What proof would you need?

[AV1611VET]

I find it strange that creationists ... refuse to answer questions about creationism.
So what are you all doing here?

Proving you wrong.

 

[Exial]

Rose colored glasses much?

Well, I'm sure she would find some who would listen to her and look over her "data", others who would ignore her or dismiss her and all the rest inbetween. A plethora of potential respones to be expected when asking a question of a human. Scientists are human you know.

Sez the guy who frequents CF

Indeed.

You didn't reply to my last post, are you going to reply to this one? or are making cheap points your forte?

 

[razeontherock]

Ya gots ta give me somethin to work with, mang

 

[Belk]

Proving you wrong.

Asserting "I'm right!" over and over again is considered proof now is it?

 

[1Prophetess]

Death.

It is the only way that I would be convinced.

I have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior. How can I deny that?

I've often thought, if someone said, "If you don't deny Christ, I will kill you." How can I do that? It would be like denying that my mother is my mother--even more. It would be like denying I breathe.

Sure I can say, "Okay, don't kill me. I don't breathe." But it would be a lie. Sure, I can lie, but it won't be the truth.

The truth is that Jesus is Lord. Jesus is alive, and I am alive because of Him.

Praise be to the Lord--the Creator of Heaven and Earth!

 

[Exial]

My doubt was well placed in you raze.

 

[AV1611VET]

Asserting "I'm right!" over and over again is considered proof now is it?

No, I don't assert you're right; unless you're right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Death.

It is the only way that I would be convinced.

I have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior. How can I deny that?

I've often thought, if someone said, "If you don't deny Christ, I will kill you." How can I do that? It would be like denying that my mother is my mother--even more. It would be like denying I breathe.

Sure I can say, "Okay, don't kill me. I don't breathe." But it would be a lie. Sure, I can lie, but it won't be the truth.

The truth is that Jesus is Lord. Jesus is alive, and I am alive because of Him.

Praise be to the Lord--the Creator of Heaven and Earth!

AMEN!

 

[Jazer]

Your science?

You must be joking. I don't owe you an explanation

Really so many people come on here expecting to be spoon fed. They want others to put all the time into the research while they sit back and do nothing.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm fond of telling these guys that their preoccupation with Christianity should be considered as evidence for the existence of God.

I'm on a Star Trek board as well. Do you think the fact that there are debates there on how a certain character acts means Star Trek is real?

 

[razeontherock]

If you doubt that, you have apparently not been to a trekkie convention!

 

[Tiberius]

I have been to many, actually.

Nonetheless, my point remains. It is possible to debate something that does not exist.

 

[CTD]

Trying to put together a coherent analogy - does this mean it makes sense to frequent the trek boards telling trekkies there's no such thing as a Klingon?

Can't quite make it work.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm on a Star Trek board as well. Do you think the fact that there are debates there on how a certain character acts means Star Trek is real?

Yes -- Star Trek is real fake.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trying to put together a coherent analogy - does this mean it makes sense to frequent the trek boards telling trekkies there's no such thing as a Klingon?

Can't quite make it work.

ZING!
​

 

[Split Rock]

ZING!
​

Dude... I think you are starting to use ZING!
a little too much.... just say'in....

 

[AV1611VET]

Dude... I think you are starting to use ZING!
a little too much.... just say'in....

-- sorry!

I get carried away sometimes!

 

[Astridhere]

Your science?

You must be joking. I don't owe you an explanation, I owe no alleigence to any scientific theory including evolution and your constant demands for me to refute your infomation are bordering on arrogance. Why don't you take your infomation to someone who actually cares. I'm sure any reasonable scientist will give you the time of day to assess your data, if you are sincere in your claims.
Why don't you just fess up and admit you have no idea!
I just see no reason why you take your case to an obscure internet forum instead of a relevant educational or scientific society? It makes no sense to me.
Well deary, this is a forum and the best of you have no explanation, so don't feel too bad.
Please do not waste your time responding to this with further demands for me to look over your infomation, I truly do not care.

Evos like nothing better than to show creationists the errors of their ways. The fact that you and other evos have been unable to answer the conundrum of fossil evidence that supports both ancestry to chimp like and non chimp like is conclusive evidence that you have no idea and wish to save face by replying with throw offs.

Creationists have heard more than their share of evolutionists bla bla bla.

You lot cannot go on with pride in your evidence for evolution if you are unable to explain one important query. My point is established. You lot can woffle on and on without any substance or understanding of your own quasy evidence for human ancestry.

