STILL no actual evidence FOR creation

[USincognito]

If evolution theory is evidence based, then what I am asking for, (demonstrable evidence of it's factuality) should be an easy thing to produce.

I devoted an entire recent thread to evidence for evolution. You should be able to find it a little more easily than typing evolution into Google Scholar has apparently been for you.

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

Oh my. You think science proves things. No wonder you don't know what a scientific theory is.

We can agree to disagree without snark. But you are correct, I expect science to be able to demonstrate its theories to a measurable degree.

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

I devoted an entire recent thread to evidence for evolution. You should be able to find it a little more easily than typing evolution into Google Scholar has apparently been for you.

I shall read it sometime, thanks for letting me know of its existence.

 

[Mark Stacy]

Given that creationists think everything came into being around 6000 years ago when do you think the Pyramids were built?
was it before or after the flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that creationists think everything came into being around 6000 years ago when do you think the Pyramids were built?
was it before or after the flood?

After the Flood.

The Egyptians came from Mizraim, Noah's grandson.

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

 

[Mark Stacy]

After the Flood.

When was the flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

When was the flood?

2400 BC or thereabouts.

I'd have to look it up.

 

[USincognito]

We can agree to disagree without snark. But you are correct, I expect science to be able to demonstrate its theories to a measurable degree.

With regard to evolution, it has.

As far as the tone of my comment, if one wishes to engage in discussion of a subject and appear reasonably well informed, one should learn proper terminology and verbiage.
----------------------------------
No such thing as scientific proof.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.


Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725

After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[Mark Stacy]

2400 BC or thereabouts.

I'd have to look it up.

So when do you think the Pyramids were built, how long do you think they have been there?
The first references to Ra the Sun God dates from the Second Dynasty of the Old Kingdom in 2686 BC so it might have been a bit of a push to breed all of those people in time to build and inhabit a country like Egypt don't you think?

 

[AV1611VET]

So when do you think the Pyramids were built, how long do you think they have been there?

Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter.

The first references to Ra the Sun God dates from the Second Dynasty of the Old Kingdom in 2686 BC so it might have been a bit of a push to breed all of those people in time to build and inhabit a country like Egypt don't you think?

No.

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

What do you think that blessing came in the form of?

 

[EverettInterpretation]

The Big Bang is actually an adaptation of Kabbalism by Max Planck. Although Fred Hoyle actually coined the term. Around 1,000 years ago both Maimonides (Rambam) and Nachmanides (Ramban) state that neither space nor time existed prior to the creation. http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=933

Correction:
The Big Bang is a local phenomenon that is part of the ongoing, global Inflationary process and shouldn't be considered as a one-off event. Doing that violates the Copernican Principle. We observe our local Big Bang to be origin of time and space, but such a anthropocentric p.o.v. fundamentally violates the Copernican Principle, which requires us to conclude that ALL viewpoints are relative and not absolute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle
"More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe."

"Observations by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have taken advantage of gravitational lensing to reveal the largest sample of the faintest and earliest known galaxies in the universe. Some of these galaxies formed just 600 million years after the big bang and are fainter than any other galaxy yet uncovered by Hubble. The team has determined for the first time with some confidence that these small galaxies were vital to creating the universe that we see today."

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/hubble-spies-big-bang-frontiers

This evidence pretty well indicates when and where this "miracle" happened. Based on the Hubble Space Telescope.

Correction:
This image shows an example of gravitational lensing, which is a purely natural phenomenon. There is nothing miraculous or "miraculous" about it. Nor does it indicate the 'when' and 'where' of anything directly related to our local big bang. This image shows galaxies as they were 600 million years after our local big bang.

 

[Mark Stacy]

Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter.

Of course you don't, it's the very reason you are a creationist.

What do you think that blessing came in the form of?

No blessing because there was no flood.
The O/T is nothing more than a catalogue of errors, a story of a desperate incompetent God.

The conclusion is inescapable; if this god of the bible actually exists, he acts like a cruel and incompetent child, and no amount of appealing to "free will," can erase the evidence of his profound ineptness.
I got that from here and I think it's true.
http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/the-incompetence-of-the-christian-god?xg_source=activity

The O/T was obviously written by men who thought they were not given the credit they thought their brilliance deserved, they most likely had so many questions about their life and their world and were frustrated by the very few answers they had.

 

[AV1611VET]

The O/T is nothing more than a catalogue of errors, a story of a desperate incompetent God.

Does the Pope know you're here?

 

[Mark Stacy]

Does the Pope know you're here?

He is just one of a long line of people who have made a fat living fooling the people into believing the Catholic lies, all religions are the same, they all prey on the ignorant and gullible among us.

At this stage in your life I don't think [from your non answers and your denial of reality] you are capable of thinking straight anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

He is just one of a long line of people who have made a fat living fooling the people into believing the Catholic lies, all religions are the same, they all prey on the ignorant and gullible among us.

So is that why you're a Catholic?

So you too can 'prey on the ignorant and gullible among us'?

 

[Mark Stacy]

So is that why you're a Catholic?

So you too can 'prey on the ignorant and gullible among us'?

Perhaps you can help me change my faith icon because I don't know how to do it, I have tried to no avail..

 

[Mark Stacy]

So you too can 'prey on the ignorant and gullible among us'?

Always a martyr, the sign of a true Christian, Christians who are not being oppressed are not doing it right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you can help me change my faith icon because I don't know how to do it, I have tried to no avail..

Only a mod can do that.

 

[Mark Stacy]

Only a mod can do that.

Surly the mods must realise that people change their minds?

 

[AV1611VET]

Surly the mods must realise that people change their minds?

I'm sure they have their reason(s).