Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

If you want to believe the nonsense, no amount of explanation will ever convince you otherwise. Take the trinity, problem of suffering, or problem of free will as a good examples. No amount of explanations will ever be sufficient for you to accept that the defenses for these issues are nonsense.

So tell me, just what nonsense I have presented in this thread.

The problem is that you haven't provided any evidence of any kind. The only input you have provided is to put other people down. I don't think that is going to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Incariol]

So tell me, just what nonsense I have presented in this thread.

The problem is that you haven't provided any evidence of any kind. The only input you have provided is to put other people down. I don't think that is going to convince anyone of anything.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

"After ≈33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara−, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant."

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have no problem with evolution as defined. This is an example of that. We know that traits and mutations are inheritable and that is not the question. That is not in dispute. The problem arises when that proof is then used to "prove" other evolutionary theories that rest on it rather than real evidence.

Meaning since this is true then everything in the evolutionary model is true. That is just not the case.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have answered many of your questions clearly and concisely. And yet you continue to evade those answers. I am simply not interested in bothering with the continuous barrage of nonsense you and your co-creationists have proffered in this thread.

What have I evaded?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why is it a good point? You're expecting me to write more?

I expect you to comment to our responses. That is only polite.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Why do you feel that we have to be the ones always defending our worldview? It seems that when it comes to you all needing to defend your worldview you seem to give it privileged status. We have every right to ask you to defend your worldview.

I don't see the atheist side presenting evidence for evolution when they are asking creationists to defend their worldview.

Defending your worldview?
I am only asking you to show me the evidence for creation theory, this is just standard procedure when you want a scientific theory to be accepted.
I just said I now do not know how species came to be, you say you do. (since evolution is false)

Remember people originally brought out evidence for evolution, you just disproofed all that evidence and evolution is now considered false.
All you have to do now is show that your creation theory is true by bringing out the evidence for it.

If you want to proof you are right it is not enough to simply proof the other guy wrong, you have to proof you ARE right. This is standard procedure.

But since you asked I guess I will go ahead and present you my theory and the evidence for it. Though I do not see why that would in any way effect your evidence for creation.
How did species get here? I do not know.
What evidence to I have for it? I have none, so by definition I do not know.

(Edit: I just noticed its you oncede, if you are confused about this post just read the last three posts between me and the person i quoted.)

(Edit2": Just for the record, ofcourse evolution would also need to be evidenced like it has been for the past 150 years. But in this exchange we're considering evolution false and disproven, so all that is left is to evidence creation. If you want to know more about the theory of evolution and its evidence I'm sure that can be arranged.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Defending your worldview?
I am only asking you to show me the evidence for creation theory, this is just standard procedure when you want a scientific theory to be accepted.
I just said I now do not know how species came to be, you say you do. (since evolution is false)

Remember people originally brought out evidence for evolution, you just disproofed all that evidence and evolution is now considered false.
All you have to do now is show that your creation theory is true by bringing out the evidence for it.

No, evolution is not false as defined. There is absolute proof that evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. I am not out to claim that this process as defined is incorrect.

If you want to proof you are right it is not enough to simply proof the other guy wrong, you have to proof you ARE right. This is standard procedure.

True enough. Now I've discussed the Creation narrative in another thread
Here post #74. This was a long discussion but that is where it began.

But since you asked I guess I will go ahead and present you my theory and the evidence for it. Though I do not see why that would in any way effect your evidence for creation.
How did species get here? I do not know.
What evidence to I have for it? I have none, so by definition I do not know.

(Edit: I just noticed its you oncede, if you are confused about this post just read the last three posts between me and the person i quoted.)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

In short. The post was not meant for you.

In longer: The post was meant for astridhere, who seems to think that disproving evolution would automaticly make creation a science, among other things. I am trying to argue that all the evidence I have seen 'for' creation is simply precieved evidence 'against' evolution. For the sake of arguement I've allowed that evolution is false and asked her to make her case for creation as a science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In short. The post was not meant for you.

In longer: The post was meant for astridhere, who seems to think that disproving evolution would automaticly make creation a science, among other things. I am trying to argue that all the evidence I have seen 'for' creation is simply precieved evidence 'against' evolution. For the sake of arguement I've allowed that evolution is false and asked her to make her case for creation as a science.

Well then, I hope you don't mind me answering it.

 

[Non sequitur]

Hahahahaha.

I don't believe you ever did answer which skull denotes the boundary between human and ape here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

You went off on a bunch of off-topic stuff, but never answered that question.

Lol.

Awesome declaration

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I WIN AND YOU LOOSE .....AND CREATION=SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION=PHILOSOPHY.

I haven't seen the discussion with Astridehere, but this line makes me chuckle. "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm proven right" - anyone know the name of this logical fallacy?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Well then, I hope you don't mind me answering it.

