There is no Creation Debate

[Hieronymus]

So you want people to take a debate between a convicted liar and an honest man seriously?

Hovind was accused and found guilty of tax evasion, that's it.
Not relevant to the discussion / debate with atheists.

But let's look at your claims:

Something from nothing?

Observed quite often in the world of physics.

No, some liar told you that.
Nothing (not anything) comes from nothing (not anything).
In the quantum-matrix something could "pop into existence", but the quantum-matrix is not nothing, it is something, it has properties.

Millions of missing links?

Sorry, the fossil record is so complete that almost all fossils are considered to be transitional today.

Lie.

And how does Lucy fail the test?

Anyone with a mild interest in this topic knows this.
A lot of fantasy was used in the construction of Lucy.

Petrified trees do through multiple layers. Even the vertical ones tend to be in one layer. Hovind does not know what a stratum is.

denial

Carbon dating is accurate if used properly. If you have an idiot that uses a screwdriver as a hammer you don't blame the screwdriver.

ignorant bluff

Macro evolution is observed in several different ways.

Hardly.

Hovind keeps himself blind.

How would you know?

And lastly Hovind only showed that he does not not what a vestigial organ is.

Lie.
There are no vestigial organs.
This is explained by various people.

You need to do a lot better than to post a link to a nut spewing a series of PRATT's if you want to refute the theory of evolution.

It has been long refuted, but fanatic theophobes have no choice but to cling to it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Deemed as unscientific in a court of law....more than once.

That's because it's beyond the realm of science.
Science is limited to naturalistic phenomena.

 

[Haasrecht]

I agree with the title of the post if taken out of context. There is no debate.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's because it's beyond the realm of science.

Why so much effort to get it taught in a science classroom then?

Science is limited to naturalistic phenomena.

Also known as reality.
Name one good reason to believe something to be true if it is not observable, testable, verifiable and falsifiable?

 

[Haasrecht]

(...)
Name one good reason to believe something to be true if it is not observable, testable, verifiable and falsifiable?

Why should I use those four things as my criteria?

Surely, you have been down this road before. We all have. Why continue to ask for evidence that you will accept when faith is integral to the topic at hand?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why should I use those four things as my criteria?

The scientific method is a tool to obtain knowledge and objective truths.

Why continue to ask for evidence that you will accept when faith is integral to the topic at hand?

I define faith as believing something without evidence. The want and hope for something to be true rather than what is actually true. It's not a virtue.

 

[Haasrecht]

I define faith as believing something without evidence. The want and hope for something to be true rather than what is actually true. It's not a virtue.

That didn't even come close to answering the question of why you keep asking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously the limits of science keep it from intelligently addressing issues of God and creation. The thread is about that epic fail.

The only fail here has been from the creationists. As the title of the thread tells you there is no debate. The creationist side lost over one hundred years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lurkers, The Son here is very clear.

Jesus is mentioned but he is not clearly the maker. You can try to claim that but other theists will only laugh at you.

 

[The Cadet]

Science is limited to looking forward in time.

So if I kneecap you with a baseball bat and there were no cameras to view it, would you object to the use of DNA or forensic evidence at the court case? After all, it happened in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hovind was accused and found guilty of tax evasion, that's it.
Not relevant to the discussion / debate with atheists.

And he lied about not paying taxes. He is a convicted liar. Also you are conflating atheists with people that accept reality. There are many more Christians that accept the theory of relativity than atheists, and worldwide there may be more Christians that accept evolution than there are Christian creationists.

No, some liar told you that.

Sorry, that technique only works with someone that has listened to liars, like you.

Nothing (not anything) comes from nothing (not anything)
In the quantum-matrix something could "pop into existence", but the quantum-matrix is not nothing, it is something, it has properties.

Now you are redefining "nothing".

Lie.

Nope, it is a simple fact. You do realize that it is a gross breaking of the rules to call my posts lies without any evidence at all to the contrary, don't you?But here is a simple list of just a few transitional fossils for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Anyone with a mild interest in this topic knows this.
A lot of fantasy was used in the construction of Lucy.

Sorry but you have been listening to liars and idiots once again. I asked how and you had nothing. You probably don't even realize that hundreds of Australopithecus afrarensis fossils have been found, both before and after Lucy.

denial

Nope, that is a simple fact. I am sorry but Hovind is a complete idiot when it comes to geology. A stratum is not just a layer. There can be many layers within a stratum. Here is the definition of a stratum:

"In geology and related fields, a stratum (plural: strata) is a layer of sedimentary rock or soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers. The "stratum" is the fundamental unit in a stratigraphic column and forms the basis of the study of stratigraphy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum

ignorant bluff

Yes, we all know that that is all that you have. But I can explain how Hovind lied to you in his debate about carbon dating. He complained that you can't use a screwdriver as a hammer.

Hardly.

Nope, we can see it in the fossil record. We can see it in DNA, we can see it in biochemistry, we can see it in the various unrelated nested hierarchies that all say evolution is the answer and creationists have no reply.

How would you know?

I have watched his videos. The man is a certified liar and loon. Plus an idiot to boot.

Lie.
There are no vestigial organs.
This is explained by various people.

No, I don't need to lie. I am not a creationist. Those various people do not even understand what a vestigial organ is. Vestigial does not mean "useless". You really should learn what the terms that you are arguing against mean.

