Imagine if you believed in a flat earth 500 years ago and said that as confidently?
If you believed the Earth was flat 500 years ago, you would be 1500 years behind.
And, your belief would not account for observable data. It would not make accurate predictions. It would not yield any workable results.
Can you give us an example of an invention based on flat earth? Can you give us a paper written by any flat earth believers which adequately accounts for oceans?
We are confident in evolution not because we want to be confident in something. We are confident in evolution because evolution accurately explains existing data, it accurately predicts future data, and it yield real world workable products.
Can you say the same for Creationism? Creationism can't account for existing data. It can't predict any future findings. And in THOUSANDS of years it has yet to yield a single product.
IMO, this is v short sighted and incorrect. The flat earth people were fully and equally intelligent for their time, and had no way of rejecting a flat earth.
Wrong. Eratosthenes in 240BC measured the Earth's circumference. To claim that people 1500 years later had "no way of rejecting a flat earth" is just ***.
Every one of us would come to the same conclusion in their times: tell us why the earth is not flat without a telescope?
You can see the curve of the Earth on the horizon. Ships at see are spotted by their sails first, not their hulls. The shadow of the Earth during a lunar eclipse is round. Water would pour off the edge of a flat Earth.
There's 4 observations off the top of my head in 30 seconds. Not one of which requires a telescope.
1. Evolution does NOT explain existing data
Of course it does. We look at measurements of change in a population over time. Evolution explains those changes. That's existing data which is explained by evolution.
There is Creationist explanation which accounts for changes in populations.
Evolution comes from genesis
3. Evolution is a later development in the universe, preceded by a host of factors which anticipate life
4. Evolution is the wiring process in a directive program
Here's a tip, you can't just make claims like this without offering ANYTHING to back them up. I don't need to present any evidence to disprove your complete lack of evidence. I just need to tell you you are wrong.
Today, most humans are behaving exactly like the ancients who bowed to thunder and made it their deity
Correct, the majority of humans believe in mythical wizards like "God" or "Shiva" and bow to them asking for magical favors or to protect them from natural events.
That's what the Creationists do.
Creationism is far superior and a far greater science
Then it should have produced at least one working product in the last 2000 years. What has Creationism produced? What new medicine? What new invention? What new treatment?
We've been asking and asking, surely you must have SOMETHING that Creationism is solely responsible for.
Its the only document humanity possesses which did (make predictions) - numerously.
Name one fossil which was predicted by Creationism. Name one previously undiscovered species which was predicted by Creationism. Name one complication of medicine which was predicted by Creationism?
I stand by my statement. Creationism has never made a single successful prediction about future data.
Most all products we call science stems from the Hebrew bible; it KO'd Zeus and Jupiters when humanity was ready and introduced Monotheism
... which the Jews stole from the Egyptians. So, really, what you are arguing is that Ra is the one true God and that the Jews had it wrong.
Basically, you just shot your entire argument in the foot.
The rest of your claims are also about Judaism not Creationism.
Are you changing your argument from Creationism should be taught in science class to Judaism should be taught in science class?
Seriously? Maybe you should take a moment and figure out exactly what you are trying to argue, cuz right now you are coming across more than a little retarded.
Mutation rates are subject to a directive program [laws]; once there was no mutation and no laws. You have to give a scenario how something can mutate w/o respective laws before you align with any science.
I don't have to give a scenario as to how something can happen without "respective laws" until you can demonstrate that such laws ACTUALLY exist.
You are the one making the claim here, it's your job to prove it.
Take your best shot, then I'll tell you why you are wrong.
Yes. Laws embedded in base particles.
What laws? How are those "Creationism Beams"? You are supposed to be describing a mechanism of Creationism. Something that we can point at an empty box and have a giraffe come out.
There is no evolution on Mars, our closest neighbour, despite almost every element found there as on earth. Thus evolution is critically focused on this planet,
Error 1: You don't know there is no evolution on Mars. Right now, the best you can say is that we have not detected life on Mars.
Error 2: You are using a set of exactly 2 planets out of literally an uncountable number of planets and saying "because there isn't like on A, therefore B must be magic". WRONG.
Error 3: You are claiming that evolution is "critically focused" on Earth as if evolution could only occur here and not on some other planet where there is also life. I admit that right now we don't have evidence of life on other planets, however that does not mean that there is none. We've examined Earth and found life. We've peaked at Mars. We've done just about nothing else.
light and darkness on this planet which produces equal sleep time for life forms [unlike the 12 year dark nights on Jupiter]
Error 4: You are saying that Earth has equal day/night and that Jupiter doesn't because Jupiter has 12 year long nights. How long are Jupiter's days? Busted.
Attributes embedded which cause changes in fermentation processes which create a reaction on human livers - something like that.
Error 5: You are claiming that the above happens within a fetus regardless of exposure to alcohol. Exactly HOW is the fermentation process effecting the fetus without the fetus being exposed to the fermentation?
Why introduce chernoble? I never said that one cannot disrupt a system if they tried. You have not taken the bait, it was not a bait but a simple question. You cannot explain reproduction with environemental FX.
Error 6: You are claiming that the environment can not effect reproduction. Try having a child after walking around Chernobyl. CLEARLY that environment is going to have an effect on reproduction.
Man, you really screwed this whole post up. You should take more time and maybe get a little help from a grown up before you post.
But all laws the world accepts and turns by, such as judiciary, ethics, morality, animal rights laws, copyright laws, women's rights, liberty, inalienable human rights, slaves converted to contracted wirkers with rights - are contained exclusively in the Hebrew bible - all of them - in their entirety.
Wrong, but more importantly completely irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with Evolution. None of it provides any evidence for Creationism.
At _BEST_ you can say that human societies are built on a few simple principles like "don't kill each other" and "don't take other people's stuff". Hardly exclusive to the Jews.
When we speak of how life emerged, there is no way this can be credible without the actions before life listed in Genesis
Genesis claims that people are made of clay. People are not made of clay. Beginning middle and end of your claim right there.
there is no evidence of life [as opposed 'proof'] in the known universe for 15 Billion years; no imprints whatsoever.
There aren't enough zeros in the internet to describe mathematically how little of the Universe we've explored. You are drawing you conclusions based on the less than 1% of Mars we've explored. We've done NO exploration of any of the other planets, NO exploration of any moons other than a small fragment of our own.
You are drawing conclusions not supported by evidence.
A first hand actual survey of the known universe confirms this:
Wow. Now you are claiming that you know someone who has searched the ENTIRE UNIVERSE PERSONALLY.
What's his name?
At this time, till you come up with life - Genesis wins.
Life exists. Look around you. You lose.
The fact is humans cannot surive on Jupiter's ratio of day and night.
First of all, the day/night ratio on Jupiter is NOT a factor in human survival there. Second, who gives a crap if humans are effected by the ratio, we don't live there. It only matters to whatever life LIVES on jupiter.
You are trying (and FAILING) to argue that we live on Earth because we fit Earth's day/night schedule - in other words, "It's a miracle that puddles all find the right sized holes".
The evidence denies random.
Who claims anything is random? Are you aware of the word "selection" and what it means?
This is a ridiculous statement.
Hey, you are the one trying to argue that fetal alcohol syndrome happens in the absence of alcohol. I'm just giving you enough rope to hang yourself. It's not my fault you're sounding ***. If you dont' want to sound ***, stop saying *** things.
Chernoble and abortion are not environmental factors
Chernobyl is a CITY. Are you REALLY going to claim that a CITY is NOT an environment. Show me ON YOUR BODY where your Chernobyl is located.
Remember what I said a second about about not saying *** things. Go back and read it again.
I don't bow to a diety called Nature - the antithesis of science.
No, you bow to "Yahweh the Jew Wizard" because your mommy told you to and you think your mommy is always right.
I am grown up;
Uh huh. Yet here you are crying like a baby and screaming for your mommy. Very convincing.
You've written a lot of *** shit and apparently are only interested in repeating the same flawed claims over and over again. As such, I'm going to scrap most of that crap and just focus on one particularly golden turd of your "logic".
Do you understand what it means when we have not a trace or imprint of life in the known universe for 15 Billion years?
Your argument APPARENTLY (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that since we have yet to discover life elsewhere in the Universe, there is no other life in the Universe.
What percentage of the Universe have we adequately searched, in your opinion? 50%? 75%?
Wrong - I am correcting you. I am saying the evidence favors no life.
And the "evidence" consists of...
Out of HOW many possible planets?
Now if you have a 100 story building and are looking for green monkeys, you can say the tower is too big for you to check. Then you only check three floors, a reasonable solution since you cannot possibly traverse all floors - and you find no green monkeys.
The probability factor says there are no monkeys in all 100 levels.
If you lose your keys, do you check one pocket in one pair of pants and then conclude that your keys don't exist?
Till then, you are wrong: there is no life out there.
Well that rules out Genesis. No life out there means no God.
It's obsevable you say? The scienctific method? But, in order to make a point, you suspend all that by saying you cannot check the whole universe? LOL. Well, in that case all the fossils that have been found should not be evidence since there has to be MILLIONS more right? How can one make such a conclusion with only 1% of the fossil evidence?
Wow, and I thought Joseph was a problem.
Do you _REALLY_ not understand the difference between evidence and lack of evidence? REALLY?
Joseph is trying to claim that because 1% of the surface of Mars doesn't have life, then the ENTIRE REST OF THE UNIVERSE must not contain life.
Now you are trying to claim that because we HAVE EVIDENCE of evolution, evolution must be false because there is MORE evidence for up to obtain.
These are fundamental misunderstandings that can't be corrected by someone smarter than you telling you the right answer. You need to go back to step one and get an education.