Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position

[tas8831]

Well you didn't like it, so I deleted it. Simple. Other boards didn't like me and I get kicked. I'm not sure how to fix it, do you happen to know? I simply mean in Acts 17:23 and on, the first Mission of the very same Apostle, first followers of 12 from Jesus, (big deal), arriving in Macedon and Greece, they came upon the concept of God that Religious people of Athens already had made, and they said Deus Vult, no oops they said, let me tell you about Creation and this that you worship. That's what happened in the Partheonian Ampitheatrical Apostolic thingamabob.

Korea had a series of beliefs and gods nd they conferred with Koreans about the oldest original god and Skyfather , of whom use to be exclusive worship, named hananim, or haneulim. Catholics use a different word for God even in Korean, not Deus, a Korean catholic word or something. But I don't know, Catholics in 1890's, might already be liberal enough for some non-Latin services. How come we al believe in the Korean Bear race if creationism isn't real?

None of that is a test for creationism.

 

[Audie]

None of that is a test for creationism.

You have of course noticed that none of our
creos is at all versed in science, in any of
its aspects.

It probably is not fair or realistic to ask them for
a test, as the completely irrelevant non-responses
you are getting tend to demonstrate; they have no
idea what a test might be, dont know what you
are asking for.

How about if you give an example of a test of
creation? As that comes if a million flavours, may
I suggest that you go with yec.

Lots of ways to test that. Why dont your give a
demo for our friends who dont know how to do it.

 

[Audie]

In fewer words-show the yecs an example
of a test.

 

[tas8831]

I will get to this dodgy, over-long diatribe later, but I have to take issue with this:

I think your "rewording" is wrong. It's more like a twisting of statements to create a "fake news" perspective.

Subduction Zone asks:

"Tell me, what reasonable test do you have for your beliefs?"​

YOUR REPLY:

"Far more reasonable tests than what you have for yours."​

Sub responds:

"You know that is not true. Remember the Ninth Commandment. Just be honest and admit that you have none."​

YOU DODGE:

"None that is important to you. I've already wasted the time it took to post three responses to you."​

Tag adds:

"He didn't ask about your opinions of your tests.

He asked for you to explain what those tests are."​

and also in response to:

None that is important to you.​

adds:

"Ergo, you don't have any tests."​

YOU then try to joke your way out of it:

"??? not another one!

Beam me up, Scotty!"​

Tag rebuts:

"If you had any worthy of mention, you'ld mention it / them.

Be serious.

We all know. The whole reason you require "faith" is, in fact, because you have no actual evidence (or tests)"​

and:

I'm quite interested in the answer myself, but I suspect you'll categorically refuse to live upto the challenge.
I'ld love to be proven wrong here."​

YOU dodge some more:

"Be happy to... HOWEVER,

I am not trying to "prove you wrong" other than your "categorically refuse to live up to the challenge" is somewhat self-serving and is wrong in attitude and presentation and content. And not pertaining to the OP.

So open another thread."​

And here we are.

I would enjoy seeing your explanation as to how my 'rewording' of this comes across as a "fake news perspective"

 

[tas8831]

So let me first lay down a foundation:
...

At this point there really isn't a "test" (as you suggested) to find out how it all began since the "test" would have to recreate and procreate life and, thus, you created a false narrative. Fake news.

Actually, if anyone is guilty of 'fake news', it is you as I documented here.

"Far more reasonable tests than what you have for yours."

you wrote.

I guess that was just fake news.


I had thought we had made a little 'friendlier' headway in the other thread, but I see that you are just a run of the mill religionist with a fragile faith to prop up by any means necessary - and if that means accusing others of "fake news" for accurately reporting what YOU claimed, so be it. If that means trotting out a copy-pasted list of off-topic quotes from some YEC website to hide the obvious fact that you cannot live up to your own assertions, so be it.


Very disappointed.

Not surprised, sadly, but disappointed.

 

[tas8831]

So, basically, an evolutionist would say that all that we have is by random chance.

So basically creationists rely on strawmen.

 

[tas8831]

Apparently you didn't read my post in detail.

You think opinions are tests?

 

[tas8831]

I figured that was what this whole thread was about. See, the Superior race of the modern super men, who have evolved into a super race, need to test out Charles' Darwin's theory from 1900s, obviously that the Survival of the Fittest leaves to dominance of the Super Race of the Christianity rejectors and Jewish rejectors, the science men. The men in a struggle for the new strength and fitness of the individual, to the detriment of the handicap, homosexual, Jew, and Christian. Nazi.Hey you know what science experiments you two run, sounding cool. Just like everybody else.

Wow, bro, you totally understand evolution and all that stuff.....

 

[MonkeyFire]

Hate is the first beast who gives his power to dis-belief, the second beast in the book of revelation.

