Was stumped by a Creationist

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.

That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.

 

[james bond]

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?

God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis. The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life. That's a fact. We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.

 

[james bond]

I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.

That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.

I'm the one with the direct evidence. No bipedal apes and monkeys. It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.

That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.

I'm the one with the direct evidence. No bipedal apes and monkeys. It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.

You're a liar with no evidence, and you embarrass yourself to call yourself uniformitarian. You are precisely the opposite and fool exactly nobody. Given your exceedingly whiny and weak response, you clearly don't even fool yourself.

 

[james bond]

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.

500 million years isn't observable. Maybe in the afterlife. Nobody has witnessed any of what you are claiming while many people have witnessed what's in the Bible. Creation science is Bible theory such as Genesis and the science parts, i.e. non-people parts. We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

 

[james bond]

I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.

That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.

I'm the one with the direct evidence. No bipedal apes and monkeys. It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.

You're a liar with no evidence, and you embarrass yourself to call yourself uniformitarian. You are precisely the opposite and fool exactly nobody. Given your exceedingly whiny and weak response, you clearly don't even fool yourself.

I'm using uniformitarian thinking in regards to the macroevolution theory. To the contrary, I have the observable evidence to back up macroevolution did not happen and God created separate groups of animals and humans. All you have is unobservable fossils and circustantial forensic evidence with no direct evidence to back it up.

 

[james bond]

Why don't posters like bripat9643 and Fort Fun Indiana admit they are stumped when it comes to producing direct evidence? There is nothing to back up your claims while creation science has no aliens and no bipedal apes and monkeys.

 

[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?

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.

I have no idea what you believe the term "uniformatarian thinking" means, but scientists believe the laws of nature were the same in the past as they are now. That's all it means.

What the hell is a "living fossil," and how does that prove species haven't evolved from previous species?

We know there were bipedal apes because we have fossils of apes that clearly were bipedal.

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.

Once again, you're wrong. We have fossils of an abundance of intermediate forms. Neanderthal man is another species of hominid. there are fossils of dozens of species that are precursors to home sapiens.

 

[bripat9643]

I am using uniformitarian thinking, i.e. what is in the present today, is what we had in the past.

That right there might be the most shameless and biggest lie I've ever seen you vomit.

I'm the one with the direct evidence. No bipedal apes and monkeys. It must be TRUE if it's bugging you.

You're a liar with no evidence, and you embarrass yourself to call yourself uniformitarian. You are precisely the opposite and fool exactly nobody. Given your exceedingly whiny and weak response, you clearly don't even fool yourself.

I'm using uniformitarian thinking in regards to the macroevolution theory. To the contrary, I have the observable evidence to back up macroevolution did not happen and God created separate groups of animals and humans. All you have is unobservable fossils and circustantial forensic evidence with no direct evidence to back it up.

You have no such evidence, and you don't even know what the term "uniformitarian" means.

 

[bripat9643]

Why don't posters like bripat9643 and Fort Fun Indiana admit they are stumped when it comes to producing direct evidence? There is nothing to back up your claims while creation science has no aliens and no bipedal apes and monkeys.

Define the term "direct evidence," and perhaps we'll produce it.

 

[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.

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

God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis. The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life. That's a fact. We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.

God is a myth. There isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. You have failed to prove abiogenesis doesn't happen. You simply stamp your foot and insist that your position is true.

Whether we can seed Mars or not proves nothing about abiogenesis.

 

[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.

500 million years isn't observable. Maybe in the afterlife. Nobody has witnessed any of what you are claiming while many people have witnessed what's in the Bible. Creation science is Bible theory such as Genesis and the science parts, i.e. non-people parts. We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

So you believe the only way to demonstrate evolution is to have humans record nature for 500 millions years?

You're a kook.

No one has witnessed what's in the Bible. Do you have any sources to confirm it other than the Bible?

Science most emphatically does not back up what's in the Bible.

 

[koshergrl]

"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.'

Yeah, but if there hasn't been one found, then you have no "hard physical evidence". Thus, you're lying.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis. The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life. That's a fact. We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.

God is a myth. There isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. You have failed to prove abiogenesis doesn't happen. You simply stamp your foot and insist that your position is true.

Whether we can seed Mars or not proves nothing about abiogenesis.

There is all sorts of evidence that supports His existence.
People like you seem to think "evidence" and "proof" are interchangeable. While most proof is evidence, not all evidence is proof...but just because there's no PROOF doesn't mean there is no EVIDENCE.

That was explained to me once by an archaeologist.

 

[hjmick]

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.

Why criticize Creationism? Why argue about it?

 

[james bond]

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?

God happened here per Genesis, not abiogenesis. The latter does not happen and never will because only life begats life. That's a fact. We can't even seed Mars as the solar wind will kill any living organism.

God is a myth. There isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. You have failed to prove abiogenesis doesn't happen. You simply stamp your foot and insist that your position is true.

Whether we can seed Mars or not proves nothing about abiogenesis.

Too much palaver to respond to, but God is very real and invisible. There can be no proof because it takes FAITH to find him. One evidence for God is the universe and everything in it, including humans, is here when it shouldn't be. And he's the one expanding the universe to this day. If it was some cosmic inflation (an impossible occurrence), then it would have slowed down and stopped by now.

None of the abiogenesis experiments demonstrate life from non-life. It takes a single cell to produce what they have been doing. As Louis Pasteur showed only life begats life, but you're too much of a monkey to realize it. Alas, there will be no aliens found on Mars and it will be a colossal waste of money. That's the main reason for sending a human expedition there. There would be no aliens there because of no abiogenesis. The experiment on Earth done decades ago prove that. I can figure these things out and you can't unfortunately.

 

[abu afak]

There is all sorts of evidence that supports His existence.
People like you seem to think "evidence" and "proof" are interchangeable. While most proof is evidence, not all evidence is proof...but just because there's no PROOF doesn't mean there is no EVIDENCE.

That was explained to me once by an archaeologist.

There is NO evidence that supports "His" existence you stupid twat.
And of course, you have to pick Which/Witch "his" because at least 75% of the planet Disagrees. 99.8% if you're Jewish.

Evolution, OTOH, has tons of Indisputable evidence that grows with every new decade and new science.

and one Doesn't need an "archaeologist" to know evidence, or evidence from Proof.
If that is your logical basis, it's also idiotic.

BTW Moron, Science does not deal in "proofs". Math deals in Proofs.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by more and more EVIDENCE.
Evolution is a Fact as well as theory.
Things can be true without being "proved."
Most truisms do not lend themselves to "proofs."

What an IDIOT you are, especially for someone who claims to be "kosher".
Then again, "Kosher" is part of literalism of Religion... the Lowest IQ Extremism.
`

 

[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.'

Yeah, but if there hasn't been one found, then you have no "hard physical evidence". Thus, you're lying.

Obviously, my point went right over your head.

 

[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.'

Yeah, but if there hasn't been one found, then you have no "hard physical evidence". Thus, you're lying.

Hundreds have been found.

 

[james bond]

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.

500 million years isn't observable. Maybe in the afterlife. Nobody has witnessed any of what you are claiming while many people have witnessed what's in the Bible. Creation science is Bible theory such as Genesis and the science parts, i.e. non-people parts. We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

So you believe the only way to demonstrate evolution is to have humans record nature for 500 millions years?

You're a kook.

No one has witnessed what's in the Bible. Do you have any sources to confirm it other than the Bible?

Science most emphatically does not back up what's in the Bible.

I'm the one using creation science and "uniformitarian" thinking. Creation science states that God created apes and humans as separate creatures. Today's apes and chimps are not bipedal, so it means that in the past they weren't bipedal. They still have the small cranial capacity. Not only that, we do not witness tailed to tailless monkeys or chimps to gorillas or gorillas to chimps. The scant forensic evidence led to the wrong conclusion.

Basically, all the evidence for evolution is circumstantial from the fossils to abiogenesis. In science, one needs direct or observable scientific evidence to back it up to be accepted.

And you are wrong with your last sentence. Science has backed up the Bible in the past and it backs it up now. We have no aliens due to no abiogenesis and more. We have no macroevolution of apes to humans. You are stumped, bripat9643, due to your wrongness and falling for lies or else you would've pulled an alien out of your pocket or shown us the ape that is bipedal .