You lot talk on endlessly about your great evidence for human evolution. It is a folley. The fossil evidence, up until the discovery of Ardi, was all about how mankind evolved from a chimp like ancestor. Ardi apparently changed all that. Yet you are unable to explain how the fossil evidence supports ancestry to a chimp-like creature as well as a creature that indeed looks nothing like a chimp. You lot fail at being able to substantiate your assertions. No amount of woffle and evasive strategies will change this fact.

Your entire evolutionary science is based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of both the fossil and genomic evidence. Mankind is a case in point. Your evo scientists should be ashamed of themselves and pack up and get the heck out of laboratories taking their ridiculous algorithms and mythical extrapolations of facts into fiction with them.

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

Here is another creationist laugh for the day.


Australopithecus sediba has a relatively long thumb. The hand suggests that he may have had the capacity to manufacture and use complex tools. (Credit: University of Zurich; Peter Schmid)
Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin

So now this thing, Sediba, is meant to be a tool user. Just look at the hand. Human like, they call it. Have you creationists ever heard of such a stupid, desperate and ridiculous claim? These evolutionists obviously have no idea what human-like actually means yet the term litters libraries of evolutionary literature. Evolutionary scientists have no idea what the common ancestor looks like and are therefore unable to make any substantiated claim outside of a changing wish list they call evidence.

Rather, as a creationist I can plainly see what they have found is simply another variety of ape like Turkana Boy and other erectus, ergaster and habilis. They are all apes that evo researchers have desperately tried to humanize in search of fame and glory.

The Leakey's are leaders of the pack. They have already misrepresented the reconstruction of the rudolfensis skull. They present Turkana Boy, the ape as human, and gloss over such concerns such as having an extra ape verterbra by a hand wave, they dismiss his ape head that looks just like Ardi the ape on side view yet attribute a larger brain size to a comparatively same shaped skull, they dismiss his small neural canal, they dismiss findings that erectus demonstrates huge sexual dimorphism in the fossil record just like most apes. Indeed they dismisss any feature that demonstrates Turkana Boy, Erectus, is just another variety of ape in their desperation.

New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo

If you lot are unable to explain the difference in the fossil record supporting both a chimp like ancestor and an ancestor that looks nothing like a chimp you have no evidence at all to present to us. Your inability to mount some sort of plausible explanation is substantiated evidence that the fossil record says nothing at all about human ancestry and could be used to demonstrate anything evolutionists dream up.

Additionally, I think that if your fossils were held up as demonstrating a connection to the chimpanzee initially, then it is more likely that these fossils are chimp ancestors or relatives and have nothing at all to do with human ancestry. This would also explain the lack of chimp ancestors in the fossil record.

The fossil evidence demonstrates the creation of the ape kind and mankind as separate creations. There are no intermediates, which confirms the creationist prediction that there will be no intermediates between kinds and the same can be said for any taxon. Modern birds predate their ancestors, tetrapods predate tiktaalic and are dated to just after the Devonian at 400mya, and coelecanth was not walking anywhere when found alive and well

I have no need to reconsider my view as the observed evidence supports creation not evolution. I think it is evolutionists that seriously need to reconsider their views.

 

[Loudmouth]

All established creationist camps have their theories which are stable.

Each camp disagrees with each other, which makes it unstable by your own criteria.

There is nothing left for me to say as regards the thread topic, other than evolutionists will have to do a heck of a lot better than this to get me to reconsider my view.

So let's review what you require of evolution. First, you require that they keep the same explanation no matter what. Second, that they enforce this explanation even in the light of new evidence. Third, that they do so for some arbitrary amount of time.

The only criticism you can level at the theory of evolution is that it is not dogmatic. You complain that species are reconstructed from a single bone, and yet you reconstruct an entire species from a foot print. You complain that scientists disagree with one another, and yet you ignore the same disagreements within creationism.

Frankly, there is no evidence that will convince you. I think we can all see that.

If observed science is not going to make an evolutionist reconsider their view we will just have to accept they will remain in story land with libraries of books that tell fantastic, non credible and non plausible stories they call science. This is their signature.

How can you say this when you cite scientists who change their mind as a reason NOT to accept the theory?

 

[SkyWriting]

I have been to many, actually.Nonetheless, my point remains. It is possible to debate something that does not exist.

Then I propose that dark matter and energy is the effect of multiverses that lie just outside of our reality. Though the number may be infinite, the number of versions that are close to our reality is limited for some reason, so the effect on our reality is somewhat constant. Therefore the effects are predictable even though the source of the effect is outside of our perception.