What evidence is needed to change a creationist

What evidence is needed to change a creationist?To put it short, the same evidence that you want people to "believe in" relativity.Difficulty itself will not gain any credibility. So in case you have difficulties showing the same evidence, stop calling yourself a scientific theory. Simple as that.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

If you don't understand what I mean, leave it there.Hate to burst your bubble but sometimes I'd happy to.------

quote:

---

What I see is very clear. Secular scientists are very reluctant to make predictions about the future b/c the future is FALSIFIABLE, and they would make a fool of themselves by doing so.

---

It's a great point. While not only that evolution can't stand as a theory, but also that there simply none is developed regarding to evolution, no theory, no rule no nothing. As a result, they don't have a theory to be tested against, and they don't have a theory to use to do the required scientific predictions.To simply put, unlike science, evolution never tries to fit data into a theorized model or preset formula, such that it has the flexibility to explain any data at will and by will. So whatever they call 'evolution' is, you can't use it to predict what's the next to evolve under the current earth environment and according to their preset "theory" because their 'theory' is no theory.They keep collecting fossils and predict fossils and telling fairtales about fossils but none can justify their "theory" that environment+time=evolution. And their research is never about environment, it's never about time neither, no matter it's counted directly or indirectly, it's nothing about environment nor time but fossil, fossil and fossil.Their essence is, to arrange similar things together and by skiping the required rules/theory then talk you into believing that things going successively (but without following preset rules like a true scientific theory shall be). And their argument is "this is true because no better explanation can be found".That's why it can't be used to predict the future occurrance because there's no rule there to chain up that "successive samples". More like to place 2 laptop PC from 2 vendors and declare that one is evolved from the other, you can't predict "what's next" because your 2 PCs are not chained by a rule rather you talk others into believing that "one evolves" from the other.
----------
While I doubt that it's a scientific theory, you need actually theorize the rules that your observations will follow. On the other hand, in other areas such as stock market, finance, politics, war tactics and so forth, you can loosely call any explanation on observations theory, but they are not scientific theory. And more strictly, even in those areas, "rules" need to be set up to further establish the so called theory to explain what would happen under what conditions.That's what I am arguing about. You can't just explain away things by your will and call it "scientific theory", and observations will remain a speculation instead of a theory, as you can't testify any rules established to claim that "environment changes" animals. Moreover and in this case, I doubt that the environment is ever observed (either directly or indirectly), as if environment is observed, you'll be able to answer the question what will evolve under what environment, and to claim that exactly that observed environment changes the animals.
-----Hello "scientists", now tell me what a scientific theory is. Your best theory is that you don't have a theory at all. And the best argument you can leverage is that "there's no better explanation". So when you bring your 2 laptop PCs to some tribes in Africa, you'll be Einstein.While you are advised to save your empty words and to show the math instead, like every true scientific theory does.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

"Evolution is very simple:"As simple as ABC and 123 that you need faith to believe in. And of course there's no reason why ABC and 123 go so controversial.Now you can see who's on the boat of ignorance and arrogance.Let me make more precise for you here, you delutional "scientists".Evolution is made on the speculation that, macro-evolution makes chances for the natural selection to generate the results. However, no testable model can be built so far to give a more concrete conclusion.Common ancestry is another speculation based heavily on "no better explanation".Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

And no offense here to the dedicated scientists. I just wanna brainstorming on that there's no rule contained inside the empty evolution by far scientifically speak than the level it should be treated.To me, another prophecy comes true here, I am not trying to argue about it thou.2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.And because of the lack of any rules ever developed to justify "environment changes animal" that they can't make what the liar's claim to be ABC and 123 more quantitatively to avoid its resorting to "talking science".Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Gee, do you have a point to make? And put your curse elsewhere thou that's the best you can come up with.BTW, it's not about whether animals actually evolve or not in reality, it's about whether the current scientific status is truly reflected.They sound if it's already scientifically proven (while it's not) for the propagating of the hidden message that "there's no God".Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : typoEdited by Hawkins, : No reason given.