?
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.
> 
> If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.
> 
> We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe mutations are random, but natural selection most assuredly is not.  And that is why evolution also is not random.  Why don't you do a bit of research?
Click to expand...

Just because there is movement around earth of cosmic dust does not prove it is doing so anywhere else.


----------



## Death Angel

ThisIsMe said:


> One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.
> 
> If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some.* Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking*.
> 
> We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.


many animals are capable of speech and even understand the words. I know this for a fact. How do you know no other animal is "self-aware?" I believe most mammals are. This does not mean humans are not unique, I believe they are, but the differences are more subtle. They are also more capable of good and evil beyond the understanding of any other animal. This quality separates us from all the rest of God's creatures, for better or worse.


----------



## harmonica

ThisIsMe said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.
> 
> What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.
Click to expand...

1. yes there is proof of the Big Bang


> Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today.


The Big Bang | Science Mission Directorate
2. Creationists claim god created the universe/etc...?
there is definitely, undeniably no proof of god--no science/math/etc involved

....creation deals with religion beliefs/faiths/etc where as evolution does not deal with religion
..religion is just a story/fairy tales/fake
_noun_

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More

a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: *religions*
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.


That is so hilariously stupid and false.

Goddamn, you fools should not ever open your mouth about any scientific topic. Ever.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals?


Why would "random evolution" produce the exact same thing, down to every detail, in two different species? You're incoherent.


----------



## sealybobo

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


Everything you believe has survived the scientific process. Creation science doesn’t. There is mountains of evidence, all good, that proves evolution occurs. There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor. All these scientific theories have survived the scientific method. 

When his stuff is peer reviewed by the scientific community and survives as a viable option, let us know. You are no expert and you can’t take on a slick creationalist the same way you can’t wake every Mormon up. The two are no different. You can’t convince a Mormon they’re nuts can you? You just know what they believe is fringe thinking. Look at the muslims. Can you convince all the Muslims in the Middle East what they believe is foolish? Can your creationist friend? No. But science calls bullshit on all of their crazy unbelievable stories.

So this Karl Popper bullshit is just an example of how conservatives have been able to convince their supports that it’s the scientists who are lying. They are not.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> he responded that Evolution is not either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Death Angel

sealybobo said:


> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.


And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.


----------



## sealybobo

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.
Click to expand...

Ok then it’s a scientific theory. It’s a possibility that survives the scientific process and is now one theory or possibility.

Creationist, mormon, Old Testament, muslims stories are not theories. Only hypothesis and lies from ancient goat herders.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> he responded that Evolution is not either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Because evolution relies on ancestral lines (Species didn't poof into existence, they evolved from other species).  Finding a species in the cambrian that, by all the evidence and theory, evolved from animals which lived after the cambrian would seriously undermine evolution, if not outright refute it.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> he responded that Evolution is not either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because evolution relies on ancestral lines. And finding a species in the cambrian that, by the evidence and theory, evolved from animals which lived after the cambrian would seriously undermine evolution, if not outright refute it.
Click to expand...

No because a rabbit species could have stayed a rabbit species. 

Wolves are still wolves even though we have beagles


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> No because a rabbit species could have stayed a rabbit species.


Not in the Cambrian, there were no mammals in the Cambrian period. And we know rabbits share a common ancestor with all rodents, and we know about how long ago that ancestor lived.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo

Speaking of wolves:

We know right about when and where they appeared. And we know right about when and where their apparent ancestors appeared and disappeared. Same for those creatures' apparent ancestors. These ancestors were not wolves. So the wolf's appearance in the record and its physiology can be traced backwards 10s of millions of years, across the globe.


Now, to find examples of wolf bones in the  Cambrian in sub saharan Africa would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory.


----------



## Darkwind

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


A shame you lack the skills to think this through yourself.

I wonder if you realize that an argument for creation is also an argument for evolution?

Something tells Me that you don't get it.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo
> 
> Speaking of wolves:
> 
> We know right about when and where they appeared. And we know right about when and where their apparent ancestors appeared and disappeared. Same for those creatures' apparent ancestors. These ancestors were not wolves. So the wolf's appearance in the record and its physiology can be traced backwards 10s of millions of years, across the globe.
> 
> 
> Now, to find examples of wolf bones in the  Cambrian in sub saharan Africa would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory.



Ok. Did they find any?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo
> 
> Speaking of wolves:
> 
> We know right about when and where they appeared. And we know right about when and where their apparent ancestors appeared and disappeared. Same for those creatures' apparent ancestors. These ancestors were not wolves. So the wolf's appearance in the record and its physiology can be traced backwards 10s of millions of years, across the globe.
> 
> 
> Now, to find examples of wolf bones in the  Cambrian in sub saharan Africa would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Did they find any?
Click to expand...

Ha, no, of course not. But the point is that evolution theory is, indeed, falsifiable.


----------



## RandomPoster

ThisIsMe said:


> One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.
> 
> If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.
> 
> We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.



  Wolves communicate verbally and so do whales and dolphins.  That's simply off the top of my head.  It is my understanding that their verbal communications do constitute a language of sorts as there are different messages conveyed by different sounds.


----------



## pinqy

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.
Click to expand...

No one claims one life form changes directly to another. But it has been directly observed that species, and the genetic pool of species do change over time. And that over time species change to the point that the nth generation would not be considered the same species. And there is a mountain of evidence that current species did not exist in the past but similar species did, and it can be shown what changes occurred.


----------



## Votto

Evolution does not address our origins in relation to science, abiogenesis does.

There is nothing to abiogenesis other than saying what chemical were needed for life and they all somehow came together.

Evolution, on the other hand, is simply evidence on how life forms change over time, but it does NOT address how non-life becomes life.


----------



## abu afak

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


This is really unbelievable BS.
You should stop believing in evolution if you don't have the brains/simple logic to defend it.
Forget Popper's ABSTRACTION.

*So despite a huge amount of circumstantial Evidence against the defendant (the best kind): he bought the gun/murder weapon, he was there, he hated the victim, etc....
We can say the JUDGE DID IT because it's not falsifiable he didn't... as he had no alibi for that hour.
RIGHT?
**** *** you moron.*

And of course Evo is falsifiable.
If any fossil of millions had been found in the wrong strata.. POOF!
If we/humans, ANY life on earth, had completely different innards (or systems other than DNA) that would defeat it.
If humans were closer genetically to dandelions than they are to Chimps... that would do it. Poof
But just about EVERYTHING is consistent with EVO.
EVERY relevant new science since Darwin, and there's been an explosion of them, is either consistent with or helps affirm Evo: isotopic dating, DNA, etc.
Evolution is the very basis of modern biology.

Oh, and Popper RECANTED:
Popper on evolution | ScienceBlogs

`


----------



## Votto

abu afak said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> This is really unbelievable BS.
> You should stop believing in evolution if you don't have the brains/simple logic to defend it.
> Forget Popper's ABSTRACTION.
> 
> So despite a huge amount of circumstantial Evidence (the best kind): the gun, he was there, he hated the victim,....
> We can say the JUDGE DID IT because it's not falsifiable he didn't... as he had no alibi for that hour.
> RIGHT?
> **** *** you moron.
> 
> And of course Evo is falsifiable.
> If any fossil of millions had been found in the wrong strata.. POOF!
> If we/humans, ANY life on earth, had completely different innards (or systems other than DNA) that would defeat it.
> If humans were closer genetically to dandelions than they are to Chimps... that would do it. Poof
> But just about EVERYTHING is consistent with EVO.
> EVERY new sciences since Darwin, and there's been an explosion of them, is either consistent with or helps affirm Evo: isotopic dating, DNA,etc.
> Evolution is the very basis of modern biology.
> 
> Oh, and Popper RECANTED:
> Popper on evolution | ScienceBlogs
> `
Click to expand...

Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.
Click to expand...

What do you mean one life form changes into another?  You mean like this?

Butterfly Monarch GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they


Made up nonsense. Nothing has ever been shown to be wrong with the fundamental theory, and it has been confirmed as fact as much as we know any fact.


----------



## sealybobo

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.
Click to expand...


*All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobaldcalculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.


The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.

The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.*

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That's how likely your hypothesis is.

Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.

The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.


----------



## abu afak

Votto said:


> Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.


No
That's not an answer to what I specifically said.
What if humans "that god specially created in his image", had different life chemistry? No DNA, but "QVC," or solid state?
Evo predicts that similarity inside and out and traces it.
DNA confirms Darwin's theory.
If human bones were found inside a Dino (or strata contemporary with them).. there is NO explanation.

*But I already explained that in my last
You're TOO STUPID to post.
bye*
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

pinqy said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one claims one life form changes directly to another. But it has been directly observed that species, and the genetic pool of species do change over time. And that over time species change to the point that the nth generation would not be considered the same species. And there is a mountain of evidence that current species did not exist in the past but similar species did, and it can be shown what changes occurred.
Click to expand...

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.


Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".


----------



## pinqy

RetiredGySgt said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one claims one life form changes directly to another. But it has been directly observed that species, and the genetic pool of species do change over time. And that over time species change to the point that the nth generation would not be considered the same species. And there is a mountain of evidence that current species did not exist in the past but similar species did, and it can be shown what changes occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. And more than two.

If you can accept that one species can change over time, why can’t you accept that different, geographically isolated groups of a species can  experience different changes so that the different groups eventually are so different as to constitute different species?


----------



## sealybobo

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.
Click to expand...


All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins' DNA sequences differ slightly among the three domains.  A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are.  That's because, if the original protein set was the same for all creatures, a relatively small number of mutations would have been needed to arrive at the modern proteins. If life arose from multiple species each with a different set of proteins many more mutations would have been required.  "What I wanted to do was not make the assumption that similar traits imply a shared ancestry  because we know that's not always true.  For instance, you could get similarities that are not due to common ancestry but that are due to natural selection.  That is, when environmental forces, such as predators or climate, result in certain mutations taking hold, such as claws or thicker fur.

Biologists call the independent development of similar traits in different lineages "convergent evolution." The wings of bats, birds, and insects are prime examples: They perform similar functions but evolved independently of one another.  Bottom line is it’s highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences if we didn’t have a common ancestor. 

Penny had been part of a similar, but more narrowly focused, study in the 1980s. His team had looked at shared proteins in mammals and concluded that different mammalian species are likely descended from a common ancestor.  Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do.  Evolution should not be given any special status.


----------



## Votto

abu afak said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No
> That's not an answer to what I specifically said.
> What if humans "that god specially created in his image", had different life chemistry? No DNA, but "QVC," or solid state?
> Evo predicts that similarity inside and out and traces it.
> DNA confirms Darwin's theory.
> If human bones were found inside a Dino (or strata contemporary with them).. there is NO explanation.
> 
> *But I already explained that in my last
> You're TOO STUPID to post.
> bye*
> `
Click to expand...


First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.  They may be one in the same.

Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would  just move onto another evolutionary theory dimwit.


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No
> That's not an answer to what I specifically said.
> What if humans "that god specially created in his image", had different life chemistry? No DNA, but "QVC," or solid state?
> Evo predicts that similarity inside and out and traces it.
> DNA confirms Darwin's theory.
> If human bones were found inside a Dino (or strata contemporary with them).. there is NO explanation.
> 
> *But I already explained that in my last
> You're TOO STUPID to post.
> bye*
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.  They may be one in the same.
> 
> Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would  just move onto another evolutionary theory dimwit.
Click to expand...

Explain to us how you can think the scientific theory of evolution has anything to do with the creation story?

Is that why religions were so threatened by the theory of evolution?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may be one in the same.


Exactly! That's the advantage of magical nonsense...you can slop it on like a (useless) veneer on any empirical knowledge. "God did that!"....okay, neato.


Votto said:


> Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would just move onto another evolutionary theory


Which would never happen, as they are both dna-based animals. This fact alone shows us common ancestry, quite definitively.

And the fundamental idea of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of species would still apply quite well either way.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may be one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! That's the advantage of magical nonsense...you can slop it on like a (useless) veneer on any empirical knowledge. "God did that!"....okay, neato.
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would just move onto another evolutionary theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which would never happen, as they are both dna-based animals. This fact alone shows us common ancestry, quite definitively.
Click to expand...


Right, Darwin done it.

Thanks for that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Right, Darwin done it.


Except nobody thinks Darwin magically directed evolution, or even invented it. So, other than being a completely bunk comparison....good comparison!


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, Darwin done it.
> 
> 
> 
> Except nobody thinks Darwin magically directed evolution, or even invented it. So, other than being a completely bunk comparison....good comparison!
Click to expand...


The miracle of matter and life.

Where did they originate?

Science has only theories, they cannot create or destroy matter, nor can they create life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Where did they originate?


Matter and life? Well,it appears matter coalesced from the dense, high energy state that existed prior to the big bang and immediately after it. It appear life as we know it originated via selection from chemicals found in abundance all over the universe.

Science has "only theories"? As compared to....you? What do you have? As compared to....mystic shamans? Iron age religious texts? What?

Feel free to test these "only theories" yourself. Jump off of your roof 1000 times, and record how many times you fall up instead of down. That can be your test of gravitational theory.

You can test the germ theory of medicine by injecting yourself with the blood of an Ebola victim. You can test the theory of electromagnetism by bathing with a plugged in toaster.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did they originate?
> 
> 
> 
> Matter and life? Well,it appears matter coalesced from the dense, high energy state that existed prior to the big bang and immediately after it. It appear life as we know it originated via selection from chemicals found in abundance all over the universe.
> 
> Science has "only theories"? As compared to....you? What do you have? As compared to....mystic shamans? Iron age religious texts? What?
Click to expand...


This is a tautology.  You have no proof that matter is eternal.  In fact, we can look as far back as the Big Bang.

Now before 1960, scientists did  think matter was eternal.  In fact, a priest came up with the theory of the Big Bang before science proved him correct.

As for life, if science knows how it came to be without intelligent design, why is it that with intelligent design they cannot replicate it?

Again, this is a tautology, not science.  Science is about observation and experimentation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> You have no proof that matter is eternal.


I didn't state or imply that it is, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make, here.


Votto said:


> As for life, if science knows how it came to be without intelligent design, why is it that with intelligent design they cannot replicate it?


Because we are still limited in our abilities to manipulate molecules. Replicate it...how? It might help if you were bit more specific.

We also cannot replicate star birth, or the iron core of a planet. That doesn't mean we don't have a fair understanding of both. We have never even seen an electron, yet we know they exist. So your complaint here is an absurd standard you have reserved specifically for a scientific theory you dislike.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto

Furthermore, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life on Earth, then there was. What connects these two states of affairs is a physical processes governed by the deterministic physical laws. Else...magic.

But why introduce magical nonsense? Where once there was no star, then there was...we don't throw our hands up and say, "magic, I guess we are done here!" We assume a physical process governed by physical laws produced a star where once there was no star. Again, eschewing this obvious conclusion when it comes only to abiogenesis is an absurd idea that religious people reserve for scientific theories they dislike, with the distaste for them originating in religious superstition and fetishes.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no proof that matter is eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't state or imply that it is, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make, here.
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for life, if science knows how it came to be without intelligent design, why is it that with intelligent design they cannot replicate it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are still limited on our abilities to manipulate molecules. Replicate it...how? It might help if you were bit more specific.
> 
> We also cannot replicate star birth, or the iron core of a planet. That doesn't mean we don't have a fair understanding of both. So your complaint here is an absurd standard you have reserved specifically for a scientific theory you dislike.
Click to expand...


It was not long ago that scientists believed in spontaneous generation.

You are seriously comparing the formation of a star to that of creating a living cell?

Really?


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto
> 
> Furthermore, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life on Earth, then there was. What connects these two states of affairs is a physical processes governed by the deterministic physical laws. Else...magic.
> 
> But why introduce magical nonsense? Where once there was no star, then there was...we don't throw our hands up and say, "magic, I guess we are done here!" We assume a physical process governed by physical laws produced a star where once there was no star. Again, eschewing this obvious conclusion when it comes only to abiogenesis is an absurd idea that religious people reserve for scientific theories they dislike, with the distaste for them originating in religious superstition and fetishes.



Why is it that life appeared immediately on earth after the earth came to be?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> It was not long ago that scientists believed in spontaneous generation


So what? All you are doing is making a case for the strength of scientific theories , when you keep reiterating this dumb talking point. You are making my point and undermining your own.

Yes, I am comparing star birth the formation of cells, in that both are physical processes governed by the same, deterministic physical laws. That's not a mind blowing thing to scientists or philosophers. If it blows your mind, that's a "you" problem.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not long ago that scientists believed in spontaneous generation
> 
> 
> 
> So what? All you are doing is making a case for the strength of scientific theories , when you keep reiterating this dumb talking point. You are making my point and undermining your own.
> 
> Yes, I am comparing star birth the formation of cells, in that both are physical processes governed by the same, deterministic physical laws. That's not a mind blowing thing to scientists or philosophers. If it blows your mind, that's a "you" problem.
Click to expand...


Scientists have tried to replicate life as a living cell, but not attempted creating a star.

There is a reason for that.  One seems reasonable, the other does not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".
Click to expand...

You know I mean mammals retard. And unless you can trot out an actual proof a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different mammals you got nothing.


----------



## Votto

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know I mean mammals retard. And unless you can trot out an actual proof a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different mammals you got nothing.
Click to expand...


It definitely is a problem.

I'd say evolutionists would feel better if they could actually use the scientific method to prove it, which is to observe or duplicate it, but they can't.

No, all they have are educated beliefs.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Votto said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know I mean mammals retard. And unless you can trot out an actual proof a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different mammals you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It definitely is a problem.
> 
> I'd say evolutionists would feel better if they could actually use the scientific method to prove it, which is to observe or duplicate it, but they can't.
> 
> No, all they have are educated beliefs.
Click to expand...

They have assumptions guesses and fabricated information.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Scientists have tried to replicate life as a living cell,


So what? Scientists have also recreated fusion, which is star birth. Again, you say they failed to create an entire cell, therefore...abiogenesis is bunk? That's a ridiculous argument and a silly standard you have, once again, reserved only for a scientific theory you dislike. And your dislike for it has nothing whatsoever to do with the extant, empirical support for it, and everything to do with religious superstition. And,until you admit this, you simply are not capable of having an honest discussion about this topic.

And scientists find it quite reasonable that life as we know it formed via abiogenesis. You speak only for yourself. It is no surprise that you are not equipped to decide what is reasonable and what is not regarding this topic, as you clearly know less than nothing about it. Your opinions of what is reasonable are simply not worth much.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> I'd say evolutionists would feel better if they could actually use the scientific method to prove it,


See, this is what I mean. Evolution has been proven many times over, and it is an accepted fact. You freely and quite accidentally switch between the topics of evolution and abiogenesis, with this confusion and inconsistency due to your starting point: religious superstition.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

fncceo said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a theoretical transporter doesn't create matter from nothing, it disassembles matter on one end, quantifies it and identifies its structure to the sub-atomic level, then recreates the same form of matter at another location using locally available matter.
> 
> The original matter is, for lack of a better term, killed and replaced by new matter with the identical structure.
> 
> One of the key actions in evolution is death.  Death is the catalyst for natural selection.
Click to expand...

*Hindu Dinduism*

In order to justify the belief that the born-rich deserve to be looked up to, it is necessary to assume a pre-life in which all souls were tested.  Those that passed God's muster were then put into the fetuses inside the trophy wives of the plutocrats.  The failures at pre-life were put into working-class wives.  The only dogma that could justify our present domination by birth privileges is that some of us were Born to Rule, like the Bushes, Kennedys, and Kochs, and all the rest of us are Born Losers.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

ThisIsMe said:


> One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.
> 
> If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop vocal chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.
> 
> We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.


*Preppies' Pets, Pawns, Puppets, and Pit Bulls*

Certain unproductive and brutal races would fit the definition of "talking animals."  They must be tamed and forced to make themselves useful in service to the intelligent races.  But it is the interest of our decadent hereditary ruling class to humiliate all other White people with this unscientific dogma of racial equality. 

Darwinism led people into believing in the historically greatest destroyer of evolutionary progress:  survival of the "fatherest," since successful and dominant mutations were believed to be passed on to the sons for the advancement of the species as a whole. If that theory of Birth-Class Supremacy were the least bit true, the sons would come out on top all on their own and wouldn't need any of Daddy's money, power, or influence.

 For us to survive, it is necessary to cast out caste.  Either the fatcats cut off their fatkittens at age 18 or we cut them down.  They get in our way, so we must run them over.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

harmonica said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.
> 
> What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. yes there is proof of the Big Bang
> 
> 
> 
> Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang | Science Mission Directorate
> 2. Creationists claim god created the universe/etc...?
> there is definitely, undeniably no proof of god--no science/math/etc involved
> 
> ....creation deals with religion beliefs/faiths/etc where as evolution does not deal with religion
> ..religion is just a story/fairy tales/fake
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Click to expand...

*Quantum Quacks and Their Postmodern Superstitions*

A singularity is an impossible concentration of matter/energy. A rational explanation would be that the material for matter, energy, light and even space itself entered from another universe in an eruption, a reverse Black Hole, from which the material in our universe goes back there.

  The childish name, "Big Bang" indicates the kind of immature and escapist misfits we are brainwashed into calling "scientific geniuses."  An independent mind would refer to them as creepy authoritarian irrationalists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Sage of Main Street said:


> An independent mind would refer to them as creepy authoritarian irrationalists.


Independent from any actual knowledge of their work, also. Don't forget that part....


----------



## fncceo

Science isn't authority ... science is a method for sifting through data and from it, acquiring knowledge.

Science is there, you can choose to learn what it has to offer or you can ignore it.  It doesn't change the science and the science doesn't care.

The problem comes from people who say, "You must accept my science or else".  While still others say, "I don't accept your science and refuse to allow you to either".  They seek to use science to grant them authority over others.

Let's stop trying to convince each other what is true or false and just let folks get on with their lives.


----------



## abu afak

Votto said:


> First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.  They may be one in the same.
> 
> Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would  just move onto another evolutionary theory dimwit.


Creationism and Evolution in the context of those we ARE debating with here, ARE Mutually exclusive for *BOTH the OP/TOPIC HERE and other clowns in the thread. *Goofy Sgt-whatever.

Your (LOL) "secondly" ('separate evolutions') has ALREADY been refuted by Evolution. The one and only we know that can account for all flora/fauna we DO know. Sure, separate 'origins' for each creature is .. creationism.

Third: *Evolution is an Evidentiary Based 'belief,' acknowledgement, and FACT, while creationism is supernatural and baseLess horseshit.* Not even rising to a hypothesis, much less a Scientific Theory. (not to be confused with the common use of 'theory').

This one thinks he can play semantics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> The problem comes from people who say, "You must accept my science or else".


