Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[ParkCungHee]

I've pointed out that this would require something like 100 new species of spiders a year and at least one new species of mammal every year.
I was ignored.

 

[magicfan101]

No, that's not what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing WHAT ARE THE REASONS that those other scientists disagree?

• What are the arguments against your argument?
• What are the defenses your argument uses?

The clue here is, there are tons and tons of arguments which DESTROY your theory.

There are ZERO plausible defenses against those arguments.

Prove me wrong. Argue it yourself, or QUOTE SOME ACTUAL SCIENTISTS and the people who refuted their arguments.

Don't straw man me.

circular reasoning
if "ACTUAL" scientists are those who believe in some sort of macro-evolution in your mind and "FAKE" scientists are those who dont believe in macro-evolution. How can i disprove macro-evolution when im only quoting macro-evolutionist.
if you dont like this line of reasoning plz provide a definition of "ACTUAL" scientist

 

[GhostWriter16]

Evolution is a scientific theory. It was developed by scientists and has been tested by scientists via experimentation and observation. Science is taught in public schools. Creationism is based on faith. Faith is not taught in public schools.



Science isn't about agreement, Dom. Conclusions reached through scientific means rest on experimentation, observation, and evidence to form questions and test ideas. Science is not a democracy that rests on consensus. Creationists choosing to "disagree" with the theory of evolution do not in any way undermine its scientific validity. As someone else said, evolution is an accepted, settled principle in science. The only way it could or would be refuted at this point is through a series of experiments and observations which accrued enough evidence (via the scientific method) to overturn the centuries of evidence that scientists have shown in favor of evolution.



It can be and it has been. You just choose not to accept any logic that contradicts your religious beliefs. Again, nobody is telling you that you can't believe in God or in the Bible. You're free to do so. But you're operating under a lot of false assumptions and misunderstandings if you feel that evolution is up for debate, and that creationism has as much scientific evidence backing it up.

Yet evolution is taught like an irrefutable fact.

Domination, I'm wondering about this "kinds" business. I am assuming there is a lower number of kinds than the number of species that exist today. So that means new species of all kinds of animals have evolved... How is that not what you call "macroevolution"? And how do you feel about the fact that you seem to support new species of mammals etc. evolving at a much faster rate than any "evolutionist" would propose?

Well, I would say a dog is a kind. So there were two dogs that produced all dogs. Though there might be more than one "Kind" of dog. I'm not sure.

I've pointed out that this would require something like 100 new species of spiders a year and at least one new species of mammal every year.
I was ignored.

So?

 

[trader/warrior]

circular reasoning
if "ACTUAL" scientists are those who believe in some sort of macro-evolution in your mind and "FAKE" scientists are those who dont believe in macro-evolution. How can i disprove macro-evolution when im only quoting macro-evolutionist.
if you dont like this line of reasoning plz provide a definition of "ACTUAL" scientist

You could use tree cores, ice cores, radiometric dating, Luminescence dating, Lichenometry or chronostratigraphy to prove the age of creation for example, so why haven't any impartial scientists happened upon evidence for a young earth and all you can find is scientists who go out with the exressed purpose of proving a already laid out timeline?

 

[ParkCungHee]

So?

So why are we not seeing the emergence of hundreds of of new spiders and new mammals all the time?

 

[trader/warrior]

Well, I would say a dog is a kind. So there were two dogs that produced all dogs. Though there might be more than one "Kind" of dog. I'm not sure.

So noah DID need to go out and collect thousands of species of spider from every corner of the earth, about a hundred different species of antelope and so on?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

circular reasoning
if "ACTUAL" scientists are those who believe in some sort of macro-evolution in your mind and "FAKE" scientists are those who dont believe in macro-evolution. How can i disprove macro-evolution when im only quoting macro-evolutionist.
if you dont like this line of reasoning plz provide a definition of "ACTUAL" scientist

Straw man.

Your evolution-denying scientists (just as there were scientists who believed the earth was the center of the solar system) are still scientists.

• QUOTE THEM.
  
• QUOTE THE REFUTATIONS.
  
• QUOTE THE RESPONSES TO THE REFUTATIONS.

If you can't argue your case yourself (you and Dom have yet to do so) then at least find someone else who can.

But don't ignore the arguments which rip theirs to pieces and then claim they're equal theories with equal weight and equal evidence.

There's a Flat Earth society. Some of them might be scientists. The fact that they don't have to debate their theories because they just ignore all the evidence against them doesn't mean their theory is valid.



It's like I'm talking to a brick wall here. Or a fossil.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

circular reasoning
if "ACTUAL" scientists are those who believe in some sort of macro-evolution in your mind and "FAKE" scientists are those who dont believe in macro-evolution. How can i disprove macro-evolution when im only quoting macro-evolutionist.
if you dont like this line of reasoning plz provide a definition of "ACTUAL" scientist

Illogical reasoning. Scientists are people who through their training and discipline test ideas through evidence and experiment and discard those ideas which do not follow the results of either.
Fantasists on the other hand take an idea, and then proceed to twist or invent "evidence" in such a way to give "credence and proof" to their ideas (and the reason for the quotation marks, is that the words are not used as they should in making up that sentence).

Where does Evolution lie. Well it makes predictions about what we should see, and how it happens. Are they right? Yes in the vast majority of cases. Scientists have done expirements to show evolution in action. Well, does it? Why, yes it does. For proof see my posts in the last Evidence for Creation thread, and if you don't want to read that, don't bother us any more. Does it make up a conclusion and then do everything (right and wrong) to make the facts fit the conclusion? Well Darwin was collecting the data around the world, and yet the idea wasn't with him from the start, it was only after many years study (and help from other experts) that he realised the method for Evolution we know has his Theory. Therefore we are making proper science here.

Now lets put Genesis to the test. It also makes predictions about what we should see and how it happens. Are they right? No they are not. The fossil evidence and DNA (along with all the other evolutionary mechanisms) disprove the predictions. Have creationists done any experimentation work to back up their theory? Well depending on who we're talking about it's either "no, because they put the bible above experimental data." or "they deliberately twist any findings they get because it contradicts creationism. Does it make up a conclusion and then do everything (right and wrong) to make the facts fit the conclusion? Indubitably my deat Dr. Watson, indubitably. They take a story written many years ago by a man (or many men) not in full possession of the facts, trying to make sense of a world he (they) doesn't understand. Then they look around and try to find justification for it, e.g. "Creationism is in the bible, so it's right. Look at the Grand Canyon, it's proof of the flood. Q.E.D." Therefore we are making a fantasy here.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Illogical reasoning. Scientists are people who through their training and discipline test ideas through evidence and experiment and discard those ideas which do not follow the results of either.
Fantasists on the other hand take an idea, and then proceed to twist or invent "evidence" in such a way to give "credence and proof" to their ideas (and the reason for the quotation marks, is that the words are not used as they should in making up that sentence).
...
Therefore we are making a fantasy here.

This post is very insulting to Fantasists.

 

[magicfan101]

You could use tree cores, ice cores, radiometric dating, Luminescence dating, Lichenometry or chronostratigraphy to prove the age of creation for example, so why haven't any impartial scientists happened upon evidence for a young earth and all you can find is scientists who go out with the exressed purpose of proving a already laid out timeline?

we already have a time-line, techniques, and theories on how things happen. i can link you to quite a few peer reviewed journals that contains evidence for creation but you will discredit them because you have a belief that anyone that does not believe in macro-evolution is not an Actual scientist. and yes we do have scientist who were once Darwinian evolutionist who now believe in young earth creation after examining the evidence.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

This post is very insulting to Fantasists.

But completely and utterly accurate. Also I'm not talking about fantasy writers, I'm talking about those who believe that their made-up little worlds are real and true, just like this guy:

Link to video.

Attention Creationists, pay close attention to and study the board Ted gives Dougal, it will help you for the rest of your lives.

 

[SuperJay]

Yet evolution is taught like an irrefutable fact.

No, it is taught as a settled theory that has yet to be refuted or disproven on any scientific basis. Because it hasn't; on the contrary, further observation and experimentation have produce more evidence supporting evolution.

Again, science isn't personal. It doesn't care what you or I believe or where we go on Sunday morning or how we dress or what our favorite foods are.

You seem to feel that academic institutions should give your views equal airtime with other views, but science isn't made of opinions or viewpoints. No credible university or other school is going to include your viewpoints in its science curriculum until and unless those viewpoints can be backed up by evidence via the scientific method. Despite the claims of the YECs in this thread, there doesn't appear to be any scientific evidence for creationism - or if there is, you guys are doing a horrible job of pointing to it. You keep saying it's out there, but never actually show it to us.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I challenge any young earth creationist to a one-on-one moderated debate, specifically on the subject of Noah's Ark feasibility and how approximately 20,000 animals became the millions of distinct species today.

The reason: This is the fatal flaw in young earth creationism and evolution-denying theories, because it disproves both, perfectly and forever. It's vital to this discussion because any premise that evolution doesn't happen (in addition to) Noah's flood mythology requires there to be an explanation for these events.

The only explanation so far is "I dunno, a wizard did it". But some purport to know of evidence that it could happen in the scientific, non-magical sense.

Any takers?

Only your best, though. Frankly if all you can do is say "I dunno, Wizardry" then don't bother responding to this challenge.

If you can't respond to points, don't bother.

 

[Veritass]

Here we are, 200 posts into the Part 2 thread, and still there is no more evidence of creationism. Quit discussing evolution! Must I remind you of the title of the thread?

So far, there has been one piece of evidence provided: the Biblical account. Maybe a second piece about the supposed discovery of Noah's ark. Let's discuss those, and any other EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM that someone can come up with.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Remind me again why the Bible counts as evidence of creation when there were pre-biblical societies who had other beliefs?

Judaism was not the first religion by a long shot.

Why is creation in the Bible being seriously considered as evidence when there are previous, and thus more historically "accurate" (if you consider creation myths accurate) creation myths? Because they happened closer to the supposed event, wouldn't their anecdotal evidence count as superior to the Bible's?

Secondly, the Noah's ark discovery is a hoax. Prove otherwise, show pictures of the vessel, studies done that prove it wasn't a hoax by scientists that weren't already disposed to believe that the ark is real, and post the data.


Until then, neither piece of "evidence" should even be considered legitimate in this thread.

Such shoddy standards of proof are beyond unscientific, they're downright naive.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I challenge any young earth creationist to a one-on-one moderated debate, specifically on the subject of Noah's Ark feasibility and how approximately 20,000 animals became the millions of distinct species today.

The reason: This is the fatal flaw in young earth creationism and evolution-denying theories, because it disproves both, perfectly and forever. It's vital to this discussion because any premise that evolution doesn't happen (in addition to) Noah's flood mythology requires there to be an explanation for these events.

The only explanation so far is "I dunno, a wizard did it". But some purport to know of evidence that it could happen in the scientific, non-magical sense.

Any takers?

Only your best, though. Frankly if all you can do is say "I dunno, Wizardry" then don't bother responding to this challenge.

If you can't respond to points, don't bother.

If I were you I'd ask Classical_hero.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

If I were you I'd ask Classical_hero.

Is that your best candidate?

You can even offer to help. It doesn't matter to me. As long as I only have to speak to ONE person who MUST respond to my points, it doesn't matter who it is.

Open invitation, let's see who nibbles.

 

[negZero]

@Dom where is this miracle that science can't explain away?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

@Dom where is this miracle that science can't explain away?

Indeed, I believe this and a mountain of other points were never addressed here.

Not once.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is that your best candidate?

You can even offer to help. It doesn't matter to me. As long as I only have to speak to ONE person who MUST respond to my points, it doesn't matter who it is.

Open invitation, let's see who nibbles.

I actually think that would be an interesting debate. I know for absolute certainty I would lose that debate however, I don't deny that.