Why doesnt creationism need any data?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Infer, in this case, does not mean "guess, assume, or speculate," regardless of what you may like to believe.
As long as you have no proof then it is an assumption.
It means that scientists make logical conclusions based on the evidence.
This would explain why those "logical conclusions" are often falsified.

It also explains why you should: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths." (
Prov 3:5-6).
Why don't you explain to us how one uses creationism to explain these phenomena?
Why don't you provide proof to back up your claims and not just "logical conclusions" that are often falsified?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
As long as you have no proof then it is an assumption.


If you have evidence then it is a conclusion, not an assumption.

This would explain why those "logical conclusions" are often falsified.


So you are saying that evidence can be used to determine if something is true or false?
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
As long as you have no proof then it is an assumption.
This would explain why those "logical conclusions" are often falsified.

It also explains why you should: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths." (
Prov 3:5-6).
Why don't you provide proof to back up your claims and not just "logical conclusions" that are often falsified?


So everything in life with the exception of pure mathematics is an assumption? I think that is a rather massive redefinition of the word "assumption".
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, it is. Astronomy has confirmed uniformitarianism.
No, they haven't. They cannot even confirm how the moon was formed.
Everywhere they look they observe the same physical laws through both space and time.
Did they see how the moon was formed?

Was it formed through a slow, gradual process? or was it formed catastrophically?
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you have evidence then it is a conclusion, not an assumption.
If you have no proof then it is a conclusion based on an assumption.
So you are saying that evidence can be used to determine if something is true or false?
Evidence can also be used to form assumptions.

The convicted man was assumed guilty based on the evidence, but he was later proven to be innocent.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
If you have no proof then it is a conclusion based on an assumption.


No, it would be a conclusion based on evidence.

Evidence can also be used to form assumptions.

Evidence is made up of observations, not assumptions.

The convicted man was assumed guilty based on the evidence, but he was later proven to be innocent.

He was found guilty based on evidence, and later found innocent based on new evidence.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is shown every day in astronomy. The physical forces that astronomers observe in distant galaxies are the exact forces we observe today.

I understand you think so. Example?
If the laws of physics were different in the past it would show up in the field of astronomy, but it hasn't.

If your projecting the present earth state was limited to the past, this might be true. However, they do the same thing for the far far away! So your claim is false.

The only reason that you want these laws to be different is that you don't like the conclusion that the evidence leads to.

Look loud mouth, I don't care what your beliefs are regarding the laws of the past. You have no proof! I will go with God's word.
You have zero evidence for physical forces or laws that were different in the past while science has mountains of evidence that they were the same. I will go with the evidence and ignore your fantasies.
There is zero evidence for a same state past. There is all evidence available to man that it was a very different state. What, you thought living 1000 years was due to eating vitamins?


How is the gullibility of others my problem? If you really think that writing something down makes it true then I have a bridge to sell you.
[/QUOTE] Rising from the dead and fulfilling 100s of prophesies makes it true. No bridges needed.
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Psudopod, I have replied many times and said an ape does not meet the criteria of humans due to not having sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that this morning! "Ape does not meet the criteria for human..." Hilarious.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
He was found guilty based on evidence, and later found innocent based on new evidence.
So you were wrong, and later you realized you were wrong. How typical.

What this shows is that your conclusions are not based on evidence, but based on your fallible human interpretation of it, resulting in innocent people being condemned.

Your "evidence" can take a hike.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So you were wrong, and later you realized you were wrong. How typical.

What this shows is that your conclusions are not based on evidence, but based on your fallible human interpretation of it, resulting in innocent people being condemned.

Your "evidence" can take a hike.
My! my! What a Christian thing to say!

I really don't know what scares me most; Christian Fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism. The difficulty for me is due to the both being indistinguishable from each other!
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I don't think it is I that has trouble reasoning!

I have stated many times that junk DNA does not sit with creationism and was one of the things you guys used to run into creationists. Now you have found junk DNA is not junk at all.

Vestigal organs do not align with creationism and once again this used to be run into creationists and still is. However scientists are also finding this assertion erraneous as they do have function. eg human apendix.

An ape like creature, eg the erraneous sketches of Neanderthal years ago, the bent over half ape half human, that can discuss afterlife would also suffice to disprove creation, but you cannot produce one of them as evidence either as they all mysteriously became extinct. How unfortunate!.

What you can present as evidence for evolution is a list of misrepresented kinds and species thrown into family ranks and non plausible scenarios, but no evidence that discredits creation.

.
I asked you for evidence that would not support creationism. Let's see what you came up with:

1. Vestigical organs. Well, there's strike one, because yes, the human appendix is vestigial. I can cut it out of you right now and it's absence would have no effect on you. But there are also plenty of others, such as eyes on blind cave fish, wings on flightless birds, dew claws, vestigical legs on pythons, whales' pelvis, etc. And no, having no function at all, is not required for "vestigial." What is required is loss of the function the organ performs in other species.

2. Junk DNA. This is not a technical term, nor have biologists ever claimed there was no purpose to any Junk DNA. That said, you could remove much of it with no effect. Much is just repeated sequences coding for nothing. In fact, some organisms don't have any Junk DNA at all, such as the puffer fish. Doesn't seem to hurt them not having any. So, that's strike two.

3. A Neanderthal discussing the afterlife. You already know they are extinct, so that is a stupid loaded example. I asked for potential tyoes of data we could find, not data we could not find. Nevertheless, since Neaderthals were just as intelligent as us (in fact their brain was slightly bigger), I would infer that they actually did discuss the afterlife while they were around. So, that's strike three.

I guess that means that creationism is falsified now. Thanks. :wave:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I really don't know what scares me most; Christian Fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism.
It depends on whether or not you're a witch, with atheists bugging Christians to 'do the right thing'; or whether you're an office worker in a building in the land of the 'Great Satan', with atheists bugging Islamists to 'do the right thing'.

(And for the record, it's 'more' -- not 'most' -- ;))
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
As long as you have no proof then it is an assumption.

Show me a definition of "inference" that equates it with "assumption." Go ahead, you guys are experts at sophistry.

Why don't you provide proof to back up your claims and not just "logical conclusions" that are often falsified?
Why don't you provide "proof" to back up your claims? You are the ones that claim to have "proof" and "the Truth", afterall. We don't.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I asked you for evidence that would not support creationism.
images
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
So you were wrong, and later you realized you were wrong. How typical.

Certainly not typical of creationists. You guys were wrong, and later you realized you were wrong, but won't accept that you were wrong. Now you claim ignoring you were wrong is a guide to "The Truth."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.