"My" science...?

What is this nonsense? 

You must accept evolution as an established fact, or else you're wrong. Or, you could prove it wrong, as all people are invited to do with all established scientific theories.

Gee, I hope the poor victims of this oppression can somehow dig out from under it!


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You must accept evolution as an established fact, or else you're wrong.



Things evolve, absolutely.  The actual details of how it led to life on this planet is a little less well known but natural selection is the best answer we have.  

My argument is, why does it matter if someone is right or wrong?  We argue these things with a vehemence that is usually reserved for sports teams.  However, unlike sports teams, the argument has no bearing on our lives in the slightest way.

The specifics of how life arose on Earth will always be speculative so why not allow everyone to speculate in their way?

Speculation has given us so much that enriches our lives (Thanks, Marvel!).  I'd hate to see imagination beating into submission by a prosaic adherence to facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> My argument is, why does it matter if someone is right or wrong?


When having a discussion specifically about that topic? I mean, I can see your point of someone was accosting strangers unsolicited, or going door to door.


fncceo said:


> The specifics of how life arose on Earth will always be speculative so why not allow everyone to speculate in their way?


How am I 'disallowing' this? I'm not trying to pass any laws against it. If talking about how wrong they are bothers them, then it would be more correct to suggest to them that they don't put their ideas on the table to be scrutinized. It's not appropriate to tell others not to scrutinize them, when they are hung out in public.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo

So, get this. My daughter's 6th grade science teacher showed her class a film detailing why and how the Moon landings were faked. She was then asked to complete a worksheet detailing what she took away from the videos. Naturally, she tried to please the teacher, and said, "the facts show the Moon landings were fake." Her answer was not marked incorrect.

So, being who I am, I first showed her some material describing how we know the moon Moon landings were real and debunking the denier nonsense. I then called up this teacher after school and asked him exactly what the hell he thought he was doing, lying to children. He claimed to be teaching them critical thought (while, of course, refusing to admit that the moon landings were real). I explained to him that such a lesson would require showing cases for both, opposing stances. Then showing them why the stance that the moon landings were real was the correct stance, and how to arrive at this conclusion by applying critical thought to the presented material. Being a believer of idiotic nonsense, he, of course, was not having this. I then spoke with his bosses and explained that they could take care of this right now or hear all about it on the news.

Should I have just let this man , a teacher, lie to children and possibly do permanent damage to their critical thinking skills? Should I have just said, "oh well, not my problem"?

No. It is a fact that we landed on the moon. He is lying to the children, and he needed to be called on it. I hope he either stops immediately or loses his job.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo
> 
> So, get this. My daughter's 6th grade science teacher showed her class a film detailing why and how the Moon landings were faked. She was then asked to complete a worksheet detailing what she took away from the videos. Naturally, she tried to please the teacher, and said, "the facts show the Moon landings were fake." Her answer was not marked incorrect.
> 
> So, being who I am, I first showed her some material describing how we know the moon Moon landings were real and debunking the denier nonsense. I then called up this teacher after school and asked him exactly what the hell he thought he was doing, lying to children. He claimed to be teaching them critical thought (while, of course, refusing to admit that the moon landings were real). I explained to him that such a lesson would require showing cases for both, opposing stances. Then showing them why the stance that the moon landings were real was the correct stance, and how to arrive at this conclusion by applying critical thought to the presented material. Being a believer of idiotic nonsense, he, of course, was not having this. I then spoke with his bosses and explained that they could take care of this right now or hear all about it on the news.
> 
> Should I have just let this man , a teacher, lie to children and possibly do permanent damage to their critical thinking skills? Should I have just said, "oh well, not my problem"?
> 
> No. It is a fact that we landed on the moon. He is lying to the children, and he needed to be called on it. I hope he either stops immediately or loses his job.



Arguing vehemently with strangers over matters of belief is a bit silly.  But, you're discussing your own child in what sounds like a very valid argument for home schooling. I'd be curious to know if his 'lessons' in critical thinking to pre-teens is part of the regular syllabus or his own concoction.

On the other hand, we all lie to children.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> in what sounds like a very valid argument for home schooling.


On the contrary, it's a valid argument for being involved in your child's  public education. 

It was his own concoction.

All lies are not equal.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> he responded that Evolution is not either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.
Click to expand...

I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo
> 
> So, get this. My daughter's 6th grade science teacher showed her class a film detailing why and how the Moon landings were faked. She was then asked to complete a worksheet detailing what she took away from the videos. Naturally, she tried to please the teacher, and said, "the facts show the Moon landings were fake." Her answer was not marked incorrect.
> 
> So, being who I am, I first showed her some material describing how we know the moon Moon landings were real and debunking the denier nonsense. I then called up this teacher after school and asked him exactly what the hell he thought he was doing, lying to children. He claimed to be teaching them critical thought (while, of course, refusing to admit that the moon landings were real). I explained to him that such a lesson would require showing cases for both, opposing stances. Then showing them why the stance that the moon landings were real was the correct stance, and how to arrive at this conclusion by applying critical thought to the presented material. Being a believer of idiotic nonsense, he, of course, was not having this. I then spoke with his bosses and explained that they could take care of this right now or hear all about it on the news.
> 
> Should I have just let this man , a teacher, lie to children and possibly do permanent damage to their critical thinking skills? Should I have just said, "oh well, not my problem"?
> 
> No. It is a fact that we landed on the moon. He is lying to the children, and he needed to be called on it. I hope he either stops immediately or loses his job.


Perhaps teachers are teaching secular/pagan nonsense because they cannot even show the following:


----------



## LittleNipper

harmonica said:


> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation


There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> *There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. *To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).


Oh Look!~
Another 12 IQ Moron telling us we can't prove there's No god/a Negative.
No kidding!
Hey Dipshit..
YOU can't "prove" I'M not god.
Ho hum.
`


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Look!~
> Another 12 IQ Moron telling us we can't prove there's No god/a Negative.
> No kidding!
> Hey Dipshit..
> YOU can't "prove" I'M not god.
> Ho hum.
> `
Click to expand...

I can imagine you are like this guy once was:


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).
Click to expand...

Scientists don't need to prove that the creation myth never happened, just as they don't need to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.


----------



## cnm

ThisIsMe said:


> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.


Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.


----------



## cnm

Death Angel said:


> And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.


For gods' sakes.


----------



## cnm

RetiredGySgt said:


> BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.


Even if that were the case, what has it to do with anything? Why won't you answer?


----------



## cnm

Votto said:


> Why is it that life appeared immediately on earth after the earth came to be?


Because it didn't.


----------



## WheelieAddict

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


Moses rode a dinosaur they just left it out of the bible because they didn't want to portray him as some ruffian.


----------



## harmonica

LittleNipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a _Star Trek _energizer......!!!!!
> ...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).
Click to expand...

christians have to believe that
there is no other way


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have tried to replicate life as a living cell,
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Scientists have also recreated fusion, which is star birth. Again, you say they failed to create an entire cell, therefore...abiogenesis is bunk? That's a ridiculous argument and a silly standard you have, once again, reserved only for a scientific theory you dislike. And your dislike for it has nothing whatsoever to do with the extant, empirical support for it, and everything to do with religious superstition. And,until you admit this, you simply are not capable of having an honest discussion about this topic.
> 
> And scientists find it quite reasonable that life as we know it formed via abiogenesis. You speak only for yourself. It is no surprise that you are not equipped to decide what is reasonable and what is not regarding this topic, as you clearly know less than nothing about it. Your opinions of what is reasonable are simply not worth much.
Click to expand...


You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?


----------



## Olde Europe

Votto said:


> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?



Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?


----------



## LittleNipper

Olde Europe said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
Click to expand...

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
Click to expand...

The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> he responded that Evolution is not either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:
Click to expand...

I'm not going to watch that, sorry. But feel free to make a point or two in your own words.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.


This statement is nonsensical. 

Let's review your silly argument:

Because scientists have not yet created a cell from a chemical soup, therefore magical gods created life.

How absurd. I don't see any need to respond to this nonsense any further. It is so patently goofy that it defeats itself.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> he responded that Evolution is not either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:
Click to expand...

*The Neanderthals Didn't Die Out; They Were Killed Off*

The story of Noah is also about extermination.  To emphasize only one half of the narrative is typical of the narrowing, simplifying, and jumping to quick conclusions in the designed mental processes we are tricked into following by the rulers' educational regime.  So it could be only about extermination, with the Flood being just a metaphor for a bloodbath.


----------



## abu afak

pinqy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> *BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.*


*Evidence of common descent*
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links
`


----------



## ThisIsMe

cnm said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
Click to expand...

Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?


----------



## cnm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to watch that, sorry.  [...]
Click to expand...

Did anyone watch it?


----------



## cnm

ThisIsMe said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
Click to expand...

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?


Charlatan alert!

The charlatan's trick, in this case, is "bait and switch". First you said  "proof or evidence". Then, you changed lanes to "proof", hoping nobody would notice.

Always be on the lookout for dishonest charlatans, people.


----------



## ThisIsMe

cnm said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?
Click to expand...

Right, so there is evidence, but no proof, which means it takes a bit of faith to believe in it, correct?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Right, so there is evidence, but no proof, which means it takes a bit of faith to believe in it, correct


See, you are confusing yourself. Unlike faith, scientists will make an evidence based determinations and deem something likely true, then study it further. This is not faith. And trusting the well supported scientific theories is also not faith...it is trust, based on evidence. I have mountains of evidence and reason to trust electromagnetic theory, to the point of being willing to bet my life on it (like, when swimming in a pool.with an electric light). These things are the utter opposite of faith.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
> 
> 
> 
> Charlatan alert!
> 
> The charlatan's trick, in this case, is "bait and switch". First you said  "proof or evidence". Then, you changed lanes to "proof", hoping nobody would notice.
> 
> Always be on the lookout for dishonest charlatans, people.
Click to expand...

Nope, it requires proof. Evidence doesn't cut it because at the end of the day, every bit of "evidence" is simply speculation. Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact. 

They cant say its fact because they simply dont know. Hence why it takes just as much faith to believe that something sprang from nothing as it does to believe in God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Nope, it requires proof.


Which, in science, means "the preponderance of the evidence". "Proof" only happens in mathematics . You seem to have a lot to learn about science.



ThisIsMe said:


> Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.


Well, in case you haven't noticed, they do say it is a fact. When scientists speak of the 'big bang', they are speaking of the rapid inflationary period. And yes, this event is considered a fact, as well established as any scientific determination can be established.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so there is evidence, but no proof, which means it takes a bit of faith to believe in it, correct
> 
> 
> 
> See, you are confusing yourself. Unlike faith, scientists will make an evidence based determinations and deem something likely true, then study it further. This is not faith. And trusting the well supported scientific theories is also not faith...it is trust, based on evidence. I have mountains of evidence and reason to trust electromagnetic theory, to the point of being willing to bet my life on it (like, when swimming in a pool.with an electric light). These things are the utter opposite of faith.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's all the same. Yes, there are things in existence now that can be tested and proven, but the big bang is something they will never be able to prove. For every evidence you give for the big bang, there is likely a creationist view that supports the same thing. No, I'm not a biblical scholar so I don't know, but there are plenty of YouTube videos on the topic. 

The big bang supporters want you to believe that before the universe, there was nothing. No existence of time, space, matter, nothing. Then, from that, the universe exploded into existence, from non existence. 

You cant have absolute nothingness, and then have matter and energy. 

I dont care if you believe in God or not, but, both viewpoints take a good amount of faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Actually, it's all the same.


Hilariously stupid nonsense. Believing something without evidence and believing something because the evidence forces you to believe it are not and will never be the same. You only say something so stupid because your heart's desire is to place your magical nonsense on the same shelf as empirical knowledge. You can give that up right now.



ThisIsMe said:


> The big bang supporters want you to believe that before the universe, there was nothing.


This is false. Among scientists that consider the big bang a fact(which is pretty much all of them), there are myriad ideas and explanations for what may have come before. But it has indeed been shown to be completely possible that the big bang precursor sprung spontaneously from a region of empty space.  You are free to challenge this notion. No, simply shitting on it on an internet message board is not an actual challenge to it.


----------



## Olde Europe

ThisIsMe said:


> Nope, it requires proof. Evidence doesn't cut it because at the end of the day, every bit of "evidence" is simply speculation. Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.
> 
> They cant say its fact because they simply dont know. Hence why it takes just as much faith to believe that something sprang from nothing as it does to believe in God.



You know, everything you say demonstrates you have no clue how science really works, and you haven't even tried to learn about it.  Instead you blab embarrassing nonsense about "belief", and you are even failing the for-free education Fort Fun Indiana provides.

Belief has nothing to do with that.  Whatever is not yet explained about the Big Bang (the origin of the universe) isn't settled by "belief".  Rather, it's the physicists' next research program, as their understanding progresses toward the first trillionth of a second of the universe.  "Belief" would mean they settle for some assumptions, and that's it, no evidence, no further research required.  That is exactly the opposite of how science works.

Why, really, why don't you take a bit of time and read up on the matter?  Start here, for instance.  Read it twice, if necessary, and cease embarrassing yourself already.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's all the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilariously stupid nonsense. Believing something without evidence and believing something because the evidence forces you to believe it are not and will never be the same. You only say something so stupid because your heart's desire is to place your magical nonsense on the same shelf as empirical knowledge. You can give that up right now.
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang supporters want you to believe that before the universe, there was nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is false. Among scientists that consider the big bang a fact(which is pretty much all of them), there are myriad ideas and explanations for what may have come before. But it has indeed been shown to be completely possible that the big bang precursor sprung spontaneously from a region of empty space.  You are free to challenge this notion. No, simply shitting on it on an internet message board is not an actual challenge to it.
Click to expand...

Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom. How do we get to the universe we have today, all the planets, stars, gasses, etc. from something that small. Physics would suggest that that isn't possible.

Not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that there are a lot of unanswered questions and it takes a great amount of faith to believe either viewpoint. 

We have an ever expanding universe from something that was a small as an atom. Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?

Also, science suggests there was some form of energy or something that triggered the big bang. I was always under the impression the big bang was the beginning of everything. Where did that energy come from?  Did it just always exist? 

You said that science believes that the big bang occurred in some region of space. If space existed for a big bang to occur, then that means space and the universe existed before the big bang? Again, I always thought theory was the universe and space was created by the big bang.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Olde Europe said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it requires proof. Evidence doesn't cut it because at the end of the day, every bit of "evidence" is simply speculation. Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.
> 
> They cant say its fact because they simply dont know. Hence why it takes just as much faith to believe that something sprang from nothing as it does to believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, everything you say demonstrates you have no clue how science really works, and you haven't even tried to learn about it.  Instead you blab embarrassing nonsense about "belief", and you are even failing the for-free education Fort Fun Indiana provides.
> 
> Belief has nothing to do with that.  Whatever is not yet explained about the Big Bang (the origin of the universe) isn't settled by "belief".  Rather, it's the physicists' next research program, as their understanding progresses toward the first trillionth of a second of the universe.  "Belief" would mean they settle for some assumptions, and that's it, no evidence, no further research required.  That is exactly the opposite of how science works.
> 
> Why, really, why don't you take a bit of time and read up on the matter?  Start here, for instance.  Read it twice, if necessary, and cease embarrassing yourself already.
Click to expand...

I'm not embarrassed in the least. If I'm proven wrong, then so be it. Science can come up with all sorts of evidence as to the origins of the universe, but as fortfun said, science doesn't do proof. They want you to take all the evidence they gather and tell you that "this is the way it happened...we dont know for sure, we have no proof, but our calculations say this is where it all started..."

That's fine, what I'm trying to get across is that, at the end of the day, when you try to explain that before the universe, there was nothing, and then suddenly BOOM! the universe sprang into existence, it requires a leap of faith. 

For the big bang to have happened, there had to be something in existence. Some form of energy, matter, a black hole...something. Science cannot explain where that "something" came from. They just want us to take it on FAITH that it was always there. The same sort of faith required to believe that God always existed, correct?


----------



## Olde Europe

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm not embarrassed in the least.



I take your word for it.  Since you haven't read the link, and show no inclination other than to repeat the same nonsense you've already proposed earlier, here's where the conversation ends.  Fiercely determined ignorance is not conducive to debate.


----------



## Corodon

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


Is this a fancy way of demanding critics prove a negative? 

You can dress it up with multi-syllabic words and dependent clauses, but you can't prove a negative. Thus our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence: the _commission_ of a crime must be proved. At least that was the case before the Kavanaugh hearings....


----------



## Corodon

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it requires proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, in science, means "the preponderance of the evidence". "Proof" only happens in mathematics . You seem to have a lot to learn about science.
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, in case you haven't noticed, they do say it is a fact. When scientists speak of the 'big bang', they are speaking of the rapid inflationary period. And yes, this event is considered a fact, as well established as any scientific determination can be established.
Click to expand...

It's still the "theory" of evolution, or whatever, and it's still _modified_ as evidence supports or contradicts empirical evidence. 

Not as many things become "laws," like the Law of Gravity. So far as I know, the Big Bang is still the Big Bang Theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom


No he didn't. A aingliarity has no size, and Hawking knew this. And Hawking only said that the unqualified extrapolation backward based on our physical laws would lead to a singularity, but he always cast doubt on the idea of the existence of singularities. As our knowledge about quantum states imrpoves, scientists are finding solutions to this and to black holes that do not require singularities. 


ThisIsMe said:


> Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?


It has always been there. But, it's not matter that is making the universe expand. It is dark energy.


ThisIsMe said:


> Where did that energy come from? Did it just always exist?


Well that is a complicated question indeed with several relevant ideas. For one, the net energy of our universe may simply be zero. In this case, literally no existing energy field was required for our universe to spontaneously begin.

Another idea is that it "came out the other side" from a collapse of a region of space


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Corodon said:


> It's still the "theory" of evolution, or whatever, and it's still _modified_ as evidence supports or contradicts empirical evidence.


No, it's a scientific theory, and it is also a fact. No, the fundamental idea that evolution explains the diversity of species has not been ,in itself, modified. 

When you say "only a theory" you reveal a fundamental ignorance of how science works and the idea of what a scientific theory is. The theory of evolution will not ever become a law. Neither will the theory of gravity.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't. A aingliarity has no size, and Hawking knew this. And Hawking only said that the unqualified extrapolation backward based on our physical laws would lead to a singularity, but he always cast doubt on the idea of the existence of singularities. As our knowledge about quantum states imrpoves, scientists are finding solutions to this and to black holes that do not require singularities.
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been there. But, it's not matter that is making the universe expand. It is dark energy.
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did that energy come from? Did it just always exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that is a complicated question indeed with several relevant ideas. For one, the net energy of our universe may simply be zero. In this case, literally no existing energy field was required for our universe to spontaneously begin.
> 
> Another idea is that it "came out the other side" from a collapse of a region of space
Click to expand...




> As you move backward in time, then, the universe contracts. Rewind far enough (about 13.8 billion years), and the entire universe shrinks to the size of a single atom, Hawking said.



Stephen Hawking Says He Knows What Happened Before the Big Bang

So, he did say that, but what's got me more puzzled is, still, the idea that all of this sprang from nothing, or at least, if there was something, where did it come from. 

Again, I'm not arguing against you. You may very well be right. What I'm saying is that, again, both theories have to have an amount of faith to believe. 

I'm sure my mind is too small to think of it, but, the scientist tells me that before the universe there wa nothing, then there was something. Religion tells me that God created all of this. You have science, they have letters and manuscripts written by people closer to the Biblical times. 

About 68% of the world believes in a religion, and a lot of these religions date back thousands of years. Is almost 3/4 of the world wrong?

Also, now they are writing articles saying it's possible the big bang never happened, that now it's a bounce theory or something like that.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't. A aingliarity has no size, and Hawking knew this. And Hawking only said that the unqualified extrapolation backward based on our physical laws would lead to a singularity, but he always cast doubt on the idea of the existence of singularities. As our knowledge about quantum states imrpoves, scientists are finding solutions to this and to black holes that do not require singularities.
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been there. But, it's not matter that is making the universe expand. It is dark energy.
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did that energy come from? Did it just always exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that is a complicated question indeed with several relevant ideas. For one, the net energy of our universe may simply be zero. In this case, literally no existing energy field was required for our universe to spontaneously begin.
> 
> Another idea is that it "came out the other side" from a collapse of a region of space
Click to expand...

Also, for it to have come out from the other side from a collapsed region of space, this has to mean that the universe existed prior to the big bang, no?  Again, my simple understanding that the big bang was the beginning of everything. Nothing existed before that.


----------



## Olde Europe

ThisIsMe said:


> What I'm saying is that, again, both theories have to have an amount of faith to believe.



Oh, for pity's sake.

God created it.  That's an article of faith, and religionists of all colors and throughout the times nod in unison.  It cannot be verified, it cannot be falsified, and in a debate, based on reason, it is of no value whatsoever.

Now, pay attention, and try to understand.  A scientific theory is something different entirely: Scientists ascribe value to a theory insofar as it explains the available evidence, and isn't contradicted by either evidence or other theories deemed valid.  It is not "believed"; it's deemed useful to understand the universe, the variety of species, (etc.) and how they came about.  They are to be dropped (contrary to what religionists do) as soon as contrary evidence is found that fundamentally undermines it, or it is adapted to get better at explaining evidence that doesn't fit in.

The next time you bring up that claptrap about scientific theories are "believed", I will assume that you are but a lying troll.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hawking did not call the singularity the size of an atom. The author made that error and leap. Hawking was correctly saying that we would get to a state of our universe being the size of an atom, should we travel backward in time. But Hawking knew well that a true singularity with infinite denisty must also be infinitely small, which, obviously, an atom is not.



ThisIsMe said:


> About 68% of the world believes in a religion, and a lot of these religions date back thousands of years. Is almost 3/4 of the world wrong?


Well, unless they all believe in the same religion...then some of them must be wrong, right? And they are probably all wrong.  Was 100% of the world wrong, when they thought demons caused disease? Yes.



ThisIsMe said:


> Also, now they are writing articles saying it's possible the big bang never happened, that now it's a bounce theory or something like that.


Those are interesting theories. But those authors slightly.misrepresent what is meant by 'big bang' in scientific circles. It refers to the period of rapid expansion, which actually still exists on those "bouncing" models.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Also, for it to have come out from the other side from a collapsed region of space, this has to mean that the universe existed prior to the big bang, no?


Well, here you have to delinieate the difference between "our local universe = subverse", which is all we can ever observe, and "all that there is = universe".  But yes, that would mean our local universe is not all there is or ever was.


----------



## K9Buck

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.



Everything in this universe was created.  The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in this universe was created.  The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?
Click to expand...

And then, if it's a higher intelligence:

What created the higher intelligence?

