My Creation Science Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, but other than internet forumz, this is meaningless drivel.

I used the words the poster used ('poofed out of thin air').

If that's "meaningless drivel" to you, I agree.

Try using the correct terminology, and you just MIGHT understand it better.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's funny, because that is exactly what creationists claim. "ex nihilo".

1. false dichotomy
2. I have never seen anything "come into being". Care to give an example? Or better yet... meet the challenge of the thread: post original research.

Ex nihilo, false dichotomy?...Polly want a cracker?

Science doesn't allow false dichotomies and other fallacious nonsense.

What exactly is false about this?....

"creating is the only way we have EVER seen anything come into being and we have NEVER seen something from nothing."

You need to demonstrate the causal chain of events, instead of just asserting it.

You may start by meeting the challenge of the thread, and posting original research and data.

And your casual chain of events that brought us into existence are? And be careful, I already have the giggles.

Show me a challenge and I'll answer it/take you seriously...you've not done so as of yet.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is no "poofing out of thin air" in biology.
But there is in ex-nihilo creationism.

And your explanation of how we got here, start to finish is?

 

[RickG]

Show me a challenge and I'll answer it/take you seriously...you've not done so as of yet.

Well first, I challenge you to read the OP. Next, provide what the OP asks, a creation science article that is based on their own original research.

 

[JoeP222w]

"Peer Review" does not truth make.

Many "Peers" of the time of Hitler thought it was a good thing to commit genocide of the Jews.

They were wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

2. I have never seen anything "come into being". Care to give an example? Or better yet... meet the challenge

I missed that.

Sure, drop in anytime, I'll make dinner. I'll create it and it will come into being. IOW, after created, it will "be".

Then you will claim "how did the ingredients come into being?", which will of course tell me you chose to miss the point.

The only way things can be is if they are created, we have irrefutable evidence that is absolute fact. I create, you create, happens every second of the day and in zero of those seconds, minutes, hours, weeks, years does anything come into being without that...NEVER on it's own. I wouldn't even have to explain this to a child.

Then the question:

"No, maybe not in seconds or weeks but what about millions of years?"

You mean the millions of years no one can prove? The millions of years no one saw anything happen? The so-called lost in time evidence? Assumed theory, or in short, a lie that only the very illogical or someone who is bound and determined to explain God away will buy or preach.

So in turn, makes perfect sense God "created" those ingredients but only if you allow logic which you tend to try to throw out of the picture unless it works for you.

And science is not necessarily logic...science is often only something the illogical/untruthful try to hide behind. Science is what it is, and people use it for their own purpose, good or bad, to create lies or to bring forth truth and use it for good. Hiding behind the term just to disprove God, is not a good use of science, it's *using* science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well first, I challenge you to read the OP.

Already done.

Next, provide what the OP asks, a creation science article that is based on their own original research.

Have you provided anything in accordance to the OP? If not, would you ask something of others you are unwilling to do yourself?

At any rate, I already did that. See my original research that started with "first, open your eyes". I wasn't just asking that others do that, that was the beginning of my research and the rest is there for the reading.

Here ya' go...my official and I guess original research, all depending on what you mean by original...

Evidence for creation?

First...open eyes.

Second...realize how stupid it is to think all you see just appeared from nothing.

Third...draw very, very logical conclusion it must have been created, as in... creating is the only way we have EVER seen anything come into being and we have NEVER seen something from nothing.

Or does science not allow logic? IOW, I have to prove the clearly white lily is white, and seeing it counts for nothing?

 

[JacksBratt]

No, it didn't even happen once.

And I always found it rather funny that an all-powerfull being required "rest".

If you are stating that it didn't happen, you would, then be required to show how all this came to be and that there was, in fact, no "poofing" into existence.

If it wasn't "magic" where did it come from? Both the creationist and the evolutionist must have some sort of foundation for all this to be here in the first place. Creationists have theirs... where's yours?

You are easily humored.... God didn't say that He had to rest. There is no reason to believe that He needed to. He simply states that He did rest. The reason He did this is to set an example for His created humans, the ones made in His image, is to follow His example and rest every seven days......

 

[JacksBratt]

By first presenting a well-defined model that could actually be supported by evidence.
And then presenting that evidence...

Seems rather obvious.



If you fail to present a well defined, falsifiable model, then there is nothing to support with evidence in the first place.

Unfalsifiable models are infinite in number.

Really? A person who, has no idea what, on this earth, would be considered as adequate evidence to be proof enough for him to believe wants me to start giving random occurrences that I, a believer, consider to be adequate, then they can just go "nope"...."nope"...."nope".....

I don't think I'm playing this game.

If you want me to buy your car...........you have to tell me what it will cost....

None of this "I don't know how much I want, name a price and I'll let ya know"


When you have an idea of what it would take to convince you, then we'll talk.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Peer Review" does not truth make.

Many "Peers" of the time of Hitler thought it was a good thing to commit genocide of the Jews.

They were wrong.

5 pages in and we've already got someone trying to Godwin the thread already.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Also, @RickG, I just remembered that on another thread, someone presented a link to a creationist trying to prove that the Flood created the Grand Canyon by using a machine used to simulate the conditions that he felt would be in the Noahic Flood.
Before I go and look for it, I just want a bit of confirmation: would that count as original research?

 

[HitchSlap]

I used the words the poster used ('poofed out of thin air').

If that's "meaningless drivel" to you, I agree.

Try using the correct terminology, and you just MIGHT understand it better.

Seems you've missed my point... there's nothing to understand.

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[HitchSlap]

Creationism/ID has no explanatory power, nor is it objectively verifiable; is all one needs understand.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yeah, but other than internet forumz, this is meaningless drivel. Those of us who value reality can't be bothered to understand trivial, convoluted myths to satisfy personal egos.

Sure there is.

Seems you've missed my point... there's nothing to understand.

Then show us some way other than meaningless drivel...enlighten us to reality and you will no longer have to bother with those convoluted myths....please.

Due to lack of any other explanation, one can only assume the evolutionists believes the beginning poofed and the rest took care of itself. If I missed something along the way, maybe you have an explanation based on your own original research to replace the poof. If so, please provide it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Creationism/ID has no explanatory power, nor is it objectively verifiable; is all one needs understand.

Assuming you are replying to me...that's not even a respectable cop out. You are actually telling us what we do or do not need to understand?...darned convenient

How bout replying to my request instead of evading it. If we have it wrong, simply prove it and show us the right way?

 

[HitchSlap]

Assuming you are replying to me...that's not even a respectable cop out. You are actually telling us what we do or do not need to understand?...darned convenient

You're free to "understand" whatever it is you think you need to, it won't help your understanding of reality, and you'll find yourself standing in the dust when you're left behind after the "when it's all said and done" bus has pulled out.

How bout replying to my request instead of evading it. If we have it wrong, simply prove it and show us the right way?

We've been showing you the right way since 1859. If you need to bone up on the ToE, that's on you. I'm not responsible for how little you know.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're free to "understand" whatever it is you think you need to, it won't help your understanding of reality, and you'll find yourself standing in the dust when you're left behind after the "when it's all said and done" bus has pulled out.


We've been showing you the right way since 1859. If you need to bone up on the ToE, that's on you. I'm not responsible for how little you know.

OK, thanks just the same, I'll continue to assume you feel it poofed, but don't say I didn't give you a chance.

 

[HitchSlap]

OK, thanks just the same, I'll continue to assume you feel it poofed, but don't say I didn't give you a chance.

Sounds good. I'll leave the poofed, magic'd, miracled, goddidit, to you, then.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

OK, thanks just the same, I'll continue to assume you feel it poofed, but don't say I didn't give you a chance.

Does the standard big bang theory of the origin of the universe count as a poof?