Shortest Proof for Creationism?

[lostwanderingsoul]

We understand how life evolves. It is not that big of a problem. You are using an argument from ignorant, a logical fallacy. Instead of doing that you should be trying to learn how biologists know what they know.

You did not answer the question. Can you name anything that exists that was not designed and built?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did not answer the question. Can you name anything that exists that was not designed and built?

All of life. Rock formations. Geodes. There is no scientific evidence for creationism at all. Why believe it?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You don't understand evolution, do you?

I understand that everything exists because someone with the knowledge and power to build it used that knowledge and power to do so. If I see a painting of a flower I know there was an artist who painted it. Someone did not just put a canvas and some paint in a room and close the door and then come back later to see if there was a painting. But the actual flower which is much more complex than a painting, oh, that just happened all by itself.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

All of life. Rock formations. Geodes. There is no scientific evidence for creationism at all. Why believe it?

Oh yes. I never thought about rocks. One day there were no rocks and millions of years later there were rocks. I guess they evolved from lower rock forms. I feel so dumb.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that everything exists because someone with the knowledge and power to build it used that knowledge and power to do so. If I see a painting of a flower I know there was an artist who painted it. Someone did not just put a canvas and some paint in a room and close the door and then come back later to see if there was a painting. But the actual flower which is much more complex than a painting, oh, that just happened all by itself.

Sorry, you do not know that you only believe that. Your terribly failed arguments demonstrate that all you have is mere belief.

Do you think that we can have a discussion without endless logical fallacies on your part?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yes. I never thought about rocks. One day there were no rocks and millions of years later there were rocks. I guess they evolved from lower rock forms. I feel so dumb.

Perhaps you should. You were given examples for an answer to a rather ignorant question. Don't complain.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Sorry, you do not know that you only believe that. Your terribly failed arguments demonstrate that all you have is mere belief.

Do you think that we can have a discussion without endless logical fallacies on your part?

I would like very much to have a discussion. Would you tell me what part I do not know? I do not know that the painting was made by an artist? Or I do not know the flower just came into being all by itself? Which part should we discuss?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Perhaps you should. You were given examples for an answer to a rather ignorant question. Don't complain.

I do not believe there are ignorant questions. I asked if anything exists that was not designed and made. You said rocks. Perhaps the answer is more ignorant than the question. So maybe you can try again. Can you name anything that exists that was not designed and made? And more important, what proof is there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like very much to have a discussion. Would you tell me what part I do not know? I do not know that the painting was made by an artist? Or I do not know the flower just came into being all by itself? Which part should we discuss?

You clearly do not know that you are trying to use circular reasoning. Yes, a painting was made by a painter. So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not believe there are ignorant questions. I asked if anything exists that was not designed and made. You said rocks. Perhaps the answer is more ignorant than the question. So maybe you can try again. Can you name anything that exists that was not designed and made? And more important, what proof is there?

And life too. Don't forget that. Don't complain when your you errors are revealed.

Can you reason rationally? Please stop stealing the idiotic arguments of Ray Comfort.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And life too. Don't forget that. Don't complain when your you errors are revealed.

Can you reason rationally? Please stop stealing the idiotic arguments of Ray Comfort.

Perhaps you could rationalize better with people if you stop calling their ideas idiotic.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You clearly do not know that you are trying to use circular reasoning. Yes, a painting was made by a painter. So what?

So what? So I think a flower was made by a flower maker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you could rationalize better with people if you stop calling their ideas idiotic.

I am sorry, but Ray's arguments are idiotic. The man is a fool when it comes to debating. He uses a circular argument. That makes it too easy to refute. We could have a serious discussion if you reason rationally. But of course if we use an evidence based discussion you will not find any scientific evidence for your beliefs. That doesn't s why it is more of a discussion than a debate. You cannot win in the sense of supporting your beliefs but you may win by learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what? So I think a flower was made by a flower maker.

So every time two flowers screw God has to come down and make the resulting flower. Where is your evidence for this belief?

 

[GardenLady]

So, the Theory of Evolution has failed to relate to Popper's falsifiability criterion.
If a theory has lost the potential to be falsified, it is no longer a scientific theory,
neither scientific fact.

You are being willfully obtuse. The ToE has NOT lost the POTENTIAL to be falsified. However, myriad attempts over a long period of time have failed to falsify it. Scientists can try over and over again, but thousands of attempts to falsify the ToE have failed and all the evidence supports that evolution is a fundamental process of life. REAL scientific attempts to falsify that evolution occurs could be done validly by the scientific method every day of the week. But still, evolution is not falsified.

The specifics of detailed mechanisms and exact line of descent are still the subject of research and some of the theories (e.g.,. punctuated equilibrium) are controversial and have or may be falsified. Not the theory that evolution occurs, just specific mechanisms. It is in this realm that YECs falsely quote Gould as either questioning or admitting the defeat of evolution.

It is literally belief in Genesis and a very young earth that does not have the potential to be falsified--it is based on belief and a priori assumptions that are not amenable to any kinds of testing by the scientific method.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

So every time two flowers screw God has to come down and make the resulting flower. Where is your evidence for this belief?

Well first of all you need to brush up on your science because flowers do not screw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well first of all you need to brush up on your science because flowers do not screw.

Yes, but if I say **** the autobot will censor it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes, but if I say **** the autobot will censor it.

I'm afraid they don't do that either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm afraid they don't do that either.

How do you know? Do you watch them 24/7?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

How do you know? Do you watch them 24/7?

Probably only dirty old men do that. I prefer to watch Judge Judy.