What created that which created the higher intelligence?

And so on...


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in this universe was created.  The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then, if it's a higher intelligence:
> 
> What created the higher intelligence?
> 
> What created that which created the higher intelligence?
> 
> And so on...
Click to expand...


Logic dictates that something had to be first, something that didn't need something else to cause it to exist.  Existence is God.


----------



## Mousterian

K9Buck said:


> Everything in this universe was created.


Well, not exactly.
The universe was 'created', and everything else just followed from that.
But to imagine that the universe was created by a nasty old dude with long white hair is to anthropomorphise the event in a truly laughable way.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Logic dictates that something had to be first,


No, logic is only a method or a tool. What you mean to say is that a specific argument which you find compelling  dictates it. Therefore, it is your subjective choice to accept the conclusion of thaat argument; it's not an objective fact.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Olde Europe said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that, again, both theories have to have an amount of faith to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for pity's sake.
> 
> God created it.  That's an article of faith, and religionists of all colors and throughout the times nod in unison.  It cannot be verified, it cannot be falsified, and in a debate, based on reason, it is of no value whatsoever.
> 
> Now, pay attention, and try to understand.  A scientific theory is something different entirely: Scientists ascribe value to a theory insofar as it explains the available evidence, and isn't contradicted by either evidence or other theories deemed valid.  It is not "believed"; it's deemed useful to understand the universe, the variety of species, (etc.) and how they came about.  They are to be dropped (contrary to what religionists do) as soon as contrary evidence is found that fundamentally undermines it, or it is adapted to get better at explaining evidence that doesn't fit in.
> 
> The next time you bring up that claptrap about scientific theories are "believed", I will assume that you are but a lying troll.
Click to expand...

So, I understand you to be saying that when it comes to science, belief is not part of it. They simply analyze the evidence and create a theory, and from that theory, they take it as fact and everyone is suppose to accept it. Then, as new data comes along, you can discard the old theories and replace them with new ones? Am I understanding it correctly?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> So, I understand you to be saying that when it comes to science, belief is not part of it.


That is correct. If a person believes something  to be true, and the empirical knowledge then shows it to be true....did it matter whether or not the person believed it to be true? Does it matter now? No, on both counts.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hawking did not call the singularity the size of an atom. The author made that error and leap. Hawking was correctly saying that we would get to a state of our universe being the size of an atom, should we travel backward in time. But Hawking knew well that a true singularity with infinite denisty must also be infinitely small, which, obviously, an atom is not.
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 68% of the world believes in a religion, and a lot of these religions date back thousands of years. Is almost 3/4 of the world wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless they all believe in the same religion...then some of them must be wrong, right? And they are probably all wrong.  Was 100% of the world wrong, when they thought demons caused disease? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, now they are writing articles saying it's possible the big bang never happened, that now it's a bounce theory or something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are interesting theories. But those authors slightly.misrepresent what is meant by 'big bang' in scientific circles. It refers to the period of rapid expansion, which actually still exists on those "bouncing" models.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that, because of the wide array of religions out there, a few people are bound to be wrong, but on the flip side, the majority of them do not believe in a big bang. So I guess you could say nearly 3/4 of the world believes in a god of some type, and that the universe was created by a higher power.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> the majority of them do not believe in a big bang.


Again...so what? An even larger majority of them don't understand it. You didn't even understand it, until today, when you learned that 'big bang' really only refers to the period of rapid expansion, which is accepted as fact by the scientific community. I didn't understand it either, until I made the effort to learn about it. The smartest man in the world thought our Galaxy was the only Galaxy, in the year 1900.


ThisIsMe said:


> I guess you could say nearly 3/4 of the world believes in a god of some type, and that the universe was created by a higher power


Okay...but so what? That lends not a shred of truth to the proposition. And it certainly is not evidence at all for it.


----------



## K9Buck

Mousterian said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in this universe was created.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not exactly.
> The universe was 'created', and everything else just followed from that.
> But to imagine that the universe was created by a nasty old dude with long white hair is to anthropomorphise the event in a truly laughable way.
Click to expand...


But it's logical to believe that the universe made itself, right? LOL.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I understand you to be saying that when it comes to science, belief is not part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. If a person believes something  to be true, and the empirical knowledge then shows it to be true....did it matter whether or not the person believed it to be true? Does it matter now? No, on both counts.
Click to expand...


Yea?  What came first that didn't need something else to cause it to exist?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> But it's logical to believe that the universe made itself, right?


Absolutely, you just pick the right premises, and logic will lead you right to that conclusion. I don't think you understand what "logical" means, in a strict sense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Yea? What came first that didn't need something else to cause it to exist?


Maybe nothing came first. Maybe no one thing came first. Maybe one thing came first and had no cause. If you would bother to expend a fraction of the effort you are demanding of everyone else, you could probably come up with these ideas by yourself.


----------



## K9Buck

Thanks for the laughs.  

Now, is there anyone _else_ up for reasonable, intelligent discussion?


----------



## Olde Europe

ThisIsMe said:


> They simply analyze the evidence and create a theory, and from that theory, they take it as fact and everyone is suppose to accept it.



No, they don't "take it as fact".  Actually, with every new theory, other scientists working in the same field actively try to find contrary evidence, search for lacking internal consistency, try their best to undermine that theory.  If what they actually find confirms the theory, replicates findings in experiments, at least nothing contradictory is found, predictions based on that theory materialize, it is accepted as the currently best explanation of what is, and why.

Oh, and of course, everyone is free to dismiss the best available knowledge about the world and the universe, to remain a flat-earther, convinced that the swamp demons gave him flatulence, not to mention the witch on the other side of the street.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Now, is there anyone _else_ up for reasonable, intelligent discussion?


That thinks fully formed humans were placed here? No, there are no informed and reasonable people who think this. So don't waste your time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in this universe was created.  The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then, if it's a higher intelligence:
> 
> What created the higher intelligence?
> 
> What created that which created the higher intelligence?
> 
> And so on...
Click to expand...

If as you claim we came from nothing then why can't God have come from nothing? At least be consistent in your babbling.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's logical to believe that the universe made itself, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, you just pick the right premises, and logic will lead you right to that conclusion. I don't think you understand what "logical" means, in a strict sense.
Click to expand...

Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> If as you claim we came from nothing


I didn't claim that. You need to go back and start over. And I also never said god can't come from nothing. But if you say god did come from nothing, then I will just ask you why the universe could not have. You are confused about who is making assertions, here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.


I didn't say I believed the premises. You are so rabid that you can't seem to follow what is a pretty simple discussion.

I said that you can logically arrive at that conclusion (or any other) using the premises that help you get there.

I can, without violating a single rule of logic, argue that the moon being made of cheese means unicorns make ice cream.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.
Click to expand...

God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.


cnm said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?
Click to expand...

Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.


Shaman LittleNipper has spoken!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.


We're not your mommies or your 7th grade science teacher. Look it up yourself.


----------



## bripat9643

LittleNipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.
Click to expand...

Then why do the Christians always refer to him with masculine pronouns?

No scientist has said we know "undoubtedly" that the big bang is a fact.  Only theists are that sure about anything.


----------



## bripat9643

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in this universe was created.  The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then, if it's a higher intelligence:
> 
> What created the higher intelligence?
> 
> What created that which created the higher intelligence?
> 
> And so on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If as you claim we came from nothing then why can't God have come from nothing? At least be consistent in your babbling.
Click to expand...

Why do we need to place a god in the middle of it?  If the universe can come from nothing, then just leave it at that.  You've already conceded that the intercession of a magical gaseous invertebrate with a penis isn't required.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If as you claim we came from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't claim that. You need to go back and start over. And I also never said god can't come from nothing. But if you say god did come from nothing, then I will just ask you why the universe could not have. You are confused about who is making assertions, here.
Click to expand...

I accept I do not know how everything originally got started but to claim science has the answer is just as much faith as saying God started it


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I believed the premises. You are so rabid that you can't seem to follow what is a pretty simple discussion.
> 
> I said that you can logically arrive at that conclusion (or any other) using the premises that help you get there.
> 
> I can, without violating a single rule of logic, argue that the moon being made of cheese means unicorns make ice cream.
Click to expand...

A premise is nothing more than a Guess. And science goes on to use more guesses to fill out the original one. When ever they can not prove something they GUESS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do the Christians always refer to him with masculine pronouns?
> 
> No scientist has said we know "undoubtedly" that the big bang is a fact.  Only theists are that sure about anything.
Click to expand...

Actually several of the prominent arguers in this thread HAVE stated it is fact and that scientists also believe it is FACT. Perhaps you just don't bother to read their posts?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> I accept I do not know how everything originally got started but to claim science has the answer is just as much faith as saying God started it


At this point, you are correct. Scientists do not claim to know the answer, and anyone who says science already has the answer is wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually several of the prominent arguers in this thread HAVE stated it is fact and that scientists also believe it is FACT.


When correctly referring to the big bang as meaning the rapid expansionary period itself...yes, it is considered a fact, at this point. The evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept I do not know how everything originally got started but to claim science has the answer is just as much faith as saying God started it
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, you are correct. Scientists do not claim to know the answer, and anyone who says science already has the answer is wrong.
Click to expand...

You have said it a couple times. You said the Big bang was what started everything and you have said Mammals evolving from one species into 2 or more entirely different species is fact also.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have said it a couple times. You said the Big bang was what started everything


I never once said that. You are confused. And I don't think it. So, now you are no longer confused.


RetiredGySgt said:


> you have said Mammals evolving from one species into 2 or more entirely different species is fact also.


I definitely said that. Yes, that's a fact.


----------



## bripat9643

RetiredGySgt said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do the Christians always refer to him with masculine pronouns?
> 
> No scientist has said we know "undoubtedly" that the big bang is a fact.  Only theists are that sure about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually several of the prominent arguers in this thread HAVE stated it is fact and that scientists also believe it is FACT. Perhaps you just don't bother to read their posts?
Click to expand...

I said that "no scientist" has claimed that the big bang is a fact.  The posters in here are not scientists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because believing it is "faith".  One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't...?
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I think you had better find some better books, then. You could start with the confirmation of gravity waves. Then, move on the the cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Then, to go right to the successful predictions and evidence  of evolution, you could read about human chromosome 2. Then relate this knowledge to your creationist friend.
> 
> If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.
> 
> And, remember a general principle:
> 
> The arguments against evolution have, themselves, not evolved at all. The creationist deniers are all armed with the same, single shot muskets that they were popping off in 1870. Meanwhile, the science and mountains of evidence supporting evolution have grown and evolved to the point that evolution is as well known a fact as is any fact. So you can pretty easily find the information to debunk any evolution denier canard. Debunking these weak canards is what scientists have been busy doing for 150 years, after all. While the creationists, on the other hand, produce no science, no new arguments, and rely wholly on the ignorance and misunderstanding of 150 years of science to keep their archaic canards on life support.
Click to expand...

The mistake those hostile to the fact of evolution make is to perceive the Earth as static and immutable – the Earth, of course, is neither.

Because the surface of the Earth is constantly changing – such as oceans becoming mountain ranges and rainforests becoming deserts– life must likewise change to accommodate a turbulent, violent Earth; evolution is the process by which life survives that change.

Indeed, absent the fact of evolution, life would have long ago been extinguished from this planet.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If as you claim we came from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't claim that. You need to go back and start over. And I also never said god can't come from nothing. But if you say god did come from nothing, then I will just ask you why the universe could not have. You are confused about who is making assertions, here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept I do not know how everything originally got started but to claim science has the answer is just as much faith as saying God started it
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origin of life on Earth doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’


----------



## cnm

Is anyone here claiming science has the answer? Apart from the voices, of course.


----------



## danielpalos

cnm said:


> Is anyone here claiming science has the answer? Apart from the voices, of course.


We don't have Perfect Knowledge of Good and Evil, either.  Science must provide an answer, eventually.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I believed the premises. You are so rabid that you can't seem to follow what is a pretty simple discussion.
> 
> I said that you can logically arrive at that conclusion (or any other) using the premises that help you get there.
> 
> I can, without violating a single rule of logic, argue that the moon being made of cheese means unicorns make ice cream.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows unicorns cant make ice cream......



...they make rainbow sherbert... 


[emoji16]


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ThisIsMe said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I believed the premises. You are so rabid that you can't seem to follow what is a pretty simple discussion.
> 
> I said that you can logically arrive at that conclusion (or any other) using the premises that help you get there.
> 
> I can, without violating a single rule of logic, argue that the moon being made of cheese means unicorns make ice cream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone knows unicorns cant make ice cream......
> 
> 
> 
> ...they make rainbow sherbert...
> 
> 
> [emoji16]
Click to expand...

Dang it! 

But the logic is still valid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

To the deniers who think there is no evidence of a new species evolving:

*Canis lepophagus*

This species first appeared in the fossil record about 5 Mya, right about when an earlier canid species disappeared from the fossil record, and in the same place. It no longer appears in the fossil record after about 1 Mya, while early coyotes and wolves appear in the fossil record at that time and in the same place.

So, where did canis lepophagus come from? Where did it go?


----------



## cnm

danielpalos said:


> We don't have Perfect Knowledge of Good and Evil, either. Science must provide an answer, eventually.


Why must it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> To the deniers who think there is no evidence of a new species evolving:
> 
> *Canis lepophagus*
> 
> This species first appeared in the fossil record about 5 Mya, right about when an earlier canid species disappeared from the fossil record, and in the same place. It no longer appears in the fossil record after about 1 Mya, while early coyotes and wolves appear in the fossil record at that time and in the same place.
> 
> So, where did canis lepophagus come from? Where did it go?


Who cares? One species evolving into a better species or a different species is NOT what we are talking about we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.


Well,this may come as a shock, but: coyotes and wolves are different species. And both are different species than canis lepophagus.


----------



## cnm

I'm shocked. Shocked.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Well,this may come as a shock, but: coyotes and wolves are different species. And both are different species than canis lepophagus.
Click to expand...

And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?


----------



## cnm

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?


A line stopping and two lines starting is evidence. Can you say what will be sufficient evidence for you that wolves and coyotes evolved from Lepophagus and why it matters that two evolved from one??

And what exactly is the point you're trying to make?


----------



## abu afak

pinqy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> *BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.*


*Evidence of common descent*
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?


Wrong, I even detailed some of it for you.

Now, answer my questions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I even detailed some of it for you.
> 
> Now, answer my questions.
Click to expand...

You dont have any questions just your dogma. There is no proof one mammal species has EVER mutated into 2 or more distinctly different species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> You dont have any questions


I asked you two very specific questions: 

Where did canis lepophagus come from? Where did it go?

And here's a third question: exactly what sort of evidence would satisfy you?

If you are too big a sissy to have this discussion, then get the hell out of the thread.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I even detailed some of it for you.
> 
> Now, answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have any questions just your dogma. There is no proof one mammal species has EVER mutated into 2 or more distinctly different species.
Click to expand...

You're a Dishonest Godist Piece of ****
Science doesn't deal in "Proof". Math deals in proof.

Science deals in Evidence (so you've had to Morph/move the goal posts).. and of that we have Overwhelming EVIDENCE of every type of speciation, including/Especially of mammals from other mammals, Including Human/Ape/Primate

Now take the old metal frags out of your syphilitic brain, and start learning you Low IQ Ahole.
`
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I even detailed some of it for you.
> 
> Now, answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have any questions just your dogma. There is no proof one mammal species has EVER mutated into 2 or more distinctly different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a Dishonest Godist Piece of ****
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof". Math deals in proof.
> 
> Science deals in Evidence (so you've had to Morph/move the goal posts).. and of that we have Overwhelming EVIDENCE of every type of speciation, including/Especially of mammals from other mammals, Including Human/Ape/Primate
> 
> Now take the old metal frags out of your syphilitic brain, and start learning you Low IQ Ahole.
> `
> `
Click to expand...

Wrong, what you have from science in regards evolution of mammals is BIG ASSED GUESSES. There are no ACTUAL fossil records no actual evidence that a single mammal species evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. DNA does not prove it as all mammals have similar DNA according to science we must have evolved from pigs since so much of our DNA is JUST like a pigs. Scientists created a theory with a GUESS and then filled out the following premises with MORE guesses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I even detailed some of it for you.
> 
> Now, answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have any questions just your dogma. There is no proof one mammal species has EVER mutated into 2 or more distinctly different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a Dishonest Godist Piece of ****
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof". Math deals in proof.
> 
> Science deals in Evidence (so you've had to Morph/move the goal posts).. and of that we have Overwhelming EVIDENCE of every type of speciation, including/Especially of mammals from other mammals, Including Human/Ape/Primate
> 
> Now take the old metal frags out of your syphilitic brain, and start learning you Low IQ Ahole.
> `
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, what you have from science in regards evolution of mammals is BIG ASSED GUESSES. There are no ACTUAL fossil records no actual evidence that a single mammal species evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. DNA does not prove it as all mammals have similar DNA according to science we must have evolved from pigs since so much of our DNA is JUST like a pigs. Scientists created a theory with a GUESS and then filled out the following premises with MORE guesses.
Click to expand...

You know less than nothing about DNA and should probably shut up right now.

And then, answer my questions.


----------



## DOTR

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually several of the prominent arguers in this thread HAVE stated it is fact and that scientists also believe it is FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> When correctly referring to the big bang as meaning the rapid expansionary period itself...yes, it is considered a fact, at this point. The evidence is overwhelming.
Click to expand...


Brought to you by a Catholic priest at a Catholic university.


----------



## DOTR

bripat9643 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of the proof of the big bang?  Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do the Christians always refer to him with masculine pronouns?
> 
> No scientist has said we know "undoubtedly" that the big bang is a fact.  Only theists are that sure about anything.
Click to expand...


  I think all religions picture their god as masculine. But I can say for certain that Christians do.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Evidence of common descent*
> Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> `
Click to expand...


Anyone could write that malarkey.


----------



## Mousterian

Y'know, a politician once floated the idea that π was way too complicated at 3.141... , and should be legislated to be 3. Fortunately, there was an adult in the room, and it didn't go far.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Anyone could write that malarkey.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Evidence of common descent*
> Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Anyone could write that malarkey.*
Click to expand...

*Another Dishonest reply.
Anyone could Not write that Wiki entry, nor fill in it's subtopics.

You're a LYING FOR JESUS piece of **** who'll do/say/drivel up anything to save his house of cards godist social life.
`*


----------



## Karl Rand

abu afak said:


> *You're a LYING FOR JESUS piece of **** who'll do/say/drivel up anything to save his house of cards godist social life.
> `*


Please, can anyone explain to me what a ‘godist social life’ is?


----------



## Karl Rand

DOTR said:


> I think all religions picture their god as masculine.


Where on earth did you get that idea?


----------



## dblack

BlackFlag said:


> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.



You just had to bring gender into it, didn't ya?


----------



## Votto

Olde Europe said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
Click to expand...


So man has created a small little star but no small little living cell?

Interesting, isn't it. 

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?


----------



## Votto

LittleNipper said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
Click to expand...


In the universe. life only had less than 16 billion years to create life to be exact.

Earth is around 4 billion years old, and almost immediately life has been found in those early days which means either life was seeded on Earth or life does not take as long to evolve as we are lead to believe.  And why are we led to believe it takes soooooo long for life to evolve?  That way scientists don't take any heat for not being able to replicate it.  They just shrug their shoulders and say, "It's a billions of years process" and walk away.  Trouble it, that's a lie.


----------



## cnm

Votto said:


> Earth is around 4 billion years old, and almost immediately life has been found in those early days


The bullshit never stops and the links never start.

_Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but the oldest rocks still in existence date back to just 4 billion years ago. Not long after that rock record begins, tantalizing evidence of life emerges: A set of filament-like fossils from Australia, reported in the journal Astrobiology in 2013, may be the remains of a microbial mat that might have been extracting energy from sunlight some 3.5 billion years ago. Another contender for world's oldest life is a set of rocks in Greenland that may hold the fossils of 3.7-billion-year-old colonies of cyanobacteria, which form layered structures called stromatolites.
What Was the First Life on Earth?_​


----------



## Karl Rand

dblack said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just had to bring gender into it, didn't ya?
Click to expand...

Extra universal lesbian orgy? Have they made a movie of it yet? Maybe they could make a musical out of it with K D Lang playing the Godess?


----------



## DOTR

cnm said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is around 4 billion years old, and almost immediately life has been found in those early days
> 
> 
> 
> The bullshit never stops and the links never start.
> 
> _Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but the oldest rocks still in existence date back to just 4 billion years ago. Not long after that rock record begins, tantalizing evidence of life emerges: A set of filament-like fossils from Australia, reported in the journal Astrobiology in 2013, may be the remains of a microbial mat that might have been extracting energy from sunlight some 3.5 billion years ago. Another contender for world's oldest life is a set of rocks in Greenland that may hold the fossils of 3.7-billion-year-old colonies of cyanobacteria, which form layered structures called stromatolites.
> What Was the First Life on Earth?_​
Click to expand...


  Life began very quickly. And it happened one time. A great mystery there.


----------



## danielpalos

cnm said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have Perfect Knowledge of Good and Evil, either. Science must provide an answer, eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> Why must it?
Click to expand...

For the sake of Perfect Knowledge.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?


Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> And why are we led to believe it takes soooooo long for life to evolve?


Led to believe...by whom, exactly? You're making stuff up. One thing is certain: At no point, ever, have you lifted a finger to educate yourself on what scientists actually say about abiogenesis and the science they are doing to figure it out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

In reality, there are a few schools of abiogenesis in the realm of science, all with some overlap. However, in all of them, it is necessary for the process of phosphorylation to occur. So, scientists set out to find how such a thing would happen naturally. It took years, but they found it:

Scientists Just Found a Vital Missing Link in The Origins of Life on Earth


----------



## abu afak

Karl Rand said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You're a LYING FOR JESUS piece of **** who'll do/say/drivel up anything to save his house of cards godist social life.
> `*
> 
> 
> 
> Please, can anyone explain to me what a ‘godist social life’ is?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the encompassing way of life in the ie, Bible Belt.
One's whole family and social life is built around the Church/Jesus.
If you were to declare yourself an Atheist or not particpate, you'd be an outcast.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Evidence of common descent*
> Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Anyone could write that malarkey.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Another Dishonest reply.
> Anyone could Not write that Wiki entry, nor fill in it's subtopics.
> 
> You're a LYING FOR JESUS piece of **** who'll do/say/drivel up anything to save his house of cards godist social life.
> `*
Click to expand...


Ad hominem attack.  It means you lost and don't know anything.  A nimrod.  If you did, then you could explain common descent in a couple of sentences.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
Click to expand...


Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.


----------



## Third Party

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


Reply that God is a scientist and created a Creationist and an Evolutionist and put them together to see what would happen.


