My Daisy Chain Challenge

Loudmouth · Aug 27, 2013

EternalDragon said:
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm disagreeing with the conclusion which I am free to do.

You are rejecting the conclusion without even looking at the evidence. You have made it quite clear that no matter what the evidence is you will conclude that it didn't evolve. All we are asking is that you be honest about it.

Let's review. You can't tell us what features a geologic feature would need in order to indicate old ages. You can't tell us what features a fossil would need in order to be transitional. Why? Because your beliefs are not based on evidence, and can not be swayed by the evidence.

Loudmouth · Aug 27, 2013

EternalDragon said:
It would require an intelligence (That is not something natural selection has) plus a lot of genetic information not present as well as a complete change in the embryo plan while getting past all the correction mechanisms.

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

And-U-Say · Aug 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

If so, if I just arbitrarily asked what piece of physical biological evidence represents 494,012 B.C., it could be produced?

Or are there more years in existence since abiogenesis, than there are pieces of physical biological evidence representing each individual year?

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

Let me fix that for you...

Can we take every single piece of physical evidence for jesus that is currently anywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single day in his ministry?

If so, if I just arbitrarily asked what piece of evidence represents day 494, it could be produced?

Or are there more days in existence since the ministry began, than there are pieces of physical evidence representing each individual day?

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

Because if we don't have every day, then jesus can take a hike.

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2013

And-U-Say said:
Let me fix that for you...

No, thank you.

Get your own thread for that please.

Or are you afraid you'll get less responses than mine?

Popularity's a bear, isn't it?

And-U-Say · Aug 27, 2013

Deadbolt said:
Since the occurrence of abiogenesis, the forces of plate tectonics and erosion have remade the surface of the Earth countless times. Presumably all kinds of fossils have been and are being lost all the time because in addition to needing specific conditions to be preserved in the first place, a paleontologist (armature or professional) must happen by at the precise geological blink of an eye that it happens to be exposed.

More to the point, the vast majority of fossils are still in the ground. What percentage of the earth's crust for two miles down has been carefully sifted for fossils? 0.1%? 0.01% Even less? If we could (somehow) get to all these fossils in a short period of time, we would see far more of life's history.

And-U-Say · Aug 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
No, thank you.

Get your own thread for that please.

Or are you afraid you'll get less responses than mine?

Popularity's a bear, isn't it?

Nothing to do with popularity. It is just a way of showing that you are looking for far greater precision than is necessary. You couldn't see that? You didn't get that? Come on man, you are better then that.

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2013

And-U-Say said:
More to the pony, the vast majority of fossils are still in the ground.

That kinda vacuums, doesn't it?

Now you know why I stipulated:

AV1611VET said:
Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere,

... don't you?

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2013

And-U-Say said:
Nothing to do with popularity. It is just a way of showing that you are looking for far greater precision than is necessary. You couldn't see that? You didn't get that? Come on man, you are better then that.

Um ... I'm kinda ahead of you in saying that, am I not?

AV1611VET said:
It's a challenge that can't possibly be met ... the bar is too high.

AV1611VET said:
But it doesn't fit my prediction: which is that my challenge cannot be met with physical biological evidence.

And that's what counts.

And-U-Say · Aug 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Um ... I'm kinda ahead of you in saying that, am I not?

Boy, you really do have a tough time with analogies. So I guess I have to walk you through it.

You are saying you need a very high level of evidence for evolution. That the evidence in existence today is insufficient to meet your high level of evidence. For that reason, you feel that evolution is inadequate as an explanation for the diversity of life.

I was NOT pointing out that the amount of existing evidence would meet your requirements nor was I suggesting that you didn't know that.

I was pointing out that the level of evidence you require for evolution is far greater than what you accept in a different area, namely, bible authenticity. I was trying to make it clear that your acceptance of very limited evidence when it comes to your religion makes your requirement for evolution evidence unreasonable.

Get it now?

And-U-Say · Aug 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
That kinda vacuums, doesn't it?

Now you know why I stipulated:

... don't you?

I wasn't responding to you.

bhsmte · Aug 27, 2013

And-U-Say said:
Boy, you really do have a tough time with analogies. So I guess I have to walk you through it.

You are saying you need a very high level of evidence for evolution. That the evidence in existence today is insufficient to meet your high level of evidence. For that reason, you feel that evolution is inadequate as an explanation for the diversity of life.

I was NOT pointing out that the amount of existing evidence would meet your requirements nor was I suggesting that you didn't know that.

I was pointing out that the level of evidence you require for evolution is far greater than what you accept in a different area, namely, bible authenticity. I was trying to make it clear that your acceptance of very limited evidence when it comes to your religion makes your requirement for evolution evidence unreasonable.

Get it now?

What you just explained, is typical MO for conservative christians.

Ignore evidence that doesn't support my claim and manufacture evidence that my claim is true.

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2013

And-U-Say said:
Boy, you really do have a tough time with analogies. So I guess I have to walk you through it.

You are saying you need a very high level of evidence for evolution. That the evidence in existence today is insufficient to meet your high level of evidence. For that reason, you feel that evolution is inadequate as an explanation for the diversity of life.

I was NOT pointing out that the amount of existing evidence would meet your requirements nor was I suggesting that you didn't know that.

I was pointing out that the level of evidence you require for evolution is far greater than what you accept in a different area, namely, bible authenticity. I was trying to make it clear that your acceptance of very limited evidence when it comes to your religion makes your requirement for evolution evidence unreasonable.

