Why doesnt creationism need any data?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why is that so hard to believe? After all, in the beginning nothing went *BANG*.
Actually the term Big Bang was coined by a creationist; Fred Hoyle, during a radio broadcast intending it as a derisive term for Lemaitre's theory.

So in effect you are siding with Science and that by all accounts is a good sign that you are on the right track.

LOL! Hoyle must be turning in his grave at your post!
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You must be an old man then -- your English is excellent -- :thumbsup:
Perseverando is my moto! After suffering a brain stroke 3 years ago, my language skills deteriorated to the point where I had difficulty even composing a sentence. But perseverance paid back and I am constantly improving. English is not my mother tongue and I welcome corrections to the mistakes I make! :wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
So you were wrong, and later you realized you were wrong. How typical.

Yeah, it's called honesty. You should look into it.

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.

So which is the fallible interpretation? The finding of guilt or innocence?

Your "evidence" can take a hike.

Another creationist closing their eyes to the evidence. How typical.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Why is that so hard to believe? After all, in the beginning nothing went *BANG*.

Firstly, it didn't go bang, and it didn't come from nothing. Why is it that creationists need to misrepresent our position on everything?

Secondly, we have tons of evidence evidence that the Universe did expand from a singularity.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Perseverando is my moto! After suffering a brain stroke 3 years ago, my language skills deteriorated to the point where I had difficulty even composing a sentence.
Sorry to hear about your stroke!
But perseverance paid back and I am constantly improving.
Sounds like you had some people praying for you, eh? :)
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.

But I'm guessing with your ad hoc logic and special pleading method of debate, you think that the Bible is somehow exempt of our "fallible human interpretation?"
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry to hear about your stroke!

Sounds like you had some people praying for you, eh? :)
Actually considering that I live in a country where over 90% of the population believe in God and almost no one believes in creationism as fact but in a spiritual way.
I was lucky because it happened while I was driving my family on the national highway with some very dangerous cliffs on the side of the road. I guess someone was looking out for me eh;)
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that this morning! "Ape does not meet the criteria for human..." Hilarious.


No I'll say for about the 10th time to you. The difference between man and ape (that incluces chimps for your information) do not have sophisticated speech and high reasoning ability.

The best you have been able to offer as a refute is to ignore my reply, take joy over offering woffly criticisms, never refute this difference, nor do you ever address the evidence I present.

It is obvious you are unable to and that is what is 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

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

It appears you have no idea what a vestigal organ means. I told you appendix are no longer thought of as vestigal as they have important function...and I have the research from your own evo researchers to back it.

If you think eyes & wings are touted by your reseachers as vestigal organs then I guess you have demonstrated you need to do a bit more reading perhaps..

"Two years ago, Duke University Medical Center researchers said that the supposedly useless appendix is actually where good gut bacteria safely hide out during some unpleasant intestinal conditions.

Darwin thought that only a few animals have an appendix and that the human version was what was left of a digestive organ called the cecum. But the new study found that 70 percent of rodent and primate groups have species with an appendix. And some living animals have a cecum and an appendix. If Darwin had known about species that had both organs, he probably would have revised his views of the appendix, the researchers note. "

That's No Vestigial Organ, That's My Appendix: Scientific American Podcast

Once again your reply does not refute anything. What it does demonstrate is that you need to catch up on the science you support.



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.
Again you demonstrate beyond doubt you need to catch up on your science. Of course your researchers used to call the non coding regions of the genome junk dna. I cannot believe you have never heard of this.

Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways.
Junk DNA" - Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function

Read the link, learn and please stop wasting my time.!

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.
Neanderthal had a larger brain that we do, was initially sketched as an apeman, when now even your researchers have found neanderthal has the human variant of FOXp2 and was perfectly human.

Do I need to put up this info also.

So the point was that you have no hairy stooped over ape men around as they have all mysteriously gone extinct.


I guess that means that creationism is falsified now.

YOU FAIL so Thanks. :wave:

Indeed you have demonsrtrated you really need to catch up on some of your research. It is difficult to debate people that constantly request confirmation of either common knowledge or data that is easily found on the internet.

Now here I'll give you a shot at defending this science of yours agian.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110908161446.htm

Please explain why your researchers, even in their wildest dreams, would assert this specimen is anything human. For goodness sake, look at the fingers above. So apes went from really short thumbs incapable of grasp all the way to excessively long thumbs before shrinking again, did they?

This creature Australopithecus sediba still has wrists for climbing and ankles for climbing and still you evolutionists will insist that 3.7myo footprints belong to apes like Lucy. You need to undersand that I really do not feel silly not accepting this stuff. I cannot understand how intelligent researchers could even suggest it..