----------



## dblack

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


Maybe the creationist was right. Why does that bother you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
Click to expand...

But you know less than nothing about it, so your opinion is worth less than nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

dblack said:


> Maybe the creationist was right.


But we know he wasn't and was saying ridiculous, demonstrably false things.


----------



## Votto

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
Click to expand...


So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

Wink, wink.


----------



## dblack

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the creationist was right.
> 
> 
> 
> But we know he wasn't and was saying ridiculous, demonstrably false things.
Click to expand...


Then why were 'we' stumped?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.


No, you would simply propose abiogenesis on another planet. What a rational person would not do is insist upon magic.


----------



## james bond

Votto said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
Click to expand...


Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

dblack said:


> Then why were 'we' stumped?


I wasn't stumped, he was. And that was because he didn't have the information at hand to know the things the creationist was saying were demonstrably false.


----------



## Votto

james bond said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
Click to expand...

Would God ever be considered an alien?


----------



## dblack

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why were 'we' stumped?
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't stumped, he was. And that was because he didn't have the information at hand to know the things the creationist was saying were demonstrably false.
Click to expand...


Yes. I was addressing the OP. Personally, I don't find anything in the creationist narrative compelling, but if the OP does - why fight it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

dblack said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why were 'we' stumped?
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't stumped, he was. And that was because he didn't have the information at hand to know the things the creationist was saying were demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I was addressing the OP. Personally, I don't find anything in the creationist narrative compelling, but if the OP does - why fight it?
Click to expand...

Well, in this case, it was based on some false statements.


----------



## james bond

Votto said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would God ever be considered an alien?
Click to expand...


Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.








What about the jellyfish from 500 million years ago?  It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.


----------



## Karl Rand

james bond said:


> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.


Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.


So what if it looks similar? That doesn't contradict or undermine anything about evolutionary theory.

And you are way off base regarding the soft tissue. That image is not a fossil of its tissue. It's the impression  left by the creature in sediment.

You could have learned both of these facts yourself, if you had lifted a finger to educate yourself . Instead you regurgitate falsehood after falsehood from creationist bloggers who are non scientist liars. So, now you're a non scientist liar, too.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.









`


----------



## james bond

Karl Rand said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
> And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
> 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.
Click to expand...


Aliens not existing is pure scientific method.  Due to no abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only life begats life.  

Mine is not to convert anyone because only the person themselves can find the faith within themselves to change their worldview.  Their worldview will be based on experience, religion and science mostly.

You're missing the whole verse and passage.  It's referring to those deluded by the Antichrist and Satan during the tribulation.  Even the believers will be misled.

"For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but pleasure in wickedness."  2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

Thus, the delusions of aliens and abiogenesis of those are like what NASA believes.  They state they will find aliens within ten years.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if it looks similar? That doesn't contradict or undermine anything about evolutionary theory.
> 
> And you are way off base regarding the soft tissue. That image is not a fossil of its tissue. It's the impression  left by the creature in sediment.
> 
> You could have learned both of these facts yourself, if you had lifted a finger to educate yourself . Instead you regurgitate falsehood after falsehood from creationist bloggers who are non scientist liars. So, now you're a non scientist liar, too.
Click to expand...


I am presenting evidence like your stated evidence of a Precambrian rabbit.  It's a jellyfish instead.

Doesn't uniformitarian thinking state that what we find today is what occurred in the past?  One can't just apply it to part and not the other.  Thus, we find living fossils and they are like today what they were in the past.  The jellyfish isn't a fossil, but it still left 500 millions years old impression and historical evidence.

I'm not lying.  Just trying to present what you asked for.  From your emotional reaction, it seems I struck a nerve .


----------



## koshergrl

BlackFlag said:


> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.



He just said that in the OP you imbecile.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well there's another book you will never read and wouldn't understand anyway....


----------



## Karl Rand

[QUOTE="Votto, post: 21506827, member: 40768"
Would God ever be considered an alien?[/QUOTE]
Maybe not but if you’re referring to the God of The Old Testament he’s an awfully queer, unpredictably sadistic bastard.And that’s before we get to the bit about him torturing his own son (who is actually himself if you swallow trinitarian theology undigested)


----------



## BlackFlag

koshergrl said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just said that in the OP you imbecile.
Click to expand...

Quote it please.  Oops.


----------



## koshergrl

BlackFlag said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just said that in the OP you imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote it please.  Oops.
Click to expand...

"Creationism is not falsifiable"


----------



## koshergrl

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there's another book you will never read and wouldn't understand anyway....
Click to expand...

I thought you said we can't learn from books.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

koshergrl said:


> I thought you said we can't learn from books.


Neat!


----------



## BlackFlag

koshergrl said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just said that in the OP you imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote it please.  Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creationism is not falsifiable"
Click to expand...

Yes and you can point out how that argument is on par with arguing that you can’t disprove that the universe is the ejaculate of a cosmic street dog bursting into the anus of an extrauniversal doofus wearing a MAGA hat


----------



## sealybobo

Karl Rand said:


> [QUOTE="Votto, post: 21506827, member: 40768"
> Would God ever be considered an alien?


Maybe not but if you’re referring to the God of The Old Testament he’s an awfully queer, unpredictably sadistic bastard.And that’s before we get to the bit about him torturing his own son (who is actually himself if you swallow trinitarian theology undigested)[/QUOTE]
I’m watching Star Trek. God is meaner than any villain on the show. There are aliens who will wipe out entire planets. Shoot. Gods done that plenty of times.


----------



## sealybobo

Karl Rand said:


> [QUOTE="Votto, post: 21506827, member: 40768"
> Would God ever be considered an alien?


Maybe not but if you’re referring to the God of The Old Testament he’s an awfully queer, unpredictably sadistic bastard.And that’s before we get to the bit about him torturing his own son (who is actually himself if you swallow trinitarian theology undigested)[/QUOTE]
I’m watching Star Trek. God is meaner than any villain on the show. There are aliens who will wipe out entire planets. Shoot. Gods done that plenty of times.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there's another book you will never read and wouldn't understand anyway....
Click to expand...


I never got past its review.  Besides, it's by Lawrence Krauss who got trashed by William Lane Craig.  Watched their debate.

"Atheists insist that all of nature can be explained on its own terms without invoking a supernatural creator. Some argue, as does Lawrence Krauss (figure 1) in his recent book _A Universe from Nothing_, that modern science has now made it plausible that space-time, matter-energy, and even the universe can emerge from nothing. As we shall see, these ideas are self-contradictory and not aligned with current thinking—even in the secular scientific community—concerning the possibility of a universe existing in the eternal past. Krauss does provide his readers with interesting insights into physics, the big bang theory, virtual particles, dark matter, inflation theory, the ‘landscape’ of a multiverse, dark energy, relativity, string theory, and science associated with these topics. However, he does not successfully show how the universe could emerge from nothing. Much of what is in Krauss’ book was brought out in a debate with William Lane Craig in 2011 at NC State University, a debate Craig won in my opinion. The debate is available for viewing on the internet.1"

Review Krauss universe from nothing - creation.com

I threw that in there because you keep attributing creation.com to me.  I'm more AIG and ICR, but do not ignore creation.com.

Actually, I read this review when the book came out.  Then what Krauss said came out in the debate so got it from the horse's mouth.

Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher?

Here, I'll give you a chance.  What's your review of it?


----------



## james bond

koshergrl said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just said that in the OP you imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote it please.  Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creationism is not falsifiable"
Click to expand...


God is not falsifiable, but creation science is.  Evolution is not falsifiable.  It's forensics science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I never got past its review. Besides, it's by Lawrence Krauss who got trashed by William Lane Craig. Watched their debate.


So you understand not single idea in that book. Therefore,you simply are not entitled or qualified to have any opinion on it, save for it's weight in pounds. So don't bring it up again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> God is not falsifiable, but creation science


There is no such thing as creation science.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana

See.  I was right.  NASA is basing finding aliens on advanced technology and abiogenesis.  Of course, creation scientists and I know they won't because abiogenesis is but a hypothesis.  No abiogenesis.  No aliens.  I should trademark it .

"*Search for Bacteria and Archaea*
To find life on another planet, Floyd’s robotic instrument would concentrate on identifying bacteria and archaea, members of a large group of single-cell microorganisms that thrive in diverse environments and are thought to be the first organisms to appear on Earth about 4 billion years ago. On Earth, one gram of soil typically contains about 40 million bacterial cells and a milliliter of fresh water usually holds 1 million cells.

Her concept, which she believes could deploy as a stand-alone robot or one of several instruments on a rover, relies on a widely used technique called fluorescent in situ hybridization — or FISH — developed to detect and locate the presence or absence of RNA or single-stranded DNA sequences on chromosomes. These threadlike structures are found in the nuclei of most living cells and carry genetic information in the form of genes. Since its development, FISH has been used for genetic counseling, medicine and species identification.

When performed in a laboratory, FISH involves, among other things, applying a sample to a slide, fixing the cells to increase cell-wall permeability, adding a nucleotide “probe” — a short sequence of typically 15 to 20 nucleotides along with a fluorescent tag for faster identification — and heating the sample. The slide is then placed under a microscope. When the nucleotide probe attaches to a similar nucleotide in the sample, it literally fluoresces or glows under a fluorescence microscope, helping researchers to identify the organism.

“I’m trying to determine whether I can do the same thing with a robot,” Floyd said, adding that she would want the system to carry as many as 10 probes to identify a broad range of single-cell organisms. “If there are even fragments of highly conserved genetic sequences that we see in every corner of Earth, FISH will be the tool capable of detecting it.”

*The Automation Challenge*
The challenge, she said, is simplifying and automating the process so that samples can be prepared on individual slides, heated, and automatically rotated for viewing under a microscope, which likely would have to be focused many times to see deep within the sample. With her funding, Floyd is developing the automated subsystems, including a focuser.

“The idea here is to replace with a robotic system what a scientist does in the lab,” she said. “I could be completely wrong” about life taking root on Mars or another solar system body in the same way that it did on Earth. “But how do we know? We’ve never looked.”

For more Goddard technology news, go to: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/summer_2018_final_web_version.pdf"

Scientist Developing Instrument for Finding Extraterrestrial Bacteria


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

^^

This charlatan's tactic is called the "Gish Gallop". It's older than dirt.

And anyone who thinks we have gathered a representative sample of the universe is a terminal fool.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never got past its review. Besides, it's by Lawrence Krauss who got trashed by William Lane Craig. Watched their debate.
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand not single idea in that book. Therefore,you simply are not entitled or qualified to have any opinion on it, save for it's weight in pounds. So don't bring it up again.
Click to expand...


An ad hominem attack instead of a review.  You don't think I understand quantum field theory leading to unstable states?  I can read complex subjects and be able to summarize.  Why don't you show us how smart you aren't?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ^^
> 
> This charlatan's tactic is called the "Gish Gallop". It's older than dirt.
> 
> And anyone who thinks we have gathered a representative sample of the universe is a terminal fool.



Gish knew proteins, but what does it have to do with NASA and finding aliens?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not falsifiable, but creation science
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as creation science.
Click to expand...


You are wrong again.  I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right.  There you go.


----------



## BlackFlag

james bond said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just said that in the OP you imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote it please.  Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creationism is not falsifiable"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not falsifiable, but creation science is.  Evolution is not falsifiable.  It's forensics science.
Click to expand...

She means that before the big bang, you can make whatever wild or fantastical claim you want about what existed before and as yet nobody can decisively prove to you beyond doubt that you’re wrong.


----------



## dblack

james bond said:


> You are wrong again.  I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right.  There you go.



Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

dblack said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.
Click to expand...

You sure can't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

*"It's forensics science."*

Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't _see _it happen!!  Neener neener!".  JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure can't.
Click to expand...


So where are the aliens?  Where are the chimps and apes that walk bipedal?  Where are the dino chickens?  They may be falsifiable, but they don't happen.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *"It's forensics science."*
> 
> Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't _see _it happen!!  Neener neener!".  JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....



You even admitted your evidence is circumstantial.  How often is that right?

In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened.  However, that's all you have haha.


----------



## bripat9643

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the deniers who think there is no evidence of a new species evolving:
> 
> *Canis lepophagus*
> 
> This species first appeared in the fossil record about 5 Mya, right about when an earlier canid species disappeared from the fossil record, and in the same place. It no longer appears in the fossil record after about 1 Mya, while early coyotes and wolves appear in the fossil record at that time and in the same place.
> 
> So, where did canis lepophagus come from? Where did it go?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? One species evolving into a better species or a different species is NOT what we are talking about we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
Click to expand...


There's tons of evidence for that.  Just take all the species of dog in the world.  Wild dogs are a different species than wolves or coyotes.  Yet they all evolved from the same animal.  That's why they are all members of the dog genus '_canis_'


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are the aliens?  Where are the chimps and apes that walk bipedal?  Where are the dino chickens?  They may be falsifiable, but they don't happen.
Click to expand...

Why do you imagine all the in-between species should still be living?  Is Neanderthal man still walking around?  Do you doubt that this species existed?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"It's forensics science."*
> 
> Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't _see _it happen!!  Neener neener!".  JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You even admitted your evidence is circumstantial.  How often is that right?
> 
> In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened.  However, that's all you have haha.
Click to expand...

It's not "circumstantial evidence."  It's hard physical evidence.  But no matter how much evidence there is, some creationist like you will claim there's no evidence.  If creationist claim there's no intermediate species between species 'A' and species 'B,' and then scientist find an intermediate species 'C,' then the creationists will claim there's no intermediate species between 'A' and 'C.'


----------



## bripat9643

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Well,this may come as a shock, but: coyotes and wolves are different species. And both are different species than canis lepophagus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence:

Your Dog's Pedigree Goes Back 40 Million Years


----------



## bripat9643

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.
> 
> 
> 
> Well,this may come as a shock, but: coyotes and wolves are different species. And both are different species than canis lepophagus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?
Click to expand...

What would you call "actual evidence?"


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just had to bring gender into it, didn't ya?
Click to expand...

Christians brought gender into it.  Jaweh is a male god.


----------



## bripat9643

Votto said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So man has created a small little star but no small little living cell?
> 
> Interesting, isn't it.
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
Click to expand...

So?  Why would you imagine it's easy to make a cell?  Have you ever read anything about cell biology?  Do you have any idea how complex it is?


----------



## bripat9643

Votto said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.
> 
> However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, stars have been created on earth.  What do you think nuclear fusion is?  That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...
> 
> Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life.  Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.
> 
> In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the universe. life only had less than 16 billion years to create life to be exact.
> 
> Earth is around 4 billion years old, and almost immediately life has been found in those early days which means either life was seeded on Earth or life does not take as long to evolve as we are lead to believe.  And why are we led to believe it takes soooooo long for life to evolve?  That way scientists don't take any heat for not being able to replicate it.  They just shrug their shoulders and say, "It's a billions of years process" and walk away.  Trouble it, that's a lie.
Click to expand...

"Not so long" still means hundreds of millions of years, and that's for the development of a very primitive form of life.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
Click to expand...

abiogenesis does not mean no aliens.  If it happened here, why do you imagine it couldn't happen elsewhere?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would God ever be considered an alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
Click to expand...

How do you know aliens don't exist?  

"Faith" means you believe with no facts or evidence.  You're admitting that your belief is irrational.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if it looks similar? That doesn't contradict or undermine anything about evolutionary theory.
> 
> And you are way off base regarding the soft tissue. That image is not a fossil of its tissue. It's the impression  left by the creature in sediment.
> 
> You could have learned both of these facts yourself, if you had lifted a finger to educate yourself . Instead you regurgitate falsehood after falsehood from creationist bloggers who are non scientist liars. So, now you're a non scientist liar, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am presenting evidence like your stated evidence of a Precambrian rabbit.  It's a jellyfish instead.
> 
> Doesn't uniformitarian thinking state that what we find today is what occurred in the past?  One can't just apply it to part and not the other.  Thus, we find living fossils and they are like today what they were in the past.  The jellyfish isn't a fossil, but it still left 500 millions years old impression and historical evidence.
> 
> I'm not lying.  Just trying to present what you asked for.  From your emotional reaction, it seems I struck a nerve .
Click to expand...

Why do you imagine that species that evolved 500 million years ago couldn't be around today?  I've never heard any biologists enunciate this theory.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
> And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
> 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens not existing is pure scientific method.  Due to no abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only life begats life.
Click to expand...


That's only true in the short run.  Give 500 million years, and it's no longer true.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy.  That’s not falsifiable either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just said that in the OP you imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote it please.  Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creationism is not falsifiable"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not falsifiable, but creation science is.  Evolution is not falsifiable.  It's forensics science.
Click to expand...

"Creation science" isn't science.  It's Voo Doo and hocus-pocus.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> What would you call "actual evidence?"


You will never get an answers to this.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are the aliens?  Where are the chimps and apes that walk bipedal?  Where are the dino chickens?  They may be falsifiable, but they don't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you imagine all the in-between species should still be living?  Is Neanderthal man still walking around?  Do you doubt that this species existed?
Click to expand...


I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.  We have living fossils.  It means there were no bipedal apes, chimps and monkeys.

There probably are Neanderthals walking around.  They'll crush your thorax in a heatbeat, ground your face into hamburger and power slam you into oblivion.  There are no in-between species such as tailed monkeys becoming tailless ones, so it's you who are imagining things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.


That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.
> 
> Does that trouble you at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abiogenesis does not mean no aliens.  If it happened here, why do you imagine it couldn't happen elsewhere?
Click to expand...


God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis.  The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life.  That's a fact.  We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.
Click to expand...


I'm the one with the direct evidence.  No bipedal apes and monkeys.  It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm the one with the direct evidence.  No bipedal apes and monkeys.  It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.
Click to expand...

You're a liar with no evidence, and you embarrass yourself to call yourself uniformitarian. You are precisely the opposite and fool exactly nobody. Given your exceedingly whiny and weak response, you clearly don't even fool yourself.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
> And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
> 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens not existing is pure scientific method.  Due to no abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only life begats life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only true in the short run.  Give 500 million years, and it's no longer true.
Click to expand...


500 million years isn't observable.  Maybe in the afterlife.  Nobody has witnessed any of what you are claiming while many people have witnessed what's in the Bible.  Creation science is Bible theory such as Genesis and the science parts, i.e. non-people parts.  We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm the one with the direct evidence.  No bipedal apes and monkeys.  It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar with no evidence, and you embarrass yourself to call yourself uniformitarian. You are precisely the opposite and fool exactly nobody. Given your exceedingly whiny and weak response, you clearly don't even fool yourself.
Click to expand...


I'm using uniformitarian thinking in regards to the macroevolution theory.  To the contrary, I have the observable evidence to back up macroevolution did not happen and God created separate groups of animals and humans.  All you have is unobservable fossils and circustantial forensic evidence with no direct evidence to back it up.


----------



## james bond

Why don't posters like bripat9643 and Fort Fun Indiana admit they are stumped when it comes to producing direct evidence?  There is nothing to back up your claims while creation science has no aliens and no bipedal apes and monkeys.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are the aliens?  Where are the chimps and apes that walk bipedal?  Where are the dino chickens?  They may be falsifiable, but they don't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you imagine all the in-between species should still be living?  Is Neanderthal man still walking around?  Do you doubt that this species existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.  We have living fossils.  It means there were no bipedal apes, chimps and monkeys.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you believe the term "uniformatarian thinking" means, but scientists believe the laws of nature were the same in the past as they are now.  That's all it means.  

What the hell is a "living fossil," and how does that prove species haven't evolved from previous species?  

We know there were bipedal apes because we have fossils of apes that clearly were bipedal.



james bond said:


> There probably are Neanderthals walking around.  They'll crush your thorax in a heatbeat, ground your face into hamburger and power slam you into oblivion.  There are no in-between species such as tailed monkeys becoming tailless ones, so it's you who are imagining things.



Once again, you're wrong.  We have fossils of an abundance of intermediate forms.  Neanderthal man is another species of hominid.   there are fossils of dozens of species that are precursors to home sapiens.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm the one with the direct evidence.  No bipedal apes and monkeys.  It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar with no evidence, and you embarrass yourself to call yourself uniformitarian. You are precisely the opposite and fool exactly nobody. Given your exceedingly whiny and weak response, you clearly don't even fool yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using uniformitarian thinking in regards to the macroevolution theory.  To the contrary, I have the observable evidence to back up macroevolution did not happen and God created separate groups of animals and humans.  All you have is unobservable fossils and circustantial forensic evidence with no direct evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

You have no such evidence, and you don't even know what the term "uniformitarian" means.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Why don't posters like bripat9643 and Fort Fun Indiana admit they are stumped when it comes to producing direct evidence?  There is nothing to back up your claims while creation science has no aliens and no bipedal apes and monkeys.


Define the term "direct evidence," and perhaps we'll produce it.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abiogenesis does not mean no aliens.  If it happened here, why do you imagine it couldn't happen elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis.  The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life.  That's a fact.  We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.
Click to expand...

God is a myth.  There isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. You have failed to prove abiogenesis doesn't happen.  You simply stamp your foot and insist that your position is true.

Whether we can seed Mars or not proves nothing about abiogenesis.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
> And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
> 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens not existing is pure scientific method.  Due to no abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only life begats life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only true in the short run.  Give 500 million years, and it's no longer true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 500 million years isn't observable.  Maybe in the afterlife.  Nobody has witnessed any of what you are claiming while many people have witnessed what's in the Bible.  Creation science is Bible theory such as Genesis and the science parts, i.e. non-people parts.  We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.
Click to expand...

So you believe the only way to demonstrate evolution is to have humans record nature for 500 millions years?

You're a kook.

No one has witnessed what's in the Bible.  Do you have any sources to confirm it other than the Bible?

Science most emphatically does not back up what's in the Bible.


----------



## koshergrl

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"It's forensics science."*
> 
> Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't _see _it happen!!  Neener neener!".  JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You even admitted your evidence is circumstantial.  How often is that right?
> 
> In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened.  However, that's all you have haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not "circumstantial evidence."  It's hard physical evidence.  But no matter how much evidence there is, some creationist like you will claim there's no evidence.  If creationist claim there's no intermediate species between species 'A' and species 'B,' and then scientist find an intermediate species 'C,' then the creationists will claim there's no intermediate species between 'A' and 'C.'
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if there hasn't been one found, then you have no "hard physical evidence". Thus, you're lying.


----------



## koshergrl

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abiogenesis does not mean no aliens.  If it happened here, why do you imagine it couldn't happen elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis.  The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life.  That's a fact.  We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a myth.  There isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. You have failed to prove abiogenesis doesn't happen.  You simply stamp your foot and insist that your position is true.
> 
> Whether we can seed Mars or not proves nothing about abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

There is all sorts of evidence that supports His existence. 
People like you seem to think "evidence" and "proof" are interchangeable. While most proof is evidence, not all evidence is proof...but just because there's no PROOF doesn't mean there is no EVIDENCE. 

That was explained to me once by an archaeologist.


----------



## hjmick

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.




Why criticize Creationism? Why argue about it?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imaginary science of abiogenesis.  No abiogenesis also means no aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?
> 
> The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.
> 
> Wink, wink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens didn't seed anything.  There are no aliens.  No abiogenesis means no aliens.  Not even a microbe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abiogenesis does not mean no aliens.  If it happened here, why do you imagine it couldn't happen elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis.  The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life.  That's a fact.  We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a myth.  There isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. You have failed to prove abiogenesis doesn't happen.  You simply stamp your foot and insist that your position is true.
> 
> Whether we can seed Mars or not proves nothing about abiogenesis.
Click to expand...


Too much palaver to respond to, but God is very real and invisible.  There can be no proof because it takes FAITH to find him.  One evidence for God is the universe and everything in it, including humans, is here when it shouldn't be.  And he's the one expanding the universe to this day.  If it was some cosmic inflation (an impossible occurrence), then it would have slowed down and stopped by now.

None of the abiogenesis experiments demonstrate life from non-life.  It takes a single cell to produce what they have been doing.  As Louis Pasteur showed only life begats life, but you're too much of a _monkey_ to realize it.  Alas, there will be no aliens found on Mars and it will be a colossal waste of money.  That's the main reason for sending a human expedition there.  There would be no aliens there because of no abiogenesis.  The experiment on Earth done decades ago prove that.  I can figure these things out and you can't unfortunately.


----------



## abu afak

koshergrl said:


> *There is all sorts of evidence that supports His existence.
> People like you seem to think "evidence" and "proof" are interchangeable. While most proof is evidence, not all evidence is proof...but just because there's no PROOF doesn't mean there is no EVIDENCE.
> 
> That was explained to me once by an archaeologist.*


There is NO evidence that supports "His" existence you stupid twat.
And of course, you have to pick Which/Witch "his" because at least 75% of the planet Disagrees. 99.8% if you're Jewish.

Evolution, OTOH, has tons of Indisputable evidence that grows with every new decade and new science.

and one Doesn't need an "archaeologist" to know evidence, or evidence from Proof.
If that is your logical basis, it's also idiotic.

BTW Moron, Science does not deal in "proofs". Math deals in Proofs.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by more and more EVIDENCE.
Evolution is a Fact as well as theory.
Things can be true without being "proved."
Most truisms do not lend themselves to "proofs."

What an IDIOT you are, especially for someone who claims to be "kosher".
Then again, "Kosher" is part of literalism of Religion... the Lowest IQ Extremism.
`


----------



## bripat9643

koshergrl said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"It's forensics science."*
> 
> Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't _see _it happen!!  Neener neener!".  JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You even admitted your evidence is circumstantial.  How often is that right?
> 
> In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened.  However, that's all you have haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not "circumstantial evidence."  It's hard physical evidence.  But no matter how much evidence there is, some creationist like you will claim there's no evidence.  If creationist claim there's no intermediate species between species 'A' and species 'B,' and then scientist find an intermediate species 'C,' then the creationists will claim there's no intermediate species between 'A' and 'C.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but if there hasn't been one found, then you have no "hard physical evidence". Thus, you're lying.
Click to expand...

Obviously, my point went right over your head.


----------



## bripat9643

koshergrl said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"It's forensics science."*
> 
> Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't _see _it happen!!  Neener neener!".  JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You even admitted your evidence is circumstantial.  How often is that right?
> 
> In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened.  However, that's all you have haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not "circumstantial evidence."  It's hard physical evidence.  But no matter how much evidence there is, some creationist like you will claim there's no evidence.  If creationist claim there's no intermediate species between species 'A' and species 'B,' and then scientist find an intermediate species 'C,' then the creationists will claim there's no intermediate species between 'A' and 'C.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but if there hasn't been one found, then you have no "hard physical evidence". Thus, you're lying.
Click to expand...

Hundreds have been found.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again aliens do not exist.  They would be physical beings.  The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No."  God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him.  Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong.  Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us.  God had only one command for Adam and Eve.  Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
> And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
> 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens not existing is pure scientific method.  Due to no abiogenesis.  Dr. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only life begats life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only true in the short run.  Give 500 million years, and it's no longer true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 500 million years isn't observable.  Maybe in the afterlife.  Nobody has witnessed any of what you are claiming while many people have witnessed what's in the Bible.  Creation science is Bible theory such as Genesis and the science parts, i.e. non-people parts.  We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe the only way to demonstrate evolution is to have humans record nature for 500 millions years?
> 
> You're a kook.
> 
> No one has witnessed what's in the Bible.  Do you have any sources to confirm it other than the Bible?
> 
> Science most emphatically does not back up what's in the Bible.
Click to expand...


I'm the one using creation science and "uniformitarian" thinking.  Creation science states that God created apes and humans as separate creatures.  Today's apes and chimps are not bipedal, so it means that in the past they weren't bipedal.  They still have the small cranial capacity.  Not only that, we do not witness tailed to tailless monkeys or chimps to gorillas or gorillas to chimps.  The scant forensic evidence led to the wrong conclusion.  

Basically, all the evidence for evolution is circumstantial from the fossils to abiogenesis.  In science, one needs direct or observable scientific evidence to back it up to be accepted.

And you are wrong with your last sentence.  Science has backed up the Bible in the past and it backs it up now.  We have no aliens due to no abiogenesis and more.  We have no macroevolution of  apes to humans.  You are stumped, bripat9643, due to your wrongness and falling for lies or else you would've pulled an alien out of your pocket or shown us the ape that is bipedal .


----------



## james bond

So where are we besides bripat9643 incessant whiny cries of aliens and humans from apes?  NASA claims to have found aliens due to advanced technology.  That is a scientific non-sequitur if I ever heard one from these atheist scientists.  What do we know about atheist scientists?  They are _usuall_y WRONG.  Today, these scientists can get away with anything since they removed their competition -- creation scientists -- from science.  In 200,000+ years, there has been no evidence of aliens while there has been evidence of God throughout this thread.

But they'll keep trying (and failing, i.e. wasting tax payer dollars)
NASA has announced a new plan to find advanced alien civilizations—technosignatures

These robots could help NASA find alien life


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> So where are we besides bripat9643 incessant whiny cries of aliens and humans from apes?  NASA claims to have found aliens due to advanced technology.  That is a scientific non-sequitur if I ever heard one from these atheist scientists.  What do we know about atheist scientists?  They are _usuall_y WRONG.  Today, these scientists can get away with anything since they removed their competition -- creation scientists -- from science.  In 200,000+ years, there has been no evidence of aliens while there has been evidence of God throughout this thread.
> 
> But they'll keep trying (and failing, i.e. wasting tax payer dollars)
> NASA has announced a new plan to find advanced alien civilizations—technosignatures
> 
> These robots could help NASA find alien life



Are the quotes from the Bible below facts?

_The LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:33-34

So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og ... and we smote him until none was left to him remaining ... from threescore cities ... And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:3-6

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

_​


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are we besides bripat9643 incessant whiny cries of aliens and humans from apes?  NASA claims to have found aliens due to advanced technology.  That is a scientific non-sequitur if I ever heard one from these atheist scientists.  What do we know about atheist scientists?  They are _usuall_y WRONG.  Today, these scientists can get away with anything since they removed their competition -- creation scientists -- from science.  In 200,000+ years, there has been no evidence of aliens while there has been evidence of God throughout this thread.
> 
> But they'll keep trying (and failing, i.e. wasting tax payer dollars)
> NASA has announced a new plan to find advanced alien civilizations—technosignatures
> 
> These robots could help NASA find alien life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the quotes from the Bible below facts?
> 
> _The LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:33-34
> 
> So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og ... and we smote him until none was left to him remaining ... from threescore cities ... And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
> 
> And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
> 
> And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2
> 
> And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16
> 
> Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
> 
> But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
> 
> So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40
> 
> Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3_​
Click to expand...


History, as recorded.  The Bible is a non-fiction book.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I'm the one using creation science and "uniformitarian" thinking.


Shameless lie, two fold. There is no such thing as creation science, and you are the precise opposite of uniformaitarian. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one using creation science and "uniformitarian" thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Shameless lie, two fold. There is no such thing as creation science, and you are the precise opposite of uniformaitarian. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


How can I be lying when I am usually right?  It's those who are eschewing creation science, i.e. real science, and spouting the wrong atheist science theories that are lying.  200,000+ years and no evidence of aliens.  200,000+ years and no evidence of abiogenesis although people believed in lies for years.  We had a whole generation of adults who ended up believing in the Piltdown Man fraud.  See, I even have the you're a "dam" liar Fort Fun Indiana evidence.  Will Las Vegas have bets on whether NASA will find aliens, i.e. a microbe, on Mars?  Put me down for a $100 on the "No" line.  Maybe I can get 10-to-1 odds or even higher as NASA continues to promote its advanced technology.


----------



## james bond

I can see that you're stumped, too, Fort Fun Indiana by a creation scientist.  Are you going to bet that NASA will find aliens, even one microbe, on Mars?  Put up or shut up.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643, Fort Fun Indiana and others.  Here's something interesting about the probability of abiogenesis happening in the past as you claim.

_*I can't use probability to show that it didn't happen in the past.*_

The probability that chemicals will spontaneously combine to form a living cell is so small that it is reasonable to believe that it will not happen in the future.  Many creationists wil argue that this is good reason to believe it didn't happen in the past.  Sure, it is good reason to believe it didn't happen in the past, but it is not _proof_ that it didn't happen in the past.

We use statistics to calculate what happened in the past.  Not probability.

The real proof that abiogenesis didn't happen in the past is still the experiment.  We had Dr. Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to show only life begats life.  The good reason to believe abiogenesis did not happen in the past is -- scientists have not been able to cause it to happen in the laboratory, i.e. they have not been able to show observable evidence.  This is the best proof that abiogenesis did not happen in the past.  Another reason scientists have not been able to cause it to happen in the laboratory is because they have to violate natural laws to do it.

The scientific proof against abiogenesis is impossibility -- not improbability.  Scientific research has shown abiogenesis cannot happen through natural processes

Thus, no aliens .  There you go.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are we besides bripat9643 incessant whiny cries of aliens and humans from apes?  NASA claims to have found aliens due to advanced technology.  That is a scientific non-sequitur if I ever heard one from these atheist scientists.  What do we know about atheist scientists?  They are _usuall_y WRONG.  Today, these scientists can get away with anything since they removed their competition -- creation scientists -- from science.  In 200,000+ years, there has been no evidence of aliens while there has been evidence of God throughout this thread.
> 
> But they'll keep trying (and failing, i.e. wasting tax payer dollars)
> NASA has announced a new plan to find advanced alien civilizations—technosignatures
> 
> These robots could help NASA find alien life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the quotes from the Bible below facts?
> 
> _The LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:33-34
> 
> So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og ... and we smote him until none was left to him remaining ... from threescore cities ... And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
> 
> And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
> 
> And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2
> 
> And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16
> 
> Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
> 
> But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
> 
> So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40
> 
> Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History, as recorded.  The Bible is a non-fiction book.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  So this god of yours is a genocidal maniac who orders his Iron Age followers to slaughter entire nations of people, just because they happen to occupy some land he wants to give them? He orders them to slaughter every last man woman and child. You actually admit that? 

Do you actually accept the fact that this god you worship is more evil than Hitler or Stalin?

Tell us, do you believe Noah built an ark and loaded two of every kind of animal into it?  Do you believe it then rained so much that the water level of the earth rose higher than mount Everest?

_GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains._​
(Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?)


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643, Fort Fun Indiana and others.  Here's something interesting about the probability of abiogenesis happening in the past as you claim.
> 
> _*I can't use probability to show that it didn't happen in the past.*_
> 
> The probability that chemicals will spontaneously combine to form a living cell is so small that it is reasonable to believe that it will not happen in the future.  Many creationists wil argue that this is good reason to believe it didn't happen in the past.  Sure, it is good reason to believe it didn't happen in the past, but it is not _proof_ that it didn't happen in the past.
> 
> We use statistics to calculate what happened in the past.  Not probability.
> 
> The real proof that abiogenesis didn't happen in the past is still the experiment.  We had Dr. Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to show only life begats life.  The good reason to believe abiogenesis did not happen in the past is -- scientists have not been able to cause it to happen in the laboratory, i.e. they have not been able to show observable evidence.  This is the best proof that abiogenesis did not happen in the past.  Another reason scientists have not been able to cause it to happen in the laboratory is because they have to violate natural laws to do it.
> 
> The scientific proof against abiogenesis is impossibility -- not improbability.  Scientific research has shown abiogenesis cannot happen through natural processes
> 
> Thus, no aliens .  There you go.


Creationists argue all kinds of things that are obvious bullshit.  There is no scientific proof against abiogenesis.  Furthermore, no one ever claimed that that chemicals will spontaneously combine to form a living cell.  The fact that abiogenesis did not occur in Pasteur's flask in a few weeks or months does not prove it can't happen under the right conditions in half a billion years.

Every time you post on this subject you only demonstrate your ignorance of science.


----------



## Death Angel

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL! So this god of yours is a genocidal maniac who orders his Iron Age followers to slaughter entire nations of people, just because they happen to occupy some land he wants to give them? He orders them to slaughter every last man woman and child. You actually admit that?
> 
> Do you actually accept the fact that this god you worship is more evil than Hitler or Stalin?
> 
> Tell us, do you believe Noah built an ark and loaded two of every kind of animal into it? Do you believe it then rained so much that the water level of the earth rose higher than mount Everest?
> 
> _GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains._
> (Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?)


Good Allah this is beyond stupid.  You make so many stupid "points" maybe you could throw out ONE of your "arguments" and DISCUSS one at a time. There are answered to each if you're willing to actually LISTEN. Bu5 I'm guessing you're not interested in DISCUSSION.


----------



## Death Angel

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
/ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
_noun_


HISTORICAL
another term for *spontaneous generation.*

**


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL! So this god of yours is a genocidal maniac who orders his Iron Age followers to slaughter entire nations of people, just because they happen to occupy some land he wants to give them? He orders them to slaughter every last man woman and child. You actually admit that?
> 
> Do you actually accept the fact that this god you worship is more evil than Hitler or Stalin?
> 
> Tell us, do you believe Noah built an ark and loaded two of every kind of animal into it? Do you believe it then rained so much that the water level of the earth rose higher than mount Everest?
> 
> _GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains._
> (Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?)
> 
> 
> 
> Good Allah this is beyond stupid.  You make so many stupid "points" maybe you could throw out ONE of your "arguments" and DISCUSS one at a time. There are answered to each if you're willing to actually LISTEN. Bu5 I'm guessing you're not interested in DISCUSSION.
Click to expand...

Go right ahead and make your excuses for your genocidal maniac god.  Tell us how there's a good reason he told the Israelites to wipe out entire nations to the last man woman and child.

Here, discuss this one quote:

_Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3_​


----------



## Death Angel

Bripat's "unexplainable" flood.

Let me Google that for you (lmgtfy)
LMGTFY


.


----------



## Death Angel

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL! So this god of yours is a genocidal maniac who orders his Iron Age followers to slaughter entire nations of people, just because they happen to occupy some land he wants to give them? He orders them to slaughter every last man woman and child. You actually admit that?


Yes! Do you have ANY idea who the people who inhabited the Land of Israel were? Think ISIS -- even WORSE. Yes, Man CAN become so vile that he no longer has a place on this earth. That is GOD'S right to judge, not yours. Whole cultures are wiped out BECAUSE THEY BECOME SO EVIL. That should be a lesson to every generation. You can "judge" God, but you really have no say in the matter, puny little child.


----------



## Death Angel

The American Injun lost "his" land because these people had become too vile and were destined to be replaced.

Do you think they didn't go to war, take slaves, offer human sacrifices, engage in cannibalism and put their elderly out to die in the cold and eaten by wolves? And I'm whitewashing their atrocities.

These events SHOULD serve as a REMINDER to THIS culture that has killed 60 MILLION babies as SACRIFICES TO "CHOICE." Do you think GOD is not judging us NOW?


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL! So this god of yours is a genocidal maniac who orders his Iron Age followers to slaughter entire nations of people, just because they happen to occupy some land he wants to give them? He orders them to slaughter every last man woman and child. You actually admit that?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Do you have ANY idea who the people who inhabited the Land of Israel were? Think ISIS -- even WORSE. Yes, Man CAN become so vile that he no longer has a place on this earth. That is GOD'S right to judge, not yours. Whole cultures are wiped out BECAUSE THEY BECOME SO EVIL. That should be a lesson to every generation. You can "judge" God, but you really have no say in the matter, puny little child.
Click to expand...

The people who had been living in the area for possibly thousands of years were no better than ISIS?  Says who?  Even the children?  Even the ox,  the sheep, the camel and the ass?  Do you have a list of these atrocities that the _Amalek_ supposedly committed? Are you actually admitting that God told the Israelites to slaughter innocent children and then tell us he's a just and loving god?

That doesn't pass the smell test.

Who says i don't have the right to judge this god of yours?  So he goes around committing genocide or any other cruel depravity he likes, but we don't get to make up our own minds about his behavior?  If it's not allowed, then why even bring it up?  Why not just tell me I have no right to judge your sadistic god and be done with it?  Of course, that's not exactly using logic to justify the claim that he's a loving god, is it?  If you object to logic, then what's the point of having a discussion?


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> The American Injun lost "his" land because these people had become too vile and were destined to be replaced.
> 
> Do you think they didn't go to war, take slaves, offer human sacrifices, engage in cannibalism and put their elderly out to die in the cold and eaten by wolves? And I'm whitewashing their atrocities.
> 
> These events SHOULD serve as a REMINDER to THIS culture that has killed 60 MILLION babies as SACRIFICES TO "CHOICE." Do you think GOD is not judging us NOW?


They sound almost as bad as the Israelites.  

The atrocities the white man committed when he settled this land were far worse than anything the Indians did.  Just consider the millions of black slaves they imported from Africa.  So how does that justify slaughtering innocent children?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are we besides bripat9643 incessant whiny cries of aliens and humans from apes?  NASA claims to have found aliens due to advanced technology.  That is a scientific non-sequitur if I ever heard one from these atheist scientists.  What do we know about atheist scientists?  They are _usuall_y WRONG.  Today, these scientists can get away with anything since they removed their competition -- creation scientists -- from science.  In 200,000+ years, there has been no evidence of aliens while there has been evidence of God throughout this thread.
> 
> But they'll keep trying (and failing, i.e. wasting tax payer dollars)
> NASA has announced a new plan to find advanced alien civilizations—technosignatures
> 
> These robots could help NASA find alien life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the quotes from the Bible below facts?
> 
> _The LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:33-34
> 
> So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og ... and we smote him until none was left to him remaining ... from threescore cities ... And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
> 
> And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
> 
> And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2
> 
> And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16
> 
> Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
> 
> But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
> 
> So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40
> 
> Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History, as recorded.  The Bible is a non-fiction book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So this god of yours is a genocidal maniac who orders his Iron Age followers to slaughter entire nations of people, just because they happen to occupy some land he wants to give them? He orders them to slaughter every last man woman and child. You actually admit that?
> 
> Do you actually accept the fact that this god you worship is more evil than Hitler or Stalin?
> 
> Tell us, do you believe Noah built an ark and loaded two of every kind of animal into it?  Do you believe it then rained so much that the water level of the earth rose higher than mount Everest?
> 
> _GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains._​
> (Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?)
Click to expand...


It's documented in the Bible and one of the first questions new members have about God because of the abhorrent violence and genocide of nations.  God isn't a murderer.  He was doing what was necessary and had morally sufficient reasons for their destruction.  The Canaanite people and their culture were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice.  Deviant sexual acts were the norm.  The Canaanites’ sin was so repellent that God said, “The land vomited out its inhabitants” Levitcus 18:25.  He wasn't evil like Hitler and Stalin who were atheists.

And he was an even more angry God when he destroyed the world with the great flood.  The water came from underneath the sea and we have mountain ranges that are under the ocean.  The water also came from above as it rained 40 days and nights.  How else does one explain Earth being covered with 3/4 water?  We are the only planet like it in the universe.  The water was high, but not as high as Mt. Everest today.  The mountain wasn't as high in the past so could have been covered completely with water.  It became higher from the flood and earthquakes underneath the ocean.

God promised that he will not destroy the Earth again with a global flood.  We find that floods kill the most amount of people in terms of natural disasters.  Furthermore, there is a flood story in practically every culture in the world.  This is due to the global flood or Noah's Flood.  The next destruction of the world is prophecized and will be one of fire that will destroy the Earth.  There won't be a dawn that day and it will be dark and a giant gamma ray explosion will set the world ablaze.  If Sir Isaac Newton was right, then it will happen around 2060, but no one will know and be ready for that day.  God said he will keep the beginning and end to himself.  This also goes for the beginning and end of life.  We will never really be able to define when and what that is.  We have clinical death, but people have returned from that.  It's the point of no return that we do not know.

After reading and studying the Bible more, we find that there are people who are interested in the prophecies.  There are many, from simple to complex, and so far all of them have come true, but how many people believe in a global flood.  Unfortunately, there wasn't many people left to witness and document the story.  We have the Biblical account and mythical tales from most every part of the world.  People like Richard Dawkins and you think they know better and make mockery, but then they would be able to disprove Jesus' resurrection.  If you could do that, then you would destroy Christianity.  So far, Dawkins and his followers haven't been able to do that.  The Catholics have the Shroud of Turin and I think that has been debunked.

ETA:  We'll have the James Webb telescope online soon.  I doubt they will find another planet like earth covered with so much water.  Also, it's interesting that atheist Bill Nye discovered one of the evidence for the flood and the fool didn't even realize it.  He documented it and I can post the youtube if you haven't seen it.

