Creation v Evolution argument can end

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Repeatable, observable and testable

How do you repeat, observe and test something that is supposed to have started so long ago and which, supposedly, happens so slow?

It can't be done.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NthOther
It's just not any evidence you would accept. But it's not like I believe unconditionally simply because someone told me to or as a cultural thing. There are many conditions to one's personal belief system.

Well, to mine, at least.

I agree and that is why personal belief system is personal but it isn't evolution.

Like TD79 said, you can have faith in something without it being religious, at least that is what I took from his post about flaming laptops.

Close enough lol. At least you get the jist of what I mean.

Spoken like a true evolutionist trying to understand science

You wouldn't understand science if Kent Hovind made a YouTube video and sold books about it.

a reply to: daskakik

Darwin (you're going to laugh) was a man of religion himself! How ironic is that? It also shows another strawman that the OP has been using. Calling anyone who "believes in evolution" an atheist. He's been doing it longer than I've been a member on here.

Yeah, raggedy is fine with micro "changes" and adaptions, but seems to fail completely at understanding that micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just on a different time scale and that adaptation is a fundemental part of evolution.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Repeatable, observable and testable

How do you repeat, observe and test something that is supposed to have started so long ago and which, supposedly, happens so slow?

It can't be done.

There have been tests. If I recall, it was done with microbes and it got shut down. Then, after years of them sitting there and the place being closed, they changed and multiplied.

I don't have it at hand, but I certainly remember it being along those lines. He's also been shown that and made up some reason why it wasn't good enough. Like he always does.

But he's not wanting that. He wants to see an animal change into a different animal.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well I was responding to Raggedyman so the repeat, observe and test would have to be in accordance to his definitions. And I have faith/belief/religion that if they were offered before that he said it wasn't good enough.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The guy is a moron. He doesn't have any argument apart from putting his fingers in his ears. Yeah, no wonder you like him.

At least Hovind attempts to form arguments, unlike this guy.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I love watching Kent Hovind make fun of evolution, you seen those videos.

The guy is a moron. He doesn't have any argument apart from putting his fingers in his ears. Yeah, no wonder you like him.

Still wouldn't mind seeing empirical evidence

And you're never going to get it. It will disprove evolution.

Repeatable, observable and testable

That has already been shown to you.

Cheers, keep up the good fight, ad hominids, strawman and childish behavior, pun intended

That's rich coming from the person who created the thread solely based on a strawman.

But hey ho. Religious fundementalist a need to deny science to believe in their fairy tales. I just find it funny that they use the SAME science all the time. Things like medicine.

I am expecting a reply with empirical evidence any moment now

After you call people morons, other names, explain how evolution faith has cured the world of all disease, has now been bottled as a snake oil and the believers sing evolution praise songs in their fundamentalist community's

This is getting boring

How about repeatable observable testable evidence

Don't say it's been shown, show it, cut and paste and show it, it's not difficult

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The guy is a moron. He doesn't have any argument apart from putting his fingers in his ears. Yeah, no wonder you like him.

At least Hovind attempts to form arguments, unlike this guy.

You and me both

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well I was responding to Raggedyman so the repeat, observe and test would have to be in accordance to his definitions. And I have faith/belief/religion that if they were offered before that he said it wasn't good enough.

Just show the evidence and we can discuss it after
Your a bit like Phantom, all talk and just before the big reveal he disappears, leaving nothing

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Repeatable, observable and testable

How do you repeat, observe and test something that is supposed to have started so long ago and which, supposedly, happens so slow?

It can't be done.

There have been tests. If I recall, it was done with microbes and it got shut down. Then, after years of them sitting there and the place being closed, they changed and multiplied.

I don't have it at hand, but I certainly remember it being along those lines. He's also been shown that and made up some reason why it wasn't good enough. Like he always does.

But he's not wanting that. He wants to see an animal change into a different animal.

Ok so a test was done, with no evidence at hand and I am to believe you because you are a nice trustworthy guy that has shown it to me before but not on hand anymore

More like you "heard about the test from a friends friend who works in a labatory with a scientists who's sister was a cleaner in another lab and all the paperwork was eaten by the neighbors dog before it could be handed in to the professor on Gillian's island, or at the very least along those lines, sorta, kinda, I thunk "

It's all there, all the empirical evidence anyone ever needs, true, I just can't find it
I have shown everyone before, you all just forgot, can't find it anymore, but, but

You are,so precious

I don't want to see an animal change into an animal, I know that's just not going to happen

I want evolutionists to admit they don't have empirical e vidence, accept it doesn't exist, if you like we can even say "yet"

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Just show the evidence and we can discuss it after
Your a bit like Phantom, all talk and just before the big reveal he disappears, leaving nothing

I already declined because I don't have what you are asking for. Never said I did. Have you forgotten?

All I asked is for you to stop saying that it is my religion when evolution, to me, is just one of many possible answers and, more than likely, just a partial one.

30 pages
How cool, not many threads last that long
That's quality, that's awesome quality, deny it if you like but 30 pages, that proves quality.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Just show the evidence and we can discuss it after
Your a bit like Phantom, all talk and just before the big reveal he disappears, leaving nothing

I already declined because I don't have what you are asking for. Never said I did. Have you forgotten?

All I asked is for you to stop saying that it is my religion when evolution, to me, is just one of many possible answers and, more than likely, just a partial one.

My apologies, I miss understood your post, still don't really understand it

Irrespective, if you understand that empirical evidence is not going to happen, why not agree and walk away
What do you like about this thread.
You are admitting I am right and the evolutionists are wrong

What's with that?

a reply to: Raggedyman
Creation V Evolution is the thread title I see the ignoramus posting nothing against evolution evidence wise and I fail to see any argument from it to do with creation so this is an obvious troll thread.
So start posting your own evidence to do with creation or stfu.

a reply to: Raggedyman

No it doesn't, it just indicates volume.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
My apologies, I miss understood your post, still don't really understand it

Irrespective, if you understand that empirical evidence is not going to happen, why not agree and walk away
What do you like about this thread.
You are admitting I am right and the evolutionists are wrong

What's with that?

You are not right, you are just being obtuse.

I don't know any evolutionists. I'm willing to say that none have taken part in this thread.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with the magic act popularly known as genesis.

So you agree, both are absurd scientifically and need copious amounts of faith to believe

Yes

There is one field we can not rely on science to give us answers. And that is how time actually started.

If we are to discus a creationist model v a Scientific model we first have to get the beginning right.

There is only one side who actually describes the beginning With details. Science dont according to a factual model.
Science is also left to describe the beginning With assumptions.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with the magic act popularly known as genesis.

So you agree, both are absurd scientifically and need copious amounts of faith to believe

Yes

There is one field we can not rely on science to give us answers. And that is how time actually started.

If we are to discus a creationist model v a Scientific model we first have to get the beginning right.

There is only one side who actually describes the beginning With details. Science dont according to a factual model.
Science is also left to describe the beginning With assumptions.

I am a christian, I believe that God created the, well everything no questions
That doesn't mean I think from an atheistic, evolution perspective my beliefs are absurd.
I once believed in evolution, once thought creation was fantasy, I understand why these evolutionists are like they are

There is nothing rational about creation, it's a faith

But you are right, how can they not be suspicious if they can't offer empirical evidence, how can they say evolution is settled if they can't show us anything valid.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Raggedyman
Creation V Evolution is the thread title I see the ignoramus posting nothing against evolution evidence wise and I fail to see any argument from it to do with creation so this is an obvious troll thread.
So start posting your own evidence to do with creation or stfu.

That's it
Resorting to name calling, are you that frustrated by your Faith's impotence
Ignoramus I am yet you can't offer any empirical evidence to shut me down, funny you calling me an ignoramus asking a question, indicating I am ignorant to you, yet your inability to reply, and demand I stop asking questions indicates quite the opposite

And then I asked a question and you come in abusive and immature calling me a troll

Demanding I stfu, well that's precious

Evidence, empirical evidence or I guess it will make you the ignoramus I spose, make it better if you were the one who would be better remaining quiet because it makes you look silly, not me

a reply to: Raggedyman You did the same to me when I asked a question of your faith.

Bottom line is the is no absolute empirical proof of evolution likewise there is no absolute empirical proof of god.

Now like you have been told before numerous times before there is plenty of evidence for evolution observable repeatable and testable can you say the same for god?

Now shocker is I believe in a creator as you do although I would not subscribe to any religion and quite frankly your behaviour towards people in this thread has been entirely un-Christian.