A Challenge To All Creationists

[McBell]

What I understand is that you will continue blowing smoke because you can't provide any scientific evidence to support what the TOE preaches.

Ah, so your understanding is still faulty due to bold faced lies you keep telling yourself.

Got it.

None of you evos will even cut and paste the evidence your links provided. Could it be you do understand evidence and now realize what they said was opinion, not real evidence.

You should try a new tactic cause you really suck at this pigeon chess you playing.

 

[McBell]

God created plants and flowers.

Bold Empty Claim

You cannot make a flower from plants.

Nor can flap my arms and take flight.
So what?

 

[McBell]

You really don't understand. Since the DMCA (Digital Milenium Copyright Act) was instituted, honest people have learned to be more careful with copy-paste, at least I am. There's been cases where even forums have got into trouble for copy-pasting a whole article from someone without permission. The best way is to provide links and let people go to the original sites and read for themselves.

Except the problem here is that he is merely going to keep adding conditions till every one gives up so he can claim that no one showed him the evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have been saying that for many weeks, and I have told you why. If you don't like the way I do thins, put me on ignore.

Oh no....your "show me evidence" followed by "I refuse to look at evidence" is a wonderful illustration of the inherent intellectual dishonesty behind creationism.

 

[Shad]

That is easily reconciled if you understand a leverite marriage.

Nope as there is glaring issue, Joseph's bloodline

 

[omega2xx]

I did post sources. But apparently, what you want us to do is to justify what a scientific source says each time we cite one, otherwise you think it doesn't count.

I haven't ask you to justify it, just post what they offered as evidence for what they say.

1. Do you realize I'm not an expert, nor a teacher, nor a science communicator and that my time is a bit precious? It's not my job to spoon-feed you. What I can do best is give you food for thought to orient your personal research for you to assess my arguments.
Deferring to scientific sources is acceptable and ultimately even inevitable, we can't have expertise on every subject and can't have immediate access to all the data, so your "all-or-nothing" approach towards sources is all the more disingenuous.

I don't expect you to do anything, but if you don't post the evidence YOU BELIEVE in, don't expect me to believe what you say.

2. I did present the evidence from a scientific paper at least once. Your reaction? "But it's just a picture!".
It would just as surreal as, after being told there is equal proportion of green, blue and black individuals in a species of fly in Killimanjaro and given a research paper dedicated to that subject with a pie chart, someone saying "it's just a circle, that doesn't count!"
Your reaction suggests you could handwave anything satisfying your standard with "but that's just a bunch of letters on a screen!".

If you think a picture is scientific evidence, have a nice day.

 

[omega2xx]

Dogs wouldn't have a sea creature in its direct lineage since we split from fish as Tetrapods. If you have failed to accept evidence in the form of fossils and DNA provided by scientists then I doubt I can convince you of anything over a thread in a religious forum. But I can however, point out you are wrong.

There is no fossil evidence linking land animals to sea life. Since all living things have DNA, that does one link them and I did not put a dog like animal in the line of whales, your "experts" did.

 

[omega2xx]

You really don't understand. Since the DMCA (Digital Milenium Copyright Act) was instituted, honest people have learned to be more careful with copy-paste, at least I am. There's been cases where even forums have got into trouble for copy-pasting a whole article from someone without permission. The best way is to provide links and let people go to the original sites and read for themselves.


*rolleyes*

I'm putting you on ignore because I can tell we'll never have a meaningful conversation.

Good.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope as there is glaring issue, Joseph's bloodline

Also, there are names omitted in the Matthew list.
Comparing to the genealogy in the old testament, the names Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim are gone from the New testament.

 

[james bond]

Bold Empty Claim



Nor can flap my arms and take flight.
So what?

I would say yours is the BEC because you cannot explain how the plants and flowers got here. Can you explain which came first the chicken or the egg? No, you can't because your ability to think is shortcoming. Thus, if I were you I would listen to someone like myself to help you along .

You cannot take flight because you do not understand how a bird's wing works. Just from your explanation I can surmise this. Thus, you will not be able to build a wing to take flight. OTOH, I know how to build a wing system that may allow you to take flight for a short time.

 

[gnostic]

I have no idea. That it is, is the response the evos give for evidence of the BB.

By the way, "evos" don't study the big bang. Cosmologists and astrophysicists study it (among others).

Clearly, omega2xx has no idea what you are talking about.

That he keep bringing up evolution and the Big Bang together, just show the level of his incompetency in understanding on both subjects.

 

[omega2xx]

Clearly, omega2xx has no idea what you are talking about.

That he keep bringing up evolution and the Big Bang together, just show the level of his incompetency in understanding on both subjects.

YAWN

 

[gnostic]

YAWN

Yes, that's what you do.

You refused to learn from your mistake.

Evolution is biology, not universe cosmology or astrophysics, so it wouldn't need to explain the Big Bang.

It is so simple that even should even able to learn this.

AND YET, you keep repeating yourself, claiming that the theory of evolution needs to explain the Big Bang theory. Evolution and the Big Bang are two completely things.

This is nothing but you red-herring and attacking the straw-man. You are comparing two different things, which are related.

Tell me, do expect plumber to know and perform neurosurgery on a patient?

