Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I already named a way that biblical creationism couldn't be reconciled: if humans weren't the most intelligent creature on earth. So, there are definitely observations so incompatible with it as to not be reconcilable.As viewed by creationists, creationism is unfalsifiable. It can't be wrong, no matter what the evidence is. That's why it isn't an interpretation.
It is the creationists who are saying that evolution is incompatible with creationism.
I already named a way that biblical creationism couldn't be reconciled: if humans weren't the most intelligent creature on earth. So, there are definitely observations so incompatible with it as to not be reconcilable.
Not all creationists say that.
What of moderates that disagree with abiogenesis but not evolution?
Sure they would: deity creates life; the process of evolution shapes that life.They wouldn't be creationists.
Ah, but as I said, the ignorance of the person using the theory doesn't make the theory wrong, it makes it used incorrectly. It wouldn't matter if everyone that used the theory was using it wrong; it wouldn't make the theory wrong.
Don't act like evolution as a theory is not prone to misuse, even by those that advocate it
What data?We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence. It is my contention that creationists don't interpret the data at all.
Sounds to me like you're both wrong.Loudmouth said:Let's see who is right.
Hey Justa, what scientists won the Nobel Prize for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe? I predict you won't be able to name one, even though you said they did.Yes - let us see who is right. Let's see who accepts the empirical data and who ignores it.
Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.
Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.
Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).
Now evolutionist's want us to believe that the Asian or the African evolved into the Afro-Asian and the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook far in the past with other species. They want us to believe in direct opposition to the empirical data that one thing became two new things - when all observational evidence shows it takes two separate things to create something new.
I now predict that not one single piece of scientific data will be presented to refute this - but only unsubstantiated claims that it happened differently in the past and ad-hominem attacks will begin because not one single evolutionist can refute the empirical observations with scientific evidence or empirical observations.
The ignoring of the data in favor of ad-hoc hypothesis will now begin. This is what I predict. And I have confidence my prediction will be validated in every post in response by every single evolutionist.
Sir, I would like to inform you that people associated with different races and regions have so little genetic difference between them, that to suggest that Asian people and African people are somehow different subspecies of human is indisputably incorrect. Be careful not to bring up 1920's ideas like that, least you unintentionally sound racist.Yes - let us see who is right. Let's see who accepts the empirical data and who ignores it.
Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African.
Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.
Yet when Asian mates with African we observe variation in the species (Afro-Asian). When Husky mates with Mastiff we observe variation within the species (Chinook).
Now evolutionist's want us to believe that the Asian or the African evolved into the Afro-Asian and the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook far in the past with other species. They want us to believe in direct opposition to the empirical data that one thing became two new things - when all observational evidence shows it takes two separate things to create something new.
I now predict that not one single piece of scientific data will be presented to refute this - but only unsubstantiated claims that it happened differently in the past and ad-hominem attacks will begin because not one single evolutionist can refute the empirical observations with scientific evidence or empirical observations.
The ignoring of the data in favor of ad-hoc hypothesis will now begin. This is what I predict. And I have confidence my prediction will be validated in every post in response by every single evolutionist.
Sir, I would like to inform you that people associated with different races and regions have so little genetic difference between them, that to suggest that Asian people and African people are somehow different subspecies of human is indisputably incorrect. Be careful not to bring up 1920's ideas like that, least you unintentionally sound racist.
Hey Justa, what scientists won the Nobel Prize for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe? I predict you won't be able to name one, even though you said they did.
No, you are actually right, given that breeds of dogs are pretty subjective. It is comparable to racism. Thankfully, the canines do not mind the labels, but to favor a "purebreed" over a "mutt" is not only the dog version of favoring one color of skin over another, but unlike with humans, it enforces harmful amounts of inbreeding and genetic risk to the dogs, which is why "mutts" tend to be healthier than "purebred" dogs.And sir - I would like to inform you that dogs associated with different breeds and regions have so little genetic difference between them, that to suggest that Husky dogs and Mastiff dogs are somehow different subspecies of canine is indisputably incorrect. Be careful not to bring up 1920's ideas like that, least you unintentionally sound racist.
Ahhh - but it's ok to be raciest as long as it isn't humans we are discussing right? Even if we are just animals????? Your argument is a two-way street - not a on-way boulevard.
You made a claim: Nobel Prizes were awarded for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe. I've asked you to substantiate that claim. You can't, because it's false. You seem to be convinced of things about science that just aren't true.Strawman
I can't figure out why you think this is a logical argument. Who suggested that only ideas endorsed by the Nobel committee should be accepted? What does this have to do with your fictional story about the Milky Way?- since E neither received a Nobel for Special Relativity nor General Relativity, yet you accept them. So we can discard them since no Nobel was awarded according to your strawman??? Oh, now suddenly it's different, right????
You made a claim: Nobel Prizes were awarded for showing that the Milky Way was the entire universe. I've asked you to substantiate that claim. You can't, because it's false. You seem to be convinced of things about science that just aren't true.
We often hear that creationism is just a different interpretation of the evidence. It is my contention that creationists don't interpret the data at all.
Interesting comment in view of the fact that every single one of us believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.Frankly, I think creationists themselves present the best argument against the existence of God than any non-believer could ever present.
Interesting comment in view of the fact that every single one of us believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
Absolutely not, that would be the wrong thing to do. A scientific consensus is based on agreement with the data and what it shows, not opinion.And I'm supposed to believe scientists run on consensus of opinion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?