Was stumped by a Creationist

[james bond]

Doesn't that replace God?

No, not at all. your dogma makes you think that. Please be more specific about your preferred brand of magical voodoo when complaining about evolution. You do not speak for all theists.

First, there isn't any magic or voodoo involved with creation science. It's just science and the creation part was accepted as scientific theory before the 1850s.

I already mentioned the explanation without any scientific evidence whatsoever about today's apes and monkeys not being bipedal nor evolving (tailed to tailless, chimps-to-apes or apes-to-chimps, apes to ape-human or chimp-human. That includes both macro and microevolution theories.

Next, we also have the abiogenesis theory and finding aliens on Mars or in outer space somewhere including evidence of past aliens theories. What are these evolution theories suppose to go against (since you do not like the word replaced)? It seems they are there to go against creation science because creation science was there before uniformitarianism, Darwism and evolution came into existence. On one hand, the opposition by creation scientists has been systematically eliminated from secular science, then on the other the atheist or secular scientists have free reign to test or find evidence for whatever silly thing they propose to support evolution. In fact, the ones that goes against creation science the most are the ones who get funded the most. If anything such as the fine tuning facts go against evolution, then it becomes ignored science. The opposition is gone so this can happen. We have examples such as multiverses being discussed like it's already happened.

 

[Chuz Life]

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

It went over your head, too? We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e. just cause, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.

I think you went over your own head.

It's kind of hard to make a case for MURDER, when (as you said and according to YOU) we can't even know the moment a persons life begins or when it actually ENDS.

 

[Astrostar]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Let's look at the simple fact and then move on. There is actually no, zero proof that a "god" exists and was necessary to create the universe and all of its components. There is no proof whatsoever, in any form or fashion. Creationism is about as real as their belief in mental telepathy (prayer).. Again, no proof that such a thing actually works, and we have concrete evidence that it doesn't. The holocaust!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, there isn't any magic or voodoo involved with creation science.

Yes there is, and it isn't science. And you are sidestepping my comments anyway, as only in your magical voodoo dogma does object tive knowledge of how things happened replace god. That is because your dogma dictates a ridiculous fantasy.

 

[bripat9643]

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

It went over your head, too? We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e. just cause, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.

So when was God ever protecting someone else's life? How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?

Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question. You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.

 

[james bond]

I'm done with this debate because all you do is lie about what I said, lie about what science says, tell me to have faith or avoid answering difficult questions. There's no point in debating someone when all the do is lie and weasel.

I'll get the last word in then and summarize what was covered. I was nice enough to answer your off-topic questions because you were making wild accusations against God being immoral and unlawful. I think this ranting and raving against God was because you were "stumped by a creationist." You had a difficult time trying to counter creation science observations on evolution, but had nothing to do so. I didn't get any answers from you to my complaints such as in post #381. All I got were assertions such as Lucy or an australopithicus afarensis fossil being an ape-human as fact, not a theory. That's a lie right there. Then I brought up today's apes and monkeys not going from tailed to tailless, chimps to gorillas and gorillas to chimps nor becoming ape-human. I do not think you answered that, but complained that I did not know what uniformitarian means. What I said was using uniformitarian thinking, wouldn't what happens in the present be what happened in the past? This was after I brought up why today's chimps and apes are not bipedal and that by using uniformitarian thinking would they not have been bipedal in the past, as well? All I got was more of the I do not know what uniformitarian means and no explanation of what it means or what it means to you. We also skirmished about my statements of no abiogenesis and thus no aliens. I didn't get any brief explanation from you on what abiogenesis has accomplished so far. With Fort Fun Indiana, I got that much of it was circumstantial evidence. It meant that he was using circumstantial evidence as an argument for abiogenesis happening. I think he and I agreed that abiogenesis was a theory. I even briefly touched upon statistics and probability in regards to abiogenesis with you.

What's funny is your last statement because that's the exact feeling regarding lying and weaseling, I got debating with you. I didn't get answers nor even valid arguments, i.e. mainly your assertions, though I tried my best to explain my arguments to you.

 

[james bond]

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

It went over your head, too? We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e. just cause, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.

So when was God ever protecting someone else's life? How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?

Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question. You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.

Another lie. You said you were done debating with me. Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum. I can see that you're still upset. There, there. Calm down.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm done with this debate because all you do is lie about what I said, lie about what science says, tell me to have faith or avoid answering difficult questions. There's no point in debating someone when all the do is lie and weasel.

I'll get the last word in then and summarize what was covered. I was nice enough to answer your off-topic questions because you were making wild accusations against God being immoral and unlawful. I think this ranting and raving against God was because you were "stumped by a creationist." You had a difficult time trying to counter creation science observations on evolution, but had nothing to do so. I didn't get any answers from you to my complaints such as in post #381. All I got were assertions such as Lucy or an australopithicus afarensis fossil being an ape-human as fact, not a theory. That's a lie right there. Then I brought up today's apes and monkeys not going from tailed to tailless, chimps to gorillas and gorillas to chimps nor becoming ape-human. I do not think you answered that, but complained that I did not know what uniformitarian means. What I said was using uniformitarian thinking, wouldn't what happens in the present be what happened in the past? This was after I brought up why today's chimps and apes are not bipedal and that by using uniformitarian thinking would they not have been bipedal in the past, as well? All I got was more of the I do not know what uniformitarian means and no explanation of what it means or what it means to you. We also skirmished about my statements of no abiogenesis and thus no aliens. I didn't get any brief explanation from you on what abiogenesis has accomplished so far. With Fort Fun Indiana, I got that much of it was circumstantial evidence. It meant that he was using circumstantial evidence as an argument for abiogenesis happening. I think he and I agreed that abiogenesis was a theory. I even briefly touched upon statistics and probability in regards to abiogenesis with you.

What's funny is your last statement because that's the exact feeling regarding lying and weaseling, I got debating with you. I didn't get answers nor even valid arguments, i.e. mainly your assertions, though I tried my best to explain my arguments to you.

All lies, of course. That's why we're done.

 

[bripat9643]

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

It went over your head, too? We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e. just cause, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.

So when was God ever protecting someone else's life? How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?

Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question. You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.

Another lie. You said you were done debating with me. Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum. I can see that you're still upset. There, there. Calm down.

Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The simplest form of life, from the beginning, had a complex digital code.
Where did that information come from?

 

[james bond]

First, there isn't any magic or voodoo involved with creation science.

Yes there is, and it isn't science. And you are sidestepping my comments anyway, as only in your magical voodoo dogma does object tive knowledge of how things happened replace god. That is because your dogma dictates a ridiculous fantasy.

What part isn't science? What am I sidestepping? Instead of claiming I use magical voodoo dogma, please explain what you do not like or what your specific complaint is. I'll be glad to answer how creation science challenges evolution and evolutionary thinking and history and how it is supposed to replace God.

However, I need to know more from you to understand what your complaint is and why you insist my creation science is "magical voodoo dogma does object tive knowledge of how things happened to replace god?" I'll try and answer your complaint even if I can't resolve it. Or is it just a more insulting way of calling me a liar, i.e. an ad hominem attack?

 

[james bond]

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

It went over your head, too? We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e. just cause, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.

So when was God ever protecting someone else's life? How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?

Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question. You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.

Another lie. You said you were done debating with me. Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum. I can see that you're still upset. There, there. Calm down.

Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.

Some people get really upset being called a liar, but I don't because I'm trying my best to tell the truth. That's what weird about it. Anyway, I thought I did answer it the best I can because it's off topic. You can post your complaints and what you mean in the religious forum and I'll reply.

 

[bripat9643]

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

It went over your head, too? We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e. just cause, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.

So when was God ever protecting someone else's life? How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?

Of course, you will decline to post a credible answer to this question. You will either lie, evade or tell us to have faith.

Another lie. You said you were done debating with me. Besides, your post doesn't belong in the S&T forum. I can see that you're still upset. There, there. Calm down.

Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.

Some people get really upset being called a liar, but I don't because I'm trying my best to tell the truth. That's what weird about it. Anyway, I thought I did answer it the best I can because it's off topic. You can post your complaints and what you mean in the religious forum and I'll reply.

You aren't at all trying to tell the truth. Who do you imagine you're fooling?

Here, I'll post the question again:

So when was God ever protecting someone else's life when he killed someone? How about when he ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and slaughter every man, woman and child?

 

[james bond]

Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.

Again, your question is off-topic and wrong forum, but obviously it's important to you if you really meant that you would take God to court over it. Put it in the religious forum and I'll be happy to give you a full answer.

I remember someone like you who had the same complaints. I'm not saying you are this way, but he had the same complaints and was very adamant about it. He said he was Christian or tried to be Christian. What he ended up bragging about was taking advantage of their hospitality and used them for his own gain. He never changed his tune about his complaints, but it was just something to troll Christians with. I wasn't even sure if he was genuine about his complaints against God. He was a fake Christian, lying about his atheism and a forum troll. I have to assume he was telling the truth about being against God for his violence, but who knows? What a character. In the end, he will get what's coming to him because Jesus stands in front of everyone and he won't be able to avoid Judgement Day.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, as always, you fail to answer the question.

Again, your question is off-topic and wrong forum, but obviously it's important to you if you really meant that you would take God to court over it. Put it in the religious forum and I'll be happy to give you a full answer.

I remember someone like you who had the same complaints. I'm not saying you are this way, but he had the same complaints and was very adamant about it. He said he was Christian or tried to be Christian. What he ended up bragging about was taking advantage of their hospitality and used them for his own gain. He never changed his tune about his complaints, but it was just something to troll Christians with. I wasn't even sure if he was genuine about his complaints against God. He was a fake Christian, lying about his atheism and a forum troll. I have to assume he was telling the truth about being against God for his violence, but who knows? What a character. In the end, he will get what's coming to him because Jesus stands in front of everyone and he won't be able to avoid Judgement Day.

Once again, you failed to answer the question. You're weaseling like crazy. I can't imagine anything more hilarious than your claim that you are honest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The simplest form of life, from the beginning, had a complex digital code.

Really? And how "complex" was it? What you mean to say is that the earliest DNA life had DNA. Which is circular and tells us nothing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

There is no such thing as simple DNA, or simple to complex DNA. DNA is complex in it origin.
A protozoan genome has over 600 BILLION units of DNA. Nothing simple about it.
Who programmed those complex units in such away that they produced life?
Your computer didn't program itself. Neither did single celled organisms...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no such thing as simple DNA, or simple to complex DNA

Wrong. For one, there is RNA. We also know that DNA likely existed long before the first life. There are DNA precursors and we have observed them in the lab. And all you are doing is a redux of the specious "irreducible complexity" argument, which is easily discarded in light of the concept of gradual changes over time. This argument holds no weight with any serious, educated person.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who programmed those complex units in such away that they produced life?

Nobody did. Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.

 

[james bond]

Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.

Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins. Another one of your RNA is simple claims that hasn't been demonstrated. It's only hypothesis.