It has been long refuted, but fanatic theophobes have no choice but to cling to it.

Don't be silly. Only the terribly ignorant believe that. People here can help you to learn. But if you wish to remain ignorant and laughed at that is fine with me too. I see for all of your rant you could not substantiate one claim. By the way, I seriously doubt if there are many "theophobes" out there. Since over half of Christians accept the theory of evolution do you think that they are theophobes? Most atheists cannot be theophobes because you cannot hate something that does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's because it's beyond the realm of science.
Science is limited to naturalistic phenomena.

That was not the belief of the followers of ID. Also noting is "beyond the realm of science". We may not be able to test an idea right now, but that does not mean that we will not be able to test it in the future. And ID made testable claims. Sadly those claims turned out not to be true. Do you remember Behe and his irreducible complexity? He has been shown to be very wrong.

 

[Haasrecht]

[. . .] and worldwide there may be more Christians that accept evolution than there are Christian creationists.[. . .]

That is true just in the US alone. This idea that young earth creationism is the standard Christian position is quite outmoded.

 

[Hoghead1]

The fact that Hovind went to jail is most particularly relevant to the debate. It says a lot about how he operates. It says you have to be on your guard every step of the way with him because he is not always honest in what he does. Missler, as I recall, was sued several times for plagiarism and lost both times. Knowing that someone has a history of plagiarizing makes me very cautious in reading anything they have to say, as you can't trust where this material is actually coming from.
I think the standard Christian position is to accept evolution. That is the case in most of the mainline seminaries.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is true just in the US alone. This idea that young earth creationism is the standard Christian position is quite outmoded.

Yes, but try telling that to some Christians that here. You will get some New True Scotsman charges and other such nonsense. Of course we all know that the best real certified guaranteed Christians come from 'Murica!

 

[Haasrecht]

Yes, but try telling that to some Christians that here. You will get some New True Scotsman charges and other such nonsense. Of course we all know that the best real certified guaranteed Christians come from 'Murica!

Anyone that dislikes the numbers is within their right to try to get surveys to have the Nicene Creed attached as a theological signature.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then you need to be explained why it is that creation can not be debunked.

Because it is defined in unfalsifiable manner.

You can't debunk the undetectable 7-headed dragon either. Or Last Thursdayism.
Unfalsifiable ideas are infinite in number and therefor meaningless and useless.

First off:
Nobody knows how exactly living nature as we know it came about.

Which is a good reason to say "let's roll up our sleeves and get to work in order to find out". But you, I guess, will use this gap in our knowledge to rather plug your faith-based god into. Resulting in an argument of ignorance.

To paraphrase Neil deGrass Tyson: "If that is how you wish to define your god, that is fine. But in that case, your god is an ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance. Moreover, if that is the way you think, then you will have no part in the advancement of knowledge. You will not be part of the people working at the frontiers of our knowledge, making breakthrough discoveries that might or might not challenge our current beliefs."

Therefore it is always possible that living nature is created.

Anything is "possible". Including Last Thursdayism.
But what is interesting is that which is plausible.
And you need actual evidence and falsifiability to turn "possible" into "plausible".

Even if there would be a theory as to how it MIGHT have come about without intelligence, skills and (thus) a purpose, you can never state it was not created, you can only state it COULD have come about accidentally (the opposite of purposeful).

First, I disagree that the opposite of "purposeful" is "accidental".
An "accident" is when X happens but Y was planned.

If your plan was to stay on the road, but a flat tire make your car spin out of control and hit a tree, then you had an accident.

So in order to call the origins of life an "accident", you're gonna have to support the idea that NO LIFE was the "plan".

Secondly, the burden of proof is on the side that makes the claim.
If you wish to claim that some unfalsifiable being that can be demonstrated to exist "created" anything at all, then you have a burden to support that claim.

Can you?

Now then, the question remaining is probably off-topic, but:
Is there a naturalistic theory that explains all we see today?

Let's say "no" or "not yet", for the fun of it.

This is no way, shape or form adds any credibility to your particular religious belief. At all.

You actually need evidence FOR your position in order to add credibility to it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's a belief-system.
You even have prophets and 'scripture'.

Time for that old thing again....

If atheism is a "religion", then ...
- "off" is a TV channel
- "bald" is a hair style
- "barefoot" is a type of shoe
- "healthy" is a desease
- "naked" is a type of clothing
- "silence" is a sound
- "blind" is a type of sight
- .................

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your "therefore" makes no sense buddy.
It's still the obvious explanation for our reality.
The alternative is believing dead unconscious things outperforming humanity by lightyears.

Maybe you have heard of "Occam's razor" ?

That's cute.....

You think Occam's razor is all about imagining the existance of an unsupportable being of infinite complexity to explain a universe of limited complexity?

That's just rich..........

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wrong.
I.D. is obvious.
Yes, it implies an I.B. (intelligent being), but it doesn't elaborate on that, just that there must be an I.B.
Without an I.B. you have to make naturalism plausible, which is much more difficult and complex, and it still doesn't explain reality...
Also, an I.B. answers many more questions life throws at us.
Obvious is obvious, far fetched is far fetched.

Please explain how an unsupported being not part of the universe and of infinite complexity is "obvious".