Was stumped by a Creationist

[dblack]

You are wrong again. I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right. There you go.

Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are wrong again. I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right. There you go.

Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.

You sure can't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"It's forensics science."

Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't see it happen!! Neener neener!". JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....

 

[james bond]

You are wrong again. I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right. There you go.

Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.

You sure can't.

So where are the aliens? Where are the chimps and apes that walk bipedal? Where are the dino chickens? They may be falsifiable, but they don't happen.

 

[james bond]

"It's forensics science."

Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't see it happen!! Neener neener!". JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....

You even admitted your evidence is circumstantial. How often is that right?

In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened. However, that's all you have haha.

 

[bripat9643]

To the deniers who think there is no evidence of a new species evolving:

Canis lepophagus

This species first appeared in the fossil record about 5 Mya, right about when an earlier canid species disappeared from the fossil record, and in the same place. It no longer appears in the fossil record after about 1 Mya, while early coyotes and wolves appear in the fossil record at that time and in the same place.

So, where did canis lepophagus come from? Where did it go?

Who cares? One species evolving into a better species or a different species is NOT what we are talking about we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

There's tons of evidence for that. Just take all the species of dog in the world. Wild dogs are a different species than wolves or coyotes. Yet they all evolved from the same animal. That's why they are all members of the dog genus 'canis'

 

[bripat9643]

You are wrong again. I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right. There you go.

Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.

You sure can't.

So where are the aliens? Where are the chimps and apes that walk bipedal? Where are the dino chickens? They may be falsifiable, but they don't happen.

Why do you imagine all the in-between species should still be living? Is Neanderthal man still walking around? Do you doubt that this species existed?

 

[bripat9643]

"It's forensics science."

Ah yes, the tired, hundreds-of-years-old religious canard. You can find this all over in religious la-la land in varying forms. Ken Hamm the charlatan will compare "observational to historical science" (though no such difference exists) in performing this same parlor trick. Other creationists will simply dumb this same nugget it down to toddler level and say, "You didn't see it happen!! Neener neener!". JBond, of course, will do all three, depending on the direction of the wind and whatever creationist blog he has the lack of compunction to be plagiarizing at the time....

You even admitted your evidence is circumstantial. How often is that right?

In science, circumstantial evidence is normally used only to support other forms of evidence, so that you can figure out what happened. However, that's all you have haha.

It's not "circumstantial evidence." It's hard physical evidence. But no matter how much evidence there is, some creationist like you will claim there's no evidence. If creationist claim there's no intermediate species between species 'A' and species 'B,' and then scientist find an intermediate species 'C,' then the creationists will claim there's no intermediate species between 'A' and 'C.'

 

[bripat9643]

we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Well,this may come as a shock, but: coyotes and wolves are different species. And both are different species than canis lepophagus.

And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?

There's plenty of evidence:

Your Dog's Pedigree Goes Back 40 Million Years

 

[bripat9643]

we are talking about ONE mammal species evolving into 2 or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Well,this may come as a shock, but: coyotes and wolves are different species. And both are different species than canis lepophagus.

And you have no actual evidence a single species spawned them now do you?

What would you call "actual evidence?"

 

[bripat9643]

Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy. That’s not falsifiable either.

You just had to bring gender into it, didn't ya?

Christians brought gender into it. Jaweh is a male god.

 

[bripat9643]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

So man has created a small little star but no small little living cell?

Interesting, isn't it.

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?

So? Why would you imagine it's easy to make a cell? Have you ever read anything about cell biology? Do you have any idea how complex it is?

 

[bripat9643]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!

In the universe. life only had less than 16 billion years to create life to be exact.

Earth is around 4 billion years old, and almost immediately life has been found in those early days which means either life was seeded on Earth or life does not take as long to evolve as we are lead to believe. And why are we led to believe it takes soooooo long for life to evolve? That way scientists don't take any heat for not being able to replicate it. They just shrug their shoulders and say, "It's a billions of years process" and walk away. Trouble it, that's a lie.

"Not so long" still means hundreds of millions of years, and that's for the development of a very primitive form of life.

 

[bripat9643]

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?

Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.

Imaginary science of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis also means no aliens.

So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

Wink, wink.

Aliens didn't seed anything. There are no aliens. No abiogenesis means no aliens. Not even a microbe.

abiogenesis does not mean no aliens. If it happened here, why do you imagine it couldn't happen elsewhere?

 

[bripat9643]

Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.

Imaginary science of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis also means no aliens.

So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

Wink, wink.

Aliens didn't seed anything. There are no aliens. No abiogenesis means no aliens. Not even a microbe.

Would God ever be considered an alien?

Again aliens do not exist. They would be physical beings. The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No." God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him. Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong. Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us. God had only one command for Adam and Eve. Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.

How do you know aliens don't exist?

"Faith" means you believe with no facts or evidence. You're admitting that your belief is irrational.

 

[bripat9643]

It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.

So what if it looks similar? That doesn't contradict or undermine anything about evolutionary theory.

And you are way off base regarding the soft tissue. That image is not a fossil of its tissue. It's the impression left by the creature in sediment.

You could have learned both of these facts yourself, if you had lifted a finger to educate yourself . Instead you regurgitate falsehood after falsehood from creationist bloggers who are non scientist liars. So, now you're a non scientist liar, too.

I am presenting evidence like your stated evidence of a Precambrian rabbit. It's a jellyfish instead.

Doesn't uniformitarian thinking state that what we find today is what occurred in the past? One can't just apply it to part and not the other. Thus, we find living fossils and they are like today what they were in the past. The jellyfish isn't a fossil, but it still left 500 millions years old impression and historical evidence.

I'm not lying. Just trying to present what you asked for. From your emotional reaction, it seems I struck a nerve .

Why do you imagine that species that evolved 500 million years ago couldn't be around today? I've never heard any biologists enunciate this theory.

 

[bripat9643]

Again aliens do not exist. They would be physical beings. The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No." God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him. Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong. Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us. God had only one command for Adam and Eve. Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.

Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.

Aliens not existing is pure scientific method. Due to no abiogenesis. Dr. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only life begats life.

That's only true in the short run. Give 500 million years, and it's no longer true.

 

[bripat9643]

Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy. That’s not falsifiable either.

He just said that in the OP you imbecile.

Quote it please. Oops.

"Creationism is not falsifiable"

God is not falsifiable, but creation science is. Evolution is not falsifiable. It's forensics science.

"Creation science" isn't science. It's Voo Doo and hocus-pocus.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What would you call "actual evidence?"

You will never get an answers to this.

 

[james bond]

You are wrong again. I keep saying atheists are usually wrong and I'm right. There you go.

Can't argue with that kind of reasoning.

You sure can't.

So where are the aliens? Where are the chimps and apes that walk bipedal? Where are the dino chickens? They may be falsifiable, but they don't happen.

Why do you imagine all the in-between species should still be living? Is Neanderthal man still walking around? Do you doubt that this species existed?

I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past. We have living fossils. It means there were no bipedal apes, chimps and monkeys.

There probably are Neanderthals walking around. They'll crush your thorax in a heatbeat, ground your face into hamburger and power slam you into oblivion. There are no in-between species such as tailed monkeys becoming tailless ones, so it's you who are imagining things.