Where is your evidence creationists?

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
How am I hypocritical. I am pointing out the hatred on your side. I don't hate anyone here.
I don't hate anyone either. Yet I am told that I am "full of hate" for posting here.


I believe it is weird that people spend the better part of their days posting and debating God....especially when they deny God exists. Why?
What is the agenda?
My agenda is to support the teaching of science in public school science classes, and to keep religion out.


The arrogance from this side is unreal. To imply here like one poster did that we are stupid that no scientist in the world would fall for this stuff....well its wrong...and shows how far that side will go to attack believers. many famous atheists have become believers. And there are smart men and women of science who know that something can never come from nothing.

Fastener is likely another Consul sock puppet. He has been told his comments are not welcome many times here by both sides of the debate. But, maybe you should talk to your friend Astridhere about her comments... such as this gem:

Originally Posted by Astridhere
"I reckon the atheists on any Christian forum are there because they are too stupid to engage in science forums so they bring their ignorance here in the hope that no one notices just how stupid they are..."
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
To say that people who believe in God are stupid....is an example of utter stupidity. The hate is coming from those who reject God and who are so angry at Him that....they feel they must debate it day and night. Why?
I don't think people who believe in God are stupid. Most atheists I know don't think that either.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Real science probably bores them, so they come here, where they think we will 'ooh' and 'aah' at their level of knowledge.

Instead, they are met with resistance from our faith, and it bothers them.

That's just one of three major reasons I think they come here:

  1. God brings them here to see our faith.

  1. And be convinced that faith requires rejecting reality? Not a very good ploy.


    [*]They come here to vent & ridicule.
    Only people like consul and his many sock puppets.

    [*]They come here to show off.
    Same as above.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
39
Beer City, Michigan
✟10,618.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The day any evo can present substantiated evidence than mankind evolved from apes is the day I will become an atheist. There is no middle ground for me.

Eves bone (dna) was taken from Adam. The differential Y chromosome is a confirmation that Adam is the initial creation. Adam was created from dust which speaks to a new and individual creation. Adam was not made from the bone of an ape.

I do not deny the power of God nor the biblical miracles. If a believer accepts a multitude can be fed from a few fish and loaves then one may also accept God can do all that is stated in the bible.

I agree in principle. I'm saying that the creation of soulful man could satisfy the condition of new and individual creation, especially the individual part. Still, I haven't ruled out mankind's creation ex-nihilo, circa the dawn of civilization. As you say, God can do what he wants, his way, regardless of how it looks to any of us down here. If darwinians cite genetic similarity, for example, the evidence is not convincing. Our genetic information is remarkably similar to all sorts of lesser creatures, so DNA doesn't seem to be a reliable indication of common ancestry in the long run.

Besides evolution has been falsified many times as I have spoken to. It is just that evos do not call it a falsification they call it enlightenment.

lol

Further to that there is substantial support for creation, a young earth and an earth centred universe that I am within my rights to favour instead of naturalistic explanations.

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

If God did not protect the contents of His word then there is no reason relating to believe the bible that has any connection to salvation. Such assertions for me are no better than evolutionary theory.

One either accepts the bible as it is written or throw it away. There is no middle ground for me. Either God knows what he is doing or He does not, again there is no middle ground.

There is an important factor you may not be considering. Proper exegesis can make the difference between taking God at his word, and taking God at our own word. It is theologically perilous to equate "as it is written" to "as it is read." We are so far removed from the context of the original author's environment and audience, that even the most faithfully rendered translation can lead us a stray through our preconceptions. This is how poor doctrine manifests most often. More problematic is the fact that translations of the original text, even if rendered perfectly, eventually lose currency with language. Worse, the mind can also read colloquially when the translation was not rendered to include such parlance.

So, to take the bible as it was written, not only do we need a modern, competent translation, we need other tools to aid our interpretation. These include a concordance dictionary and scholarly commentaries, both of which are even freely available on the internet.

Now, because of these and other factors, the dynamics become much more complicated than take it or leave it. Besides, is your faith rooted in God himself, or the recording of his word? Truly, his word will not perish, but the written account of it might. For what absolute, perfect truth can even be communicated in our imperfect language?
 
Upvote 0

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Here we find Astrid's requirement. She needs substatiated evidence in order to accept something as true. Let's see if that follows for what she has already accepted as true.



Substantiated evidence please.



I will need substantiated evidence for this as well.


Substantiated evidence please.



Then please present the substantiated evidence that they actually occurred.



Substantiated evidence please.



And this evidence is . . . ?



Substantiated evidence that supports this theory, please.



Substantiated evidence that God exists and protected anything, please.



