What proof would you need?

razeontherock said:

Maybe you recognize this tune? This is all my righteousness, nothing but the science of mankind

That's being "sung" a lot around here

Click to expand...

OUCH! Indeed I do recognize that tune!

So I gotta say:

ZING!

Hillsong United - Nothing But The Blood - YouTube

RickG said:

Aside from Kent Hovind's problem with the 9th commandment, why would anyone talk about evolution before abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

Because there was evolution before abiogenesis? 9 billion years worth?

RickG said:

Abiogenesis is about the beginning of life, or if you like, its creation.

Click to expand...

For the record, I don't believe in abiogenesis -- neither does God.

RickG said:

Evolution only explains change after the beginning of life, not its creation or anything before it.

Click to expand...

Do you know what non-biological evolution is?

RickG said:

Science does not say life came from nothing...

Click to expand...

I never said it did.

RickG said:

... the Torah does.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the Torah, but I strongly disagree. I don't believe the Torah says that at all.

RickG said:

Abiogenesis is not something that happens instantly, it takes considerable time. Conversely, Hebrew creation is "poof...there it is".

Click to expand...

Your word-choice belies your credibility, in my opinion.

You're very specific with your science (abiogenesis), but seem to be a little ... less credible with "poof", instead of the more appropriate, creatio ex materia.

I notice a lot of Internet scientists do that -- being very specific with their science, but less-than-accurate when it comes to the Bible.

razeontherock said:

Rick?! I expect you to present science well, but I didn't expect to see you misrepresent G-d, in any capacity! What gives here?
(You really don't know any better than this?)

Click to expand...

I don't Rick knows the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia.

To him, they're both "poof" -- baby-talk.

AV1611VET said:

Because there was evolution before abiogenesis? 9 billion years worth?

At least you acknowledge that evolution exists

For the record, I don't believe in abiogenesis -- neither does God.

Which God you'll have to be more specific or do you speak for all gods?

Do you know what non-biological evolution is?

Yes, it's something that doesn't have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution

I never said it did.

I haven't read the Torah, but I strongly disagree. I don't believe the Torah says that at all.

I haven't read it but i'll form a strong opinion from a position of ignorance.

It is best to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Your word-choice belies your credibility, in my opinion.

But it's not just your opinion. You speak for God. Do you not remember?

You're very specific with your science (abiogenesis), but seem to be a little ... less credible with "poof", instead of the more appropriate, creatio ex materia[/B]

I notice a lot of Internet scientists do that -- being very specific with their science, but less-than-accurate when it comes to the Bible.

Click to expand...

it's impossible to be accurate with the bible. 38,000 Christian denominations tells us this.

Loudmouth said:

Then I am really baffled as to why you accept creationism. Some creationists say that the Earth is 6,000 years old while others say that it is 4.55 billion years old. Some creationists claim that there are created kinds, while others accept common ancestry. Some creationists claim that there was a recent global flood, while others say that it was a local flood. So please explain why you accept creationism with all of this instability.

Click to expand...

Loudmouth...you need to remember that even your best evolutionary researchers do not have the answers to the how, when, where or why of evolution. All that they agree on is no matter what data is begotton or what is observed it must be fitted into an evolutionary paradigm as that is the central assertion all evolutionary research is based on.

The inability for the various creationists to have a scientifically validiated answer to every question does not detract from the fact that ALL the observed data demonstrates that life must have been created. Timing and minor details about floods is irrelevant. Creationism is stable in this context. All observed data only continues to support the general creationist paradigm that God created life forms. Alternatively, the observed data only provides more conundrums for evolutionists to invent more non plausible scenarios as explanations to keep it alive.

Creationists have irreduceably complex systems as evidence of creation that are handwaved away with 'poofing' scenarios not observed by evolutionists. Creationists have a book that has been shown to reflect a higher intelligence in its' scientific accuracy. Creationists have the fact that abiogenesis has not been demonstrated and is even less likely to occur outside a laboratory set up. Creationists have earth placed at the centre of the universe based on shockwave theory and no need for the mystery of dark matter. Creationists have an earth at the best address for life with not so much as a bacteria evolving elsewhere despite all the rhetoric of a universe strewen with the seeds of life. This is all observed. It takes a host of non plausible scenarios and nonsensical algorithms to turn the evidence for creationism into an evolutionary mystery.