 

[tas8831]

That's an answer? OK!

.
Nope.

"Far more reasonable tests than what you have for yours."

 

[tas8831]

No... In essence what I said is that there will be no test no matter what position one has. So we are all relegated to viewpoints. My "viewpoint" is simply to agree with one set of scientists while others will agree with another set.

That is why it is still in debate.

"Far more reasonable tests than what you have for yours."

Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position

 

[tas8831]

EXACTLY! Intelligent design and purpose driven.

Evidence please.

But after you address this:

"Far more reasonable tests than what you have for yours."

 

[tas8831]

Actually, no. I don't think any side can be refuted... but irrelevant gish?

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): George Ellis (British astrophysicist): Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): George Greenstein (astronomer): Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): Tony Rothman (physicist): Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist):Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): Ed Harrison (cosmologist): Edward Milne (British cosmologist): Barry Parker (cosmologist):Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois)

So, your position is that these people present "irrelevant gish"? What are you qualifications to debate these people? I think you make yourself look quite irrelevant with that statement.

What are your qualifications to assess their credibility on tests for creationism?

Which their quotes were not?

Cool fallacious appeal to authority, though. Kudos for your use of at least 2 logical fallacies so far.

 

[tas8831]

but can be. Certainly the astrophysicists, cosmologists, biologists et al that I quoted believe it is. It is simply a position that "some" people ascribe to.

which of them have done actual relevant research on these issues?

Surely not Tipler, he is just a blowhard. Maybe the former astronaut?

Instead of context-free quotes, please link to their relevant research publications and provide your overview of each.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, no. I don't think any side can be refuted... but irrelevant gish?

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): George Ellis (British astrophysicist): Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): George Greenstein (astronomer): Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): Tony Rothman (physicist): Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist):Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): Ed Harrison (cosmologist): Edward Milne (British cosmologist): Barry Parker (cosmologist):Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois)

So, your position is that these people present "irrelevant gish"? What are you qualifications to debate these people? I think you make yourself look quite irrelevant with that statement.


Correct.

The claim was that you presented "irrelevant gish." And you did. Quotes with no context are useless and certainly don't constitute any sort of evidence or test for anything.

 

[Sapiens]

...


So what "testable" evidence can you provide to refute creationism?

Nested hierarchies.

 

[Kenny]

What debate? How many scientists you know who reject common descent?

Ciao

- viole

Haven't counted them...

Have you counted the ones who support common descent?

Adios

K

 

[Kenny]

I will get to this dodgy, over-long diatribe later, but I have to take issue with this:

Subduction Zone asks:

"Tell me, what reasonable test do you have for your beliefs?"​

YOUR REPLY:

"Far more reasonable tests than what you have for yours."​

Sub responds:

"You know that is not true. Remember the Ninth Commandment. Just be honest and admit that you have none."​

YOU DODGE:

"None that is important to you. I've already wasted the time it took to post three responses to you."​

Tag adds:

"He didn't ask about your opinions of your tests.

He asked for you to explain what those tests are."​

and also in response to:

None that is important to you.​

adds:

"Ergo, you don't have any tests."​

YOU then try to joke your way out of it:

"??? not another one!

Beam me up, Scotty!"​

Tag rebuts:

"If you had any worthy of mention, you'ld mention it / them.

Be serious.

We all know. The whole reason you require "faith" is, in fact, because you have no actual evidence (or tests)"​

and:

I'm quite interested in the answer myself, but I suspect you'll categorically refuse to live upto the challenge.
I'ld love to be proven wrong here."​

YOU dodge some more:

"Be happy to... HOWEVER,

I am not trying to "prove you wrong" other than your "categorically refuse to live up to the challenge" is somewhat self-serving and is wrong in attitude and presentation and content. And not pertaining to the OP.

So open another thread."​

And here we are.

I would enjoy seeing your explanation as to how my 'rewording' of this comes across as a "fake news perspective"

I stand corrected.

Shouldn't have just made a retort.

My apologies.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, no. I don't think any side can be refuted... but irrelevant gish?

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): George Ellis (British astrophysicist): Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): George Greenstein (astronomer): Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): Tony Rothman (physicist): Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist):Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): Ed Harrison (cosmologist): Edward Milne (British cosmologist): Barry Parker (cosmologist):Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois)

So, your position is that these people present "irrelevant gish"? What are you qualifications to debate these people? I think you make yourself look quite irrelevant with that statement.


Correct.

And do you think *any* of those scientists believe in "
the sudden poofing into existence of the earth and life
on int in essentially its present form."

 

[Kenny]

The claim was that you presented "irrelevant gish." And you did. Quotes with no context are useless and certainly don't constitute any sort of evidence or test for anything.

On your say so? The quotes have the context and they are useful.