Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for creation theory
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 271 of 307 (412892)
07-26-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
07-26-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Ray's failures to respond documented.
RAZD writes:
http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory
Your reply is a non-sequitur. But I must assume that it is, nonetheless, intentional.
Why has RAZD evaded my question?
No, Ray: you are the one avoiding the question. You can try to hide the pea all you want, and make assertions all you want. The evidence of the posts show that your arguments are full of logical fallacies ... to the point where you have stopped trying to respond to the ones where I point them out. Such as Message 231
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was that Creationism is a major view - that's all.
So you agree that it is a logical fallacy and is not evidence for biblical creationism. Good.
And logic is not a fallacy.
Good (true) logic does not use fallacies, bad (false) logic does.
... evolutionists routinely remind the world that the vast majority of working biologists are evolutionists, does your "Appeal to Popularity" apply when evos make this appeal?
Yes. And the appeal to authority as well. So? Are you really surprised that evolutionary biologists are evolutionary biologists? This does not make evolution wrong, just that this alone is not evidence for evolution.
Design corresponding to invisible Designer means that any Deity could be the Designer.
If it is true. Because the logical structure is faulty it doesn't have to be true: it is also possible that apparent design is just that ... it appears to be design in the eye of the beholder. One view looks through a kaleidoscope and sees design, the other view looks at the jumbled bits and the mirrors and sees random processes producing the appearance of design.
Biblical superiority or the identification of the Genesis Deity to be the Designer comes via Comparative Religion.
The Bible is true because what it says corresponds to reality, whether historic, scientific, visible or personal reality.
Oh goody: now we are finally going to get real evidence ...
Test me: identify anything real that no one can deny and I will show you that the Bible explains it perfectly?
Oops. YOU were supposed to provide the evidence Ray.
But hey, just for fun: SN1987A is geometrically calculated to be 168,000 light-years away. The nova produced cobalt-56 which decayed according to the 77 day half-life we know from experiments here on earth. The frequency distribution of the light spectrum showed that it was cobalt-56 AND that the time intervals for those frequencies matched those on earth. This means that the speed of light can also be calculated from SN1987A for the time of the nova and it matches the speed of light we calculate now here on earth. This means that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Thus the universe is at least 168,000 years old ...
Your turn. Tell me how the bible explains the distance to this nova, cobalt-56 formation, radioactive decay, stellar novas, frequency distributions of light for different elements AND the age of the universe.
Once design is accepted as real then we say that the Biblical God is the Designer.
OOPS: big logical error! You can say it all you want to, but you are missing the key step in the logical structure:
Premise 1: Design is Real
Premise 2: (missing)
Conclusion: Biblical God is the Designer
Where is your link, your premise #2? Without it your conclusion is invalid.
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
This means Darwinism is false and special creation remains true. Do you understand what I am saying?
I understand that you have been unable to refute the issue of your arguments all being logical fallacies. I understand that you have now introduced another logical fallacy, the False Dilemma
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third option is that creation is true (your design=designer argument) AND that all life evolved on earth in accordance with the science of evolution because that was the way the universe was created. You have still not eliminated that possibility.
I understand that you have no evidence or logic to substantiate your assertions that involve biblical creation.
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Again, once design is validated as real then God is proven to exist. Special creation has always been true, RAZD. Common ancestry is falsified on so many lines of evidence it is ridiculous. Nested heirarchies do not even exist. When the data is examined, it does not support the claims.
Denial of evidence does not make it so. Nature is surprisingly not influenced by your personal opinion. You need to demonstrate that this is anything but personal opinion, and you do that by providing evidence.
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Innuendo.
Failure to refute and all that eh Ray? Absolute failure to refute. Logic is really fairly simple to use, Ray ... if you follow the rules.
Enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You failed to respond to that, and I repeated it on Message 262 and you have failed so far to respond to that.
Inability to answer, maybe?
Hoist on your own petard, Ray: inability to answer is failure to refute. You are the one failing to respond. Documented not just asserted (do you notice the difference?).
Notice your brave challenge in Message 227 has been avoided when it was answered:
Test me: identify anything real that no one can deny and I will show you that the Bible explains it perfectly?
My answer in Message 231 was:
But hey, just for fun: SN1987A is geometrically calculated to be 168,000 light-years away. The nova produced cobalt-56 which decayed according to the 77 day half-life we know from experiments here on earth. The frequency distribution of the light spectrum showed that it was cobalt-56 AND that the time intervals for those frequencies matched those on earth. This means that the speed of light can also be calculated from SN1987A for the time of the nova and it matches the speed of light we calculate now here on earth. This means that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Thus the universe is at least 168,000 years old ...
Your turn. Tell me how the bible explains the distance to this nova, cobalt-56 formation, radioactive decay, stellar novas, frequency distributions of light for different elements AND the age of the universe.
Failure to respond Ray?
And you STILL have not provided evidence linking your assertion of evidence of design to biblical creationism.
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Failure to respond Ray?
Nothing but failure to respond while trying desperately to change the topic to hide the fact that you have failed to respond, eh Ray?
Avoiding the issue is failure to respond Ray.
The topic of the thread is "Most convincing evidence for creation theory" and it has been pointed out that the ONLY thing presented so far are logical fallacies. The proper response is to present evidence, but you have not done this.
Failure to respond Ray.
Inability to answer?
Total misrepresentation, clutter and mindless spamming with sporadic bursts of ranting (= large case lettering).
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 4:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 5:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 272 of 307 (412893)
07-26-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by ringo
07-26-2007 5:04 PM