As for the age of the universe and creationism, new earth or old earth, is inconsequensial to the fact of creationism. This is a matter of trusting your dating methods or not, as opposed to various creationists dating methods.

The flood being total or mega is also irrelevant as there are numerous points of scientific accuracy that are not theoretical but are factual eg the washing of hands, the circle of the earth, the earth systems etc. The bible is a credible document regardless of who wrote when or whether the flood was mega or total. All the garble connected to this is also based on current dating and a bunch of people getting around giving there most invaluable opinion with your dates changinf like the wind in response to new crazy algorithmic data.

This thread requests information about what would change ones viewpoint. I have given some idea of how this relates to me.

The fact that there are various creationists does not detract from the fact that the observed evidence supports creationism of some kind. To suggest that creationism is not valid as there are various forms of creationist thinking is akin to saying that as evolutionists are unclear of how or why evolution proceeds also is the invalidation of evolutionist thinking. The observable facts support creation, regardless of timing and minor details. The observable facts do not support evolutionist thinking and require more and more non plausible, theoretical, unobserved, scenarios and convoluted biased non credible algorithms to support it.

Your algorithms are erraneous and non credible. We have already been there on another thread. ALL the observed data supports the creation not only in relation to evolution but also the universe.

I have no further need to debate. I am quite clear that the instability and uncertainly of evolutionary theory discredits same. Likewise what is observed (inability to set an allele for accelerated development in a population of drosophila, disasterous and often fatal interference with changes in germ line mutations, mammalian placenta being a part of an intricate and irreduceably complex system like many others simply hand waved away etc etc) supports the notion that indeed it is impossible that these evolved but must have been created by a means we have yet to understand. Just because I cannot coalesce a creature into being does not mean that a powerfull deity is unable to accomplish this.

So by giving weight to the observable evidence I am clear that creationism is factual and has evidence to support this, regardless of YEC or old earth variations.

I am simply offering a reply to the thread topic. I have no further need to debate the basis of my belief system.

AV1611VET said:

Because there was evolution before abiogenesis? 9 billion years worth?

Click to expand...

I assumed you were talking about biological evolution.

For the record, I don't believe in abiogenesis -- neither does God.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is living from non living. "And God said let there be.." is living from non living.

Do you know what non-biological evolution is?

Click to expand...

That would be change over time of non biological stuff.

I never said it did.

Click to expand...

I know. I just threw that in because most accusations by creationists do say that.

I haven't read the Torah, but I strongly disagree. I don't believe the Torah says that at all.

Click to expand...

Really! The Old Testament is essentially the Torah.

Your word-choice belies your credibility, in my opinion.

You're very specific with your science (abiogenesis), but seem to be a little ... less credible with "poof", instead of the more appropriate, creatio ex materia.

I notice a lot of Internet scientists do that -- being very specific with their science, but less-than-accurate when it comes to the Bible.

Click to expand...

I'm not an Internet scientist, I actually have academic credentials. M.S. in Physical Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis, 1977. Providing any scientific proof to you is always ignored. You have never tried to discuss any of the scientific papers or references I have previously provide. And just because I am not a young earth creationists, it does not make my understanding of the bible any less than yours. I have been a Christian for over 50 years and am an active member in my church, not just a church goer.

According to Wycliffe Bible Translators, Inc. (WBT) Translation Statistics. July 2010: there are some 6900 spoken languages in the world today. The number of new translations into new languages in progress is 1300 and the number languages with a translation of the New Testament is 1,185. The number of languages with a translation of the bible (Protestant Cannon) is 451. Now couple that with more than 38,000 Christian denominations world wide (Source: World Christian Encyclopedia 2001).

In light of that, I rather suspect that neither you, I or anyone has an exclusive on translating, interpreting and understanding the bible 100%.

jay1 says
It's Sunday, you should scurry back to your church. I'm sure there is something else they want to tell you to think!