Get it now?

There's a difference though.

Evolutionists claim the fossil record says this and that, then when backed into a corner ... as this challenge is doing ... claim they don't even need the fossil record at all, since there's plenty of other evidence in other disciplines to corroborate the theory of evolution.

In contrast, we -- (or I) -- claim that, where the Bible is concerned, evidence can take a hike; as we walk by faith, not by sight.

Get it now?

nuttypiglet · Aug 27, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
So you are a hypocrite. You demand the evidence and then ignore it when it is given to you.

EVIDENCE? don't you get it? still? THERE IS NONE

The Pelvis of Lucy, prove it wasn't a type of monkey that went extinct with no further mutations. You can't. With macro evolution relying on death rather than life, it simply won't work. God is life, without the creator there is no life.

DNA used in criminal cases has often proved to be contamination. Also, it is wide open to corruption, as is the evidence with evolution.

Subduction Zone · Aug 27, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
EVIDENCE? don't you get it? still? THERE IS NONE

The Pelvis of Lucy, prove it wasn't a type of monkey that went extinct with no further mutations. You can't. With macro evolution relying on death rather than life, it simply won't work. God is life, without the creator there is no life.

DNA used in criminal cases has often proved to be contamination. Also, it is wide open to corruption, as is the evidence with evolution.

You clearly have no clue what counts as evidence.

Many scientists were like that at one point too. So science developed an extremely useful definition of evidence.

And yes, we have evidence. You, by definition do not. And that is the fault of creation scientists some of them even know how evidence works.

nuttypiglet · Aug 27, 2013

If you take any two fossils which have a commonality, you could mistakenly call them transitional. By the way, dinosaurs did not evolve from birds, they were created, but not by God. This is the reason they were wiped out and we were left with the original birds only.

Subduction Zone · Aug 27, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
If you take any two fossils which have a commonality, you could mistakenly call them transitional. By the way, dinosaurs did not evolve from birds, they were created, but not by God. This is the reason they were wiped out and we were left with the original birds only.

You are somewhat correct. Dinosaurs did not evolve from birds.

It was the other way around.

I am curious. Do you have any scientific evidence to back up any of your claims?

nuttypiglet · Aug 27, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
You clearly have no clue what counts as evidence.

Many scientists were like that at one point too. So science developed an extremely useful definition of evidence.

And yes, we have evidence. You, by definition do not. And that is the fault of creation scientists some of them even know how evidence works.

We do have evidence, the word of God. I'm not sure if you have ever read the Bible? One thing special about the book is the number of prophecies, hundreds of them, and many have come true. Nearly 3000 years ago, a Hebrew wrote how Israel would be destroyed and the inhabitants would be spread out into all nations to be humiliated and tortured. It went on to say how the land would be given back to them. In 70ad the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, and for nearly 2000 years the Jews patiently waited. Then the land was reformed by UN resolution. Many prophecies have come true and I know no human who can see the future, so it is supernaturally inspired. It even tells you which countries will do battle in the last days, leading up to judgement day. Those nations weren't even formed when written, but if you watch the news, they are all conspiring together right now. God PROVES his supremacy.

Subduction Zone · Aug 27, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
We do have evidence, the word of God. I'm not sure if you have ever read the Bible? One thing special about the book is the number of prophecies, hundreds of them, and many have come true. Nearly 3000 years ago, a Hebrew wrote how Israel would be destroyed and the inhabitants would be spread out into all nations to be humiliated and tortured. It went on to say how the land would be given back to them. In 70ad the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, and for nearly 2000 years the Jews patiently waited. Then the land was reformed by UN resolution. Many prophecies have come true and I know no human who can see the future, so it is supernaturally inspired. It even tells you which countries will do battle in the last days, leading up to judgement day. Those nations weren't even formed when written, but if you watch the news, they are all conspiring together right now. God PROVES his supremacy.

You have the word of God? Why didn't you say so?

Oh, you don't. Upon further reading all you have is the Bible.

The Bible is clearly not the word of God, and it does not have hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. Many of those so called prophesies are merely quote mines of the Old Testament. That is probably where many creationists learned that dishonest technique.

The Bible has hundreds of self contradictions. It is filled with bad morals, bad and failed science, and failed prophecies.

StormanNorman · Aug 27, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
EVIDENCE? don't you get it? still? THERE IS NONE

There is plenty of evidence,

The Pelvis of Lucy, prove it wasn't a type of monkey that went extinct with no further mutations. You can't. With macro evolution relying on death rather than life, it simply won't work. God is life, without the creator there is no life.

It's true that Lucy's species might have gone extinct and is not one of our ancestors. We don't know. However, Lucy doesn't exist in a vacuum .. there are many other hominid fossils that become more and more human as they become younger and younger.

Evolution is the best scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth today; and it is a theory based on evidence from across multiple scientific disciplines.

HitchSlap · Aug 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
There's a difference though.

Evolutionists claim the fossil record says this and that, then when backed into a corner ... as this challenge is doing ... claim they don't even need the fossil record at all, since there's plenty of other evidence in other disciplines to corroborate the theory of evolution.

In contrast, we -- (or I) -- claim that, where the Bible is concerned, evidence can take a hike; as we walk by faith, not by sight.

Get it now?

Yes, we get it! Robust theories supported by multiple independent lines of evidence are robust.

BTW, you should have a problem with any belief system where it's only requirement is gullibility.

My Daisy Chain Challenge

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Veteran

Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency