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.
Maybe logic escapes you. Here is a painting. LOGIC states SOMEONE painted it. Sorry you cannot make that simple connection. Logic states someone killed him.That is begging the question. That is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Because it isn't evidence. Not in any sense is it evidence. It is a logical fallacy.
"Your honor, the dead body is proof of murder, so please put John Smith in jail."
Is that evidence?
That is begging the question. That is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Because it isn't evidence. Not in any sense is it evidence. It is a logical fallacy.
"Your honor, the dead body is proof of murder, so please put John Smith in jail."
Is that evidence?
Maybe logic escapes you. Here is a painting. LOGIC states SOMEONE painted it.
Logic states someone killed him.
Yes I do. The trouble is you conveniently tie in the "extrapolation" Evolution into the small scale Evolution which IS provable and wrap them up in a nice combined little bundle and ask us to accept the same science in Darwinism Evolution as Natural Selection. One is good science and one is terrible. "Oh but they are both the same," you say... just add millions of years on and it will take care of any discrepancies you say." Bad science I say. If you tell a lie long enough you will get a lot of people to think it is fact.Do you know what a theory is?
Yes I do. The trouble is you conveniently tie in the "extrapolation" Evolution into the small scale Evolution which IS provable and wrap them up in a nice combined little bundle and ask us to accept the same science in Darwinism Evolution as Natural Selection.
One is good science and one is terrible. "Oh but they are both the same," you say... just add millions of years on and it will take care of any discrepancies you say." Bad science I say. If you tell a lie long enough you will get a lot of people to think it is fact.
It isn't extrapolation. It is interpolation since we have the end points of evolution. Those endpoints are all of the living species we have today. The points in between are the common ancestors and transitional fossils. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what we should see at the end points, and those predictions have been amazingly accurate.
What discrepancies?
Your Theory breaks down when it crosses "kinds".
Look up your transitional fossil record. What should be an amazing amount of transitional kinds, as there is when you get diverse species, there is none.
Your Theory does not follow the Law of biogenetics at that point.
I can sincerely assure you, I am not playing word games. Sometimes words can have more than one meaning, depending on how they are used. If you don't believe me, open a dictionary and start reading the definitions for words. Trust me, it won't be long before you find a word that has multiple meanings.Now comes the word games.
What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?
I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?
The few there are, are questionable at the least, fraudulent at worst.There shouldn't be any transitional kinds if creationism is true, yet there are.
Way more then there are. They should not be difficult to find...of course if it is true.Also, how do you calculate the number of transitional fossils that there should be? I would love to see that math.
Nice question. God "breathed" the breath of life into them hence created in complex, complete kinds. It's interesting because God said "let there be light" before the stars were created. Do you know that if you look at the smallest atom on the smallest scale possible that you will see light? Creationism supports organized to chaos. Life begets Life. God (life) created life.Again, read the opening post. How does creationism follow the Law of biogenetics, whatever that is. What does creationism say that life came from? In the case of humans, wasn't it non-living mud and dust?
The few there are, are questionable at the least, fraudulent at worst.
Way more then there are. They should not be difficult to find...of course if it is true.
Nice question. God "breathed" the breath of life into them hence created in complex, complete kinds. It's interesting because God said "let there be light" before the stars were created. Do you know that if you look at the smallest atom on the smallest scale possible that you will see light? Creationism supports organized to chaos. Life begets Life. God (life) created life.
First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and more....
http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/
Yes I do. It is a matter of Faith. Do you sincerely believe you came from electrified mud?Do you sincerely believe this?
As I have said before, I have no problem with Evolution on the smaller scale. It is a provable science. Natural selection -no problem. That is a fact. It's when you extrapolate the theory into crossing "kinds" and descending from animals I take issue. I also have problems with how the carbon dating has been so misused, because how are you supposed to date with two variables missing? We don't know the atmosphere was the same as it is now. In fact the atmosphere has not yet even reached equilibrium. Seems that equilibrium would have reached by now with an old earth. Which again goes towards evidence for Creation, because it is evidence for a young earth which the bible supports.Much of modern antibiotics and vaccines are based on the theory of evolution. When your doctor prescribes antibiotics for a loved one, are you going to eschew modern medicine, and instead rely on the bible? I'm willing to bet you go with solution that is based the theory of evolution, and not the solution based on your religious beliefs. Am I wrong?
Yes I do. It is a matter of Faith. Do you sincerely believe you came from electrified mud?
As I have said before, I have no problem with Evolution on the smaller scale. It is a provable science. Natural selection -no problem. That is a fact. It's when you extrapolate the theory into crossing "kinds" and descending from animals I take issue. I also have problems with how the carbon dating has been so misused, because how are you supposed to date with two variables missing? We don't know the atmosphere was the same as it is now. In fact the atmosphere has not yet even reached equilibrium. Seems that equilibrium would have reached by now with an old earth. Which again goes towards evidence for Creation, because it is evidence for a young earth which the bible supports.
Now that your through calling me a dumb ass, I hope you feel better. Which is a flame btw --against thread rules. Do you have something specific you'd like to say about my evidence or should I quote you what this guy has been quoting all day?Micro vs Macro is unfortunately for you, a PRATT.
It is akin to saying you can walk a mile but not a hundred.
No originality in creationist arguments any more.
I guess we need to revisit the opening post.
What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?
I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?
Is there still something about that very simple post that you are having a tough time understanding?
Then you do not understand the math of the arguments. All of them that I have seen have been based upon a false premise n evolution. When the error is shown the arguments fall apart. To those that do not understand the theory they may seem to be impressive. For those that understand the theory of evolution better those arguments are laughable at best.
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?