My Daisy Chain Challenge

[nuttypiglet]

False. We choose not to trust the men who wrote the Bible and creationists.

The real question is why you don't trust God's creation and the evidence found in it.

I see what you see, I simply interpret it in a different way. You see, I read the bible at a young age, and when I went to school teachers were babbling on about their interpretation. I had already read how it all happened, and the evidence I was being shown supported that view every step of the way. I didn't start school blinded, I already knew the truth. So many children start school with an empty mind which is easily brainwashed and believe nonsense.
One problem is that you are too focused on one tiny part of creation, life. What about the rest of it, the complete picture. The universe is perfect for life, with many laws which, if altered by a tiny fraction, would remove life. Science cannot explain this because mathematically the odds are beyond insanity if you believe it came about by chance. So science fights back with a new theory. We live in one universe, but there are an infinite number of universes. Our universe just so happens to be ONE which is correct for life. Come on, they just keep making up stuff to deny God and how desperate are they going to become? For hundreds of years, millions of experiments occur every year to try and create life from a bunch of chemicals. Nothing yet. So science has concluded "Well, perhaps life came to earth from another place, on a meteor". Yet another cop out. The answer was written thousands of years ago, GOD.
Now this is the really odd one which I can't get. Science can accept that there is probably life out there apart from us. On some planet there are other life forms, some far more advanced than us. Some of those life forms are so advanced they can hop between any of 11 dimensions. If science can believe that, why is it so hard to believe there is a being powerful and knowledgeable enough to create this Universe and life? What is the difference?
I can only come to one conclusion. Lucifer has a grip on some people and the word GOD scares the crap out of them. What other explanation could there be. So rather than focus on a pile of dead bones, look at the whole picture. Rather than focusing on dead things, focus on the living God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your challenge is a failure.

Yes it is ... for you guys.

And I am getting tired of saying so.

 

[lasthero]

The universe is perfect for life, with many laws which, if altered by a tiny fraction, would remove life.

You're making, at least, two assumptions without a lick of evidence, here.

First, you're assuming the laws of the universe can even be anything other than what they are, and that they're determined by chance. I would love for you to demonstrate that.

Second, you're assuming, that life different from what we know couldn't arise in a universe where those were changed in a significant way. I would love for you to demonstrate that.

For hundreds of years, millions of experiments occur every year to try and create life from a bunch of chemicals.

Millions of experiments? What are you talking about?

So science has concluded "Well, perhaps life came to earth from another place, on a meteor"

Again, what are you talking about? When did scientists reach a consensus like that? You really should have paid attention in school, instead of smugly assuming you knew everything.

Science can accept that there is probably life out there apart from us. On some planet there are other life forms, some far more advanced than us. Some of those life forms are so advanced they can hop between any of 11 dimensions.

What in the name of the 13 Ghosts of Scooby Doo are you talking about? When did scientists ever deduce this?

If science can believe that, why is it so hard to believe there is a being powerful and knowledgeable enough to create this Universe and life?

Because science, by the very definition what it is, can make no comment on such being.

Which you would know - if you paid attention in class.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes it is ... for you guys so.

And I am getting tired of saying so.

Your challenge fails every piece of reason and logic we have. We don't need to have 100% knowledge in order to have evidence. We don't need a fossil from every single generation for every single lineage in order to evidence evolution.

Even in the murder trial analogy you recognize that gaps in the video record do not invalidate the evidence demonstrating guilt.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't need a fossil from every single generation for every single lineage in order to evidence evolution.

But you do for this thread, or you'll fail the challenge.

Get crackin'.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see what you see, I simply interpret it in a different way.

Yes, in a way that is contradicted by the facts. This is known as a false interpretation.

You see, I read the bible at a young age, and when I went to school teachers were babbling on about their interpretation. I had already read how it all happened, and the evidence I was being shown supported that view every step of the way.

What evidence? What evidence demonstrates that there was a recent global flood? What evidence indicates that the Earth is young? What evidence demonstrates that life was separately created 6,000 years ago? WHERE IS IT?

So many children start school with an empty mind which is easily brainwashed and believe nonsense.

A perfect description of Sunday School.

One problem is that you are too focused on one tiny part of creation, life.

I'm focused on the whole thing, chief. We could start with the galaxies that are billions of light years away, if you want. We could also focus on the ratio of isotopes in rocks, or the continuous ice records that span the time where you say there was a global flood. Take your pick. I have a feeling you will run away from all of this evidence.

The universe is perfect for life, with many laws which, if altered by a tiny fraction, would remove life.

If our universe was incapable of supporting life no one would be here to notice. You are pointing to a confirmation bias.

Science cannot explain this because mathematically the odds are beyond insanity if you believe it came about by chance.

We need evidence for this claim.

Come on, they just keep making up stuff to deny God and how desperate are they going to become?

The made up stuff is the Bible.

For hundreds of years, millions of experiments occur every year to try and create life from a bunch of chemicals. Nothing yet. So science has concluded "Well, perhaps life came to earth from another place, on a meteor". Yet another cop out. The answer was written thousands of years ago, GOD.

And now you are using the failed God-of-the-Gaps argument. Once again you point to our ignorance as the best place to find God.

For thousands of years no one has seen a deity creating life, and yet you believe that. Why is that?

Now this is the really odd one which I can't get. Science can accept that there is probably life out there apart from us. On some planet there are other life forms, some far more advanced than us. Some of those life forms are so advanced they can hop between any of 11 dimensions. If science can believe that, why is it so hard to believe there is a being powerful and knowledgeable enough to create this Universe and life? What is the difference?

I have yet to see a single scientist claim that such beings really do exist, and then present evidence showing that they do exist. You are doing nothing more than projecting your unfounded beliefs onto others.

I can only come to one conclusion. Lucifer has a grip on some people and the word GOD scares the crap out of them. What other explanation could there be. So rather than focus on a pile of dead bones, look at the whole picture. Rather than focusing on dead things, focus on the living God.

We are not the ones who have to ignore the facts found in the reality around us.

 

[Loudmouth]

But you do for this thread, or you'll fail the challenge.

Get crackin'.

Your challenge is a failure.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your challenge is a failure.

Ya ... I heard you the first time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya ... I heard you the first time.

You even know that it is a failure. If you were on a jury would you ignore fingerprint, DNA, shoe print, tire print, and fiber evidence if the prosecution was unable to produce a video that covered every second of the crime, and every second lead up to and following the crime?

 

[bhsmte]

You even know that it is a failure. If you were on a jury would you ignore fingerprint, DNA, shoe print, tire print, and fiber evidence if the prosecution was unable to produce a video that covered every second of the crime, and every second lead up to and following the crime?

Something tells me, AV would have little chance of making it on to a jury.

 

[EternalDragon]

You even know that it is a failure. If you were on a jury would you ignore fingerprint, DNA, shoe print, tire print, and fiber evidence if the prosecution was unable to produce a video that covered every second of the crime, and every second lead up to and following the crime?

No, this is like the prosecutor having a partial shoe print, and matching that up to the wrong shoe, having no fingerprints, a partial tire print that is very common and DNA evidence that somewhat matches and then wrongly accuses natural selection and mutations of having the intelligence to carry out the elaborate crime.

AV is asking for more concrete evidence I believe. Not a slight spattering of just similarities. Similarities won't solve a crime. You have mistaken all your inferences as "complete evidence"

 

[Loudmouth]

No, this is like the prosecutor having a partial shoe print, and matching that up to the wrong shoe, having no fingerprints, a partial tire print that is very common and DNA evidence that somewhat matches and then wrongly accuses natural selection and mutations of having the intelligence to carry out the elaborate crime.

This is AV saying that he doesn't care how well that evidence matches up. If he doesn't have a video covering every second of the crime then he has to throw out all of the evidence.

AV is asking for more concrete evidence I believe.

No, he isn't. We already have concrete evidence.

Not a slight spattering of just similarities. Similarities won't solve a crime. You have mistaken all your inferences as "complete evidence"

So you too would throw out DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, etc. because it only looks similar.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV is asking for more concrete evidence I believe.

No, he isn't.

Yes, I am.

We already have concrete evidence.

More.

Get crackin'.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, he isn't. We already have concrete evidence.

A few similarities and no observations or tests is not concrete.

So you too would throw out DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, etc. because it only looks similar.

Again, you are missing the glaring dis-similarities. I could easily argue for an intelligent designer with the exact same evidence.

You are taking the analogy of matching human DNA with human DNA to a crime and comparing that to trying to match animal DNA to a human. What they found would NOT convict anyone in a court of law.

"If the suspect's DNA profile doesn't match the profile of DNA taken from the crime scene, then the results are considered an exclusion or noninclusion."

The chimps DNA does not match. The fossils do not match. The characteristics do not match. (Chimps don't drive cars and design houses). Case closed.

 

[HitchSlap]

(Chimps don't drive cars and design houses). Case closed.

Well, there you have it folks, "Case closed."

Evolution bad, creationism good.

Have you figured out yet why slavery is immoral, even though your god allows it?

 

[Loudmouth]

A few similarities and no observations or tests is not concrete.

We observe that evolution and common ancestry produces shared features. That is as concrete as it gets.

Again, you are missing the glaring dis-similarities. I could easily argue for an intelligent designer with the exact same evidence.

Evolution is supposed to produce dis-similarities between lineages. That's the whole point of the theory.

Also, what kind of evidence would falsify ID?

You are taking the analogy of matching human DNA with human DNA to a crime and comparing that to trying to match animal DNA to a human. What they found would NOT convict anyone in a court of law.

You are using the argument that we should throw out any DNA matches because they only show similarities. You are arguing that any DNA matches between crime scene evidence and the suspect is due to an intelligent designer producing similarities.

The chimps DNA does not match.

It most certainly does. We have over 200,000 shared DNA markers that match. That is far more than the number of markers used for DNA fingerprinting in forensic science.

The fossils do not match.

Since when? Please tell us what features a fossil needs in order for you to accept it as transitional.

The characteristics do not match.

They most certainly do.

(Chimps don't drive cars and design houses). Case closed.

Chihuahuas don't herd sheep like border collies, therefore they are in different kinds.

 

[EternalDragon]

Well, there you have it folks, "Case closed."

Evolution bad, creationism good.

Have you figured out yet why slavery is immoral, even though your god allows it?

My God doesn't allow it.

Exodus 21:16
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

 

[lasthero]

That only really works if the people in question consider buying and owning a slave the same thing as kidnapping.

 

[EternalDragon]

It most certainly does. We have over 200,000 shared DNA markers that match. That is far more than the number of markers used for DNA fingerprinting in forensic science.

Nope. Not at all. If all of the alelles do not match it could identify a cousin or close relative and wrongly convict them. (1984 North Carolina case)

Are you saying they simply take a blood sample of a chimp, run it through the machine and it matches a humans DNA to 95% like they do for crimes?

 

[EternalDragon]

That only really works if the people in question consider buying and owning a slave the same thing as kidnapping.

Which is not advocated by God in the bible.