Re: Best Positive Evidence
Since the topic is about evidence for creation theory, I'm curious as to why creationists don't seem to be adding any new evidence. For example, why aren't they doing experimnents to show that their speculations about "canopy effects" are correct? How about a giant terrarium with controlled atmosphere and lighting conditions to show that those can effect longevity?
Good point.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 07-26-2007 5:04 PM ringo has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 273 of 307 (412896)
07-26-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Ray's failures to respond documented.
Total misrepresentation, clutter and mindless spamming with sporadic bursts of ranting (= large case lettering).
Inability to refute. Avoiding the issue. Desperate assertions. Trying to deflect the argument from your failure to respond. Denial is not an answer Ray, it is only a way for you to avoid confronting your failure to respond. Cognitive dissonance.
You can't even follow up on your own challenge. Your argument is bankrupt.
Why can't you provide REAL evidence Ray?
Enjoy.
Over 270 posts so far and no real evidence for "creation theory" ...

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:45 PM RAZD has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 274 of 307 (412897)
07-26-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by NosyNed
07-26-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Comprehending Evidence
A book is not evidence.
The object itself - no - of course not. Its written contents - yes, of course.
Books written by Gould, Dawkins or Myers are not evidence for evolution.
Semantics game? Their contents contain alleged evidence for evolution, why else did they write them?
The Bible isn't evidence for anything other than what some people have written.
neo-Darwinian philosophy.
What is evidence is the hard, reproducibly observable measurements and things referenced in such books.
Then the Bible qualifies by this criteria and description.
Also evidence is clear, step by step logic using the measurements and things to arrive at conclusions which can be reviewed by other to see if the steps are indeed reasonable and if the conclusions are tied to more basic observations.
Now all you need to do is educate your own kind (RAZD and Straggler) to this generic methodology.
There is no special case here for the Bible; either for it or against it. It is simple NOT, in and of itself, evidence for anything about the world around us.
Well known Atheist philosophy.
Since the Bible (what it says) corresponds to reality, in all aspects, you are mistaken.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2007 4:36 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by ringo, posted 07-26-2007 5:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 9:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 275 of 307 (412898)
07-26-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by RAZD
07-26-2007 5:38 PM


Re: RAZDs failures to respond documented.
http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 5:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 6:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 276 of 307 (412899)
07-26-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 5:39 PM


Re: Comprehending Evidence
Cold Fusion Object writes:
What is evidence is the hard, reproducibly observable measurements and things referenced in such books.
Then the Bible qualifies by this criteria and description.
That's what I was getting at. Where are those "hard, reproducibly observable measurements"? How can you reproduce measurements without doing experiments?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 277 of 307 (412903)
07-26-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 5:08 PM


Re: The Evidence
THREE EVOLUTIONISTS WRITE:
That this is the best evidence, but not that it is good evidence. What you have is bad (at best) evidence.
For every evolutionist who has played the "where is the evidence?" card it was posted in message #91.
And each of those pieces of "evidence" has been discussed to show they are
(1) logical fallacies or
(2) misrepresentation of the evidence
1. The Bible.
The bible is not evidence, certainly it cannot be used as evidence that the bible is true -- that is a logical fallacy of begging the question. It's like saying that the theory of evolution is evidence that the theory of evolution is true.
What you need is evidence that the bible is true. That has not been presented.
2. Appearance (said word is neutral) of design in reality and nature.
The appearance of design can only be used once you have eliminated the possibility of random processes producing the appearance of design, This has not been done. Without that evidence the assertion that this is evidence of a designer is the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
3. Cambrian explosion.
Misrepresentation of the evidence. Not only is this not an "explosion" but this is also preceded by evidence of earlier life, AND there is no evidence of "special creation" of fish, reptiles, mammals, and certainly not of any humans. There is no connection of this to "creation theory" that matches anything in the bible.
4. Existence of Irreducible complexity.
As with the appearance of design this can only be evidence once it is shown that such systems cannot be developed by normal evolutionary processes. This of course cannot be proven seeing as it has been invalidated: an "Irreducibly Complex" system has been observed to evolve. Thus this cannot be used as evidence for "creation theory" ... even if you can link it (not done) to biblical creation.
5. Lack of species transitionality seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth.
Another misrepresentation. There are many examples of transitional fossils. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away Ray, it just means that you cannot confront the evidence.
6. Great Pyramid containing major Biblical claims in its physical passage system and measurements thousands of years before the Bible was written.
Written by the people that built the pyramids Ray? Wow, that is impressive. I realize this is one of your pet bete noir Ray, and that it has been dealt with before ... and that your claims have been refuted before.
Conclusion:
This is the BEST evidence creationists can provide ... after over 270 posts ... and it is rife with error, falsehoods and logical fallacies and void of fact.
There is no evidence here.
Where is the REAL evidence Ray, not just assertions of opinions, but the solid reality based evidence?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 7:56 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 278 of 307 (412907)
07-26-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 5:45 PM


Ray's CONTINUED failures to respond documented.
Already answered Ray. What you have is not evidence, but a mixture of logical fallacies, misrepresentations and falsehoods. It is opinion, not fact. Evidence is facts, not opinion.
This still fails to respond to Message 231, that makes four opportunities that you have missed Ray.
Once again you try to avoid the issue. Failure to respond.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 279 of 307 (412916)
07-26-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 5:08 PM


Re: The Evidence
We now have a group of evolutionists asserting that design = invisible Designer is somehow illogical.
Of course. Many designed objects have designers who are perfectly visible.
And, of course, many things which appear designed have no designer at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 280 of 307 (412919)
07-26-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by RAZD
07-26-2007 6:14 PM


Re: The Evidence
That this is the best evidence, but not that it is good evidence. What you have is bad (at best) evidence.
Three evolutionists disagree. You are out of step with your people, placing your hands over your ears, and babbling incoherently the same drivel over and over.
And each of those pieces of "evidence" has been discussed to show they are
(1) logical fallacies or
(2) misrepresentation of the evidence
Negative, they are no such thing. What has happened is that you have mindlessly asserted against all sound logic that design does not indicate or correspond to Designer. Objective persons, which, of course, include the three evolutionists know that it is not a matter of opinion: appearance of design logically corresponds to work of a Designer.
We know that evolutionists disagree. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is that this positive evidence has been presented. In response your argument has solely focussed on severe illogic, if not perverted logic, which says "where design is observed it is illogical to deduce that a Designer is responsible." In response to this I simply say that it is pure illogic and nothing more needs to be said on my end. But you are soundly routed by this logic and have abused your freedom to post by spamming the debate with "logic" that is not logic and demanding that it be held as logic.
I am very glad to see this. It gives onlookers an excellent taste of how deluded (or dishonest) the average Darwinist is. Design indicates Designer, it is perfectly logical and nature exudes design on a scale ungaugeable in the positive sense.
In reply, the Darwinist must assert that the appearance of design, contrary to all logic and intuition, corresponds to an antonym: anti-intelligence natural selection, or in other words, extreme Atheist nonsense.
The bible is not evidence....
Atheist philosophy.
The bible is not evidence, certainly it cannot be used as evidence that the bible is true -- that is a logical fallacy of begging the question. It's like saying that the theory of evolution is evidence that the theory of evolution is true.
Contradiction.
Nobody argued for the straw man circular argument that you have set up.
The issue was: The Bible IS evidence for Creationism. Would you like me to paste some verses? We know Atheists reject the Bible, RAZD, which means you reject evidence or you guys are saying "evidence is only that which supports our worldview." Very biased criteria.
If the Bible does not support your theory (and it most certainly does not) then on this level your theory is fucking false as a four dollar bill.
What you need is evidence that the bible is true.
Five items on said list say the Bible is true.
The appearance of design can only be used once you have eliminated the possibility of random processes producing the appearance of design, This has not been done.
Comment presupposes that the appearance is on the defensive. Evolutionary processes are eliminated as a possible source because the same claims that intelligence is not involved in nature. This means we have an overwhelming appearance of design in nature asserted to be the product of the opposite of intelligence or "design = unconscious process" which is extreme and gross illogic.
We say design indicates invisible Designer.
You say "design" produced by non-intelligence.
Your view is senseless.
Bat sonar, electric fish, the human brain, humming birds, the product of something that is unconscious?
This is Atheism.
Misrepresentation of the evidence. Not only is this not an "explosion" but this is also preceded by evidence of earlier life, AND there is no evidence of "special creation" of fish, reptiles, mammals, and certainly not of any humans. There is no connection of this to "creation theory" that matches anything in the bible.
The CE is exactly that. Again, you are relying on perverted logic. The CE corresponds perfectly to Genesis special creation. What more could the Creationist want? We could not ask for better evidence for Genesis.
As with the appearance of design this can only be evidence once it is shown that such systems cannot be developed by normal evolutionary processes. This of course cannot be proven seeing as it has been invalidated: an "Irreducibly Complex" system has been observed to evolve. Thus this cannot be used as evidence for "creation theory" ... even if you can link it (not done) to biblical creation.
By definition, IC means non-evolvable. If it exists (and it does) then the main claim of evolution (gradualism) is falsified.
Another misrepresentation. There are many examples of transitional fossils. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away Ray, it just means that you cannot confront the evidence.
The main claim of your theory is not seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth. Punctuated equilibria says species stasis corresponds to intervals of rapid evolution. But the point here is stasis and at face value microevolution is not seen. Why? Because evolution is not true, that's why.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 6:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2007 8:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2007 9:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2007 10:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 281 of 307 (412925)
07-26-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 7:56 PM


Re: The Evidence
Three evolutionists disagree.
They did not say that it was good evidence. You are a liar.
The issue was: The Bible IS evidence for Creationism.
Is the Qur'aan also evidence for Creationism? How about the Book of Mormon?
In reply, the Darwinist must assert that the appearance of design, contrary to all logic and intuition, corresponds to an antonym: anti-intelligence natural selection, or in other words, extreme Atheist nonsense.
When you pretend that evolution is atheistic, we all know you're lying, you realise that?
By definition, IC means non-evolvable.
This is a lie. The definition of an irreducibly complex system is one which ceases to function if you remove any of its parts.
Punctuated equilibria says species stasis corresponds to intervals of rapid evolution.
What a bizarre lie.
P.E. states that relatively "rapid" evolution alternates with stasis.
But the point here is stasis and at face value microevolution is not seen.
What a huge, huge lie. Microevolution is observed constantly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 7:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 282 of 307 (412926)
07-26-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 7:56 PM


Re: The Evidence
Comment presupposes that the appearance is on the defensive. Evolutionary processes are eliminated as a possible source because the same claims that intelligence is not involved in nature. This means we have an overwhelming appearance of design in nature asserted to be the product of the opposite of intelligence or "design = unconscious process" which is extreme and gross illogic.
Can you tell me who designed the RNA species in this experiment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 7:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 283 of 307 (412927)
07-26-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 5:39 PM


Re: Comprehending Evidence
The object itself - no - of course not. Its written contents - yes, of course.
Semantics game? Their contents contain alleged evidence for evolution, why else did they write them?
You are the one playing the semantics game: the book is it's written contents Ray. The books by Gould, Dawkins and Myers refer to external evidence -- scientific studies -- and are not themselves evidence.
Where is the external evidence for the bible?
neo-Darwinian philosophy.
No Ray it is just basic logic. A book cannot be the only evidence for its truth. This is why the books by Gould, Dawkins and Myers refer to external evidence, those scientific studies that show "step by step logic using the measurements and things to arrive at conclusions which can be reviewed by other to see if the steps are indeed reasonable and if the conclusions are tied to more basic observation."
Where is the external evidence for the bible?
What is evidence is the hard, reproducibly observable measurements and things referenced in such books.
Then the Bible qualifies by this criteria and description.
What has been reproduced Ray? The flood? Resurrection? Or are we back to your list of weak arguments depending on logical fallacies?
Now all you need to do is educate your own kind (RAZD and Straggler) to this generic methodology.
Add ad hominem to your list of logical fallacies. Seeing as you have presented not one thing that can count as "step by step logic using the measurements and things to arrive at conclusions which can be reviewed by other to see if the steps are indeed reasonable and if the conclusions are tied to more basic observations" you are hardly in a position to judge.
On the other hand I answered your bold (or was if foolish) challenge in Message 227 to "Test me: identify anything real that no one can deny and I will show you that the Bible explains it perfectly?" with (Message 231):
But hey, just for fun: SN1987A is geometrically calculated to be 168,000 light-years away. The nova produced cobalt-56 which decayed according to the 77 day half-life we know from experiments here on earth. The frequency distribution of the light spectrum showed that it was cobalt-56 AND that the time intervals for those frequencies matched those on earth. This means that the speed of light can also be calculated from SN1987A for the time of the nova and it matches the speed of light we calculate now here on earth. This means that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Thus the universe is at least 168,000 years old ...
Your turn. Tell me how the bible explains the distance to this nova, cobalt-56 formation, radioactive decay, stellar novas, frequency distributions of light for different elements AND the age of the universe.
That IS something that is based on "step by step logic using the measurements and things to arrive at conclusions which can be reviewed by other to see if the steps are indeed reasonable and if the conclusions are tied to more basic observations" and so far you have failed to respond. To your own challenge Ray, your very own challenge.
Failure to respond eh?
We are now at over 280 posts and so far not one creationist has stepped forward to give good evidence or to explain why the "evidence" they have is so shoddy and incomplete that they can't reach a valid conclusion from the whole pile.
Yes it is about comprehending what evidence is and what it isn't -- and the fact that (so far) there is a lack of evidence put forward by any creationist for biblical creationism. I predict we will reach the end with nothing but sorry assertion, opinion and logical fallacies put forward as "evidence" ... prove me wrong?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 11:55 PM RAZD has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 284 of 307 (412929)
07-26-2007 9:10 PM


The CE is exactly that. Again, you are relying on perverted logic. The CE corresponds perfectly to Genesis special creation. What more could the Creationist want? We could not ask for better evidence for Genesis.
I'm mildly curious to know what you think the "Cambrian explosion" was.
I fail to see how the evolutionary diversification of animals with hard parts 580 million years ago supports the fairy-story story with the talking snake. Could you, y'know, join the dots for us here?

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 285 of 307 (412942)
07-26-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2007 5:08 PM


I guess your best wasn't good enough...
I have solved the problem!
CFO is doesn't understand that quantitative nature of the word "Best"
"The Bible is the "best" evidence for Creationism" does not mean "The Bible is "good" evidence for Creationism"
Here's an example - see if you can follow.
One job offers $0.15 / hr
One job offers $0.75 / hr
On job offers $1.25 / hr
The job that offers $1.25 is the "best" paying job. But none of them are good paying jobs.
Your opinion that Creationism is correct is the "best" evidence for creationism, only because there's nothing else out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2007 5:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024