Creation v Evolution argument can end

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Raggedyman You have been told over and over for page after page spam thread after spam thread there IS NO EMPIRICAL PROOF either way do you get this yet???? how many threads will it take before it registers? There is only EVIDENCE and whenever people post it you dismiss it. I'm done here my point is made I have been perfectly clear you on the other hand are not looking to learn you are here wanting someone to agree with your own beliefs in order to stroke your oversized ego CUSTARD OUT

Oh no, phantom has empirical evidence, I am sure so do many others they tell me
I am just waiting till they present it

But you are right, I am waiting for a select few to say, we don't have any empirical evidence, so yes, I am waiting for them to agree, that or slink off

Page 35 so far, pretty cool I think


and still steaming full and fast

a reply to: Raggedyman Typical response from the ego it has taken 35 pages to tell you the same thing over and over my good man. as another poster said volume does not indicate quality of the thread merely that's its taken 35 pages of all our time in a completely circular argument that has no answers either way. but I am starting to think you knew that already. Now why do I think that? because the sky fairy said so? nope because there is observable testable repeatable evidence see how it works yet?

I would like to take a stab at ending the creation vs evolution argument...

All things are created...
Evolution requires something to evolve from...
So Evolution needs something which was created first...
Creation requires a Creator to kickstart the process...
Creation and Evolution are two very different things...
But one thing is for certain...
Evolution although unproven can exist because of Creation...
Yet Creation required nothing to evolve from...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I would like to take a stab at ending the creation vs evolution argument...

All things are created...
Evolution requires something to evolve from...
So Evolution needs something which was created first...
Creation requires a Creator to kickstart the process...
Creation and Evolution are two very different things...
But one thing is for certain...
Evolution although unproven can exist because of Creation...
Yet Creation required nothing to evolve from...

Correct. Evolution started after the singularity was formed. There is no way science can explain how the singulairty was formed With Scientific evidence.

There is no way christians can prove their creation theory because there are no Scientific evindence.

a reply to: coldlikecustard

I thought you left
Great to see you back

I am just asking for evidence, empirical evidence, it's all I have done, replied and asked for evidence

Got any

The argument is not circular at all, it's open
I ask for empirical evidence, evolutionists are supposed to offer it or say, sorry can't find any, that's how simple it is
That's not circular, that's open

And yes of course I knew, that has to be obvious to anyone who can read.
So why did II ask. so frustrated atheists could have a meltdown, ad hominem away and create strawman arguments,

that or just to show the average person how silly it is to believe a cricket has evolved gills in South America and that thread that was posted last week was unbelievably erroneous, a blatant lie with no evidence, that those who starred it were, well, you guess

I started this thread to counter the lie of a cricket that was supposed to evolve gills, look 36 pages latter, no evidence at all

Now custard, you have an answer, rest easy

a reply to: coldlikecustard

Volume over quality or Vicky v
It could have been better quality if a few evolutionist offered better than whale hips and babies gills
That wasn't my fault their argument was a failure

a reply to: Raggedyman Excellent so you did finally admit you are just here to wind people up for want of a better term I shall give you a star for finally being honest. go you

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just pointing out that by following your code of only believing in empirical evidence it leaves a lot that you will never know. Including whether you were born or not.

ok, then you win
Care to post the empirical evidence now

I don't think there is empirical evidence.
Much like with your "supposed" birth you have to rely on other forms of evidence.

Humans have evolved the ability of abstract thought.
Perhaps you should make use of it.

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Raggedyman Excellent so you did finally admit you are just here to wind people up for want of a better term I shall give you a star for finally being honest. go you

Ahm, woopy a star

What is wrong with you, surely you like everyone else in this thread knows, there is no empirical evidence for evolution
Keep your star,
Finaly admit?, if you applied the gray matter you would have worked that out from the crickets with gills comments at the beginning

Finally you admit for everyone else?
There is no,empirical evidence, tell them, move on, 30 plus pages of crap, do you think I havnt noticed 30 plus pages of crap, dealing with people who think whale hips, crickets, 30 plus pages and these clones are still telling me they have evidence
The only smart one is Phantom, he left, I should have as well

Bring on the strawman and ad hominems, I am going down with this ship (thread)
Yes it's a joke, evolutionists still believe evolution is a fact, a scientific truth and they will fight tooth and nail for it to be
That's a religious zeal, that's fundamentalism, proof that evolutionists have to believ in something they can't understand

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just pointing out that by following your code of only believing in empirical evidence it leaves a lot that you will never know. Including whether you were born or not.

ok, then you win
Care to post the empirical evidence now

I don't think there is empirical evidence.
Much like with your "supposed" birth you have to rely on other forms of evidence.

Humans have evolved the ability of abstract thought.
Perhaps you should make use of it.

What's wrong with you, I didn't comment on my birth or yours even.
I asked for empirical evidence for evolution, not my birth, strawman
Go start a thread of your own

a reply to: Raggedyman If you used your grey matter as you so sarcastically put it you would see all along myself and others saying that there is no empirical PROOF you seem to have the memory span of a goldfish and yes the argument is circular because you knew from the outset that absolute PROOF does not exist in either creation or evolution only guesstimates based on observable testable repeatable EVIDENCE.

and lets face it I have far more evidence that you are a cockwomble than you have evidence for a creator

originally posted by: coldlikecustard
a reply to: Raggedyman If you used your grey matter as you so sarcastically put it you would see all along myself and others saying that there is no empirical PROOF you seem to have the memory span of a goldfish and yes the argument is circular because you knew from the outset that absolute PROOF does not exist in either creation or evolution only guesstimates based on observable testable repeatable EVIDENCE.

and lets face it I have far more evidence that you are a cockwomble than you have evidence for a creator

Ad hominem
That's great you admit what you admit, my thread isn't aimed at you
Go live long and prosper

And no my gray matter challenged friend, it's not a circular thread
Information changes, science is updated.
I was under the impression the Kuiper belt was still a theory, it may not be as I have recently learned, pending research

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What's wrong with you, I didn't comment on my birth or yours even.
I asked for empirical evidence for evolution, not my birth, strawman
Go start a thread of your own

There is as much empirical evidence for your birth as there is for evolution.

I'm just seeing if you are consistent in your views and deny your birth also.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What's wrong with you, I didn't comment on my birth or yours even.
I asked for empirical evidence for evolution, not my birth, strawman
Go start a thread of your own

There is as much empirical evidence for your birth as there is for evolution.

I'm just seeing if you are consistent in your views and deny your birth also.

I am not interested as you are in my birth
Go start another thread
This is about evolution

We call that a strawman, another unrelated issue to deflect from the issue at hand

Don't do that to evolutionists, they cry, stomp their feet, have kittens and generally make lots of strange noises about strawman arguments

Truthfully, I don't know if I was born or hatched from an egg, maybe I am not even here, maybe I can deny my birth.

That's another thing, I don't deny the possibility of evolution, I wasn't there when it may have happened, I just asked for empirical evidence
Still,am, not from you or custard, you don't have any, that's cool

The OP likes to call out ad hominems.

Yet his whole thread is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

BTW why did this thread get re-opened? OP admits to (among other things) not even reading/watching any information shared with him.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I guess it got re-opened because it got closed with out adequate notice? It certainly needed shut down.

Now as to the topic of the thread.

The Creation vs evolution argument is mislabled, you could talk about creation of first life, or even the universe then believe in evolution. However as far as I can tell the OP still (months and months after having it explained) confuses biogenisis (be it abio or proteo) with evolution.


When one builds a thread on such mistakes, one is going to have problems