Like I said atheist scientists, i.e. secular scientists, do not know this because they have systematically eliminated creation scientists from science.  What's funny is these scientists try to contradict what the Bible and creation scientists are saying.  The manned expedition to Mars is specifically to find aliens or evidence of past alien life.  All of evolutionary thinking and history is to do the same in order to disprove what it says in the Bible or what creation scientists have said.  Like what I said in this thread.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643, Fort Fun Indiana and others.  Here's something interesting about the probability of abiogenesis happening in the past as you claim.
> 
> _*I can't use probability to show that it didn't happen in the past.*_
> 
> The probability that chemicals will spontaneously combine to form a living cell is so small that it is reasonable to believe that it will not happen in the future.  Many creationists wil argue that this is good reason to believe it didn't happen in the past.  Sure, it is good reason to believe it didn't happen in the past, but it is not _proof_ that it didn't happen in the past.
> 
> We use statistics to calculate what happened in the past.  Not probability.
> 
> The real proof that abiogenesis didn't happen in the past is still the experiment.  We had Dr. Louis Pasteur's famous experiment to show only life begats life.  The good reason to believe abiogenesis did not happen in the past is -- scientists have not been able to cause it to happen in the laboratory, i.e. they have not been able to show observable evidence.  This is the best proof that abiogenesis did not happen in the past.  Another reason scientists have not been able to cause it to happen in the laboratory is because they have to violate natural laws to do it.
> 
> The scientific proof against abiogenesis is impossibility -- not improbability.  Scientific research has shown abiogenesis cannot happen through natural processes
> 
> Thus, no aliens .  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists argue all kinds of things that are obvious bullshit.  There is no scientific proof against abiogenesis.  Furthermore, no one ever claimed that that chemicals will spontaneously combine to form a living cell.  The fact that abiogenesis did not occur in Pasteur's flask in a few weeks or months does not prove it can't happen under the right conditions in half a billion years.
> 
> Every time you post on this subject you only demonstrate your ignorance of science.
Click to expand...


Haha.  It's your ignorance I expose I afraid.  I understand evolution from evolution.berkeley.edu.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How can I be lying when I am usually right?


You're not, though. You say laughably false things and you would fail a 7th grade science test. Everyone knows this....


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are we besides bripat9643 incessant whiny cries of aliens and humans from apes?  NASA claims to have found aliens due to advanced technology.  That is a scientific non-sequitur if I ever heard one from these atheist scientists.  What do we know about atheist scientists?  They are _usuall_y WRONG.  Today, these scientists can get away with anything since they removed their competition -- creation scientists -- from science.  In 200,000+ years, there has been no evidence of aliens while there has been evidence of God throughout this thread.
> 
> But they'll keep trying (and failing, i.e. wasting tax payer dollars)
> NASA has announced a new plan to find advanced alien civilizations—technosignatures
> 
> These robots could help NASA find alien life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the quotes from the Bible below facts?
> 
> _The LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:33-34
> 
> So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og ... and we smote him until none was left to him remaining ... from threescore cities ... And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
> 
> And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
> 
> And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2
> 
> And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16
> 
> Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
> 
> But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
> 
> So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40
> 
> Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History, as recorded.  The Bible is a non-fiction book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So this god of yours is a genocidal maniac who orders his Iron Age followers to slaughter entire nations of people, just because they happen to occupy some land he wants to give them? He orders them to slaughter every last man woman and child. You actually admit that?
> 
> Do you actually accept the fact that this god you worship is more evil than Hitler or Stalin?
> 
> Tell us, do you believe Noah built an ark and loaded two of every kind of animal into it?  Do you believe it then rained so much that the water level of the earth rose higher than mount Everest?
> 
> _GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains._​
> (Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's documented in the Bible and one of the first questions new members have about God because of the abhorrent violence and genocide of nations.
Click to expand...


Your god is the one committing genocide, and ordering his followers to commit it.



james bond said:


> God isn't a murderer.



According to the Bible, he is.



james bond said:


> He was doing what was necessary and had morally sufficient reasons for their destruction.



How was it "moral" or "necessary?"  It appears you believe that whatever god does is moral, even if it would be grossly immoral if a human did the same thing.  How does that logic work?  How does the fact that God does it instantly make it moral?

What are the "sufficient reasons" for their destruction?  None that I can see.  Since god is all powerful, according to you, why couldn't he just create a new place for these people to live and then relocate them?  Is genocide the only solution in God's toolbelt?



james bond said:


> The Canaanite people and their culture were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice.  Deviant sexual acts were the norm.  The Canaanites’ sin was so repellent that God said, “The land vomited out its inhabitants” Levitcus 18:25.  He wasn't evil like Hitler and Stalin who were atheists.



Maybe so, but the Israelites were even more brutal and aggressive.  Leviticus mentions bestiality, but he doesn't say anything about incest or child sacrifice.  So the only real justification is bestiality, which is disgusting, but it's not a crime against people.  Leviticus also goes into how God objects to various states of nakedness, so basically he's a big fat prude.  

All in all, there is simply no rational justification for committing genocide in Leviticus.  Can there ever be a rational justification for genocide?



james bond said:


> And he was an even more angry God when he destroyed the world with the great flood.



Yeah, God was a bigger asshole than anyone ever imagined.




james bond said:


> The water came from underneath the sea and we have mountain ranges that are under the ocean.  The water also came from above as it rained 40 days and nights.  How else does one explain Earth being covered with 3/4 water?



The Bible says it was covered 100% by water during the flood.  Geophysicists believe that many planets are probably covered partially or completely by water.  Several moons in our solar system are completely covered by water.  Water is quite common in the universe.



james bond said:


> We are the only planet like it in the universe.



Wrong.



james bond said:


> The water was high, but not as high as Mt. Everest today.  The mountain wasn't as high in the past so could have been covered completely with water.  It became higher from the flood and earthquakes underneath the ocean.



ROFL!  Now you're contradicting what's in the Bible. You're making stuff up from whole cloth.  How would you know Mt Everest was shorter then?  Does the Bible say that?  No.  The Bible doesn't even mention Mt Everest because those ignorant Israelites didn't even know it existed.  The geological evidence certainly doesn't show that Everest was shorter 6000 years ago.  Where are you getting this stuff?




james bond said:


> God promised that he will not destroy the Earth again with a global flood.



So?  How does that make him not an asshole?  He only slaughtered the entire population of the Earth one time means he's really an OK guy?



james bond said:


> We find that floods kill the most amount of people in terms of natural disasters.  Furthermore, there is a flood story in practically every culture in the world.  This is due to the global flood or Noah's Flood.



Wrong.  Most civilizations are born on rivers.  They tend to flood on occasion.



james bond said:


> The next destruction of the world is prophecized and will be one of fire that will destroy the Earth.  There won't be a dawn that day and it will be dark and a giant gamma ray explosion will set the world ablaze.  If Sir Isaac Newton was right, then it will happen around 2060, but no one will know and be ready for that day.  God said he will keep the beginning and end to himself.  This also goes for the beginning and end of life.  We will never really be able to define when and what that is.  We have clinical death, but people have returned from that.  It's the point of no return that we do not know.



now you're just babbling about stuff that isn't relevant to the discussion.



james bond said:


> After reading and studying the Bible more, we find that there are people who are interested in the prophecies.  There are many, from simple to complex, and so far all of them have come true, but how many people believe in a global flood.  Unfortunately, there wasn't many people left to witness and document the story.  We have the Biblical account and mythical tales from most every part of the world.  People like Richard Dawkins and you think they know better and make mockery, but then they would be able to disprove Jesus' resurrection.  If you could do that, then you would destroy Christianity.  So far, Dawkins and his followers haven't been able to do that.  The Catholics have the Shroud of Turin and I think that has been debunked.



I don't have to disprove the resurrection of Jesus anymore than I have to disprove a child's fable or the existence of big foot.  Those who make extraordinary climes are required to support them. Skeptics aren't required to do anything.



james bond said:


> ETA:  We'll have the James Webb telescope online soon.  I doubt they will find another planet like earth covered with so much water.  Also, it's interesting that atheist Bill Nye discovered one of the evidence for the flood and the fool didn't even realize it.  He documented it and I can post the youtube if you haven't seen it.



You doubt it?  That's your proof?  The fact is almost indisputable that it will find many planets covered with water.



james bond said:


> Like I said atheist scientists, i.e. secular scientists, do not know this because they have systematically eliminated creation scientists from science.  What's funny is these scientists try to contradict what the Bible and creation scientists are saying.  The manned expedition to Mars is specifically to find aliens or evidence of past alien life.  All of evolutionary thinking and history is to do the same in order to disprove what it says in the Bible or what creation scientists have said.  Like what I said in this thread.



Creationism isn't science.  It's abracadabra, hocus-pocus.  The Bible is a compilation of myths.  There is hardly a single fact in it.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be lying when I am usually right?
> 
> 
> 
> You're not, though. You say laughably false things and you would fail a 7th grade science test. Everyone knows this....
Click to expand...


Wrong as atheists are usually wrong.  My kids and I can pass it because of reading the text and studying.  It's a 7th grade secular science test.  That does not mean that the science is correct.  It's still theory.  It's the best theory because creation science has been systematically eliminated from the public schools.  Is it any wonder that creation people want to put creation science into public schools so the students have both theories.  Some students and people such as I are not stupid.  They know science is best theory at the time and can read any grade text book, study and regurgitate the answer.  The key is to be able to understand more and more complex materials, be able to summarize it so one can think and be able figure things out.  Obviously, you have failed in doing this saying that I am wrong.  Your last sentence is wrong.  Everyone does not know this and you are at the top of the list.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> According to the Bible, he is.



In the OT, God kills multitudes of people, but he isn't a murderer because he had just cause.  To kill with just cause does not mean murder.  One can have just cause and kill someone to prevent death or grave bodily injury to oneself or another or in times of war.  Most people know this, but apparently you don't haha.



bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, God was a bigger asshole than anyone ever imagined.



"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark - you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."  Genesis 6:11-21

We still have acts of God and people die in them.  Even good people die in them.  God destroyed the world in a global flood because of the above.



bripat9643 said:


> Wrong. Most civilizations are born on rivers. They tend to flood on occasion.



Those are local floods.  Their fictional stories are all based on a huge flood.  More than a regional flood.



bripat9643 said:


> now you're just babbling about stuff that isn't relevant to the discussion.



I'm pointing out the world will be destroyed again with a gamma ray blast per prophecy.  This time everyone will be gone for good.  It's not going to be destroyed due to global warming.  



bripat9643 said:


> The fact is almost indisputable that it will find many planets covered with water.



With all the advanced technology telescopes, they haven't found one so you are lying stating that it's a fact.



bripat9643 said:


> Creationism isn't science. It's abracadabra, hocus-pocus.



I've been stating creation theory and it better explains the facts such as no aliens, no life from non-life, the chicken before the egg, no apes and chimps who are bipedal, why the universe and everything in it is here and so on.  You have not produced one piece of scientific evidence using the scientific method such as tailed monkeys to tailless ones or gorillas to chimps or chimps to gorillas or how NASA is going to find aliens.  You haven't shown abiogenesis in a geyser such as Old Faithful.  You can't even explain how the electromagnetic spectrum came to be.  Nor how the Earth and Venus have magnetic fields while Mars does not have one.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> In the OT, God kills multitudes of people, but he isn't a murderer because he had just cause.


007 would be screaming with laughter at that one.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the OT, God kills multitudes of people, but he isn't a murderer because he had just cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 007 would be screaming with laughter at that one.
Click to expand...


Not really.  He's got a licence to kill which absolves him of murder.


----------



## Mousterian

So 007 is God?


----------



## bripat9643

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the OT, God kills multitudes of people, but he isn't a murderer because he had just cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 007 would be screaming with laughter at that one.
Click to expand...

So am I.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the OT, God kills multitudes of people, but he isn't a murderer because he had just cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 007 would be screaming with laughter at that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  He's got a licence to kill which absolves him of murder.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  In other words, God can get away with murder because he's says it's OK when he does it?

What would a court of law say about it?  God would be convicted hands down, open and shut.

If you claim God can get away with murder, then you are making a mockery of the principles of morality.  God gets away with anything because he writes the rules?  If that's true, then the rules are meaningless.  If God isn't subject to the rules, then how can you claim he's good and merciful?  Based on what, these arbitrary rules that he created and that he exempts himself from?  God is good because God says he's good?

You claim you're so smart, but you seem unable to use the rules of logic to make value judgements about God. Your brain stops working the minute you open your so-called "good book."


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Bible, he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the OT, God kills multitudes of people, but he isn't a murderer because he had just cause.  To kill with just cause does not mean murder.  One can have just cause and kill someone to prevent death or grave bodily injury to oneself or another or in times of war.  Most people know this, but apparently you don't haha.
Click to expand...


He has just cause for killing innocent little children?  Because a few people had sex with goats he has just cause to wipe out every last man, woman and child?  Sorry, but no modern court of law or moral philosopher would agree with that assessment.  By what principles of morality is his cause just?



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, God was a bigger asshole than anyone ever imagined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark - you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."  Genesis 6:11-21
Click to expand...


So God claims those people were corrupt?  By what standard?  His own arbitrary standard?  Because a few people had sex with goats?  God hasn't sold it.  He simply assumes it, and you simply assume that God is justified without any evidence.



james bond said:


> We still have acts of God and people die in them.  Even good people die in them.  God destroyed the world in a global flood because of the above.



So God is still a murdering asshole.  You aren't making your case.  God created Malaria, Ebola, Typhus, Syphilis, Dengue Fever and parasites too numerous to mention.  Millions of people die from these diseases every year.  Lot's of them are small children.  God killed them.  There's nothing just or moral about that.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Most civilizations are born on rivers. They tend to flood on occasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are local floods.  Their fictional stories are all based on a huge flood.  More than a regional flood.
Click to expand...


Their flood myths are just as bogus as the one in the Bible.  They originate from 100 year or 1000 year floods that have occurred on the rivers than run through their civilizations.  These events get retold and distorted and turned into myths.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is almost indisputable that it will find many planets covered with water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all the advanced technology telescopes, they haven't found one so you are lying stating that it's a fact.
Click to expand...


Those telescopes aren't sufficiently strong enough to detect water.  The fact that scientists haven't been able to detect water yet only proves that they haven't been able to detect water yet.  Man wasn't able to fly until the Wright brothers invented the airplane.  Numerous "authorities" said flight was impossible before that happened.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism isn't science. It's abracadabra, hocus-pocus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been stating creation theory and it better explains the facts such as no aliens, no life from non-life, the chicken before the egg, no apes and chimps who are bipedal, why the universe and everything in it is here and so on.  You have not produced one piece of scientific evidence using the scientific method such as tailed monkeys to tailless ones or gorillas to chimps or chimps to gorillas or how NASA is going to find aliens.  You haven't shown abiogenesis in a geyser such as Old Faithful.  You can't even explain how the electromagnetic spectrum came to be.  Nor how the Earth and Venus have magnetic fields while Mars does not have one.
Click to expand...


Creationism isn't science, and it doesn't explain jack shit except for what a bunch of savages wandering in the desert 3000 years ago believed.

If the Bible explains things better, then explain why God said that rabbits chew their cud.

_Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat. Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; *the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you.* (Leviticus 11:3–6)
_​God doesn't seem to know some basic facts about the biology of the animals he created

Evolution doesn't state that there should be chimps or gorillas that are bipedal.  That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.  No one knows why the universe is here.  The fact that we can't demonstrate abiogenesis doesn't prove that it didn't happen, and it certainly doesn't prove that God did it.  Your argument is that if man can't explain it or demonstrate it, then magic happened.

That isn't logic.  It's the mentality of a Stone Age savage.


----------



## james bond

Mousterian said:


> So 007 is God?



No, he's a fictional character in novels and films who has a licence to kill.  God is real because the universe and everything in it is here.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!  In other words, God can get away with murder because he's says it's OK when he does it?



You need to learn reading comprehension.  God had _just cause_.



bripat9643 said:


> What would a court of law say about it?  God would be convicted hands down, open and shut.



Wrong again.  Why don't YOU bring an invisible God into court?  Your logic is silly.

There are people like you who blame God when their loved ones are killed in an accident or a local flood.  They end up being very bitter.



bripat9643 said:


> If you claim God can get away with murder, then you are making a mockery of the principles of morality.  God gets away with anything because he writes the rules?  If that's true, then the rules are meaningless.  If God isn't subject to the rules, then how can you claim he's good and merciful?  Based on what, these arbitrary rules that he created and that he exempts himself from?  God is good because God says he's good?



You haven't convicted God of murder.  His defense and I are saying there was "just cause."  Why don't you look that up?






That said, they still use the Bible to make you swear an oath you are telling the whole truth, so no contradiction there.



bripat9643 said:


> You claim you're so smart, but you seem unable to use the rules of logic to make value judgements about God. Your brain stops working the minute you open your so-called "good book."



You are one dumb doodoo claiming the rules of logic.  Our laws in the USA are based on objective moral values of God.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Their flood myths are just as bogus as the one in the Bible. They originate from 100 year or 1000 year floods that have occurred on the rivers than run through their civilizations. These events get retold and distorted and turned into myths.



You are so biased with uniformitarianism that you do not understand catastrophism as a science.



bripat9643 said:


> Those telescopes aren't sufficiently strong enough to detect water. The fact that scientists haven't been able to detect water yet only proves that they haven't been able to detect water yet. Man wasn't able to fly until the Wright brothers invented the airplane. Numerous "authorities" said flight was impossible before that happened.



So you just admitted that you lied about other planets having water like Earth as FACT .



bripat9643 said:


> f the Bible explains things better, then explain why God said that rabbits chew their cud.



"Chewing the cud" with rabbits means redigesting their food after it passes out of their system; It means eating their own feces.  To this day, they still make a chewing motion like ruminants who also redigest their foods albeit in a different fashion because of their more complex stomach structure.  Do you love to eat rabbit?

Funny how you are an expert on feces.



bripat9643 said:


> Evolution doesn't state that there should be chimps or gorillas that are bipedal. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.



Facepalm.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Evolution states chimps and gorillas are of common descent.  How can they be when they do not mingle?  There are no chimp-gorilla or gorilla-chimp hybrids.  It's the same with tailed to tailless monkeys.  They do not happen today.  Thus, where is the common descent?  

It's the same with apes and chimps not being bipedal.  Thus, using UNIFORMITARIAN thinking, it did not happen in the past as common ancestor theorists like to claim.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  In other words, God can get away with murder because he's says it's OK when he does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn reading comprehension.  God had _just cause_.
Click to expand...


You keep saying that, but you haven't proved it. Who says he has "just cause" other than himself and his fanatical adherents?  The fact that a few people in a city have sex with animals isn't "just cause" for slaughtering every man woman and child in that city.

Prove he had "just cause," or quit saying it.  BTW, as far as I'm concerned, there is no "just cause" for genocide.  You have to be morally depraved to believe that genocide is ever justified.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would a court of law say about it?  God would be convicted hands down, open and shut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Why don't YOU bring an invisible God into court?  Your logic is silly.
Click to expand...


My logic is silly? I'm not the one who claims that an invisible gaseous vertebrate with a penis reads my mind and has "a license to kill."

Any person in court accused of what God has done, according to your good book, would be sentenced to hang.  You have yet to demonstrate that your god is innocent of crimes against humanity.  All you've done is claim that he has a "get out of jail free" card.  He can do whatever he likes, even when it goes against the commandments he set down in stone for humanity to follow.



james bond said:


> There are people like you who blame God when their loved ones are killed in an accident or a local flood.  They end up being very bitter.



I don't blame god because I know he doesn't exist.

In the case of floods, your god is responsible.  How can he not be?  Did he create the flood?  Of course he did.  That makes him guilty of murder.   If I set off a bomb in the center of town, am I responsible for all the people that get killed?  Of course I am.  So how is your god not responsible for the people he kills when he causes a flood?



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim God can get away with murder, then you are making a mockery of the principles of morality.  God gets away with anything because he writes the rules?  If that's true, then the rules are meaningless.  If God isn't subject to the rules, then how can you claim he's good and merciful?  Based on what, these arbitrary rules that he created and that he exempts himself from?  God is good because God says he's good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't convicted God of murder.  His defense and I are saying there was "just cause."  Why don't you look that up?
Click to expand...


I have looked it up.  No court in the world would accept God's claim that he had "just cause."  By what standard, other than the arbitrary one he created where he can do whatever he likes?



james bond said:


> That said, they still use the Bible to make you swear an oath you are telling the whole truth, so no contradiction there.



All that shows is that plenty of people still believe in Stone Age myths and fairy tales.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you're so smart, but you seem unable to use the rules of logic to make value judgements about God. Your brain stops working the minute you open your so-called "good book."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one dumb doodoo claiming the rules of logic.  Our laws in the USA are based on objective moral values of God.
Click to expand...


There's hardly anything objective about the moral values of your God.  He commits crimes that any human would be executed for, and rightly so.

Answer this question:  if your god is so moral and merciful, then why does he condone slavery?  Do you believe slavery is moral or just?  Well, your god does.  That alone should demonstrate that your god is a sick, twisted psychopath.

Do you condone executing homosexuals?  Well, your sick twisted psychopath god does.

You claim that God has "just cause" just doesn't wash because that would mean it's OK to execute homosexuals.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> You keep saying that, but you haven't proved it. Who says he has "just cause" other than himself and his fanatical adherents? The fact that a few people in a city have sex with animals isn't "just cause" for slaughtering every man woman and child in that city.



It has already been determined with the Canaanites.  God commanded Joshua to carry out the genocide.  Can I help it if you can't accept the judgment?  This happened before I was born.  What you are missing is the other side of God and God's word.  All you have is disbelief, the opposite of faith, and belief in what you want to believe.  The Canaanites were people who were evil beyond what we can imagine today.  If you want proof so bad, then are you ready to do some reading in order to get it?  If the following is not enough, then you should find a church and talk with someone about your complaints.  They should be able to find a Bible study for you.  It's you who want proof or justification for what God did.  I already gave you mine.  You're the one who wants to take God to court, so that has nothing to do with me.  You and everyone else in this world are tainted by sin and have much to learn beyond the scope of this post for what you want. 

For anyone to commit murder, then they would have to do it “unlawfully.”  With God, one has to recognize that he is God.  Thus, “His works are perfect, and all His ways are just.  A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He” Deuteronomy 32:4.  See also Psalm 11:7; 90:0.  God created man and expects obedience Exodus 20:4-6; Exodus 23:21; 2 John 1:6.  When you take it upon yourself to disobey God as you are doing now, you face God’s wrath Exodus 19:5; Exodus 23:21-22; Leviticus 26:14-18.  Furthermore, “God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day.  If you (man) does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready” Psalm 7:11-12.



bripat9643 said:


> I don't blame god because I know he doesn't exist.



That's part of your problem.  Not mine or anyone else's.  I can't help it if you're full of disbelief instead of faith in God.  Once you have faith in God, then he begins to exist in your worldview.

Thus, do not blame God if he exists and Jesus sends you to hell.  I can accept that as just cause.  You don't even believe that (which is _your_ sin), so if it's true, then you'll have to accept the consequences.  I think that is fair and just.

The rest of your complaints fall under the above.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but you haven't proved it. Who says he has "just cause" other than himself and his fanatical adherents? The fact that a few people in a city have sex with animals isn't "just cause" for slaughtering every man woman and child in that city.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been determined with the Canaanites.
Click to expand...