Additionally, Turkana Boy was much the same age and was not found with feet nor fingers. I think it convenient that your researchers do not superimpose these feet and fingers onto Turkana Boy, given the similar ages. But that would only demonstrate he is more of an ape variety than ever. Erectus has also been found to demonstrate ape like extreme sexual dimorphism. Researchers cannot agree on whether Turkana Boy is Ergaster or Erectus. Regardless the poor creature is not human and therefore there are no intermediate forms.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813093132.htm

Prediction: This creature, Sediba, will soon again, as usual, be railroaded out of the human line.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, it's called honesty. You should look into it.
I call it an abuse of evidence to fit a fantasy.
So which is the fallible interpretation? The finding of guilt or innocence?
He was always innocent. It is your abuse of the evidence that found him guilty.
Another creationist closing their eyes to the evidence. How typical.
I'm closing my eyes to garbage, not evidence.

You guys like to claim you have evidence for this and evidence for that but still end up being wrong about this and that. So what was the evidence for in the first place when you end up being wrong?

Only in science can you have evidence to support a wrong idea. And then you come on this forum expecting people to take you seriously.

When you guys can make the distinction between real evidence and real garbage then you guys will be taken seriously.
Firstly, it didn't go bang, and it didn't come from nothing. Why is it that creationists need to misrepresent our position on everything?
What position? When it comes to big bang theory your position is always shifting.
Secondly, we have tons of evidence evidence that the Universe did expand from a singularity.
There you go with that "tons of evidence" garbage again. Is it the same "tons of evidence" that condemned that innocent man to death?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But I'm guessing with your ad hoc logic and special pleading method of debate, you think that the Bible is somehow exempt of our "fallible human interpretation?"
The facts of the Bible are to a Christian as the facts of nature are to a scientist. We may at times interpret those facts wrong but the Bible still remains a book of facts. And any scientific theory must fit those biblical facts or the scientific theory can take a hike.
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,308
1,892
✟257,746.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Actually the term Big Bang was coined by a creationist; Fred Hoyle, during a radio broadcast intending it as a derisive term for Lemaitre's theory.

...
LOL! Hoyle must be turning in his grave at your post!
Actually, no.

The name Big Bang was coined by a mocking Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle wasn't a creationist. He was an atheist who opposed the BBT because he saw it as a sneaky way christians could force creationism back in science. Don't forget the BBT was first formulated by a George Lemaître, who was a Catholic priest from Belgium. Pope Pius XII publicly endorsed the BBT.

Hoyle advanced the Steady State Theory, claiming that the niverse had always existed and that there was thus no "Creation Moment", or no "Origin of the Universe". He did this partially to oppose christianity.

You are right that it is funny that creationists forget or ignore this part of the story. That sites like Conservapedia now scream things like ATHEIST BIG BANG etc.

But the BBT wasn't named by creationists. No.
 
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
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The name Big Bang was coined by a mocking Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle wasn't a creationist. He was an atheist who opposed the BBT because he saw it as a sneaky way christians could force creationism back in science.
All Christians? or just a handful of them?
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Actually, no.

The name Big Bang was coined by a mocking Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle wasn't a creationist. He was an atheist who opposed the BBT because he saw it as a sneaky way christians could force creationism back in science. Don't forget the BBT was first formulated by a George Lemaître, who was a Catholic priest from Belgium. Pope Pius XII publicly endorsed the BBT.

Hoyle advanced the Steady State Theory, claiming that the niverse had always existed and that there was thus no "Creation Moment", or no "Origin of the Universe". He did this partially to oppose christianity.

You are right that it is funny that creationists forget or ignore this part of the story. That sites like Conservapedia now scream things like ATHEIST BIG BANG etc.

But the BBT wasn't named by creationists. No.
I stand corrected! I was under the impression that Hoyle being a Steady state proponent was in effect a crypto creationist. Most People I spoke to about Hoyle think he was a creationist too. But as you pointed out I was in err to assume something just because many thought it so.

Thanks for the correction! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
All Christians? or just a handful of them?
Considering that creationism is basically an American concept then suffice it to say that most Christians do not accept a literal translation of Genesis.

According to polls conducted in the US; most Americans believe in creationism, whereas in Europe it is the opposite:
440px-Views_on_Evolution.svg.png

http://www.mendeley.com/research/eu...pting-evolution-results-internetbased-survey/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
According to polls conducted in the US; most Americans believe in creationism, whereas in Europe it is the opposite:
Why then, does London have one of, if not THE, biggest mosques in Europe?
 
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

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why then, does London have one of, if not THE, biggest mosques in Europe?
Because even Muslims who are not fundamentalists, accept evolution.

Over here people are astounded to hear that in America creationists want creationism taught in school as a replacement for evolution!

When people go to church here they don't hear sermons full of hate and fear of hell. People go to church because they believe in the spirit and not some self proclaimed preacher who wants us to believe that Christianity is a political party specifically ordained to cater to American interests.

I say this not out of malice but from what I have read in the various posts in CF.

When I visited America I saw "People". People who were no different to all the other people on this planet.

When religion is mixed with politics or science then it ceases to be a religion and looses its spirituality. That is how slavery was condoned by using the Bible. That is why Hitler purposely tried to make Jesus into an Arian who fought the Jews. That is why he ordered all references in the Bible that favoured the Jews be removed.

Religion is faith and faith is not physical but spiritual. Science and politics are physical. Mix the two and you have big problems.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.