Creation vs. Evolution

[chair]

Be specific.

What have I gotten wrong?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

The role of friction is significant. You keep insisting that it is not "fundamental", so one can and should just ignore it.

 

[6days]

[
Silly argument Hunter, since evolutionists can't agree on their own classifications and definitions.

Well, yes, it's an excellent argument. Stripe claims "kind" is "rock solid". If the definition of "kind" is so "rock solid" why does creationwiki have such a difficult time with the demarcation between "kinds"?

The goalposts aren't moving. Defintions have been provided.




As to what creationwiki says about "difficulties"...it has nothing to do with the definition. They are discussing not knowing what the original created kinds were like, and the amount of variation and adaptation in the past 6000 years.

 

[Stripe]

The role of friction is significant. You keep insisting that it is not "fundamental", so one can and should just ignore it.

"Significant and "fundamental" are very different words. And nowhere have I said friction should be ignored.

 

[chair]

"Significant and "fundamental" are very different words. And nowhere have I said friction should be ignored.

Here you have.

 

[Stripe]

Here you have.

Yeah, dude. That was specifically trying to draw attention to the fact that gravity is the primary factor involved.

Darwinists like to focus on the attempted save: Friction.

 

[chair]

Yeah, dude. That was specifically trying to draw attention to the fact that gravity is the primary factor involved.

Darwinists like to focus on the attempted save: Friction.

Whatever. Deny away.

 

[Stripe]

Whatever. Deny away.

Oh, gee. you don't believe me?

Heck, I'll retract that statement.

What now?

 

[gcthomas]

Oh, gee. you don't believe me?

Heck, I'll retract that statement.

What now?

By retracting it, are you saying that your statement wasn't true, or that that it was true and just looked like a lie, but you would rather not discuss it any more?

 

[Stripe]

By retracting it, are you saying that your statement wasn't true, or that that it was true and just looked like a lie, but you would rather not discuss it any more?

Darwinists will do anything to avoid the discussion.

 

[gcthomas]

Darwinists will do anything to avoid the discussion.

Can we discuss the honesty of the statement that you wish to retract, now that it has been shown to be false?

 

[marke]

It's actually Billions of years, not millions so you're way out from the get go. And there are plenty of educated Christians who accept the evidence for evolution.

Ken Miller is highly respected for his work in the science of evolution, and was a key witness opposing intelligent design at the Dover trial. He is also a devout Catholic.

You're not even wrong :jawdrop:

There is not a person alive who can irrefutably prove billions of years old age earth estimations right. That nonsense got its start hundreds of years ago and, just like fake religions, is only supported by bad conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, yes, it's an excellent argument. Stripe claims "kind" is "rock solid".

The goalposts aren't moving. Defintions have been provided.

How have the goalposts been moved... exactly?

Stripe claims "kind" is "rock solid". If the definition of "kind" is so "rock solid" why does creationwiki have such a difficult time with the demarcation between "kinds"?

As to what creationwiki says about "difficulties"...it has nothing to do with the definition.

Well, yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with the definition. If "kind" has the "rock solid" definition that Stripe claims that it does then there should be no ambiguity between "kinds". In fact, its worse than the so-called "species problem".

They are discussing not knowing what the original created kinds were like, and the amount of variation and adaptation in the past 6000 years.

That's just a small part of the problem. Baraminology is a pseudoscience dedicated to finding the common ancestors of the wide diversity of various species that exist in order to fit all of the animals onboard Noah's ark. Creationists are attempting to re-invent the wheel. Its not science and its not working.

 

[Silent Hunter]

There is not a person alive who can irrefutably prove billions of years old age earth estimations right.

"Irrefutable". That's a nice word. Nothing is "irrefutable". The HUGE mountain of evidence supporting an ancient Earth is extremely compelling and leaves creationists grasping at straw.

That nonsense got its start hundreds of years ago and, just like fake religions, is only supported by bad conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data.

Irrefutably prove that your "religion" is correct and all other "religions" are wrong. Irrefutably prove that "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth are wrong. I'll wait.