Do you expect a shepherd to sail a boat?

That's precisely what you are doing. It is dishonest and ignorant.

 

[Ganondorf]

I haven't ask you to justify it, just post what they offered as evidence for what they say.

I don't expect you to do anything, but if you don't post the evidence YOU BELIEVE in, don't expect me to believe what you say.

If you think a picture is scientific evidence, have a nice day.

Alright. Let's accept your approach and let's say that i have no evidence and that I suspend my judgment on humans' place in taxonomy.

Now, since you made a claim about humans classification, by pointing that
our unique abilities forbid the classification of humans among apes (or any other groups that don't share those abilities),
can you offer an evidence-based method to distinguish those differences from derived/autapomorphous traits ? Without this distinction, differences, on their own, wouldn't be a sufficent condition to exclude anything
Please don't rely on opinions, "but it's obvious!" claims, intuitions, or mere pictures; try to provide a rigorous case.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I did post sources. But apparently, what you want us to do is to justify what a scientific source says each time we cite one, otherwise you think it doesn't count.

1. Do you realize I'm not an expert, nor a teacher, nor a science communicator and that my time is a bit precious? It's not my job to spoon-feed you. What I can do best is give you food for thought to orient your personal research for you to assess my arguments.
Deferring to scientific sources is acceptable and ultimately even inevitable, we can't have expertise on every subject and can't have immediate access to all the data, so your "all-or-nothing" approach towards sources is all the more disingenuous.

2. I did present the evidence from a scientific paper at least once. Your reaction? "But it's just a picture!".
It would just as surreal as, after being told there is equal proportion of green, blue and black individuals in a species of fly in Killimanjaro and given a research paper dedicated to that subject with a pie chart, someone saying "it's just a circle, that doesn't count!"
Your reaction suggests you could handwave anything satisfying your standard with "but that's just a bunch of letters on a screen!".

It gets to the fact, that this is an inherently speculative subject. We cannot observe, measure, repeat an experiment that turns a single cell into a human being through millions of lucky accidents.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does mean there is no empirical scientific evidence for it. So I think it's reasonable, and in the best interest of scientific progress to allow skepticism and alternative hypotheses.

 

[Ouroboros]

Except the problem here is that he is merely going to keep adding conditions till every one gives up so he can claim that no one showed him the evidence.

True. Which makes it a complete waste of time talking to this guy. It can be fun and entertaining, but it won't lead anywhere.

 

[Ganondorf]

It gets to the fact, that this is an inherently speculative subject. We cannot observe, measure, repeat an experiment that turns a single cell into a human being through millions of lucky accidents.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does mean there is no empirical scientific evidence for it. So I think it's reasonable, and in the best interest of scientific progress to allow skepticism and alternative hypotheses.

Failing to directly observe or replicate the event described by a model doesn't suffice to make it speculative. What matters, is that the model can be judged by its testabe predictions and by replicating some of the mechanism it requires.
Science deals with unobsevable events all the time, for instance astrophysicists who study the internal structure of the Sun have no direct access to the object of their study nor have they recreated a mini sun in their labs, and yet i don't think the current model of the Sun's inside is speculation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Failing to directly observe directly or replicate the event described by a model doesn't suffice to make it speculative. What matters, is that the model can be judged by its testabe predictions and by replicating some of the mechanism it requires.
Science deals with unobsevable events all the time, for instance astrophysicists who study the internal structure of the Sun have no direct access to the object of their study nor have they recreated a mini sun in their labs, and yet i don't think the current model of the Sun's inside is speculation.

True, and direct observation doesn't always guarantee the correct conclusion either

Not so long ago, the simple classical laws that were believed to govern all physical reality, were so readily observable, measurable, testable, (far more so than evolution) as to be declared literally 'immutable'

Concepts of mysterious invisible guiding forces, specifying exactly how matter organizes itself, including designs for building great fusion reactors in stars, in turn manufacturing complex components specific to life...

was still the realm of 'religious pseudo-science'.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Failing to directly observe or replicate the event described by a model doesn't suffice to make it speculative. What matters, is that the model can be judged by its testabe predictions and by replicating some of the mechanism it requires.
Science deals with unobsevable events all the time, for instance astrophysicists who study the internal structure of the Sun have no direct access to the object of their study nor have they recreated a mini sun in their labs, and yet i don't think the current model of the Sun's inside is speculation.

So you accept it based on faith.

 

[Ganondorf]

True, and direct observation doesn't always guarantee the correct conclusion either

Not so long ago, the simple classical laws that were believed to govern all physical reality, were so readily observable, measurable, testable, (far more so than evolution) as to be declared literally 'immutable'

Concepts of mysterious invisible guiding forces, specifying exactly how matter organizes itself, including designs for building great fusion reactors in stars, in turn manufacturing complex components specific to life...

was still the realm of 'religious pseudo-science'.

Yes, science doesn't promise certainty, but that's not reason to open the door to any alternative explanation.
The "mysterious invisble guiding forces" idea doesn't inform us much about the intentions, methods and limitations of the postulated agent(s), as such it can't be falsified and might deserve to stay in the pseudoscience territory or at best in philosophy one.