A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[Tellastory]

There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

You are still not even listing one evidence to talk about it.

There is no scientific evidence that I am aware of that supports creationism.

Actually, the laws of science "supports" creationism whereas the laws of science disproves the evolution theory, but you keep glossing over that "evidence" in favour of assumptions derived from observations.

Your problem is that you probably do not know what qualifies as evidence. I would be more than happy to help you to understand this fairly simple idea.

Judge not les ye be judged; you can be guilty of the same thing and not even know it.

 

[Dizredux]

I am having trouble deciding if Tell is for real or doing satire.

Right now, I am leaning toward satire.

Dizredux

 

[Tellastory]

And I don't see any evidence offered by you for your position at all.

Oh ho. I see my error. That little cross with a heart behind it means "donate blessings" and not christian.

I was wondering why some were overlooking scripture as if the words of Jesus's & Peter's testifying to a global flood does not mean anything to them.

Incidentally, people see what they want to see and ignore that which opposes their set beliefs, and that includes you, because evidence has been given that opposes & disproves evolution, and so there you are.

If you are not looking for the truth when your mind is made up, then all you are going to see is microevolution is macroevolution when given enough time which is an assumption that goes against the law of biogenesis.

 

[Tellastory]

I am having trouble deciding if Tell is for real or doing satire.

Right now, I am leaning toward satire.

Dizredux

Well, you have a christian icon and so have you decided if Jesus & Peter is for real or are you going to continue to overlook them when they were verifying the global flood did happen to take heed of the warning that a fiery judgment is indeed coming on the earth?

They were not doing satire, I assure you.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, you have a christian icon and so have you decided if Jesus & Peter is for real or are you going to continue to overlook them when they were verifying the global flood did happen to take heed of the warning that a fiery judgment is indeed coming on the earth?

They were not doing satire, I assure you.

You're posing very good points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That can also apply to evolutionists. Saying that you can do no wrong is conning us into agreeing with you no matter what.

Wrong. You may disagree with how the evidence is interpreted, but then the onus is upon you to show that that interpretation is wrong. I get tired of creationists claiming "there is no evidence for evolution" when it is of course the other way around. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, there is no scientific evidence for creation. And the second is largely the fault of creation "scientists".

Are you willing to follow that same guideline? I think not, because a crime scene and evidence that follows will result in many suspects for the crime, but detectives are to prove or disprove the suspects in the process of elimination and not favour the ole "the butler did it" when there is no butler.

What!? Of course I am willing to follow this. In fact the theory of evolution follows these guidelines to a T.

So how about this guideline?

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

No, silly Sherlock Holmes clues do not apply here.

The law of biogenesis as per Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005



The law of biogenesis as per McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. in relations to biology



Both definitions from this link for verifiable evidence.

Law of biogenesis definition of Law of biogenesis in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

Some have defined it as life cannot come from nothing. Life comes from pre-existing life, but I will emphasized that kind begets similar kind as in a cow will not become anything else but a cow just as a rose by any other name is still a rose. That is the law of science. It is impossible for a cow to become anything else but a cow. When crossbreeding occurs between horses & donkeys or lions & tigers, sterility will result. A few rare crossbreeding would testify to the contrary but a horse is still a horse.

You do not understand the so called "Law of biogenesis". If you want to discuss your misunderstanding of that that is another topic. Abiogenesis does not break any physical laws. And please, even Answers in Genesis will tell you that the laws of thermodynamics should not be used. Your understanding of those is incredibly poor.

The fact that life cannot come from nothing and that life comes from pre-existing life and thus a living organism must originate from a parent organism similar to itself should tell you that no matter how long the series of microevolution occurs, it is still microevolution as a cow is still a cow because no genetic information can be added to a living organism for it to cease being that "kind" to no longer be able to mate with that former kind for macroevolution to be true.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, simply wrong. By the way, evolution believes that kind always will generate the same kind. It seems that you do not even understand the theory that you are trying to argue against. In evolution it is sometime called the Law of Clades. It is rather obvious that the descendants of a species will always be in the same clade:


Clade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the impossibility of macroevolution? How's that for evidence?

Now are you going to debunk it without resorting to microevolution, because microevolution will always be microevolution as the law of biogeneisis makes it impossible to ever result in macroevolution?

You have failed to show that anything is impossible. You have only demonstrated your ignorance of very basic science. It is your claim that so called "macro-evolution" is impossible. We can show that it happened with several lines of evidence. You have not presented anything except for your babbling that illustrates a complete misunderstanding of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are still not even listing one evidence to talk about it.

That is right. Need I repeat yet again that justinla needs to understand what evidence is first? It seems that you do not understand it either.

Actually, the laws of science "supports" creationism whereas the laws of science disproves the evolution theory, but you keep glossing over that "evidence" in favour of assumptions derived from observations.

No, simply and incredibly wrong. All you have done is to use some old PRATT's so lame that even other creationists warn you not to use such foolish arguments. You have shown nothing as far as so called "laws of science" that oppose evolution.

Judge not les ye be judged; you can be guilty of the same thing and not even know it.