Since you claim that you need substantiated evidence to accept something as true, you had better present this evidence or be forced to throw it away. That is, unless, you have a double standard when it comes to what you will or will not accept as true.

vnice owning of astrid here, i actually lol'd reading this.

no doubt she has no substantiated evidence of anything, and puts a different level of requirement on some things if they fall outside what she already believes.

Most atheists are far more consistent. Show us actual substantiated evidence and we will believe anything, not just what suits us.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Darls, I have provided much more than wiki quotes.

Indeed. That's not the only mistake you have made numerous times before someone corrected you. That's also not the only mistake you have continued to make after several people correcting you numerous times.

What's more I am still waiting for you to deny published research that suggests Lucy is too derived to be in the human line.

I don't have to deny such published research because it doesn't exist. The only research published has been to suggest that Au. afarensis is not ancestral to humans. And I'm going to explain that to you as I'm pretty sure that many others have already - that does not mean she's a chimp or "fully ape" or whatever other non sequitorial conclusions Creationists want to force on to those papers. That means that Au. afarensis could be a cousin species to the Austral line with did lead to Homo and, of course, sapiens. That position is hardly settled science though. There's a lot more evidence suggesting that Au. afarensis was the Austral lineage that did lead to Homo.

I really enjoy evos not accepting recent research because it demonstrates evolutionary cherry picking.

Not nearly as much as I enjoy your apparent lack of a sense of irony. The Wiki entry and the content of The Ancestor's Tale is a perfect example of you cherry picking because it confirms your misunderstandings and a priori rejectionist position. You glom on to any paper, be it tentative, misrepresented by Creationists (Male sepecific Y) or any other thing that seems to support you and you clamp down on it like an alligator with a chicken (Turkana boy's skull looking "more like an orang" than a human).

What's more, those following this thread, are able to see you wollow in denial and avoidence. That's even better.

Your fantasies are as amusing as they disconnected from reality.

Now either Dawkins agrees Lucy is not human

Here's a perfect example of you not knowing what you're talking about or being such a disconnected layman that you don't even know how to express what you're trying to say properly. No one is suggesting Au. afarensis is "human". Heck, you can see right in the binomial name "Australopithecus afarensis" that the species is not even considered to be in the genus Homo. Is it ancestral to Homo, and thus to "humans" (i.e. H. sapiens)? Most likely. But since no one is suggesting Au. afarensis is "human" the rest of your response is meaningless.

...and suggests so in his book or your mate is an outdated goose full of woffle just like anyone else that worships him. Take your pick!!!!

Look Crocodile Dundee, the slang isn't cute, endearing or helping to you communicate with your fellow English speakers. Just stop it.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
{quote=link}It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.{/quote=link}
{snip link}Coelacanth - Who or What is Coelacanth?{/snip link}

In other words, when Coelecanth first appeared is speculation and the fossils that are actually observed, Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.

Whenever someone starts with "In other words" rest assured an error or prevarication is about to follow. No surprise, that's the case with your comment.

There's nothing in the quote you provided about when Coelacanths first appeared. How then could you suggest, "In other words" that when Coelacanth (sic) first appeared is speculation? The only thing one can draw from that quote is a pretty close approximation to the facts: Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis are (apparently) the only living species of a once widespread family (Actinistia) all other lines having died out during the Cretaceous. Macropoma the last fossil - note, not the only fossil, there are more than 120 species known from the fossil record - from the Cretaceous resembles the two Latimeria species.

In one short paragraph and one "In other words" you've made several major mistakes, but I'm willing to bet your hubris will no doubt lead you to believe you "debunked evolution" and you'll continue to repeat it.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Go tell that to your evo researchers that cite different species cohabiting with their supposed ancestors.

Did your grandparents and great aunts/uncles die as soon as you were born?
 
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 agree in principle. I'm saying that the creation of soulful man could satisfy the condition of new and individual creation, especially the individual part. Still, I haven't ruled out mankind's creation ex-nihilo, circa the dawn of civilization. As you say, God can do what he wants, his way, regardless of how it looks to any of us down here. If darwinians cite genetic similarity, for example, the evidence is not convincing. Our genetic information is remarkably similar to all sorts of lesser creatures, so DNA doesn't seem to be a reliable indication of common ancestry in the long run.



lol



There is an important factor you may not be considering. Proper exegesis can make the difference between taking God at his word, and taking God at our own word. It is theologically perilous to equate "as it is written" to "as it is read." We are so far removed from the context of the original author's environment and audience, that even the most faithfully rendered translation can lead us a stray through our preconceptions. This is how poor doctrine manifests most often. More problematic is the fact that translations of the original text, even if rendered perfectly, eventually lose currency with language. Worse, the mind can also read colloquially when the translation was not rendered to include such parlance.

So, to take the bible as it was written, not only do we need a modern, competent translation, we need other tools to aid our interpretation. These include a concordance dictionary and scholarly commentaries, both of which are even freely available on the internet.
I think God knew what He was doing and the bible is meant to be understood by even those not very educated and simple folk. To suggest a 'competent' translation is required to work anything out throws our spiritual guide into the realm of the intelligencia that tend to complicate that which is really quite simple such that it also becomes a mystery requiring others to put forward interpretations. I cannot believe this. I suggest that God made sure the important essence of the bible re morality as well as scientific content where it is mentioned has been protected, as a witness, sufficiently that all the nations can pick the bible up, read it and understand its meaning.

By intelligencia I mean a group of people that likely have relevant theocratic credentials that think earthly education makes them smarter or more correct than anyone else that is simple and not highly educated.

That also means that there is no need for any person, Pope, the intelligencia or otherwise to dictate what is or isn't a simple truth or why scriptures that speak to any issue are not plainly correct as written.
Now, because of these and other factors, the dynamics become much more complicated than take it or leave it. Besides, is your faith rooted in God himself, or the recording of his word? Truly, his word will not perish, but the written account of it might. For what absolute, perfect truth can even be communicated in our imperfect language?

I think a God that knows what he is doing has all the above covered.

Why pin any salvation at all to a book that can be interpreted in accordance to mankinds reasonings. Intelligencia is not required.

Indeed, there are scriptures that are not set in concrete eg biblical day. However, I do not think Jesus performed miracles in front of crowds to show off. Rather I believe Jesus sent a strong message to not deny the power of his Father who is greater.

Another example in Genesis is the moon being created after the earth. This may have sounded quite ridiculous some time ago and yet it has been shown to be correct. This is amazing knowledge to be contained in a book so old.

I am a proponent of an earth centred universe. I have provided some research to back this claim. Just because mankind has not worked out all the physics and I, a mere human, cannot answer every question on it does not mean that scripture is not correct in every way. Under this model there may well have been sufficient light and warmth from the afterglow of creation to grow plants yielding fruits before the dimming and subsequent formation of the sun.

So I do disagree with you and all the intelligencia that comes from the reasonings of man that complicates a simple truth.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Such arrogance....proves my point all along. The hate on your side is unbelievable.

Stop with the "your side" garbage. Fastener is a sockpuppet of consol, a troll who was banned about two years ago, but keeps being able to get sockpuppets through the ban filter.

That's 1 person.

Go ahead and find any "hate" from me, pseudopod, Split Rock or any of the others who have been posting here for a while. I can post volumes of hate coming from Astrid alone in just the last 5 pages of this thread.

You newbies think you have this place figured out, but those of us who have been here a long time are part of the community, whether you new folks like it or not.
 
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
Did your grandparents and great aunts/uncles die as soon as you were born?


Oh how desperate of you to cherry pick and leave the substance of my post unadressed.

Habils and erectus are a better example of population not morphing along together in perfect harmony.

Do you think some islander populations are going to morph into mermaid like creatures in response to rising sea levels?

Evos suggest creatures have morphed onto land and then back again many times so I assume your answer is Yes.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Did your grandparents and great aunts/uncles die as soon as you were born?

Oh how desperate of you to cherry pick and leave the substance of my post unadressed.

Habils and erectus are a better example of population not morphing along together in perfect harmony.

Do you think some islander populations are going to morph into mermaid like creatures in response to rising sea levels?

Evos suggest creatures have morphed onto land and then back again many times so I assume your answer is Yes.

Instead of a surprisingly small non-sequitorial wall of text, why don't you just answer my question.

Did your grandparents and great aunts/uncles die as soon as you were born?
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
Most atheists are far more consistent. Show us actual substantiated evidence and we will believe anything, not just what suits us.


Do you see evidence in Gen1:1, that the bible writers KNEW the Cosmos had a beginning and had not always been there as was long thought to be the case?

Do you see evidence in Gen1:3-5, that the bible writers KNEW visible light did not appear at the Big Bang, but had to wait until stars formed during the Cosmic Dark Age?

Do you see evidence in Gen1:9-10, that the bible writers KNEW a Pangea-like gathering togethaer of all the waters under heavenm were collected into ONE place, a universal sea, i.e. Panthalasso???
 
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
C

cupid dave

Guest
1) The day any evo can present substantiated evidence than mankind evolved from apes is the day I will become an atheist. There is no middle ground for me.



If God did not protect the contents of His word then there is no reason relating to believe the bib that has any connection to salvation. Such assertions for me are no bettleer than evolutionary theory.

One either accepts the bible as it is written or throw it away. There is no middle ground for me. Either God knows what he is doing or He does not, again there is no middle ground.


You worship as book report on the Bible that is medievl and now archaic.

In spite that Daniel TOLD you the book was closed until this Age, when knowledge abounds and men travel to and fro as they do.

4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
 
Upvote 0

JNathanK

Newbie
Jan 8, 2012
78
2
✟7,709.00
Faith
Christian
I am a deist of sort who support evolution in principle. I realize there is much detail that needs to discovered.

If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence. Creationists also argue that the evidence for evolution is weak or not there at all, but has anyone ever observed a living organism just pop into existence? No. The entire concept is rather silly, yet this this what creationists must believe if they do not accept evolution. If not then explain. If you do believe god makes organisms pop into existence then provide me with evidence.

I'm a creationists but in the sense that I believe there's a ontological force pulling evolution toward a certain direction, and that direction is to give the physical universe a set of eyes and ears and a brain to perceive and contemplate itself with.
 
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
Instead of a surprisingly small non-sequitorial wall of text, why don't you just answer my question.

Did your grandparents and great aunts/uncles die as soon as you were born?

No they did not, and that has nothing to do with my question re the silliness of the basis for much of evo assertions. eg mouse deer that magically decide to become whales for some non plausibe and ridiculous reason.


Now you answer my question:

Will some human population morph into aquatic creatures with the rise of sea levels, which is the basis of the ridiculous adaptive processes you lot present that are beyond any species adaptive ability that is limited?
 
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
Oh, and as for the whole "present evidence!" thing, just look up antibiotic resistence.

I'd link you, but can't.

Anyone developing an anti-biotic has to take into account the pressures of natural selection and bear in mind that any surviving bacteria will adapt a resistence to the antibiotic THROUGH EVOLUTION.

If evolution didn't exist, then that would simply not be the case.
Oh this is so ridiculous I am really surprised that credentialed scientists would even propose this as evidence for evolution and you lot are still speaking to it.

You must have heard this reply heaps of times. A bacteria remains bacteria and has never shown any sign of becoming anything more than an adapted bacteria. Yet evos suggest a bacteria evolved into an elephant which is outside of observed science and a nonsense.

Also, if they failed to take evolution into account then the anti-biotic would just not work. Oh, it might work at first, but the bacteria would return with a complete resistence to that anti-biotic so the infection would not be cured, additionally, they'd pass on the immune bacteria. An effective anti-biotic HAS to make sure it kills every last cell of that bacteria BEFORE it has a chance to adapt to it.

Also, you remember swine flu and bird flu, right? Well, those viruses EVOLVED to be able to transmit to human hosts. For that reason, marine biologists closely monitor the phlegm of whales (They use remote controlled helicopters and hover them over whales that are breaching to collect samples.) because the whale flu virus could easily adapt to be able to transmit to human hosts.

This above is an extrapolated straw grab. Creationists also accept adaptation. That is why pygmies and Americans are all just as human as each other.

Do you know why the various peoples of the world are called races?

Answer: Because evolutionists would look really silly if they called the various races different species. Yet if a bird changes beak size it gets a new species name. This is no different to suggesting a larger nosed race is a different species to the others and is adapting to a creature that will one day not be human. The same goes for colour and size.

The bacteria argument is just as silly.

Evolutionary scientists will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

.
 
Last edited:
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 already have answered your question and I'd imagine Mr Incognito's answer would be acceptably similar.

We've evolved relatively huge cognitive powers, combined with opposable thumbs we've eventually made it extremely easy to transverse open ocean, through seafaring vessels and air travel.

Yet primitive populations that rely on sea food have nor morphed back to the ocean. A human mermaid would be good proof of evolution

It'd make more sense for these remote islanders to utelise this than to evolve, considering both the rate at which adaptation occurs and the speed at which the ocean is rising. Either way, you're assuming that the population of remote islands are isolated populations, when they're not. They're part of a population that's far more global.
Not so. Some families will refuse to be moved from their home. You should tell them to swim and dive more so they can morph into mermaids and stay where they are.
Care to stop ignoring it answer the questions I asked?
A question that has nothing to do with anything
Preferably; what would you accept as solid evidence of evolution? (As if it wasn't all around you, should you choose to spend 5 mins reasearching it.)

The observed evidence is that evolution is a myth.

There is no solid evidence for evolution as I have demonstrated many times.

Indeed evolution from a mouse deer to a whale is impossible and this is demonstrated and observed in the dog that will never be bred to be as large as a horse because its ability to adapt is limited, yet bacteria morphed into an elephant and whale.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0