Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What evidence is needed to change a creationist
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 121 of 144 (467984)
05-26-2008 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 5:07 AM


Hawkins writes:
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.
Do you ever read what you have written? Does this gibberish make sense in your head?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 5:07 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 5:42 AM Larni has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 122 of 144 (467985)
05-26-2008 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Larni
05-26-2008 5:36 AM


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, : typo
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 05-26-2008 5:36 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by bluegenes, posted 05-26-2008 6:25 AM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 124 by Larni, posted 05-26-2008 6:37 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 123 of 144 (467986)
05-26-2008 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 5:42 AM


Hawkins writes:
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".
Could you give us all that again, but in English for a change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 5:42 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 124 of 144 (467987)
05-26-2008 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 5:42 AM


Hawkins writes:
BTW, it's not about whether animals actually evolve or not in reality, it's about whether the current scientific status is truly reflected.
Heres an idea, read a book on biology.
Hawkins writes:
They sound if it's already scientifically proven (while it's not) for the propagating of the hidden message that "there's no God".
You are quite, quite wrong, I fear.
You cannot scientifically prove anything (aside from in maths). So no, science does not claim this.
As for the message there is no god? If evolution is true, can one not conclude that this is how the xian god set the world up to work?
The only inference one can make about the implication of the truth of evolution and xianity is that it shows to a very high degree of certainty that the bible is allegorical rather than innerant.
By the way, I see by your location that you are in Hong Kong: if English is not your mother tongue I apologise for my initial comment on your sentance construction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 5:42 AM Hawkins has not replied

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


Message 125 of 144 (467995)
05-26-2008 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 3:05 AM


Re: Evolution is very simple
Dear Hawkins,
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.
Absolutely false. You should learn to validate your opinion before making more silly assertions.
Common ancestry is another speculation based heavily on "no better explanation".
Seems you either did not read or did not understand what I said: common ancestry has been observed and validated. It is based on evidence.
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.
No, you don't need faith, you need skepticism - skepticism of all knowledge and beliefs, then you can start looking for truth, for what survives, rather than coddle pet beliefs.
Let me make more precise for you here, you delutional "scientists".
Stop behaving like an arrogant spoiled child and learn some facts.
There are a couple of good resources you can use, here is one designed for people who don't know squat about evolution (but are willing to learn):
Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
The question is: are you willing to learn?
Enjoy.
ps - as you are new here, some tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
You also may want to look at the forum guidelines on debate and how to behave.
Edited by RAZD, : ps
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 3:05 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Dave101
Junior Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 126 of 144 (469515)
06-05-2008 10:33 PM


Why would we want to?
My answer is a question :-) What evidence would a non creationist need to become a creationist? When you talk of evolution it never lessens my amazement to see mature adults, many who have backgrounds in science fall for that trap. A simple question to those who believe in evolution as fact.... What are the steps to an idea becoming fact? Please remember I am speaking in the realm of science not religion (which is what evolution really is, a belief in something that has no physical proof to it). Please bear with me here... I am new at this so if I am off be kind and point me the right way.
This is the short version of steps...
Step one... you have an idea....
Step two... you hypothesize that the idea may hold merit (you think it might have merit and need to do further brainstorming on it)
Step three... After much thought and preliminary study on the subject you come up with what you think is a good THEORY...
This word THEORY is very important because if you cannot prove the theory then you never get to make it into a FACT...
All fields of true science understand this system of thought to fact. If you would pick any subject you can think of and grab that theory and say... "Well, I believe this is true and I have ((Oh, lets say 2 billion people)) convinced that my theory is true, even though I have no real proof other than what looks good on paper so I now say it's a fact... " you would be condemned as a fraud. The scientific community expects proof... (Remember it has only been a few hundred years since science was convinced that the earth was flat and you would be burned at the stake for claiming it was round). This proof is important because too many frauds have tried and caused great problems for science. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Lucy.... All wrong but for a time spoken of as the gospel in evolutionary circles....
Anyway, what I am getting at it this : Unless a theory can be made FACT then it is nothing more than an idea and it doesn't matter how many believe in it. It doesn't matter that schools teach it and people fight and die over it. It doesn't matter that Billions are thrown at it every year by those who desperately want God to be a myth because if He is real then there will be a day of judgment by Him to those who reject Him and His free gift offered to you. There is a huge exception out there... My friends, many have forgotten something vitally important...
EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY... It does not matter that many teach it as FACT... It is not. After 200 years of theory (BTW it did not start with Darwin) it is still unproven and always will be. There are more chinks in its armor every year, not less.
As I said earlier, evolution has no place in real science. Given the very definition of religion, it must be that evolution is nothing more than that. I have to hand it to you though, it takes a tremendous amount of faith to think that we came from an exploding rock... I do not have that kind of faith. My faith is centered around something tangible, Around something that makes sense, my faith is centered around the fact that we as humans are in trouble. We have messed up everything that God gave us and have done so to the point that we no longer want to believe that He exist event though the heavens declare His handiwork. We turn to man in his flawed glory to try and find a reason to not believe in a moral creator to whom we ultimately will end up answering to should we reject his gift of the blood of the lamb on Calvary's Cross.
So how about a "What If" question... What If... there is a 1 in a million chance that God exists and the Bibie is true... Would you be willing to chance eternity in a lake of fire and separation from your creator just because you don't want Him to be real? What if it were a 1 in a billion chance? One in a trillion? Why are we as a civilization so desperate to make a bad theory like evolution look like fact when if you are honest and go beyond simple statements in textbooks and look at all the things on this planet that could NOT have evolved... (human eye with its rods and cones, etc) The fact that DNA supports a creator (2.5% difference between man and monkey adds up to about 95,000,000 strands of DNA while it only takes 3 (YES THREE) strands of mutated DNA to cause DEATH. The fact that while there are lots of paintings and drawings and even clay and wax representations of transitional fossils, there are not actually any in real life. (my degree is in science, I am not the smartest but I can look beyond the hoopla and see a THEORY, not a FACT.)
For those who say they were a Christian.... Well, guess what, if you WERE, you still ARE. If you were misled then you never were. John is clear when he states "They came out from us but if they were really with us in the first place they would still be with us now) My paraphrase of 1 John 2:19
So my answer to your question "What proof would make a creationist (a true Creationist) turn......? There is none. You don't have any. You never will. For to do so would deny the God who created YOU :-) Not wanting to believe this simple truth does not change the fact that it is truth... Not wanting to believe you are fearfully and wonderfully made doesn't change the fact that you are :-) In many areas of life, friends, the majority are incorrect... evolution is one of these areas. It's not our faults really, we have been indoctrinated in this religion for so long now that we don't think to question it... Too bad, we should.... SO... Remember... Theory, no matter how much taught or believed is not fact and evolution is flawed.. all science sees this, only the evolutionist does not... (after all, there is big bucks in staying with the status quo here... billions in fact...) For me, I remember that Cross at Calvary and the Blood of God dripping off of it...
Ok... you guys have fun rebutting truth :-)
I will pray for you anyway... Many are mad at God, yet know He exists... They just try to hurt Him because of a perceived wrong that is placed on the wrong shoulders... We are always the ones who did the wrong, not God. He did all things right including buying your entrance into his home with His own precious blood. Don't make the mistake of thinking Christianity and science clash, all true science goes perfectly with God... Just "beware of Science falsely so called" 1 timothy 6:20 and 21
... Have a great day!
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added some more blank lines. Indentation does not work here. Please put blank lines between paragraphs and such.

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2008 10:56 PM Dave101 has replied
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2008 11:01 PM Dave101 has replied
 Message 130 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 11:11 PM Dave101 has replied
 Message 134 by obvious Child, posted 06-05-2008 11:17 PM Dave101 has not replied
 Message 137 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-05-2008 11:20 PM Dave101 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 127 of 144 (469519)
06-05-2008 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dave101
06-05-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Step one... you have an idea....
Step two... you hypothesize that the idea may hold merit (you think it might have merit and need to do further brainstorming on it)
Step three... After much thought and preliminary study on the subject you come up with what you think is a good THEORY...
This word THEORY is very important because if you cannot prove the theory then you never get to make it into a FACT...
You went off the rails in the second section. You are completely wrong in your use of the terms theory and fact, not to mention truth.
Here are some definitions of these terms which are much closer to the way they are used in science:
    Source
    When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
    Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
    Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported< (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
    Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
    The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
    So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source
    Fact: When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
    Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
Once you have learned these definitions perhaps you can try again.
Oh, and while you're at it, read up on logic and logical fallacies, and see what category your statement, "Ok... you guys have fun rebutting truth" might fall under.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 10:33 PM Dave101 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:09 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 128 of 144 (469521)
06-05-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dave101
06-05-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Welcome to the fray, David 101.
Why would you want to? Perhaps because you might be interested in knowing the truth. Such as how science actually operates:
This is the short version of steps...
Step one... you have an idea....
In science you start with evidence, not fantasy. You consider all the evidence and then propose a hypothesis that explains the evidence, then you test that hypothesis against further evidence. You are skeptical of the hypothesis and intentionally look for ways to prove it false.
This word THEORY is very important because if you cannot prove the theory then you never get to make it into a FACT...
All fields of true science understand this system of thought to fact.
Not at all. Theory is never taken to be fact, in ANY science. It is always tested and always tentative, and that is why it is called a theory and not a fact. The way theory works is that you continually ask "if {X} is true, then what happens ... and is that true"
SO... Remember... Theory, no matter how much taught or believed is not fact
One has to wonder if you read what you write -- you just contradicted yourself.
So how about a "What If" question... What If... there is a 1 in a million chance that God exists and the Bibie is true...
And if you really believe this is an argument then you must -- absolutely MUST believe that every single religion known to man is true, because you don't DARE be wrong.
Ok... you guys have fun rebutting truth :-)
Yet you have presented nothing that needs to be rebutted, just some poorly conceived arguments based on bad logic and full of falsehoods. Perhaps you need to stop listening to used car salesmen and look for the truth eh?
Let me know when you want to discuss reality eh?
Enjoy.
ps -- as you are new here, some tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 10:33 PM Dave101 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dave101
Junior Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 129 of 144 (469524)
06-05-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Coyote
06-05-2008 10:56 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
That was fast... Have a great time! Don't forget, I claimed that evolution was nothing more than a "religion" all of its own... I wasn't trying to go into great detail on steps which is why I said "the short version". I would challenge you to show me any Science textbook that has withstood time and all attackers as has God's Word. I am sure you could ask me questions that I can't answer but we can have some fun looking for them anyway. Sooner or later one is going to say "Who made God"... So let me answer that one now... I DON'T KNOW but you will get the chance to ask Him one day....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2008 10:56 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 11:15 PM Dave101 has not replied
 Message 135 by obvious Child, posted 06-05-2008 11:19 PM Dave101 has not replied

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


Message 130 of 144 (469525)
06-05-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dave101
06-05-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Please remember I am speaking in the realm of science not religion (which is what evolution really is, a belief in something that has no physical proof to it).
Evolution is the change in gene frequency across populations over time.
If evolution is NOT real, then all populations have the EXACT same genes ALL the time.
Since many Europeans CAN digest lactose while Asian can not - it is readily apparent that there ARE GENES present in European populations which are NOT present in Asian ones.
You can believe that at one time Adam and Eve could drink milk, or you can believe that the gene didn't arise until after the domestication of the cow - Either way, we are talking about a CHANGE in GENE FREQUENCY.
So, if you'd like to offer evidence that there has never been a change in gene frequency in any population at any time in the history of the world - I'm ready to hear it.
Otherwise, you're going to have to concede that evolution is A FACT.
I am new at this so if I am off be kind and point me the right way.
This is the short version of steps...
Step one... you have an idea....
Step two... you hypothesize that the idea may hold merit (you think it might have merit and need to do further brainstorming on it)
Step three... After much thought and preliminary study on the subject you come up with what you think is a good THEORY...
This word THEORY is very important because if you cannot prove the theory then you never get to make it into a FACT...
You are right in that you are WRONG.
The scientific method goes as follows:
Step 1: General observation - "Huh, that's weird...(bunnies change color)"
Step 2: Hypothesis: "Bunnies change color to match the snow"
Step 3: Data collection: "Where are there bunnies? When do they change color? What colors do they change? Do they all change color?" Etc.
Step 4: Refined Hypothesis: "Bunnies that live where the seasons change change color along with the seasons."
Step 5: The Refining Question: "How do bunnies change color?"
Step 6: MORE Data collection - generally in the form of experiments. Take a control bunny and a test bunny - alter diet. Change in color? Take a control bunny and a test bunny, place them in different color rooms. Change in color? Take a control bunny and a test bunny. Change temperature. Change in color? Change percentage of light/dark. Change number of bunnies. Change *anything else you can think of*
Step 7: Analyze results. When I change variable 1-10 nothing happens. When I change percentage of light, bunnies change color.
Step 8: MORE experiments - Can I duplicate my work? Can I reverse my work? Can I make the bunnies change faster? Slower? Can I make it change halfway?
Step 9: Analyze these results. Are they consistent with your hypothesis?
Step 10: Make a prediction about future evidence. "If we look at wild bunnies, the time they change should vary depending on latitude due to light exposure".
Step 11: Test your prediction. Is it correct?
Step 12: Publish a paper detailing ALL your experiments and your conclusions.
Step 13: Answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION that EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST asks about your work.
Step 14: Watch as other scientists replicate your experiments, trying to prove you wrong.
Step 15: Wait.
Step 16: Now that your work has been tested up and down, left and right, in and out for years and years - has anyone found any mistakes? No?
Step 17: Gather a consensus of scientists to agree on the "Theory of Bunny Color Change as a result of Light/Dark percentage".
"Theory", in the scientific context, represents a systematic explanation of a collection of observable data.
The THEORY of GRAVITY explains HOW OBJECTS BEHAVE as a result of their mass.
The GERM THEORY explains HOW "GERMS" reproduce and cause sickness.
The THEORY of EVOLUTION explains HOW GENE FREQUENCIES CHANGE in populations over time.
NONE of that detracts from the FACT that Gravity, Germs and Evolution exist.
"Well, I believe this is true and I have ((Oh, lets say 2 billion people)) convinced that my theory is true, even though I have no real proof other than what looks good on paper so I now say it's a fact...
Theories don't become facts. They are two different things.
Facts are data. Theories explain WHY and HOW the data fits with other data.
EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY...
the THEORY of evolution is a theory. the FACT of EVOLUTION is a FACT.
The THEORY of gravity is a theory. The FACT of Gravity is a FACT.
The THEORY of germs is a theory. The FACT of Germs is a fact.
Remember it has only been a few hundred years since science was convinced that the earth was flat and you would be burned at the stake for claiming it was round
Actually, it was the church, not scientists who burned people at the stake. And, we've not only known the Earth was round for thousands of years, Eratosthenes measured the size of the Earth in 205bc.
Given the very definition of religion, it must be that evolution is nothing more than that.
What definition? This one? "An exclusive system of belief predicated on supernatural forces."
Since the POPE believes in God and Evolution, and Christianity is an EXCLUSIVE religion, then either the Pope is NOT Christians or Evolution is NOT a religion.
it takes a tremendous amount of faith to think that we came from an exploding rock...
This has nothing to do with evolution.
This proof is important because too many frauds have tried and caused great problems for science. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Lucy....
Piltdown man: Hoax.
Nebraska Man: Popular magazine published the claims of ONE man. That's not science, that's one nut job making a claim. The scientific community NEVER took the claims seriously.
Lucy: NOT fraudulent at all.
So, "too many" in this case is ONE.
One person who, at the VERY START presented a false skull. One person who's claim was exposed BY THE REAL EVIDENCE and by the SCIENTISTS WHO COLLECTED the real evidence.
That's a problem for you?
How many fraudulent Christians faith healers have been exposed by other Christians? More than one?
My faith is centered around something tangible, Around something that makes sense, my faith is centered around the fact that we as humans are in trouble. We have messed up everything that God gave us and have done so to the point that we no longer want to believe that He exist event though the heavens declare His handiwork.
You need to go look up the word "tangible". You are using it incorrectly.
What If... there is a 1 in a million chance that God exists and the Bibie is true... Would you be willing to chance eternity in a lake of fire and separation from your creator just because you don't want Him to be real? What if it were a 1 in a billion chance? One in a trillion?
Continue your thought out. What if there is a 1 in a million change that Yahweh God of the Jews is real? And a 1 in a million chance that Thor is real? And a 1 in a million chance that Vishnu is real? And a 1 in a million change that Zeus is real?
Or put another way, what if there was a 999,999/1,000,000 chance that SOME OTHER DEITY is real and you are worshiping the wrong one - thus dooming yourself to eternal damnation for making the wrong choice?
look at all the things on this planet that could NOT have evolved... (human eye with its rods and cones, etc)
Better tell that to all the other animals which have eyes - many of which are MUCH simpler than ours.
while it only takes 3 (YES THREE) strands of mutated DNA to cause DEATH.
Do you look EXACTLY like your father? No? Then your DNA differs from his. Does HE look exactly like HIS father? No? Then HIS DNA differs from your grandfathers.
Grandfather - 1 change - father - 2 change - you - 3rd change always equals death.... therefore you can never have kids.
Right?
The fact that while there are lots of paintings and drawings and even clay and wax representations of transitional fossils, there are not actually any in real life.
All fossils are transitional.
(my degree is in science, I am not the smartest but I can look beyond the hoopla and see a THEORY, not a FACT.)
Where did you get a degree in "science" that didn't include the definition of scientific theory? Printyourdiploma.com?
So my answer to your question "What proof would make a creationist (a true Creationist) turn......? There is none. ...It's not our faults really, we have been indoctrinated in this religion for so long now that we don't think to question it...
Has it occurred to you that the reason that you are a Christian is that your mother told you to be one?
Do you recognize the fact that if you had been born in Tokyo, you would likely be Shinto or Buddhist. If you were born in India you would likely be Hindu.
You are disregarding ALL of science based on the fact that your mother told you to believe in Jesus.
Is that really a solid foundation for your argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 10:33 PM Dave101 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:17 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 138 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:20 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Dave101
Junior Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 131 of 144 (469526)
06-05-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
06-05-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Step one... you are right in science you do start with evidence... evolution is religion :-)
I have to go, its late and I get up for work soon, I will have to answer much tomorrow me thinks :-) Have a great night.... Perhaps there will be one or two that agree at least in part???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2008 11:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 11:20 PM Dave101 has replied
 Message 144 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2008 12:02 AM Dave101 has not replied

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


Message 132 of 144 (469527)
06-05-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dave101
06-05-2008 11:09 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
I would challenge you to show me any Science textbook that has withstood time and all attackers as has God's Word.
Which God's Word? Thor's? Zeus'?
Or do you mean Yahweh God of the Jews? Are YOU a follower of his word? Do you eat shellfish or pork? Do you have a beard? Do you wear clothing of two different threads? Do you wear tassles on your robe? Have you EVER touched a football?
You want to pick nits, let's pick nits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:09 PM Dave101 has not replied

  
Dave101
Junior Member (Idle past 5771 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 133 of 144 (469529)
06-05-2008 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Nuggin
06-05-2008 11:11 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
HEY!!! Print your diploma.com is great:-) I did say I was just brushing over that did I not? Now be nice to me. Next week you can be mean...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 11:11 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 134 of 144 (469530)
06-05-2008 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dave101
06-05-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
A few obvious problems.
You are using the improper definition of theory. A theory is not merely an idea. It is a set of facts, experiments and hypothesis that have largely been proven true. Not everything in TOE has been proven entirely true likewise, not everything the theory of Gravity has been proven true.
Nothing came from an exploding rock. Where you got that idea, I don't know. A singularity holds no resemblance at all to a 'exploding rock.'
The list of hoaxes you proved merely prove that science and the science of evolution are self correcting. Meanwhile there are still creationists out there saying the Earth has to be young due to too little dust on the Moon despite NASA disproving that argument decades ago and creationists sites saying not to use that argument. Go look in the mirror.
Evolution does not invalidate God. It merely invalidates some interpretations of some origin stories. Evolution's validity in no way makes Vishnu, Thor, Isis or many other Gods suddenly disappear.
Finally your argument is totally flawed due to its failure to recognize the possibility of multiple Gods including Gods that may punish you for believing in false Gods.
Your argument needs a repair job like the Titanic needed a design overhaul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 10:33 PM Dave101 has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 135 of 144 (469532)
06-05-2008 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dave101
06-05-2008 11:09 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Ask and Ye Shall Receive:
Amazon.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:09 PM Dave101 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