Yes, I can. But I am not. And please. No foolish statements that have nothing to do with the debate or with life itself. Everybody judges in certain ways. Your judgement is what keeps you from stepping in front of a speeding car and other foolish mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're posing very good points.

That was a joke right?

So are you ready to renew your education about evidence?

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong. You may disagree with how the evidence is interpreted, but then the onus is upon you to show that that interpretation is wrong. I get tired of creationists claiming "there is no evidence for evolution" when it is of course the other way around. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, there is no scientific evidence for creation. And the second is largely the fault of creation "scientists".

There is no evidence for the creationist view that all of life we observe today is the sole, complete, total result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

You can keep repeating your mantra that there is "mountains of evidence" for evolution, and I'll keep responding with the fact that there is no evidence for the evolutionary view of Darwinist creationism. You use a broad term, but it's a dishonest and misleading term for there are two kinds of evolution, micro evolution and the evolution belief of Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

That is right. Need I repeat yet again that justinla needs to understand what evidence is first? It seems that you do not understand it either.

It seems you're making baseless claims for there's not been one bit of the "mountains of evidence" you claim you have.

It's not surprising.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence for the creationist view that all of life we observe today is the sole, complete, total result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

You can keep repeating your mantra that there is "mountains of evidence" for evolution, and I'll keep responding with the fact that there is no evidence for the evolutionary view of Darwinist creationism. You use a broad term, but it's a dishonest and misleading term for there are two kinds of evolution, micro evolution and the evolution belief of Darwinist creationism.

Please use proper terminology. Your trolling in this fashion is close to being a reportable offense. It could lead to a repeat in kind and that would be against the rules of this site.

And I am trying to get you to learn what evidence is. It seems that you want to keep yourself purposefully ignorant about evidence. If you understood what evidence is your mantra of "No evidence for evolution" would be an obvious lie. I don't think your keeping yourself ignorant is a valid excuse for lying.

 

[justlookinla]

That was a joke right?

So are you ready to renew your education about evidence?

Are you ready to give a small shovel full of this "mountains of evidence" you claim you have for the Darwinist creationist view that all of life we observe today is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? Remember, that's the evidence you claim you have, don't attempt to change the focus from that particular creationist view.

 

[justlookinla]

Please use proper terminology. Your trolling in this fashion is close to being a reportable offense. It could lead to a repeat in kind and that would be against the rules of this site.

And I am trying to get you to learn what evidence is. It seems that you want to keep yourself purposefully ignorant about evidence. If you understood what evidence is your mantra of "No evidence for evolution" would be an obvious lie. I don't think your keeping yourself ignorant is a valid excuse for lying.

You keep making the same claims, that's trolling too, isn't it? You keep evading offering the "mountains of evidence" you have.

Keep making the same claims, I'll keep posting the same responses. Then we'll see who's trolling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems you're making baseless claims for there's not been one bit of the "mountains of evidence" you claim you have.

It's not surprising.

And whose fault is that? I told you what you had to learn first before the evidence would be revealed to you.

Once again the fact is that we have mountains of evidence for our beliefs. You have no scientific evidence for yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep making the same claims, that's trolling too, isn't it? You keep evading offering the "mountains of evidence" you have.

Keep making the same claims, I'll keep posting the same responses. Then we'll see who's trolling.

No. Because I gave a reasonable goal of yours, that you agreed to, for the evidence to be given to you. You have failed on your end of the bargain.

Once again, whether or not the evidence is given to you is in your control, not mine.

 

[justlookinla]

And whose fault is that? I told you what you had to learn first before the evidence would be revealed to you.

Once again the fact is that we have mountains of evidence for our beliefs. You have no scientific evidence for yours.

I'll check back tonight to see if you've given a bit of this "mountain of evidence" you have. Honestly, I'm not very hopeful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you ready to give a small shovel full of this "mountains of evidence" you claim you have for the Darwinist creationist view that all of life we observe today is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? Remember, that's the evidence you claim you have, don't attempt to change the focus from that particular creationist view.

Once again what you are doing is wrong, and rather evil. I do not call you a lumber worshiper. That would be both an error and against the rules of this forum. Please drop the inappropriate language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll check back tonight to see if you've given a bit of this "mountain of evidence" you have. Honestly, I'm not very hopeful.

You agreed to learn what evidence is. How can I help you if you go back on your word?

 

[RickG]

You can keep repeating your mantra that there is "mountains of evidence" for evolution, and I'll keep responding with the fact that there is no evidence for the evolutionary view of Darwinist creationism. You use a broad term, but it's a dishonest and misleading term for there are two kinds of evolution, micro evolution and the evolution belief of Darwinist creationism.

I get the idea you can't see the evidence for the mountains (forest for trees).

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here is a link to the post where justlookinla agreed to learn what evidence is:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/#post65821185

He agreed to learn what evidence is before evidence was given to him. And that is only reasonable. A child may not know the difference between Monopoly money and real money. To him they are both pieces of paper. Money has no value to him until he learns what it is. In the same way evidence will have no value to justlookinla until he learns what is and what is not evidence.