Help a (creationist) brother out?

[Subduction Zone]

This is more about you asking the impossible and then blaming him for being unable to show you the impossible.
This is no different then someone asking for proof over God's existence or non existence.

The world as it was created is gone. Everything changed and corrupted at the fall and then what was left was wiped out and changed again at the flood. We have what is left to look at. Those animal kinds that he mentioned, they are not around to be examined so how could he get you information on them?

There is no evidence, these things are taken on faith the same way it is faith that says God exists and I would also say, that your claim that God doesn't exist is also a type of faith. You might say that isn't faith, but you don't have any proof of his non existence which to me is faith.

Using one failed argument to save another is not a good debating technique.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but you're an Atheist and you couldn't recognize that evidence if it ran over you.

No, I am an atheist. That means I can be honest when some believers cannot be. I understand the nature of evidence. You probably do not.

 

[Shemjaza]

Science has no power of determination regarding God, what He did or didn’t do one way or the other. Neither can it determine that macroevolution took place, except through a measure of speculation. Sure, there is a lot of evidence in the physical sense, just like there’s a lot of inspirational evidence for God. We can’t see behind the ‘curtain of time,’ so both origins are primarily reasoning, theories, speculation, or whatever you want to refer to them as if one of those don’t fit. But as far as adaptation and variation goes, it is on this side of the curtain, and is observable microevolution.

I disagree, the evidence of fossils and genetic remnants allow us to determine that macroevolution is the explanation for the diversity of species.

Fossil and genetic analysis are objective and explicable methods of explaining the past.

Can you explain how one use use and identify "inspirational evidence"?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, but you're an Atheist and you couldn't recognize that evidence if it ran over you.

Can you empathise with how this would seem to someone you disagree with?

Can you imagine your personal reaction to a different kind of religious believer telling you that Christianity is false because they just know their religion is real?

Is it possible for you to describe how you could differentiate this special kind of evidence of yours from personal preference and conviction?

 

[inquiring mind]

Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?

No, I sure can't regarding the 'when,' God didn't seem to put much importance on dates. The 'why' it stopped would be the date of creation, whenever that took place.

 

[inquiring mind]

Is it possible for you to describe how you could differentiate this special kind of evidence of yours from personal preference and conviction?

I thought i did in a previous post... "Sure, there is a lot of evidence in the physical sense, just like there’s a lot of inspirational evidence for God. We can’t see behind the ‘curtain of time,’ so both origins are primarily reasoning, theories, speculation, or whatever you want to refer to them as if one of those don’t fit."

 

[Bradskii]

No, I sure can't regarding the 'when,' God didn't seem to put much importance on dates. The 'why' it stopped would be the date of creation, whenever that took place.

You've given me a 'when' answer to a 'why' question, so that didn't help.

If God created everything and they have the ability to adapt and evolve within whatever you class as microevolution, then how far along that path does an organism go before it can go no further? What says 'this far, but no further?'

Perhaps you can give me some examples of organisms that are still changing versus those that have finished?

 

[Shemjaza]

I thought i did in a previous post... "Sure, there is a lot of evidence in the physical sense, just like there’s a lot of inspirational evidence for God. We can’t see behind the ‘curtain of time,’ so both origins are primarily reasoning, theories, speculation, or whatever you want to refer to them as if one of those don’t fit."

That's just saying it exists... I'm curious how you distinguish "inspirational evidence" from your personal emotional states and metaphysical preferences.

 

[inquiring mind]

You've given me a 'when' answer to a 'why' question, so that didn't help.

But, you asked a when and why question... "Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?" I said I had no date for the 'when' and the 'why' microevolution stopped was at the point of creation.

Perhaps you can give me some examples of organisms that are still changing versus those that have finished?

I wouldn't think anything is finished changing in some way, but you're going forward here and not backward to our origin, where I think we began as a man.

 

[Bradskii]

But, you asked a when and why question... "Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?" I said I had no date for the 'when' and the 'why' microevolution stopped was at the point of creation.

Uh? Creation is surely when you think everything was created. It's a point in time. X amount of years ago. So if 'microevolution' stopped then, then nothing has ever changed in any way. If it stopped at the moment it started then it never existed.

 

[coffee4u]

Using one failed argument to save another is not a good debating technique.

