The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Where are the citations? Where are the 200 peer-reviewed articles you posted? You're a fraud. You never had 200 research articles. In fact, you don't even have one!

Fraud.

have a nice day.

a reply to: edmc^2

I can list 200 but one will do. This one: Life can only create life. You just can't refute this fact. No one can. All scientific data, studies, and research have proven this to be 100% factual - even the ones done by evolutionists. In fact, let me use this link: www.youtube.com... Any idea of how the synthetic cell was created? And who created it?

Sorry it's not that easy. You're going to be held accountable for your post. So don't expect anyone to "move along". You and your phony baloney, fraudulent cult will be moving to the trash bin of history - you're on your way already.

So where are the citations? Where are the research papers??????????????????????????????

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

I can list 200 but one will do. This one: Life can only create life. You just can't refute this fact. No one can. All scientific data, studies, and research have proven this to be 100% factual - even the ones done by evolutionists. In fact, let me use this link: www.youtube.com... Any idea of how the synthetic cell was created? And who created it?

Sorry it's not that easy. You're going to be held accountable for your post. So don't expect anyone to "move along". You and your phony baloney, fraudulent cult will be moving to the trash bin of history - you're on your way already.

So where are the citations? Where are the research papers??????????????????????????????

have a nice day.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

You said you had peer-reviewed research papers. Where are they????

now you're just wasting everyone's time.

Says the guy who claimed 200 citations to support your position. Stop wasting our time and show the citations. You DO have 200 citations right? Or was it hyperbolic pandering?

Of course he doesn't. He never did. He slipped up - told one of many lies and expects everyone to give him a pass.

Fraud, phony, cultist.

a reply to: edmc^2

Where was the dishonesty?

You said you have citations for your claims... you posted youtube videos

Valid scientific citations come from places like universities, and or labratories...

Not from youtube or religious institutions... lol

The only dishonesty here comes from the religious side of the argument... nothing so far but lies and deceit, misrepresentation, and side stepping after 20 pages

a reply to: edmc^2

The colossally ironic part of your "evidence", is that it is actually research from an evolutionary biologist! That is a proponent of evolution!

You are basing your "fact" for creation on 15 years of dedicated evolutionary research! Well done for being a supporter for evolution!

Probably why you didn't provide an actual citation... just posted youtube videos... because this isn't abiogenisis, but further supports evolutionary theory... you think that because humans are starting to "create life" in the lab... that ergo, "all life must be created"... ah no... that would still be an unknown... but don't worry, scientists may yet prove your god for you!... well a god, may not be yours exactly... or may not be any at all!

HAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHAHHA...

Too funny.

I'll not hold my breath for you to post any actual creationist research... from a creationist... you know, in support of creation. Rather than you usurping other peoples research to try to justify your fantasies.

Meanwhile... evolutionary biologists will continue to research evolution, providing repeatable experiments, as they have done for decades, that you can point to, and make some dishonest claim about.

Do your own research!

a reply to: edmc^2

As predicted, you had nothing - no research papers, no evidence - nothing. But unfortunately for you, you did have foot-in-mouth disease claiming that you had 200 research papers - but you chose to post a YouTube video. You're a liar and a fraud.
You are beyond the pale.

Recognize this guy? No, not the dinosaur - the other guy:

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: edmc^2

Where was the dishonesty?

You said you have citations for your claims... you posted youtube videos

Valid scientific citations come from places like universities, and or labratories...

Not from youtube or religious institutions... lol

The only dishonesty here comes from the religious side of the argument... nothing so far but lies and deceit, misrepresentation, and side stepping after 20 pages

The dishonesty is that I used the same information from one of you evolutinits - now it's not valid?

If you're honest, why is this OFFICIAL Video from Dr. Venter and a team of scientists not valid to confirm their research?

Really, be honest.



Why is it not valid?

good day.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

As predicted, you had nothing - no research papers, no evidence - nothing. But unfortunately for you, you did have foot-in-mouth disease claiming that you had 200 research papers - but you chose to post a YouTube video. You're a liar and a fraud.
You are beyond the pale.

Recognize this guy? No, not the dinosaur - the other guy:

sorry, I don't recognize him.

good day.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Lol.

Good day.

a reply to: edmc^2

It is funny isn't it?... you basing your creationist claims on evolutionary research.

Think that wraps up your angle nicely!

Cheers

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

It is funny isn't it?... you basing your creationist claims on evolutionary research.

Think that wraps up your angle nicely!

Cheers

the funny thing is, you throw Dr. Venter and his team of scientists under the bus because it confirmed what I've been saying.

Ty for proving what I stated in the OP and good day to you.

a reply to: edmc^2

I did no such thing! I think Dr Venter's research is great!... based on 15 years of evolutionary research... it adds to the already substantial evidence that evolution works. Creationists also pointed to cell "machinery" plus DNA as being inseparable in the past (one of their examples of irreducible complexity)... this research blows that out of the water!

Your point in the OP is invalid because creationists don't produce any research themselves. By not producing any original, testable hypotheses, and only referring to evolution research, creationists put themselves squarely in the evolution court.

You choose to play in the scientific arena (evolution court) by doing nothing but referring to evolutionary research.

You can step outside that court at any time by providing some verifiable creationist research (one of those 200 citations you mentioned?... guess not?) to discuss.

So yes, your OP is invalid.

Cheers

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

I did no such thing! I think Dr Venter's research is great!... based on 15 years of evolutionary research... it adds to the already substantial evidence that evolution works. Creationists also pointed to cell "machinery" plus DNA as being inseparable in the past (one of their examples of irreducible complexity)... this research blows that out of the water!

Your point in the OP is invalid because creationists don't produce any research themselves. By not producing any original, testable hypotheses, and only referring to evolution research, creationists put themselves squarely in the evolution court.

You choose to play in the scientific arena (evolution court) by doing nothing but referring to evolutionary research.

You can step outside that court at any time by providing some verifiable creationist research (one of those 200 citations you mentioned?... guess not?) to discuss.

So yes, your OP is invalid.

Cheers

Hence the title of this thread:

The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

It was my goal to demonstrate how evolutionists play the game.

All 10 points had been proven.

And guess what, it added more. see number 11.

This is a thread I just created to explain why it's a losing game playing in the evolution court.

1. Rules are dictated by the opponent.
2. Winners are decided by the opponent.
3. Criteria are designed by the opponent - in favor of evolution.
4. Majority of journals and studies are from "evolution scientist" and accepted as facts (without any question).
5. Players (proponents of evolution theory) are already favored by the judges. Players (proponents of evolution theory) themselves are the judges.
6. Proponents of Creation are rejected as kooks and Luddites.
7. Proponents of evolution are widely recognized as authorities on the subject - especially by the scientific community that is widely populated by evolutionists.
8. No journals or studies done by proponents of creation are accepted as valid in major universities. In other words, you can't use these publications.
9. Majority of evolutionists are atheist. Majority of atheist are proponents of evolution.
10. Scientific academia is mostly under the supervision of proponents of evolution.


11. They will move the goal post when they get stumped.
12. They throw the evidence even it is their own - to avoid losing.
13. They will play the semantics game.
14. They will throw even well-known evolution scientists under the bus to avoid embarrassing themselves.
15. They will use words like FRAUD, liar, ignorant of science to avoid answering a simple factual question.
16. They will throw tantrums.
17. Not honest.

Now your next responses will add more to the list.

Good day.

a reply to: edmc^2

Danth's Law

I'm thinking, a good rule of thumb might be that if someone goes and announces that they've won an internet forum discussion, they probably very much haven't.

lol... who's the one throwing a tantrum?

Points 11, 12, 13, (14 is just dishonest), 15, 16 and 17 -> Psychological Projection

Cheers

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Phantom423

Apparently in this day and age Youtube is the end all be all of knowledge

Sufficient for proof, facts, citations, and anything else

And that's intentional because objective analysis of any one of their hypotheses would show a lack of objective observation and objective evidence. They begin their "research" with their answer and work backwards to fit the evidence. When questioned, the answer is always the same: "It's impossible for life to form spontaneously". The word "impossible" is used as a catch-all so that the average reader, who has no knowledge of scientific methodology, will simply accept the statement without asking any questions.

But when asked a serious question which points to their lack of evidence, then the show really begins. The initial post in this thread is good example as to how the real science is manipulated to prove their point: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But the most important point is this: they NEVER respond to peer-reviewed research which proves them dead wrong. Here's a typical case:

In this link, I posted a research paper which described a transitional fossil find in China: www.abovetopsecret.com...

First response from Cooperton:

" In my prior post I asked for fossils that were not an artist's renditions. Do you have Any pictures of the actual fossils? Like real evidence? Judging from the graphic, they are determining evolutionary relation by morphological similarities between toe bones. But since I can't see any actual fossils I can't judge the empirical evidence."

He never read the paper. He just assumed that the figures were drawings and not real fossil bones.

After that, he says the paper is behind a paywall - well it wasn't and I posted a direct link.

Subsequently, when both Coop and Neo realize that neither one of them can refute the direct evidence, here's what happens - the OP changes the subject and does a complete 190. The OP posts a series of jpgs and totally irrelevant analysis completely off topic which is intended to smother the original topic. Neither the OP or anyone else in that crowd ever addressed the research paper.

This is how they work. And this is why the consensus of the larger scientific community is that this crap should never be taught in schools. As someone said, teaching this stuff is tantamount to child abuse. And I agree.

The scenario above has been repeated hundreds of times on this board. A total and intentional disregard of evidence which contradicts everything they endorse. Out of sight, out of mind.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The problem here as I see it, is not that the theory of evolution isn't compelling enough. It is that a system of beliefs based on prophecies and medical miracles and other supernatural events can't muster the mind boggling substance that is retold through centuries of incredible literature but simply can't be reproduced in the modern age. It would be so easy to just do a simple performance as a gesture of good will and proof of concept, and there is no risk or cost at all. It would convert millions in a single day. But for some reason, it has not happened. We take that silence as an omen, a fact of reality the same way seeing a dead body is a fact. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Surely an earth stopping display of divine authority and unrivaled philanthropic force is exactly what this species needs to persuade us. So what's keeping your god from showing his or her hand and winning the whole debate with literally zero effort? That's my big question.

Still waiting on an actual answer to my big question. Since this is a creationist debate and all.

We talk evolution yet life goes on.

What a waste of time.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

I did no such thing! I think Dr Venter's research is great!... based on 15 years of evolutionary research... it adds to the already substantial evidence that evolution works. Creationists also pointed to cell "machinery" plus DNA as being inseparable in the past (one of their examples of irreducible complexity)... this research blows that out of the water!

Your point in the OP is invalid because creationists don't produce any research themselves. By not producing any original, testable hypotheses, and only referring to evolution research, creationists put themselves squarely in the evolution court.

You choose to play in the scientific arena (evolution court) by doing nothing but referring to evolutionary research.

You can step outside that court at any time by providing some verifiable creationist research (one of those 200 citations you mentioned?... guess not?) to discuss.

So yes, your OP is invalid.

Cheers

hahahaha.

Obfuscation much? Indeed!

Still no answer to my simple question. Still evading my question, eh?

Too much dancing?

I wonder why?

Did Dr. Venter and his team of brilliant scientist’s created life from an existing life?

This question should have been answered on page 2, instead 20 pages later - the question still remains.

What are they afraid of?

Is it because I'm 100% correct? That Creation is 100% correct - that only pre-existing life can create life?

100% YES!

Case closed.

As for your fossil evidence - www.sciencedirect.com...

On my next thread, I will tackle it.

(btw - this is just 1 out the 200+ of Life to life evidence.)