Who determined it other than God?  What was the basis of this determination?  If you can't explain it, then you can't claim it's true.



james bond said:


> God commanded Joshua to carry out the genocide.  Can I help it if you can't accept the judgment?
> This happened before I was born.  What you are missing is the other side of God and God's word.  All you have is disbelief, the opposite of faith, and belief in what you want to believe.



If you can't explain it, then why should anyone believe it?  You see, science is based on facts and logic, not faith. When you tell me to have faith, you are telling me to reject science.  You can't claim creationism is science if you claim we should believe it despite having insufficient facts or logic to support it.



james bond said:


> The Canaanites were people who were evil beyond what we can imagine today.  If you want proof so bad, then are you ready to do some reading in order to get it?



I read God's accusations against the Amalek to justify wiping them out to the last man, woman, child, ox, camel and goat, and I'm not impressed.  God failed to explain what he was justified in slaughtering all their children.  In fact, he failed to explain why he was justified in killing all the men and women.  The only crime they are guilty of, aside from making war on the Israelites who were invading their territory, is having sex with animals.  That's not a justification for genocide.  There is no justification for genocide.

If you've got something that proves the God was justified in committing genocide against the Amalek, then post it.  So far you haven't.  You simply claim it's true.



james bond said:


> If the following is not enough, then you should find a church and talk with someone about your complaints.  They should be able to find a Bible study for you.  It's you who want proof or justification for what God did.  I already gave you mine.  You're the one who wants to take God to court, so that has nothing to do with me.  You and everyone else in this world are tainted by sin and have much to learn beyond the scope of this post for what you want.



Yes, I do want proof and justification for what God did.  That's how science works.  It's based on facts and logic.  Telling me to go read the Bible is just an admission that you have nothing to back your claims.  Saying you gave me your justification just means you refuse to provide any real evidence.  You don't care about the evidence.  You reject facts and logic.  

Yes I do want God to go to court.  He's a criminal who should answer for his crimes.  That's how rational people deal with mass murderers.  You're spouting like a preacher and not a scientist.



james bond said:


> For anyone to commit murder, then they would have to do it “unlawfully.”  With God, one has to recognize that he is God.  Thus, “His works are perfect, and all His ways are just.  A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He” Deuteronomy 32:4.  See also Psalm 11:7; 90:0.  God created man and expects obedience Exodus 20:4-6; Exodus 23:21; 2 John 1:6.  When you take it upon yourself to disobey God as you are doing now, you face God’s wrath Exodus 19:5; Exodus 23:21-22; Leviticus 26:14-18.  Furthermore, “God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day.  If you (man) does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready” Psalm 7:11-12.



All you're saying is that God can do whatever he wants.  Whatever God does is just, even if he commits mass murder and kills innocent children and babies.  That utterly destroys the meaning of the word justice.



bripat9643 said:


> I don't blame god because I know he doesn't exist.





james bond said:


> That's part of your problem.  Not mine or anyone else's.  I can't help it if you're full of disbelief instead of faith in God.  Once you have faith in God, then he begins to exist in your worldview.



Yes, it is your problem, because you claim the Bible is fact.  Yet, when asked to demonstrate that it's fact, you tell me to have faith.  that I should reject facts and logic and simply believe what the Bible says.   If you want me to accept the Bible is factual, then you can't tell me to believe it because of faith.  



james bond said:


> Thus, do not blame God if he exists and Jesus sends you to hell.  I can accept that as just cause.  You don't even believe that (which is _your_ sin), so if it's true, then you'll have to accept the consequences.  I think that is fair and just.
> 
> The rest of your complaints fall under the above.



I don't care what you can accept.  It's what rational people can accept that counts.  You admit you're not rational.  You admit you reject facts and logic.  You utterly refuse to prove that God had just cause for wiping out the Amaleks.

Don't go telling me to have faith and then claim your Bible babble is science.


----------



## Death Angel

bripat9643 said:


> Prove he had "just cause," or quit saying it. BTW, as far as I'm concerned, there is no "just cause" for genocide. You have to be morally depraved to believe that genocide is ever justified


Wby aren't you angry at God because you have a limited lifespan on earth and don't live eternally? Isn't He, in effect "murdering" us all with our 3 score and 10? Yet you accept that.

The fact is, you have no right to decide if or how long a human being has on this planet. In the end this is God's decision and you have no say.

Btw, your avatar is fitting in this discussion.


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove he had "just cause," or quit saying it. BTW, as far as I'm concerned, there is no "just cause" for genocide. You have to be morally depraved to believe that genocide is ever justified
> 
> 
> 
> Wby aren't you angry at God because you have a limited lifespan on earth and don't live eternally? Isn't He, in effect "murdering" us all with our 3 score and 10? Yet you accept that.
> 
> The fact is, you have no right to decide if or how long a human being has on this planet. In the end this is God's decision and you have no say.
> 
> Btw, your avatar is fitting in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm not mad because I don't believe in God.  Since I have a brain that is capable of reason, I have every right to determine whether the god you claim exists is in fact, merciful and just.  If you don't want your god to be evaluated in terms of science, then quit claiming creationism is science instead of abracadabra


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Who determined it other than God? What was the basis of this determination? If you can't explain it, then you can't claim it's true.



You still do not get it.  You are with sin.  We all are.



bripat9643 said:


> You can't claim creationism is science if you claim we should believe it despite having insufficient facts or logic to support it.



The fact is the universe and everything in it is here when it isn't supposed to be.  The Bible tells us how it got here in Genesis and that God stretches out the universe.  The fact is It's still being stretched out.  The Bible tells us that the universe is shaped like a scroll.  We found out the shape of the universe is flat like a scroll a few years ago, not saddle shaped as previously thought.



bripat9643 said:


> Yet, when asked to demonstrate that it's fact, you tell me to have faith. that I should reject facts and logic and simply believe what the Bible says.



You do not have facts for abiogenesis, aliens, monkeys to human common ancestry and more.  They're secular theories and as I have pointed out not observable science, just historical science.  That which is observable such a no bipedalism in apes and chimps today, you deny.  I even pointed it out using uniformitarian thinking, and still you deny.  You can't have it both ways.  That's a contradiction which falsifies that theory.  OTOH, you have failed to point out the contradiction in the Bible.

Basically, what I see is you have not learned from Adam's sin and Adam was the most perfect human at the time.  What was his sin?  Obviously, he believed in God, so God put a negative test in front of him and Eve.

Today, we have John 3:16 as to what to believe.  This time, God has put a positive test so all can participate.  However, your statement of disbelief violates that.  Your rantings also violate one of the commandments.  What commandment are you violation of that makes you a sinner?  You already had Adam's sin and now you have another.  That's the _just cause_ in God's terms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"was stumped by a creationist"

Said no informed person for the last 150 years....


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who determined it other than God? What was the basis of this determination? If you can't explain it, then you can't claim it's true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still do not get it.  You are with sin.  We all are.
Click to expand...


In other words, God, is the only one who says.  God doesn't have to follow his own rules of morality.  God isn't evil simply because the Bible defines whatever God does as good and holy.  That's utter crap.  It sure as hell isn't science or factual.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't claim creationism is science if you claim we should believe it despite having insufficient facts or logic to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is the universe and everything in it is here when it isn't supposed to be.
Click to expand...


Who says it's not supposed to be here other than you and a bunch of other Bible thumpers?  Referring to the Bible isn't science.  It's abracadabra.



james bond said:


> The Bible tells us how it got here in Genesis and that God stretches out the universe.



That's a myth.  It has no scientific evidence to support it.  You claim creationism is science.  Yet the only way you can support it is by referring to the Bible, a collection of Stone Age myths.



james bond said:


> The fact is It's still being stretched out.  The Bible tells us that the universe is shaped like a scroll.  We found out the shape of the universe is flat like a scroll a few years ago, not saddle shaped as previously thought.



You don't even know what it means when a physicist says the universe is flat, and it's not a confirmed theory.   It's just speculation at the moment.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, when asked to demonstrate that it's fact, you tell me to have faith. that I should reject facts and logic and simply believe what the Bible says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have facts for abiogenesis, aliens, monkeys to human common ancestry and more.
Click to expand...


Yes I do.  For one thing, I know for a fact that your understanding of the theory of evolution is wrong.  Your theory that abiogenesis has been proven never to have occurred is also wrong.



james bond said:


> They're secular theories and as I have pointed out not observable science, just historical science.



Even if that were true, that doesn't mean you get to assume that God did it.



james bond said:


> That which is observable such a no bipedalism in apes and chimps today, you deny.



That isn't a requirement for evolution to be true.  It's proof that you don't know the slightest thing about the science of evolution.  There were plenty of bipedal apes in the past.



james bond said:


> I even pointed it out using uniformitarian thinking, and still you deny.



I have no idea what you believe the term "uniformitarian" is supposed to mean, but I'm sure you don't understand it.



james bond said:


> You can't have it both ways.  That's a contradiction which falsifies that theory.  OTOH, you have failed to point out the contradiction in the Bible.



What "both ways" are you referring to?  None of what you spout has any connection with reality.



james bond said:


> Basically, what I see is you have not learned from Adam's sin and Adam was the most perfect human at the time.  What was his sin?  Obviously, he believed in God, so God put a negative test in front of him and Eve.



Adam and Eve are myths.  Other than the Bible, there isn't a shred of evidence that they ever existed.

Speaking of Adam and Eve, answer this question:
_
After he murdered his brother, "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch" (Gen 4:17). To Enoch was born Irad, who became the father of Mehujael, who became the father of Methushael, who became the father of Lamech (v. 18). No wives are named anywhere. Finally Lamech marries two women who are named: Adah and Zillah (v. 19)._​
Where did Cain's wife come from?  Adam and Eve were the only two humans on Earth when Cain was born, so where did his wife come from?



james bond said:


> Today, we have John 3:16 as to what to believe.  This time, God has put a positive test so all can participate.  However, your statement of disbelief violates that.  Your rantings also violate one of the commandments.  What commandment are you violation of that makes you a sinner?  You already had Adam's sin and now you have another.  That's the _just cause_ in God's terms.



Once again you're telling me to have faith rather than insist on evidence.  That isn't science.  It's abracadabra.  Faith isn't allowed in science.   You're only proving that you know your creationist hocus-pocus has no basis in science.  Whenever you're asked to produce some science, you runaway to your faith based theories.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation. There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely!
Click to expand...



How about a third option;  beings who are NOT ACTUALLY gods but highly evolved created us.


----------



## bripat9643

anynameyouwish said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation. There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about a third option;  beings who are NOT ACTUALLY gods but highly evolved created us.
Click to expand...

What's the evidence for that?  Who created them?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

anynameyouwish said:


> How about a third option; beings who are NOT ACTUALLY gods but highly evolved created us.


You can say that unicorns and leprechauns created us, for all I care. Either way, you have explained exactly nothing and have provided no useful information that yields any useful predictions. but in any event, none of this contradicts what we know. it's when you start contradicting the evidence that you will get in trouble.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "was stumped by a creationist"
> 
> Said no informed person for the last 150 years....



What's evolution?  Not ToE, but abiogenesis, common descent, changes over long-time and macroevolution?  Doesn't that replace God?  What's the first commandment again?  So don't be so certain.  You still have Judgment Day and the afterlife.


----------



## Picaro

RandomPoster said:


> The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?
> 
> I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support it and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?
> 
> This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.



this is the false premise that one has to choose one or the other, which is rubbish. I'm an agnostic, and I sleep just fine knowing evolution is rubbish and no evidence exists for it, and I do find more evidence of the 'intelligent design' arguments than for the fake evolutionists hand waves, and I don't have 'proof' of either, and I sleep just fine not knowing either way, since hard empirical evidence doesn't exist for either. It's like not knowing who killed Jimmy Hoffa; I don't worry about that or lose any sleep over that question either.


----------



## Chuz Life

I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.


----------



## Picaro

fncceo said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.... yes, there is plenty of proof that evolution happens.  We can see it happening and it best explains how life on this planet went from where it was to how it is now.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, there isn't; pretending genetic *adaptation* is relatively easy re lower level simple cells, but that isn't *evolution*, which requires a fossil record for empirical evidence and genuine genetic mutations by the billions, which is just a ludicrous claim, given the vast majority of mutations are harmful, not beneficial, and it's a mathematical probability of near zero that such complexity can 'evolve' over just a few billion years. Stupid fantasy hand waves like 'punctuated equilibrium' aren't 'empirical evidence', they're just made up rubbish.


----------



## Picaro

Chuz Life said:


> I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.



Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any; it's a function of how one defines their terms, and nobody has ever refuted Aquina's logic, though many have lied and the more mentally challenged will believe the fake claims, not having any understanding of why those claiming to are wrong.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> In other words, God, is the only one who says. God doesn't have to follow his own rules of morality. God isn't evil simply because the Bible defines whatever God does as good and holy. That's utter crap. It sure as hell isn't science or factual.



Here is _your_ message.  Jesus taught, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."  This was in reply to a Pharisee lawyer who asked him what is the greatest commandment.  I suppose this is the commandment you have not followed from all the rambling and ranting about the Christian religion that you went on.



bripat9643 said:


> That's a myth. It has no scientific evidence to support it. You claim creationism is science. Yet the only way you can support it is by referring to the Bible, a collection of Stone Age myths.



It's the God or Bible Theory.  He was the only witness.  Like I said, we found the universe was flat as described (not saddle shaped) and being stretched out.  It's still expanding.  That's science.  Still to discover are whether it has boundaries or edges and whether it curls upward.

What do you have?  You had the eternal universe or steady state theory and it was wrong.  Now you have the Big Bang Theory.  My little joke is we end with a bang, not start with it.



bripat9643 said:


> That isn't a requirement for evolution to be true.



It's part of macroevolution which does not happen.  It's part of the common descent, but it seems you are ignorant of it.



bripat9643 said:


> I have no idea what you believe the term "uniformitarian" is supposed to mean, but I'm sure you don't understand it.



That's hilarious.  You do not know what uniformitarian is supposed to mean and then state I do not understand it.



bripat9643 said:


> What "both ways" are you referring to? None of what you spout has any connection with reality.



It was in regard to ToE in regards to common descent of humans from apes and chimps.  The descent was from tailed to tailless monkeys.  Then it became gorillas and chimpanzees.  There is no evidence from that.  All of those animals in the past look exactly like the animals we have today.  Yet, somehow today's monkeys are different.  Your point was we had an ape-human, one of the australaphocines, that became human.  We do not observe that today.  We do not observe any of the aforementioned so called common descent.  Moreover, we do not observe bipedalism in apes and chimps.  So, basically what you got is a bunch of old fossils and claims that all of the aforementioned happened.  I said that it didn't happen as you claim and you have no answer for it.

And I'll lump all of your other comments as the same.  All you have are assertions.  You admitted you do not know uniformitarian which is part of evolution.  You also haven't been very scientific is any of your explanations in the S&T forum.  All you have are assertions.  I was patient and tried to explain it to you, but instead you rambled onto the Bible in a S&T forum.  How stupid is that when you can't tell the difference between the religion forum and S&T.  I admit there are overlaps, but what does what you kept rambling about have anything to do with science?  You are a boob.  That's my conclusion.


----------



## fncceo

Picaro said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.... yes, there is plenty of proof that evolution happens.  We can see it happening and it best explains how life on this planet went from where it was to how it is now.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there isn't; pretending genetic *adaptation* is relatively easy re lower level simple cells, but that isn't *evolution*, which requires a fossil record for empirical evidence and genuine genetic mutations by the billions, which is just a ludicrous claim, given the vast majority of mutations are harmful, not beneficial, and it's a mathematical probability of near zero that such complexity can 'evolve' over just a few billion years. Stupid fantasy hand waves like 'punctuated equilibrium' aren't 'empirical evidence', they're just made up rubbish.
Click to expand...


Other important questions that have no impact or our lives include ...


----------



## Chuz Life

Picaro said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any; it's a function of how one defines their terms, and nobody has ever refuted Aquina's logic, though many have lied and the more mentally challenged will believe the fake claims, not having any understanding of why those claiming to are wrong.
Click to expand...


Facepalm. 

I should have known better than to introduce a comment about science into a thread on philosophy.


----------



## Picaro

Chuz Life said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any; it's a function of how one defines their terms, and nobody has ever refuted Aquina's logic, though many have lied and the more mentally challenged will believe the fake claims, not having any understanding of why those claiming to are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facepalm.
> 
> I should have known better than to introduce a comment about science into a thread on philosophy.
Click to expand...


Well, it's blatantly obvious via biology that a person's life begins at conception; nothing 'philosophical' about that. I don't know what you mean here; science is natural philosophy, and the concept of empiricism is derived from philosophy. The problems come from scientists themselves lying and discrediting themselves, something they do quite often, being as much fashion victims as those allegedly less 'rational'.


----------



## james bond

Chuz Life said:


> I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.



I talked about that.  God said that he will not reveal the beginning nor end.  It's something he will keep to himself.  Thus, we do not know when a fetus' life begins and when a person's life ends.  We had people come back to life after being clinically dead.  Supposedly, we will never know.  One can apply the same to the universe.  Each side can explain, i.e. theorizes, how it came into being, but that is all we can do.  We won't know when the world will end either.  I suppose our world ending is the same as the universe ending according to Biblical prophecy.


----------



## james bond

The main part that continues to bug me that bripat9643 and I discussed is how he states fossils such as Lucy or australopiticus afarensis and ardipithicus are facts that he's right.  Fossils are facts, but it doesn't mean the theory is right.  I can understand a person arguing for it, but the evidence is scant and it opens up what led up to it as well.


----------



## cnm

Mousterian said:


> So 007 is God?


No, is James Bond.


----------



## Chuz Life

james bond said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talked about that.  God said that he will not reveal the beginning nor end.  It's something he will keep to himself.  *Thus, we do not know when a fetus' life begins and when a person's life ends.*  We had people come back to life after being clinically dead.  Supposedly, we will never know.  One can apply the same to the universe.  Each side can explain, i.e. theorizes, how it came into being, but that is all we can do.  We won't know when the world will end either.  I suppose our world ending is the same as the universe ending according to Biblical prophecy.
Click to expand...


So much for our laws against murder then, huh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Doesn't that replace God?


No, not at all. your dogma  makes you think that. Please be more specific about your preferred brand of magical voodoo when complaining about evolution. You do not speak for all theists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Picaro said:


> Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any


no they aren't, they are laughable nonsense that are fodder 4 exercises for college freshmen


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, God, is the only one who says. God doesn't have to follow his own rules of morality. God isn't evil simply because the Bible defines whatever God does as good and holy. That's utter crap. It sure as hell isn't science or factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is _your_ message.  Jesus taught, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."  This was in reply to a Pharisee lawyer who asked him what is the greatest commandment.  I suppose this is the commandment you have not followed from all the rambling and ranting about the Christian religion that you went on.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth. It has no scientific evidence to support it. You claim creationism is science. Yet the only way you can support it is by referring to the Bible, a collection of Stone Age myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the God or Bible Theory.  He was the only witness.  Like I said, we found the universe was flat as described (not saddle shaped) and being stretched out.  It's still expanding.  That's science.  Still to discover are whether it has boundaries or edges and whether it curls upward.
> 
> What do you have?  You had the eternal universe or steady state theory and it was wrong.  Now you have the Big Bang Theory.  My little joke is we end with a bang, not start with it.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't a requirement for evolution to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's part of macroevolution which does not happen.  It's part of the common descent, but it seems you are ignorant of it.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you believe the term "uniformitarian" is supposed to mean, but I'm sure you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious.  You do not know what uniformitarian is supposed to mean and then state I do not understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "both ways" are you referring to? None of what you spout has any connection with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in regard to ToE in regards to common descent of humans from apes and chimps.  The descent was from tailed to tailless monkeys.  Then it became gorillas and chimpanzees.  There is no evidence from that.  All of those animals in the past look exactly like the animals we have today.  Yet, somehow today's monkeys are different.  Your point was we had an ape-human, one of the australaphocines, that became human.  We do not observe that today.  We do not observe any of the aforementioned so called common descent.  Moreover, we do not observe bipedalism in apes and chimps.  So, basically what you got is a bunch of old fossils and claims that all of the aforementioned happened.  I said that it didn't happen as you claim and you have no answer for it.
> 
> And I'll lump all of your other comments as the same.  All you have are assertions.  You admitted you do not know uniformitarian which is part of evolution.  You also haven't been very scientific is any of your explanations in the S&T forum.  All you have are assertions.  I was patient and tried to explain it to you, but instead you rambled onto the Bible in a S&T forum.  How stupid is that when you can't tell the difference between the religion forum and S&T.  I admit there are overlaps, but what does what you kept rambling about have anything to do with science?  You are a boob.  That's my conclusion.
Click to expand...

I'm done with this debate because all you do is lie about what I said, lie about what science says, tell me to have faith or avoid answering difficult questions.  There's no point in debating someone when all the do is lie and weasel.


----------



## james bond

Chuz Life said:


> So much for our laws against murder then, huh.



It went over your head, too?  We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e._ just cause_, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that replace God?
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. your dogma  makes you think that. Please be more specific about your preferred brand of magical voodoo when complaining about evolution. You do not speak for all theists.
Click to expand...


First, there isn't any magic or voodoo involved with creation science.  It's just science and the creation part was accepted as scientific theory before the 1850s. 

I already mentioned the explanation without any scientific evidence whatsoever about today's apes and monkeys not being bipedal nor evolving (tailed to tailless, chimps-to-apes or apes-to-chimps, apes to ape-human or chimp-human.  That includes both macro and microevolution theories. 

Next, we also have the abiogenesis theory and finding aliens on Mars or in outer space somewhere including evidence of past aliens theories.  What are these evolution theories suppose to go against (since you do not like the word _replaced_)?  It seems they are there to go against creation science because creation science was there before uniformitarianism, Darwism and evolution came into existence.  On one hand, the opposition by creation scientists has been systematically eliminated from secular science, then on the other the atheist or secular scientists have free reign to test or find evidence for whatever silly thing they propose to support evolution.  In fact, the ones that goes against creation science the most are the ones who get funded the most.  If anything such as the fine tuning facts go against evolution, then it becomes ignored science.  The opposition is gone so this can happen.  We have examples such as multiverses being discussed like it's already happened.


----------



## Chuz Life

james bond said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for our laws against murder then, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It went over your head, too?  We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e._ just cause_, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.
Click to expand...


I think you went over your own head.

It's kind of hard to make a case for MURDER, when (as you said and according to YOU) we can't even know the moment a persons life begins or when it actually ENDS.


----------



## Astrostar

RandomPoster said:


> I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant.  He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.
> 
> He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?
> 
> My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.