It's not a failed argument. You can't prove that God doesn't exist and I can't prove to you that he does. That is just how things are. I'm not a debater anyway I just see threads pop up on new posts and post sometimes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a failed argument. You can't prove that God doesn't exist and I can't prove to you that he does. That is just how things are. I'm not a debater anyway I just see threads pop up on new posts and post sometimes.

You have the burden of proof backwards. That is just o e reason that it is a failed argument.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's not a failed argument. You can't prove that God doesn't exist and I can't prove to you that he does. That is just how things are. I'm not a debater anyway I just see threads pop up on new posts and post sometimes.

You are mistaking the debate of this forum.

It's "Creationism and Evolution" not "Strong Atheism and Christianity".

The assertions of Creationism are much more specific than simply that God exists and he is responsible for Creation.

Assertions about time lines, biology, geology and even physics are relevant to the evidences of science and so isn't just a matter of "neither can prove", it's a matter of extensive evidence on one side and personal conviction on the other.

 

[inquiring mind]

Uh? Creation is surely when you think everything was created. It's a point in time. X amount of years ago. So if 'microevolution' stopped then, then nothing has ever changed in any way. If it stopped at the moment it started then it never existed.

'Stopped' is the wrong word... it 'started' (microevolution) at creation in the form of variation and adaptation. You used 'stop' in your first question ("Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?"). Since we both agree variation and adaptation doesn't stop going forward (for those that survive), to me the reverse direction was all you could have meant... so instead of correcting I answered that in the reverse direction it stopped at creation, because that's the way I thought you were putting it. You guys generally make hash out of points, a favorite tactic it seems, and it appears that you have may have quickly succeeded with this one for those who aren't following closely. {blank... creation... microevolution} vs. {scientific facts + speculation + connect-the-dots... microevolution}

 

[Astrid]

Deletrd

 

[Astrid]

Science has no power of determination regarding God, what He did or didn’t do one way or the other. Neither can it determine that macroevolution took place, except through a measure of speculation. Sure, there is a lot of evidence in the physical sense, just like there’s a lot of inspirational evidence for God. We can’t see behind the ‘curtain of time,’ so both origins are primarily reasoning, theories, speculation, or whatever you want to refer to them as if one of those don’t fit. But as far as adaptation and variation goes, it is on this side of the curtain, and is observable microevolution.

Oh? It sure isnt hard to prove that there was no
world wide flood.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

'Stopped' is the wrong word... it 'started' (microevolution) at creation in the form of variation and adaptation. You used 'stop' in your first question ("Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?"). Since we both agree variation and adaptation doesn't stop going forward (for those that survive), to me the reverse direction was all you could have meant... so instead of correcting I answered that in the reverse direction it stopped at creation, because that's the way I thought you were putting it. You guys generally make hash out of points, a favorite tactic it seems, and it appears that you have may have quickly succeeded with this one for those who aren't following closely. {blank... creation... microevolution} vs. {scientific facts + speculation + connect-the-dots... microevolution}

Your commentary on microevolution and macroevolution are well known and are frankly still as ridiculous now as they were when I first saw them.

 

[Shemjaza]

'Stopped' is the wrong word... it 'started' (microevolution) at creation in the form of variation and adaptation. You used 'stop' in your first question ("Can you give me any evidence for when and why it stops at some given point?"). Since we both agree variation and adaptation doesn't stop going forward (for those that survive), to me the reverse direction was all you could have meant... so instead of correcting I answered that in the reverse direction it stopped at creation, because that's the way I thought you were putting it. You guys generally make hash out of points, a favorite tactic it seems, and it appears that you have may have quickly succeeded with this one for those who aren't following closely. {blank... creation... microevolution} vs. {scientific facts + speculation + connect-the-dots... microevolution}

Using deliberately minimising language like "connect-the-dots" to belittle the concept of evidence seems dishonest if you only apply it to situations when your religious preferences are in conflict with science.

 

[inquiring mind]

Oh? It sure isnt hard to prove that there was no
world wide flood.

So they say.

 

[inquiring mind]

Your commentary on microevolution and macroevolution are well known and are frankly still as ridiculous now as they were when I first saw them.

Merry Christmas to you too!