For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[shmogie]

"theories"

Yep, theoryś. Acceptance of non testable theoryś is based on faith. You know where this goes, don´t you ?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The theory of intelligent design, formulated by the interpretation of physical evidence is valid in many scientific quarters.

Then present the evidence for it.

You believe you have evidence of how humans evolved good ! I personally believe the evidence is weak.There you go, impasse.

The claim was that the creationist explanations for the origin of man were as untestable as other theories. This claim is obviously fault. Whether you personally think the evidence for the evolution of humans is weak or not, the fact remains that the evolution of humans is easily testable through multiple lines of evidence. So far, you have yet to present a testable explanation for the creationist origin of man.

Itś interesting how I simply made the point that the first ´parent´s of all life on earth are volcanic rocks, according to the prevailing theory,comparable to God creating humans from soil. One comment, and now you want to drag in Darwinś theory. Nope, not going there. Don´t need to, don´t want to. You and I have been down this road before, you remain convinced about the soundness of the theory of evolution. I remain convinced that it is much weaker than proposed and has been in many cases based on faulty evidence, and in a few cases, outright falsification of data. So, have a good day

And there is the weaseling again, trying to change the subject from the origin of man to abiogenesis.

 

[shmogie]

Wrong. The 'prevailing theory' is that the 'parent' is the atmosphere---that's where all the main chemicals necessary for the formation of the chemicals of life were found.

Fine, then your very first parentś were composed of air, and weren´t rocks. Works for me.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yep, theoryś. Acceptance of non testable theoryś is based on faith. You know where this goes, don´t you ?

I would fully agree that the creationist explanation for the origin of man is based on faith. What next?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Fine, then your very first parentś were composed of air, and weren´t rocks. Works for me.

So you accept the evolution of all the biodiversity we see today from that first life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of intelligent design, formulated by the interpretation of physical evidence is valid in many scientific quarters.

There is no hypothesis of intelligent design, much less a "theory". What reasonable test would falsify intelligent design?

You believe you have evidence of how humans evolved good ! I personally believe the evidence is weak.There you go, impasse. Itś interesting how I simply made the point that the first ´parent´s of all life on earth are volcanic rocks, according to the prevailing theory,comparable to God creating humans from soil. One comment, and now you want to drag in Darwinś theory. Nope, not going there. Don´t need to, don´t want to. You and I have been down this road before, you remain convinced about the soundness of the theory of evolution. I remain convinced that it is much weaker than proposed and has been in many cases based on faulty evidence, and in a few cases, outright falsification of data. So, have a good day

The problem appears to be that you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. And your denial of evidence only means that you are in denial without a scientific alternative.


By the way, a mischaracterization of an idea is always wrong. It would be wrong to say that you worship Jesus because he was nailed to a couple of boards. It might be marginally correct but it is more than misleading as was your claim about rocks.

 

[shmogie]

Then present the evidence for it.



The claim was that the creationist explanations for the origin of man were as untestable as other theories. This claim is obviously fault. Whether you personally think the evidence for the evolution of humans is weak or not, the fact remains that the evolution of humans is easily testable through multiple lines of evidence. So far, you have yet to present a testable explanation for the creationist origin of man.



And there is the weaseling again, trying to change the subject from the origin of man to abiogenesis.

Lol, I didn´t mention abiogenesis, why should I, it is an untestable fantasy, I don´t have to discuss evolution, I have and had no intention of discussing it, I never posted anything about evolution, I have no obligation to post anything about it. Like I told your sidekick on another issue, it is a dead horse, I have no desire to start beating it again. Find someone else.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Lol, I didn´t mention abiogenesis, why should I, it is an untestable fantasy, I don´t have to discuss evolution, I have and had no intention of discussing it, I never posted anything about evolution, I have no obligation to post anything about it. Like I told your sidekick on another issue, it is a dead horse, I have no desire to start beating it again. Find someone else.

There are testable theories for the origin of man, but creationism isn't one of them. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[ecco]

This thread...

for-creationists-show-evidences-for-creation-of-man

Still waiting.

The best we've had so far is pictures of toucans and assertions that man was made from soil.

Pictures and assertions are not evidence.

You're still waiting??? I have been waiting on several threads for you guys to furnish substantive evidence for macro-evolution, but I have been waiting way longer than you.

Diagrams and graphs without substantiation isn't real evidence either.

All science has is assumptions.....so.....pot, meet kettle.

In those other threads you did indeed voice your complaints regarding the quantity and quality of the evidence presented.

However, this thread is to give you an opportunity to post evidence for your views. Are you going to waste this opportunity because of a little pique? Comon' DeJee, show us what ya got.

 

[Audie]

Yep, theoryś. Acceptance of non testable theoryś is based on faith. You know where this goes, don´t you ?

Do you now the difference between "theory's" and, "theories"?

I don't think there are any " non testable" theories in science.

I know how playing equivocation goes. The one about "faith" is particularly odious.

If it amuses you, go for it. Its kind of a dumb game tho.

 

[Audie]

I would fully agree that the creationist explanation for the origin of man is based on faith. What next?

As long as it is clear that it is not a theory.

 

[shmogie]

So you accept the evolution of all the biodiversity we see today from that first life?

Nope. You said your first parents were composed of air, I simply accepted YOUR explanation of where YOU came from. You have the right to believe anything you choose. I categorically deny that air, rocks, meteors, water, or any other non living material was responsible for that ¨ first life¨, that idea is just as fanciful as talking pink unicorns who inhabit the moon. As to evolution, I believe the evidence is weak for organisms, in one classified family, to change into a member of another family.

 

[ecco]

...a lack of knowledge may be chronic, but it is not incurable

I would respectfully disagree.
I would offer up DeJee as evidence thereof.



Proverb[edit]
ignorance is bliss

1. Lack of knowledge results in happiness; it is more comfortable not to know certain things.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nope.

Then abiogenesis has nothing to do with this conversation.

You said your first parents were composed of air,

I never said any such thing. My parents are not made up of air. From the creationist side I have heard that the first human was made from dust. Is that the explanation for the origin of humans you are going with? How are you saying humans came about, and where is the evidence to back it?

I simply accepted YOUR explanation of where YOU came from.

If we are talking about humans in general, then we are talking about evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps. That ancestor did not come from air.

I categorically deny that air, rocks, meteors, water, or any other non living material was responsible for that ¨ first life¨, that idea is just as fanciful as talking pink unicorns who inhabit the moon.

So how did it happen?

As to evolution, I believe the evidence is weak for organisms, in one classified family, to change into a member of another family.

I think it is silly too, which is why I go with cladistics instead of Linnaean taxonomy.

 

[shmogie]

Well,

Do you now the difference between "theory's" and, "theories"?

I don't think there are any " non testable" theories in science.

I know how playing equivocation goes. The one about "faith" is particularly odious.

If it amuses you, go for it. Its kind of a dumb game tho.

I gave you some theories, theoryś, theries, CONCEPTS, that many have faith in, Please show how they are testable and have been tested. If you believe in something that cannot be proven to exist, if not faith, what would you call it ?

If you cannot come up with an appropriate term, I will have to find you odious

 

[ecco]

Young heads full of mush will accept such nonsense.
Intense social pressure keeps it in there. I'd bet any JW
present would think it entirely legit and good logic.

I suppose some North Koreans can be deprogrammed,
others not. Same with JWs.

I have an older uncle who was in on the cultural revolution,
and is still a big Maoist. Dont get him started! It is really sad.

I guess he invested so much of his heart that the pain of giving
it all up is too much.

The followers of Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, Jim Jones believed until the end.

 

[Audie]

I would respectfully disagree.
I would offer up DeJee as evidence thereof.



Proverb[edit]
ignorance is bliss

1. Lack of knowledge results in happiness; it is more comfortable not to know certain things.

Rats. And I was so sure.

 

[Audie]

Well,

I gave you some theories, theoryś, theries, CONCEPTS, that many have faith in, Please show how they are testable and have been tested. If you believe in something that cannot be proven to exist, if not faith, what would you call it ?

If you cannot come up with an appropriate term, I will have to find you odious

Science does not do proof. You cant name a scientific theory that cannot be tested.

Your are playing equivocation with the word "faith". Surely you know that.
At least choose which meaning you have in mind.

Careful on the name calling.

 

[shmogie]

There are testable theories for the origin of man, but creationism isn't one of them. Wouldn't you agree?

No. There are proposed theories, but I am not sure they are testable without bias. As an example, a monkey has arms, legs , a brain etc,,etc. and shares some DNA with humans. The extrapolation is made that they are related and at some point came from the same family tree. On the other hand, just as jumbo jets and and tiny experimental craft share the some features, they are not the same. A crude example. If one were to design monkeys and humans, and for whatever reasons it is found that specific design features are best for both, that doesn´t mean they are related, it means they share common attributes and those were use for their creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well,

I gave you some theories, theoryś, theries, CONCEPTS, that many have faith in, Please show how they are testable and have been tested. If you believe in something that cannot be proven to exist, if not faith, what would you call it ?

If you cannot come up with an appropriate term, I will have to find you odious

Where did you do that? I remember you bringing up concepts that you did not understand, where your level of understanding was 60 years out of date and you did not even understand that experiment. What concepts do you think cannot be tested?