Let's look at the simple fact and then move on.  There is actually no, zero proof that a "god" exists and was necessary to create the universe and all of its components.  There is  no proof whatsoever, in any form or fashion.  Creationism is about as real as their belief in mental telepathy (prayer).. Again, no proof that such a thing actually works, and we have concrete evidence that it doesn't.  The holocaust!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> First, there isn't any magic or voodoo involved with creation science.


Yes there is, and it isn't science. And you are sidestepping my comments anyway, as only in your magical voodoo dogma does object tive knowledge of how things happened replace god. That is because your dogma dictates a ridiculous fantasy.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for our laws against murder then, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It went over your head, too?  We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e._ just cause_, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.
Click to expand...

So when was God ever protecting someone else's life?  How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?

Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question.  You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> I'm done with this debate because all you do is lie about what I said, lie about what science says, tell me to have faith or avoid answering difficult questions.  There's no point in debating someone when all the do is lie and weasel.



I'll get the last word in then and summarize what was covered.  I was nice enough to answer your off-topic questions because you were making wild accusations against God being immoral and unlawful.  I think this ranting and raving against God was because you were "stumped by a creationist."  You had a difficult time trying to counter creation science observations on evolution, but had nothing to do so.  I didn't get any answers from you to my complaints such as in post #381.  All I got were assertions such as Lucy or an australopithicus afarensis fossil being an ape-human as _fact_, not a theory.  That's a lie right there.  Then I brought up today's apes and monkeys not going from tailed to tailless, chimps to gorillas and gorillas to chimps nor becoming ape-human.  I do not think you answered that, but complained that I did not know what _uniformitarian_ means.  What I said was using _uniformitarian thinking_, wouldn't what happens in the present be what happened in the past?  This was after I brought up why today's chimps and apes are not bipedal and that by using uniformitarian thinking would they not have been bipedal in the past, as well?  All I got was more of the I do not know what uniformitarian means and no explanation of what it means or what it means to you.  We also skirmished about my statements of no abiogenesis and thus no aliens.  I didn't get any brief explanation from you on what abiogenesis has accomplished so far.  With Fort Fun Indiana, I got that much of it was circumstantial evidence.  It meant that he was using circumstantial evidence as an argument for abiogenesis happening.  I think he and I agreed that abiogenesis was a theory.  I even briefly touched upon statistics and probability in regards to abiogenesis with you.

What's funny is your last statement because that's the exact feeling regarding lying and weaseling, I got debating with you.  I didn't get answers nor even valid arguments, i.e. mainly your assertions, though I tried my best to explain my arguments to you.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for our laws against murder then, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It went over your head, too?  We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e._ just cause_, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when was God ever protecting someone else's life?  How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?
> 
> Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question.  You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.
Click to expand...







Another lie.  You said you were done debating with me.  Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum.  I can see that you're still upset.  There, there.  Calm down.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done with this debate because all you do is lie about what I said, lie about what science says, tell me to have faith or avoid answering difficult questions.  There's no point in debating someone when all the do is lie and weasel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get the last word in then and summarize what was covered.  I was nice enough to answer your off-topic questions because you were making wild accusations against God being immoral and unlawful.  I think this ranting and raving against God was because you were "stumped by a creationist."  You had a difficult time trying to counter creation science observations on evolution, but had nothing to do so.  I didn't get any answers from you to my complaints such as in post #381.  All I got were assertions such as Lucy or an australopithicus afarensis fossil being an ape-human as _fact_, not a theory.  That's a lie right there.  Then I brought up today's apes and monkeys not going from tailed to tailless, chimps to gorillas and gorillas to chimps nor becoming ape-human.  I do not think you answered that, but complained that I did not know what _uniformitarian_ means.  What I said was using _uniformitarian thinking_, wouldn't what happens in the present be what happened in the past?  This was after I brought up why today's chimps and apes are not bipedal and that by using uniformitarian thinking would they not have been bipedal in the past, as well?  All I got was more of the I do not know what uniformitarian means and no explanation of what it means or what it means to you.  We also skirmished about my statements of no abiogenesis and thus no aliens.  I didn't get any brief explanation from you on what abiogenesis has accomplished so far.  With Fort Fun Indiana, I got that much of it was circumstantial evidence.  It meant that he was using circumstantial evidence as an argument for abiogenesis happening.  I think he and I agreed that abiogenesis was a theory.  I even briefly touched upon statistics and probability in regards to abiogenesis with you.
> 
> What's funny is your last statement because that's the exact feeling regarding lying and weaseling, I got debating with you.  I didn't get answers nor even valid arguments, i.e. mainly your assertions, though I tried my best to explain my arguments to you.
Click to expand...

All lies, of course.  That's why we're done.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for our laws against murder then, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It went over your head, too?  We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e._ just cause_, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when was God ever protecting someone else's life?  How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?
> 
> Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question.  You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie.  You said you were done debating with me.  Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum.  I can see that you're still upset.  There, there.  Calm down.
Click to expand...

Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.


----------



## The Irish Ram

The simplest form of life,  from the beginning, had a complex digital code.  
Where did that information come from?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, there isn't any magic or voodoo involved with creation science.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is, and it isn't science. And you are sidestepping my comments anyway, as only in your magical voodoo dogma does object tive knowledge of how things happened replace god. That is because your dogma dictates a ridiculous fantasy.
Click to expand...


What part isn't science?  What am I sidestepping?  Instead of claiming I use magical voodoo dogma, please explain what you do not like or what your specific complaint is.  I'll be glad to answer how creation science challenges evolution and evolutionary thinking and history and how it is supposed to replace God.

However, I need to know more from you to understand what your complaint is and why you insist my creation science is "magical voodoo dogma does object tive knowledge of how things happened to replace god?"  I'll try and answer your complaint even if I can't resolve it.  Or is it just a more insulting way of calling me a liar, i.e. an ad hominem attack?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for our laws against murder then, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It went over your head, too?  We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e._ just cause_, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when was God ever protecting someone else's life?  How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?
> 
> Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question.  You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie.  You said you were done debating with me.  Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum.  I can see that you're still upset.  There, there.  Calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.
Click to expand...


Some people get really upset being called a liar, but I don't because I'm trying my best to tell the truth.  That's what weird about it.  Anyway, I thought I did answer it the best I can because it's off topic.  You can post your complaints and what you mean in the religious forum and I'll reply.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for our laws against murder then, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It went over your head, too?  We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e._ just cause_, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when was God ever protecting someone else's life?  How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?
> 
> Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question.  You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie.  You said you were done debating with me.  Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum.  I can see that you're still upset.  There, there.  Calm down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people get really upset being called a liar, but I don't because I'm trying my best to tell the truth.  That's what weird about it.  Anyway, I thought I did answer it the best I can because it's off topic.  You can post your complaints and what you mean in the religious forum and I'll reply.
Click to expand...

You aren't at all trying to tell the truth.  Who do you imagine you're fooling?

Here, I'll post the question again:

_So when was God ever protecting someone else's life when he killed someone?  How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?_


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.



Again, your question is off-topic and wrong forum, but obviously it's important to you if you really meant that you would take God to court over it.  Put it in the religious forum and I'll be happy to give you a full answer.

I remember someone like you who had the same complaints.  I'm not saying you are this way, but he had the same complaints and was very adamant about it.  He said he was Christian or tried to be Christian.  What he ended up bragging about was taking advantage of their hospitality and used them for his own gain.  He never changed his tune about his complaints, but it was just something to troll Christians with.  I wasn't even sure if he was genuine about his complaints against God.  He was a fake Christian, lying about his atheism and a forum troll.  I have to assume he was telling the truth about being against God for his violence, but who knows?  What a character.  In the end, he will get what's coming to him because Jesus stands in front of everyone and he won't be able to avoid Judgement Day.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your question is off-topic and wrong forum, but obviously it's important to you if you really meant that you would take God to court over it.  Put it in the religious forum and I'll be happy to give you a full answer.
> 
> I remember someone like you who had the same complaints.  I'm not saying you are this way, but he had the same complaints and was very adamant about it.  He said he was Christian or tried to be Christian.  What he ended up bragging about was taking advantage of their hospitality and used them for his own gain.  He never changed his tune about his complaints, but it was just something to troll Christians with.  I wasn't even sure if he was genuine about his complaints against God.  He was a fake Christian, lying about his atheism and a forum troll.  I have to assume he was telling the truth about being against God for his violence, but who knows?  What a character.  In the end, he will get what's coming to him because Jesus stands in front of everyone and he won't be able to avoid Judgement Day.
Click to expand...

Once again, you failed to answer the question.  You're weaseling like crazy.  I can't imagine anything more hilarious than your claim that you are honest.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> The simplest form of life, from the beginning, had a complex digital code.


Really? And how "complex" was it? What you mean to say is that the earliest DNA life had DNA. Which is circular and tells us nothing.


----------



## The Irish Ram

There is no such thing as simple DNA, or simple to complex DNA.  DNA is complex in it origin.  
A protozoan genome has over 600 BILLION units of DNA.  Nothing simple about it.
Who programmed those complex units in such away that they produced life?  
Your computer didn't program itself.  Neither did single celled organisms...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> There is no such thing as simple DNA, or simple to complex DNA


Wrong. For one, there is RNA. We also know that DNA likely existed long before the first life.  There are DNA precursors and we have observed them in the lab. And all you are doing is a redux of the specious "irreducible complexity" argument, which is easily discarded in light of the concept of gradual changes over time. This argument holds no weight with any serious, educated person.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Who programmed those complex units in such away that they produced life?


Nobody did. Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.



Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.  Another one of your RNA is simple claims that hasn't been demonstrated.  It's only hypothesis.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.  Another one of your RNA is simple claims that hasn't been demonstrated.  It's only hypothesis.
Click to expand...

How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.  Another one of your RNA is simple claims that hasn't been demonstrated.  It's only hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?
Click to expand...


It's pure fantasy.  It doesn't happen and didn't happen.  Why?  Because scientific experiment does not show this to be.  Also, nature does not do this.  Fort Fun Indiana's trick is all one has to have to start is simple RNA.  His selection is nature.  Or else please explain how it happens in the lab?  You mock creation science as magical voodoo and Christianity as being founded by evil, but you believe in doodoo.  It's worse than fantasy haha.  How dumb can anyone be?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.


So what? Nobody has ever seen an electron, either.and most certainly nobody has ever seen magical sky daddy or a zombie King.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Nobody has ever seen an electron, either.and most certainly nobody has ever seen magical sky daddy or a zombie King.
Click to expand...


What we have SEEN is DNA --> RNA --> Proteins happen in a cell.  This can be demonstrated in the lab.  However, we have not seen what you claim outside the cell and in the lab.  We have not seen it occur in nature.  Now, bripat9643 brought in the long time which you casually tossed in your comment to overcome the complexity of DNA.  Do you know how we can figure out what you claim to happen when we bring in millions of year?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Nobody has ever seen an electron, either.and most certainly nobody has ever seen magical sky daddy or a zombie King.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we have SEEN is DNA --> RNA --> Proteins happen in a cell.  This can be demonstrated in the lab.  However, we have not seen what you claim outside the cell and in the lab.  We have not seen it occur in nature.  Now, bripat9643 brought in the long time which you casually tossed in your comment to overcome the complexity of DNA.  Do you know how we can figure out what you claim to happen when we bring in millions of year?
Click to expand...

In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it.  That's what ignorant Christians used to believe about diseases like small pox and Syphilis.


----------



## danielpalos

Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government.

Good capitalists do.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it.  That's what ignorant Christians used to believe about diseases like small pox and Syphilis.



You got it bass-ackwards.  God did it came way early on per Genesis.  Your RNA abiogenesis came in during the millennium. 



bripat9643 said:


> How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?



Why don't you answer my question in the last sentence of post #404?  You wanted to know about how humans who have on Earth *200,000* years (wrong again) observe a process that takes 100 M+ years.  I can explain it to you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it.


Oh, it's even dumber than that. What he is saying is that , since we haven't watched with our eyeballs the millions-year-long process of trillions of chemical reactions which produced DNA from its constituents,   then the entire theory of evolution, along with all the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and oceanogoraphy,etc., on which it is based, are all WRONG.

It's mind numbingly stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it.  That's what ignorant Christians used to believe about diseases like small pox and Syphilis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got it bass-ackwards.  God did it came way early on per Genesis.  Your RNA abiogenesis came in during the millennium.
Click to expand...


In other words, what I just said.  I didn't specify any order, and certainly not the order that your book of fairy-tales says.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my question in the last sentence of post #404?  You wanted to know about how humans who have on Earth *200,000* years (wrong again) observe a process that takes 100 M+ years.  I can explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Whether I know how science is going to figure it out is beside the point.   That still doesn't prove that God did it.  Science has figured out all kinds of things that nobody ever imagined it could do. Prior to 1945, no one ever imagined that something like the atom bomb was possible.  Prior to 1903 no one believed man could fly. Neither your ignorance nor my ignorance about nature proves that the Bible is true.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's even dumber than that. What he is saying is that , since we haven't watched with our eyeballs the millions-year-long process of trillions of chemical reactions which produced DNA from its constituents,   then the entire theory of evolution, along with all the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and oceanogoraphy,etc., on which it is based, are all WRONG.
> 
> It's mind numbingly stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree.  That's why I asked how would any human could observe a process that takes 100 million years.  You have to be incredibly resistant to logic to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Notice that when I asked him how God could be moral when he condoned slavery that he didn't answer.  That's one issue the Bible thumpers just can't get around with any manner of weaseling.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's mind numbingly stupid.



Are you talking about yourself again?  You do not have to watch it.  How stupid is that?  You just have to know what you're doing like me.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> In other words, what I just said. I didn't specify any order, and certainly not the order that your book of fairy-tales says.



It's not YOUR order.  It's historical order.  I'm not surprised you can't figure that out.



bripat9643 said:


> Whether I know how science is going to figure it out is beside the point. That still doesn't prove that God did it. Science has figured out all kinds of things that nobody ever imagined it could do. Prior to 1945, no one ever imagined that something like the atom bomb was possible. Prior to 1903 no one believed man could fly. Neither your ignorance nor my ignorance about nature proves that the Bible is true.



I didn't think you did because you keep posting diatribe.  In order to estimate whether something will happen in a million or billion of years, one uses probability based on what the facts are.  In the case of RNA forming DNA outside the cell, we know that there are no laboratory tests showing this.  We also know that it didn't happen in nature.  However, we know that RNA molecules did form a strand.  I don't know the _exact_ numbers since it's your theory, but the probability is pretty low.  We are trying to estimate something that isn't readily observed in nature like natural selection.  We also can estimate what the probability is for what testing in the lab has produced.  Again, that's pretty low.  We take these probabilities and put them in a computer simulation.  The simulation will provide _statistics_  on whether it happened in the distant past.  With the low probabilities, it probably did not happen in the distant past.  However, success in the lab will raise the probabilities.  Or finding more occurrences in nature will raise the probabilities.  Both will increase the statistics showing that it happened in the distant past.  However, we know RNA replication doesn't happen much in the lab nor nature.

And why do you continue to bring up God in a science forum?  God did it according to Genesis.  I keep saying that, but it goes over your head.  It is the Bible theory.  Creation scientists and I are taking scientific theory from a historical and non-fiction book.  Secular scientists have done this.  For example, Einstein thought the universe was static, but he read Lemaitre's and Hubble's papers, discussed it with them and changed his mind to the universe is expanding.  He updated the calculations for his Theory of Relativity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You just have to know what you're doing like me.


Of course, I'm right and you're wrong. The things you say are mind numbingly stupid, and i have said why. That is why you and your "creation science" are a laughingstock and you would fail a 7th grade science test.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just have to know what you're doing like me.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm right and you're wrong. The things you say are mind numbingly stupid, and i have said why. That is why you and your "creation science" are a laughingstock and you would fail a 7th grade science test.
Click to expand...

The dumbest thing he's said is "why do you keep bringing up the Bible?"  That made me laugh out loud.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, what I just said. I didn't specify any order, and certainly not the order that your book of fairy-tales says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not YOUR order.  It's historical order.  I'm not surprised you can't figure that out.
Click to expand...


The Bible isn't history.  It's a fairy tale.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether I know how science is going to figure it out is beside the point. That still doesn't prove that God did it. Science has figured out all kinds of things that nobody ever imagined it could do. Prior to 1945, no one ever imagined that something like the atom bomb was possible. Prior to 1903 no one believed man could fly. Neither your ignorance nor my ignorance about nature proves that the Bible is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you did because you keep posting diatribe.  In order to estimate whether something will happen in a million or billion of years, one uses probability based on what the facts are.  In the case of RNA forming DNA outside the cell, we know that there are no laboratory tests showing this.  We also know that it didn't happen in nature.  However, we know that RNA molecules did form a strand.  I don't know the _exact_ numbers since it's your theory, but the probability is pretty low.  We are trying to estimate something that isn't readily observed in nature like natural selection.  We also can estimate what the probability is for what testing in the lab has produced.  Again, that's pretty low.  We take these probabilities and put them in a computer simulation.  The simulation will provide _statistics_  on whether it happened in the distant past.  With the low probabilities, it probably did not happen in the distant past.  However, success in the lab will raise the probabilities.  Or finding more occurrences in nature will raise the probabilities.  Both will increase the statistics showing that it happened in the distant past.  However, we know RNA replication doesn't happen much in the lab nor nature.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to deconstruct your mumbo-jumbo.  There are so many fallacies in there that it would take days to explain them all.  




james bond said:


> And why do you continue to bring up God in a science forum?  God did it according to Genesis.



That has to be the funniest thing ever posted in this forum.   You asked me why I bring up God, then you bring up God.  Do you even realize what you did?



james bond said:


> I keep saying that, but it goes over your head.  It is the Bible theory.



ROFL!  And then you wonder why I critique the Bible as a source!  You are simply amazing!



james bond said:


> Creation scientists and I are taking scientific theory from a historical and non-fiction book.  Secular scientists have done this.  For example, Einstein thought the universe was static, but he read Lemaitre's and Hubble's papers, discussed it with them and changed his mind to the universe is expanding.  He updated the calculations for his Theory of Relativity.



The Bible is a work of fiction.  There isn't a single verified fact in it.  The term "creation scientist" is an Oxymoron.

When are you going to realize that creationism is pure horseshit?  It certainly isn't science.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.



How many times can someone be wrong?  If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others.  It's held true since the 1st century discovery.  The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course, I'm right and you're wrong. The things you say are mind numbingly stupid, and i have said why. That is why you and your "creation science" are a laughingstock and you would fail a 7th grade science test.



Is your daughter still in the 7th grade?  I've known you for years and you keep referring to 7th grade.  It's tough being held back.  My daughter just started college.  My son is a junior.

How can it be wrong or stupid when it has been scientifically observed?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can someone be wrong?  If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others.  It's held true since the 1st century discovery.  The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.
Click to expand...

It has been disproven thousands upon thousands of times.  I've aready done it several dozen times.

Allow me to do it again:

If God is moral, then how can he approve of slavery?  Can anything be more clearly immoral than slavery?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Scientists continue not to be stumped by creationists:

Origin of Life --"Complexity Can Emerge Spontaneously, Without Evolution" | The Daily Galaxy


----------



## rightwinger

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can someone be wrong?  If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others.  It's held true since the 1st century discovery.  The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.
Click to expand...

There is no creation science


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Scientists continue not to be stumped by creationists:
> 
> Origin of Life --"Complexity Can Emerge Spontaneously, Without Evolution" | The Daily Galaxy



Apparently, you did not understand the article.  He's talking about what happens to proteins already existing.  His group starts with a "nucleobase linked to the amino acid aspartic acid" which means they have part of the complex DNA and it forms complex ring structures and folding proteins.  This is before long time so no evolution is necessary.  It argues against evolution and shows the intelligence behind God's design.  Gotcha .


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can someone be wrong?  If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others.  It's held true since the 1st century discovery.  The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no creation science
Click to expand...


Sure there is.  You've been brainwashed.  It's science that secular scientists believed in before the 1850s.  They believed the universe and everything in it was due to creation per Genesis.

Creation science has very famous scientists in all the variety of sciences -- Creation scientists - creation.com.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> If God is moral, then how can he approve of slavery? Can anything be more clearly immoral than slavery?



Take it to religious board (then I can explain about King Nimrod).  You are a non-scientific nut haha.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can someone be wrong?  If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others.  It's held true since the 1st century discovery.  The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no creation science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there is.  You've been brainwashed.  It's science that secular scientists believed in before the 1850s.  They believed the universe and everything in it was due to creation per Genesis.
> 
> Creation science has very famous scientists in all the variety of sciences -- Creation scientists - creation.com.
Click to expand...

That isn't science.  It's abracadabra.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God is moral, then how can he approve of slavery? Can anything be more clearly immoral than slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it to religious board (then I can explain about King Nimrod).  You are a non-scientific nut haha.
Click to expand...


Obviously, you're afraid to answer the question.   

The Bible isn't science.  You keep whining when I ask you questions about the Bible, and then you constantly refer to the Bible when anyone asks you about your "creation science."  If you don't want to talk about the Bible, then quit referring to it in this thread.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Nobody has ever seen an electron, either.and most certainly nobody has ever seen magical sky daddy or a zombie King.
Click to expand...


Nobody has seen an electron, but we've seen atomic level using electrons.  All of that is being worked on at LHC where we still have not observed any universes being created .  

What you are deliberately ignoring is DNA --> RNA --> Proteins only happens inside the cell.  Only life begats life by Louis Pasteur.  Or scientists start with the DNA or parts of the DNA in order to do their lab work as we learned from Sijbren Otto.  Thanks for that link .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> His group starts with a "nucleobase linked to the amino acid aspartic acid" which means they have part of the complex DNA and it forms complex ring structures and folding proteins.


Haha, that's not what that means at all. In fact, the article makes it plainly clear that that is precisely NOT what that is.  You didn't even read the entire article. Just shut the **** up already.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, that's not what that means at all. In fact, the article makes it plainly clear that that is precisely NOT what that is.  You didn't even read the entire article. Just shut the **** up already.



Too much lying and wrongness.  I hope you're still not in the 7th grade.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, that's not what that means at all. In fact, the article makes it plainly clear that that is precisely NOT what that is.  You didn't even read the entire article. Just shut the **** up already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too much lying and wrongness.  I hope you're still not in the 7th grade.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what that article says and didn't even read it. Else you would not have said something so wrong and stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, that's not what that means at all. In fact, the article makes it plainly clear that that is precisely NOT what that is.  You didn't even read the entire article. Just shut the **** up already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too much lying and wrongness.  I hope you're still not in the 7th grade.
Click to expand...

Irony!


----------