 

[Rosenritter]

"Irrefutable". That's a nice word. Nothing is "irrefutable". The HUGE mountain of evidence supporting an ancient Earth is extremely compelling and leaves creationists grasping at straw.Irrefutably prove that your "religion" is correct and all other "religions" are wrong. Irrefutably prove that "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth are wrong. I'll wait.

I refute that.

 

[Rosenritter]

"Irrefutable". That's a nice word. Nothing is "irrefutable". The HUGE mountain of evidence supporting an ancient Earth is extremely compelling and leaves creationists grasping at straw.Irrefutably prove that your "religion" is correct and all other "religions" are wrong. Irrefutably prove that "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth are wrong. I'll wait.

Stripe, you realize that because he refused to present his evidence he will take any argument you choose and whine, "straw man!" I doubt he was sincere.

 

[Silent Hunter]

There is not a person alive who can irrefutably prove billions of years old age earth estimations right. That nonsense got its start hundreds of years ago and, just like fake religions, is only supported by bad conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data.

"Irrefutable". That's a nice word. Nothing is "irrefutable". The HUGE mountain of evidence supporting an ancient Earth is extremely compelling and leaves creationists grasping at straw.Irrefutably prove that your "religion" is correct and all other "religions" are wrong. Irrefutably prove that "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth are wrong. I'll wait.

Stripe,

Reading problems today, Rosenritter? I'm quite sure I WAS NOT addressing Stripe.

you realize that because he refused to present his evidence

Creationists always think the burden of proof is never theirs.

he will take any argument you choose and whine, "straw man!"

You have me confused with 6days...

I doubt he was sincere.

... or you have me confused with yourself perhaps.

 

[Rosenritter]

Reading problems today, Rosenritter? I'm quite sure I WAS NOT addressing Stripe.Creationists always think the burden of proof is never theirs.You have me confused with 6days...... or you have me confused with yourself perhaps.

All creationists look alike, don't you know that? Regardless, you can't make an honest argument out of a claim like "refute everything, try it!" Not that I think you are interested in honest arguments, just pointing out that the lack thereof was detected.

 

[marke]

"Irrefutable". That's a nice word. Nothing is "irrefutable". The HUGE mountain of evidence supporting an ancient Earth is extremely compelling and leaves creationists grasping at straw.Irrefutably prove that your "religion" is correct and all other "religions" are wrong. Irrefutably prove that "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth are wrong. I'll wait.

Old earth speculations began hundreds of years ago and the secularists have been trying to support the bad speculations ever since. There are many scientific reasons that estimations of billions of years is not scientifically reasonable. Dating schemes cannot be validated unless they can and then the long accepted dating maps are disproven. A decade old rock from Mt. St. Helens, for example, was tested with modern methods and found to be close to 1 million years old, which is impossible.

 

[Silent Hunter]

All creationists look alike, don't you know that?

Judging by the posts I see from creationists on TOL, I'd say the majority of creationists look like idiots. Perhaps it's the anonymity provided by TOL that creationists post their nonsense here so that they can't/won't be recognized in public.

Regardless, you can't make an honest argument out of a claim like "refute everything, try it!"

No, I'm sure that I was quite specific. The scientific method requires falsification of "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data". Feel free to knock yourself out.

Not that I think you are interested in honest arguments, just pointing out that the lack thereof was detected.

Aaah, another clairvoyant creationists. Have you found the stolen data tapes yet?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Old earth speculations began hundreds of years ago and the secularists have been trying to support the bad speculations ever since. There are many scientific reasons that estimations of billions of years is not scientifically reasonable. Dating schemes cannot be validated unless they can and then the long accepted dating maps are disproven. A decade old rock from Mt. St. Helens, for example, was tested with modern methods and found to be close to 1 million years old, which is impossible.

AIG and The Misinformation (Creation) Institute isn't a reliable sourse for... pretty much anything.

When should we expect that you will be getting around to falsifying "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth?