A Challenge To All Creationists

[Ganondorf]

So you accept it based on faith.

Yes, just like a forensic conclusion supported by different researchers about a non-witnessed crime are based on faith.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Yes, just like the forensic conclusion supported by different researchers about a non-witnessed crime are based on faith.

Fair enough.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

What a rant. How sad that is all you can do. You certainly can't produce any evidence to support evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, science doesn't promise certainty,

Agree, and so if it does, it's one way you can tell it ain't science!

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact: Dawkins

but that's not reason to open the door to any alternative explanation.

agree!

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.

The exact same can be said when the police find someone at the foot of the stairs with a kitchen knife in their back, and no sign of an intruder or motive.
The direct evidence allows only for a freak accident, but that doesn't make it the best explanation

i.e. power of explanation, can be a form of evidence in itself.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

The are many difference that separate ape and men. Speech is the main one and unless you can show a scientific explanation, they should not be linked together. Also DNA separates them

We can check he DNA for dogs for example and not only will it show they are all dogs, it will tells us what kind they are. The DNA for apes and humans will separate them. Close is not enough o classify them in the same species.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If John says something it is firsthand, not a retelling. If Luke says the same thing, it show they both saw the same thing, It is not retelling . Even if you want to consider it retelling, that does no make it wrong.

They're both written decades after the supposed event. They are not eyewitness accounts.

If you say, "I know a guy who saw this ... ," you're not telling a firsthand account.

Not to mention that the New Testament gospels are all anonymous.

 

[omega2xx]

They're both written decades after the supposed event. They are not eyewitness accounts. QUOTE]

Time does not the criteria if something is an eye witness account.


If you say, "I know a guy who saw this ... ," you're not telling a firsthand account.
That is not how they are written. I will be Jesdus walked on watger---Jesus turned the waer into wine. Tha is a first hand account.

Not to mention that the New Testament gospels are all anonymous.

That is because it was all written by men inspired by God. Who held he pen is not important.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is amusing to me that I have told all you evos why I quit checking them and invited you to cut and past the evidence they offered. Guess what. NOT ONE SINGLE EVO has done that. I have to assume you actually started thinking about what was said and lo and behold it was not really scientific evidence. You can now prove me wrong by cutting and pasting what they offered. Wouldn't it be worth it to shut me up and stop making you doubt the DD---Darwinism doctrines.

Oh come on. Plenty of people have done it. I am one of them. The fact that you don't recognize evidence when you see it is irrelevant.

I don't see why anyone else would bother wasting their time at this point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is because it was all written by men inspired by God. Who held he pen is not important.

So you claim. Doesn't change the apparent fact that they are not eyewitness accounts, which was the point of contention.

 

[Reggie Miller]

So you claim. Doesn't change the apparent fact that they are not eyewitness accounts, which was the point of contention.

So we will believe God instead of you no matter what you think or say.

 

[Ouroboros]

They're both written decades after the supposed event. They are not eyewitness accounts.

If you say, "I know a guy who saw this ... ," you're not telling a firsthand account.

Not to mention that the New Testament gospels are all anonymous.

And one more thing, the Gospel stories are written in 3rd person, like the omniscient observer, and not as a person's own account of the story unfolding. Somehow, the authors knew what was said in secret rooms (like a fly on the wall), and even thoughts by people, it's all written as a fiction. If it had been the fishermen writing their own story, it would have been more crude language, and much more, "then I walked into the room and saw..." instead of "Then the group conspired in secrecy to..."

 

[SkepticThinker]

And one more thing, the Gospel stories are written in 3rd person, like the omniscient observer, and not as a person's own account of the story unfolding. Somehow, the authors knew what was said in secret rooms (like a fly on the wall), and even thoughts by people, it's all written as a fiction. If it had been the fishermen writing their own story, it would have been more crude language, and much more, "then I walked into the room and saw..." instead of "Then the group conspired in secrecy to..."

Thank you. Another good point.

 

[McBell]

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.

Be sure to alternate between heat and cold packs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So we will believe God instead of you no matter what you think or say.

Of course you can believe whatever you want. Doesn't make it true though. The consensus of Biblical scholars do not agree with your opinions on the subject.


I'm not sure what makes you think the Bible is God's word.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank you. Another good point.

And yet another thing, Jesus supposedly spoke Arameic, and the original stories were supposedly from the Jewish side (disciples and such), but then, when Jesus talk (in secret) with Nicodemus, the whole "born from above" and "born again" is a wordplay... in Greek. What would be the reason that Jesus and Nicodemus talk in secrecy in Greek and make wordplay in it? An uneducated Jewish fisherman wrote the Greek joke down (in Arameic) based on being an eyewitness (to the secret meeting)? Doesn't make an iota of sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet another thing, Jesus supposedly spoke Arameic, and the original stories were supposedly from the Jewish side (disciples and such), but then, when Jesus talk (in secret) with Nicodemus, the whole "born from above" and "born again" is a wordplay... in Greek. What would be the reason that Jesus and Nicodemus talk in secrecy in Greek and make wordplay in it? An uneducated Jewish fisherman wrote the Greek joke down (in Arameic) based on being an eyewitness (to the secret meeting)? Doesn't make an iota of sense.

Another great point. I hadn't even thought of that. I've learned something new today. Thank you!

 

[Reggie Miller]

Of course you can believe whatever you want. Doesn't make it true though. The consensus of Biblical scholars do not agree with your opinions on the subject.


I'm not sure what makes you think the Bible is God's word.

You don't know God so how can you know His word?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't know God so how can you know His word?

Please answer the question.

If your response is, "you can only know the word of God if you already believe in God," then I'm going to have to ask you how you think that makes any sense.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Please answer the question.

If your response is, "you can only know the word of God if you already believe in God," then I'm going to have to ask you how you think that makes any sense.

First you answer mine.

 

[Ouroboros]

You don't know God so how can you know His word?

Just like snake oil. It only works if you believe it does.