Hehe your input is always welcome ofcourse, I just fear I won't be able to keep up if we have two different discussions at once. Though I'm reading through the thread you mentioned and the responses it got, I may bring this up later.

In the meantime lets stick with our discussion on evidence of things not seen ^.~

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hehe your input is always welcome ofcourse, I just fear I won't be able to keep up if we have two different discussions at once. Though I'm reading through the thread you mentioned and the responses it got, I may bring this up later.

In the meantime lets stick with our discussion on evidence of things not seen ^.~

OKay.

 

[Non sequitur]

I haven't seen the discussion with Astridehere, but this line makes me chuckle. "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm proven right" - anyone know the name of this logical fallacy?

Shifting the burden of proof/False dichotomy/False dilemma

 

[Greg1234]

Hahahahaha.

I don't believe you ever did answer which skull denotes the boundary between human and ape here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

You went off on a bunch of off-topic stuff, but never answered that question.

You never answered which F16 model (C or D) was represented by the pile of debris.

By the way, the answer is- irrelevant, tests show that the mechanism of change in a C model cant transform it into a D model or vice versa.

 

[Greg1234]

Remember people originally brought out evidence for evolution, you just disproofed all that evidence and evolution is now considered false.
All you have to do now is show that your creation theory is true by bringing out the evidence for it.

Intelligent Design is sufficient. In the event where an intelligent influence on biological systems is to be treated as a new discovery, the process of elimination comes into play. Mutations are not owned by Darwinists and they are evidence for Intelligent Design if they fulfill their role in the process of elimination (ID). Darwinists don't provide evidence for Darwinism and evidence against Creationism. All evidence for Darwinism is evidence against Creationism and evidence against Creationism is what is evidence for Darwinism.

Creationists cannot ask for evidence for Darwinism "which is not against Creationism." We cannot say that you've just refuted Creationism, and now you need to provide evidence for Darwinism (which is also not evidence against Creationism). Stochastic unintelligent alterations will provide evidence for Intelligent Design by way of their eligibility for rejection on the grounds of incompetence.

 

[Nostromo]

Greg, where do you live, just out of curiosity?

 

[Chalnoth]

You never answered which F16 model (C or D) was represented by the pile of debris.

I didn't see a pile of debris. I saw a broken link. But what, pray tell, do you think that had to do with my question?

By the way, the answer is- irrelevant, tests show that the mechanism of change in a C model cant transform it into a D model or vice versa.

Um, what tests would these be, pray tell?

And the point of this, by the way, is to demonstrate that there simply is no clear distinction between "ape" and "human". Humans are apes.

 

[Chalnoth]

All evidence for Darwinism is evidence against Creationism and evidence against Creationism is what is evidence for Darwinism.

This is a false dichotomy. The correct statement would be:

"All evidence for Darwinism is evidence against Creationism, and evidence for Creationism is evidence against Darwinism."

But the issue here is that Darwinism is not the only potential alternative here. If there were any evidence against Darwinism (which there isn't), then that wouldn't automatically be evidence for any particular other theory, let alone Creationism.

 

[Astridhere]

I haven't seen the discussion with Astridehere, but this line makes me chuckle. "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm proven right" - anyone know the name of this logical fallacy?

Well if it makes you chuckle perhaps you had best go look at what I said and prove me wrong. If you reply at all it will be with more baseless insults and ignorance of a steam of evidence you yourself have stated you have not read. Ignorance is no excuse..and you may now extract your foot from your mouth.

I am still checking threads but so far I see not one single refute to my assertions.

That's the problem with evolutionists. They start threads like this then have zilch ability to defend their science. Hot air and insults is about all that is on offer.

Lucy, Ardi, have been dethroned and called into question as human ancestors. Did you know this? I'll bet not. They are now being seen as ape ancestors. The links are provided in previous posts. I have shown how erectus are apes. Every claim I made is backed by research from your own scientists. I have played this out for about a week and the only thing I get back is hot air like your response...total denial.

I could repost the links but why bother, none of you are able to refute me anyway it seems. Insults are not refutes, arguing why some creationist was sacked is not a refute and pasting up the human lineage means nothing if one cannot defend it.


The same can be said of all your so called intermediates eg deer to whale.

Do you know why your famous Lucy does not have eyebrow ridging when Erectus does? No wonder she has been dethroned. The big point here is why would even desperado scientists think to put her in the family line, particularly now we know dentition is related to diet?

Lucy's skull Bornean orangutan

Eregaster & Erectus Erectus

There are also flat faced apes dated to 12 million years ago.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090602083729.htm

There is no point woffling on with degredations at me if you do not have the capacity to refute me.

I think I'll start another thread on this topic as no one here is able to come up with any challenge, whatsoever.

For now, you have no human/ape intermediates and that is science that supports creation and NOT evolution.

Hence Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy