|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for creation theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is not a matter of opinion: ToE says God does not exist in reality. No it does not. Stop telling silly lies.
This is the most undisputed claim of your theory. No, this is a stupid lie about the theory recited by creationists because they don't have any good arguments against the actual theory. It's no good you telling this lie to me, because I know what the theory of evolution is. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is external evidence that corroborates but I am not "fluent" in presenting it. We know there was a canopy over the Earth which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long. We "know" this how? Can I live to be a thousand by staying out of the sun?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Now you have baited and switched from denying the Bible to be evidence to an unstated standard of evidence that undoubtedly excludes the Bible as evidence - correct?
I don't believe you and I have ever discussed the bible before now. Are you thinking of someone else?Whatever the case no need for the aggressive attitude. "Question" presupposes the Bible to not be credible, and it presupposes physical evidence superior, and it presupposes the Bible to not be reliable and objective.
I would presuppose any book to be non-credible and non-objective evidence unless it can demonstrate otherwise in some way. Books are written by humans. Humans lie and get things wrong. Any conclusions about nature should be founded in study of nature directly. Speaking to a Muslim the other day - He was convinced the Koran described the Big Bang and claims that it therefore "predicted" BB theoryWhat physical evidence is there to justify the bible as evidence over the Koran for example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
There is external evidence that corroborates but I am not "fluent" in presenting it. Well I am aware of a great deal that contradicts it, so we will have to say at the moment you have no external evidence to support Genesis' claim here.
We know there was a canopy over the Earth which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long. Okay, so what's your evidence for this canopy and what is the evidence that ancient men lived very long lives? Do you have any human remains that support your claim?
But my point in the other post was that, like Karnak, the recording of information is so that it is not lost. The recording of fairy tales is done for the same reason, doesnt mean they are true though.
We know that at least 17 out of 155 cities have been identified. Nobody would doubt the existence of the others, I think it is a very poor scholar who would jump to that conclusion, given that we know the ancients sometimes exaggerated a great deal.
why would anyone doubt Genesis based on the same formula? It is called critical research. Do you think if one thing in a book is shown to be correct that this automatically means everything in that book is correct? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We already know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes the Bible to not be evidence, what is your point? No Ray. We all know that you cannot use the premise that {A} is true to support the conclusion that {A} is true. It is called rational thinking and the application of the rules of logic, and it has nothing to do with faith or belief, and everything to do with being honest. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Cold Foreign Object writes: quote:This comment says that evidence is only given status as evidence when it supports ToE. No, the comment does not say that. The comment does state however that interpretations of things is not evidence. More specifically Razd was replying to straggler when he posted this, the comment was regarding the "apparent design" as the best evidence. This would be faulty logic and therefore not evidence.
This is straightforward faulty circular logic and biased unobjective reasoning. Could we expect anything else from the keyboard of an evolutionist? First you put words in his mouth and then you call it circular logic and bias! I will not suggest that all creationists use the same keyboard though, It's just apparent that your keyboard is not very logical.
We know there was a canopy over the Earth Is your knowledge based on evidence, or just what you think should be apparent?
which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long Do you have evidence that if I remain inside my house I will live a thousand years? (Provided I can quit smoking)
why would anyone doubt Genesis based on the same formula? Evidence of one item being true is not evidence of the entire book being true. Would you base this same formula for all things you read or hear? I believe this is another example of faulty logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This comment says that evidence is only given status as evidence when it supports ToE. No this comment says that you have yet to provide any real evidence in spite of having gotten to over 260 posts on this thread. The opportunity to present evidence has been totally wasted by the creationists desperately trying to pass off logical fallacies as evidence.
This is straightforward faulty circular logic and biased unobjective reasoning. Could we expect anything else from the keyboard of an evolutionist? Claiming this does not make it so -- you need to demonstrate it. On the other hand pointing to the paucity of evidence presented while at the same time to claims that creationists make of having lots of evidence SHOWS that when push comes to shove they can't pony up, presenting logical fallacy after logical fallacy instead. The logical conclusion is that they do not know what evidence is.
Creationists already know that Atheists deny Creationism to have any evidence which leaves us wondering as to what is RAZD's point? You could actually avoid this issue by PRESENTING EVIDENCE! I notice you have also failed to answer Message 231 quote: I guess that means you have nothing more to say on the issue: failure to refute and all that eh? Avoiding the issue is failure to refute, Ray. The argument does not go away. Anyone reading this thread must wonder why Ray won't provide any real evidence: Opinion is not evidenceLogical fallacies are not evidence Illogical conclusions are not evidence Failure to deal with the issues is not evidence Except of failure. 260 plus posts of failure. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Ray writes: We already know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes the Bible to not be evidence, what is your point? RAZD in response writes: No Ray. We all know that you cannot use the premise that {A} is true to support the conclusion that {A} is true. It is called rational thinking and the application of the rules of logic, and it has nothing to do with faith or belief, and everything to do with being honest. Your reply is a non-sequitur. But I must assume that it is, nonetheless, intentional. Why has RAZD evaded my question? Inability to answer, maybe? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
UFO phenomena presents no conflict with Biblical creation. So in the beginning there was nothing. Then God made the universe and the Earth and mankind. And, then, I guess in the "missing" chapters, God went and created the aliens, made them smarter than us (even though we are the ones in his image) and now they're here to visit us. I mean, I can understand why these people are coming here. Since God made us special, surely they want to visit. Plus, it's a natural draw to visit the planet the entire universe revolves around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
In other words, you refuse to scroll back and address the posts where the evidence is listed I looked. The ONLY thing I see is "appearence of design". But you have yet to explain what "design" is. How can you say, "Well this thing appears to be designed" if you can't 1) describe design, 2) demonstrate a difference between design and non-design, 3) give us a list of some things which clearly were designed and some things which clearly weren't. This is no too much to ask. If I said the "appearence of UFOs" is the best evidence for UFOs, it would be WELL within the bounds of reason for someone to ask me what constitutes a UFO. Guess what? Not everything in the air is a UFO. Otherwise, hummingbirds are good evidence for UFOs. Definte your criteria!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Ray writes: Now you have baited and switched from denying the Bible to be evidence to an unstated standard of evidence that undoubtedly excludes the Bible as evidence - correct? Straggler in response writes: I don't believe you and I have ever discussed the bible before now. Are you thinking of someone else?Whatever the case no need for the aggressive attitude. Why has Straggler brazenly misrepresented my question? EvC board history tells me that this evolutionist is indirectly attempting to signal a Darwinian Moderator for the purpose of legitimizing his distortion. Once again: I have listed the Bible as evidence for Creationism, in reply Straggler has presupposed the Bible to not be evidence and other negative descriptions. In rebuttal I remind Straggler that we were already well aware of Atheist ideological viewpoints concerning the Bible and we ask him again as to what his point is? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It seems necessary Ray to point out to you what evidence is:
A book is not evidence. Books written by Gould, Dawkins or Myers are not evidence for evolution. The Bible isn't evidence for anything other than what some people have written. What is evidence is the hard, reproducibly observable measurements and things referenced in such books. 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. 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. You are being asked for such evidence just as anyone would ask for evidence backing up any statements made by anyone about the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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? Enjoy.
Now 264 posts with no evidence for creation theory ... and counting. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cold Foreign Object writes: We know there was a canopy over the Earth which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long. 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? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
THREE EVOLUTIONISTS WRITE:
Straggler writes: http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory As regards the best evidence for creationism (and related creator requiring theories) - I would say the most convincing I have seen is Behe's argument for irreducible complexity at the molecular level. Percy writes: http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory So which is the most convincing? I'm going to give more than one answer. For most creationists, its #1, the Bible, with #2, appearance of design, a close second. For the general public and probably for scientists, too, the most convincing creationist evidence is #2, the appearance of design. Crashfrog writes: http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory Within that context; indeed, the appearance of design in nature is half of the best evidence for creationism. The other half is that the Bible makes it clear that God created directly, in a short period of time. Those two things - the appearance of design and the Bible's support for creationism - are, indeed, the two best pieces of evidence for creationism. Crashfrog writes: http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory Well, no, look. Ray's right about this. You gotta give it to him. If there were only two pieces of evidence in the entire world - the Bible and the appearance of design in the natural world - creationism would be the most logical explanation. The appearance of design does suggest design. I mean, that's how we know the difference between a river rock and a flint arrowhead. In the context of this thread - the best evidence for creationism - it's true that the best evidence is the appearance of design in the natural world and the testimony of the Bible. Those are the two best things they have. CREATIONIST
Ray writes: http://EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory -->EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for creation theory
BEST POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM 1. The Bible. 2. Appearance (said word is neutral) of design in reality and nature. 3. Cambrian explosion. 4. Existence of Irreducible complexity. 5. Lack of species transitionality seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth. 6. Great Pyramid containing major Biblical claims in its physical passage system and measurements thousands of years before the Bible was written. Now, I have posted 3 different evolutionists (in four posts) recognizing the best positive evidence for Creationism. Straggler's post preceded my post (but acknowledges IC in my post) and Percy and Crashfrog's posts were replies to my post. Of course the evolutionists disagree, but this IS NOT the subject here, is it? I do not mind defending our evidence and I welcome it. We now have a group of evolutionists asserting that design = invisible Designer is somehow illogical. Regardless, it is most logical, and the logic is invulnerable. In reply the evolutionists are special pleading and asserting said logic to be illogical. Design indicating the work of Designer is not illogical. Since these same evolutionists actually believe apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years this could explain why they think design = Designer is illogical. Evolutionists assert that homologous and parahomologous structures and anatomy is evidence of evolution. These arguments are based on the exact same logic as design = Designer. For every evolutionist who has played the "where is the evidence?" card it was posted in message #91. I am here, ready and able to defend each positive evidence for Creationism. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024