It is Monday here in Australia.

I am glad to observe you have no more than ridicule to offer in your defence.

LowLight said:

Cool. By judging this discussion on its merits, Loudmouth triumphed because you refused to play ball....You think by declining, you win? No! Fair is fair. It's silly to say the side that intentionally forfeits wins.
.

Click to expand...

I have always walked away from every fistfight for over 50 years now.
I always win.

RickG said:

I assumed you were talking about biological evolution.



Abiogenesis is living from non living. "And God said let there be.." is living from non living.



That would be change over time of non biological stuff.



I know. I just threw that in because most accusations by creationists do say that.



Really! The Old Testament is essentially the Torah.



I'm not an Internet scientist, I actually have academic credentials. M.S. in Physical Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis, 1977. Providing any scientific proof to you is always ignored. You have never tried to discuss any of the scientific papers or references I have previously provide. And just because I am not a young earth creationists, it does not make my understanding of the bible any less than yours. I have been a Christian for over 50 years and am an active member in my church, not just a church goer.

According to Wycliffe Bible Translators, Inc. (WBT) Translation Statistics. July 2010: there are some 6900 spoken languages in the world today. The number of new translations into new languages in progress is 1300 and the number languages with a translation of the New Testament is 1,185. The number of languages with a translation of the bible (Protestant Cannon) is 451. Now couple that with more than 38,000 Christian denominations world wide (Source: World Christian Encyclopedia 2001).

In light of that, I rather suspect that neither you, I or anyone has an exclusive on translating, interpreting and understanding the bible 100%.

Click to expand...

The entirety of evolutionary, so called, science is no more than non credible changing theoretical viewpoints that change like the wind and are mostly based on erraneous algorithmic data that attempts to incapsulate the intricacy of the genome and trying to pass this off as some kind of science. It is a waste of any creationists time to refute your data with other non credible data. I do it simply for fun. To do so is comparable to two evolutionary scientists hitting each other over the head with dead fish and arguing whose fish smells the least.

RickG said:

Abiogenesis is living from non living.

Click to expand...

Then it takes more faith to believe abiogenesis, than it does creationism, doesn't it?

RickG said:

"And God said let there be.." is living from non living.

Click to expand...

With mankind, God didn't say, "Let there be ..."; He said, "Let us make..."

Astridhere said:

It is a waste of any creationists time to refute your data with other non credible data. I do it simply for fun.

Click to expand...

Which means you have no intention of any serious dialogue or exchange of ideas, just biased opinion. Nevertheless, just for fun, describe what you find non credible in the paper below and give supporting evidence for what you call non credibility.

http://dinosaurs.nhm.org/staff/pdf/1998Padian_Chiappe.PDF
(Evolution and Early Evolution of Birds. Padian & Chiappe, Biological Rev. 1998, no. 73)

SkyWriting said:

I have always walked away from every fistfight for over 50 years now.
I always win.

Click to expand...

Loudmouth has not triumphed over anyone. To proffer non credible data as a refute and a refute to the refute from your own evolutionary researchers can go on forever with no resolve. The fact being that at present, in light of current research you lot have no idea and can offer no more than changing theoretical rhetoric and non plausible scenarios as evidence.

The unfortunate fact for evolutionists is all the observed data supports creationist thinking. Creationists do not need to put up the final word as the final word is written in observed evidence that supports creationist thinking.

What you lot need to change creationists thinking is to provide something called observed data. Beak size changes without any changes to underlying dna is somatic adaptation. Eg. How a reptile evolved a beak is not observed. Modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is actual proof that birds existed long before their supposed ancestors and brings the creation of birds closer to the devonian. To say a non placental mammal poofed a placenta just because it must have is hardly observed evidence but rather another demonstration of the non plausible scenarios used to hand wave away obvious evidence for the creation of kinds.

You can woffle on for as many pages as you wish and you still will be unable to provide any credible data to support evolution and you most certainly cannot detract from the fact that the observed data supports creationism.

Facts are facts and they are observed. Creationists have them. Evolutionists do not.

SkyWriting said:

I have always walked away from every fistfight for over 50 years now.
I always win.

Click to expand...

I was copying and pasting bits of CTD's posts into mine. I don't necessarily agree with his words.

Also, impressive fight record.

AV1611VET said:

Then it takes more faith to believe abiogenesis, than it does creationism, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

God's creation was from not from non living? News to me.

With mankind, God didn't say, "Let there be ..."; He said, "Let us make..."

Click to expand...

Let there be is "embedded"

RickG said:

Which means you have no intention of any serious dialogue or exchange of ideas, just biased opinion. Nevertheless, just for fun, describe what you find non credible in the paper below and give supporting evidence for what you call non credibility.

http://dinosaurs.nhm.org/staff/pdf/1998Padian_Chiappe.PDF
(Evolution and Early Evolution of Birds. Padian & Chiappe, Biological Rev. 1998, no. 73)

Click to expand...

1998 seriously...get with the program...

The fact that I offer recent examples and links that support my view simply leave you behind with your head in the sand.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/fig_tab/nature00818_F1.html
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/...eans-earth-may-be-the-center-of-the-universe/

You can offer no more than evolving rubbish as support for evolution. The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself, with no predictive ability and is all that is evolving around here. There is nothing left to debate.

The facts support creationism. Evolutionists are unable to deal with even that fact.

Loudmouth...you need to remember that even your best evolutionary researchers do not have the answers to the how, when, where or why of evolution. All that they agree on is no matter what data is begotton or what is observed it must be fitted into an evolutionary paradigm as that is the central assertion all evolutionary research is based on.

Your best theologians do not have the answer to the how, when, where or why of God. Or if they have please tell me "Why is God?"

The inability for the various creationists to have a scientifically validiated answer to every question does not detract from the fact that ALL the observed data demonstrates that life must have been created. Timing and minor details about floods is irrelevant. Creationism is stable in this context. All observed data only continues to support the general creationist paradigm that God created life forms. Alternatively, the observed data only provides more conundrums for evolutionists to invent more non plausible scenarios as explanations to keep it alive.

Please provide sources of "non plausible"(sic.) scenarios. Please provide the scientific papers that you used in your research that says the only answer to the beginning of life is a creator. The basic tenet of creationism is that a supernatural person named God created the world and everything you learn has to pass through that paradigm ignorinng any evidence to the contrary

Creationists have irreduceably complex systems as evidence of creation that are handwaved away with 'poofing' scenarios not observed by evolutionists. Creationists have a book that has been shown to reflect a higher intelligence in its' scientific accuracy. Creationists have the fact that abiogenesis has not been demonstrated and is even less likely to occur outside a laboratory set up. Creationists have earth placed at the centre of the universe based on shockwave theory and no need for the mystery of dark matter. Creationists have an earth at the best address for life with not so much as a bacteria evolving elsewhere despite all the rhetoric of a universe strewen with the seeds of life. This is all observed. It takes a host of non plausible scenarios and nonsensical algorithms to turn the evidence for creationism into an evolutionary mystery.

Please provide examples of irreducible complexity. Please provide sources where the bible is proven to be from a higher intelligence. I don't know what shockwave theory is please provide scientific paper explaining it. Please provide evidence that there is no life elsewhere. Please provide nonsensical algorithms.

As for the age of the universe and creationism, new earth or old earth, is inconsequensial to the fact of creationism. This is a matter of trusting your dating methods or not, as opposed to various creationists dating methods.

The flood being total or mega is also irrelevant as there are numerous points of scientific accuracy that are not theoretical but are factual eg the washing of hands, the circle of the earth, the earth systems etc. The bible is a credible document regardless of who wrote when or whether the flood was mega or total. All the garble connected to this is also based on current dating and a bunch of people getting around giving there most invaluable opinion with your dates changinf like the wind in response to new crazy algorithmic data.

What has washing hands got to do with the validity of the bible? The dates have been changing because we have learned more. Christianity has also changed like the wind. If you would like sources please ask

This thread requests information about what would change ones viewpoint. I have given some idea of how this relates to me.

What would change your mind?

The fact that there are various creationists does not detract from the fact that the observed evidence supports creationism of some kind. To suggest that creationism is not valid as there are various forms of creationist thinking is akin to saying that as evolutionists are unclear of how or why evolution proceeds also is the invalidation of evolutionist thinking. The observable facts support creation, regardless of timing and minor details. The observable facts do not support evolutionist thinking and require more and more non plausible, theoretical, unobserved, scenarios and convoluted biased non credible algorithms to support it.

please provide examples that do not support evolution

Your algorithms are erraneous and non credible. We have already been there on another thread. ALL the observed data supports the creation not only in relation to evolution but also the universe.

I have no further need to debate. I am quite clear that the instability and uncertainly of evolutionary theory discredits same. Likewise what is observed (inability to set an allele for accelerated development in a population of drosophila, disasterous and often fatal interference with changes in germ line mutations, mammalian placenta being a part of an intricate and irreduceably complex system like many others simply hand waved away etc etc) supports the notion that indeed it is impossible that these evolved but must have been created by a means we have yet to understand. Just because I cannot coalesce a creature into being does not mean that a powerfull deity is unable to accomplish this.

Explanation of the evolution of the placenta A Review of Placentation among Reptiles with, particular regard to the Function and Evolution of the Placenta. - Weekes - 2009 - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London - Wiley Online Library

Please provide evidence of your other claims

So by giving weight to the observable evidence I am clear that creationism is factual and has evidence to support this, regardless of YEC or old earth variations

If you have really weighed the facts then please give your evidence for your claims.

When i have the evidence you put forward i can review it. Then we can go forward in discussion.

i apologise, i believe my previous post was rude.

i look forward to your reply

AV1611VET said:

Then it takes more faith to believe abiogenesis, than it does creationism, doesn't it?

Based on what scale? How does one measure faith to make that claim?

With mankind, God didn't say, "Let there be ..."; He said, "Let us make..."

Click to expand...

You can't prove God exists but you know what he said 6000 years ago verbatim. *cough*Rubbish*cough*

Figure 1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature

This article actually helps prove evolution. I don't understand how this shows a creator. Having evidence for "bird-like" creatures at about the time that birds were thought to evolve. Wow crazy

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Go back and look at the original article. Nowhere does it mention god. All you did there was link to a pastors interpretation of it. What are your thoughts on this?

jay1 I have made my point numerous times on CF. If you are one of these evolutionists that get around with your head in the clouds pretending evolutionary assertions are solid then you are too uneducated for me to even bother with to tell you honestly.

I provided examples of requested links in my initial post here. Why do you lot continue to ignore links and carry on as if living in a dream time.

Here is one of them. If you want something to do to further waste your time then deliberate this article. Let me tell you ahead that anything you put up as a refute to support any theoretical assertion I can again refute or challenge with other research from your own. This is the wonderful joy of evolutionary science ..it is as clear as mud.


reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
.

It is not a matter of whom is right or wrong. It is a matter of fact that any proposed theoretical evidence you provide today could be in the rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past tomorow eg human knucklewalking ancestry, junk DNA, brain size tied to bipedalism, the demise of the famous LUCA with HGT.

Do you really want to start hitting each other in the face with dead fish? Maybe AV can arbitrate whose fish is the least smelly.

Astridhere said:

1998 seriously...get with the program...

The fact that I offer recent examples and links that support my view simply leave you behind with your head in the sand.

Figure 1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

You can offer no more than evolving rubbish as support for evolution. The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself, with no predictive ability and is all that is evolving around here. There is nothing left to debate.

The facts support creationism. Evolutionists are unable to deal with even that fact.

Click to expand...

I provided a link to a PDF document in the peer review literature asking you to show what was not credible about it. You respond by giving a link to the Journal Nature which supports evolution 100%, not your position. The other article is a news article about a person who thinks the earth is the center of the universe.

Are you interested in a serious dialogue or not?