DaGeo's flood of "proofs and evidence for creation"

[TeabagSalad]

The fact you’ve been successfully indoctrinated (duped) by the secular humanist establishment says more about you than you realize.

No. I accept the Theory of Evolution because I have taken the time to study the theory and the evidence that supports it. You have clearly not done the same and are resorting to trying to hide behind a conspiracy.

For one thing, evolution is not “...the most successful and well supported scientific theories...”. That’s simply not true and you know it.

I studied Physics at Cardiff University, and it is common knowledge that Biology has orders of magnitude more evidence to support evolution than physics has to support Quantum Mechanics or Relativity.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution explains nothing.

At last you have answered my question, and in doing so demonstrated that you don't know the first, most basic thing about evolution. Maybe you should put in a bit of effort and actually make an attempt to learn what evolution actually explains.

You and your evolutionary cronies have been disastrously incompetent to prove otherwise.

If you were to spend some time actually studying biology you would find that the massive amount of evidence supporting evolution is very compelling. I feel rather sorry for you, given your education has failed to teach you basic things about biology.

It’s mystifying to watch supposedly intelligent people embrace such an irresolute bundle of if-ness as if an intellectually effete assuagement of pure nonsense can contribute to scientific inquiry.

Nope, it's just your lack of basic education that is failing you. You clearly don't understand the first thing about biology, perhaps you should try and learn about the subject. I can help you if you want. Would you like me to help you learn?

Just so you know—blind belief in evolution is what unvarnished credulity at its nadir looks like

My acceptance of evolution isn't "blind belief" because I have studied the evidence. Something you clearly have not done - given you can't even correctly say what the Theory of Evolution explains.

 

[The Pixie]

WOOSH.....the sound of the argument going over your head.

Yes, houses are built step by step...you then claim that's how evo-ism happens. But, each step in building a house didn't evolve from a previous step.

So? No one claims houses evolved. Houses do not reproduce. They are fundamentally different to living creatures.

Did you see how your argument failed?

No. All I see is a failed analogy.

So, I ask you again, how did assembly lines of organelle (which are more complex than a house) evolve step by step?

I do not know. I said this before.

Are you claiming it is not possible? If so, prove it. But do so using something that reproduces, not houses.

 

[CrowCross]

So? No one claims houses evolved. Houses do not reproduce. They are fundamentally different to living creatures.


No. All I see is a failed analogy.


I do not know. I said this before.

Are you claiming it is not possible? If so, prove it. But do so using something that reproduces, not houses.

You're still avoiding the question....how does and assembly line of organelle evolve?

 

[Gus Bovona]

You're still avoiding the question....how does and assembly line of organelle evolve?

If we can't (yet) explain how the organelle evolved, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution, because all the other evidence for evolution is still there. Now, if you could show that the organelle could *not* evolve, then that would be a challenge to evolution. But merely lacking an explanation for how the organelle could evolve doesn't invalidate evolution.

 

[TeabagSalad]

You're still avoiding the question....how does and assembly line of organelle evolve?

This has been explained to you a number of times. What are you having difficulty understanding?

 

[mikeT]

I think it's safe to say there never was a flood of proofs for Creation.

Not that I expected differently.

 

[Temujin]

I think it's safe to say there never was a flood of proofs for Creation.

Not that I expected differently.

There was never a Flood of any kind.

 

[TeabagSalad]

There was never a Flood of any kind.

Try telling that to my neighbour...his toilet "exploded" last weekend! lol!

 

[CrowCross]

If we can't (yet) explain how the organelle evolved, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution, because all the other evidence for evolution is still there. Now, if you could show that the organelle could *not* evolve, then that would be a challenge to evolution. But merely lacking an explanation for how the organelle could evolve doesn't invalidate evolution.

Use your common sense. You are relying on the scince of the gaps to justify your position.

Have you ever seen an assembly line? The way you respond to this subject seems to indicate you haven't ever seen an assembly line.

 

[CrowCross]

This has been explained to you a number of times. What are you having difficulty understanding?

Gus in the post right above yours said "If we can't (yet) explain how the organelle evolved, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution"

Yet you act as if it has been explained.

So, once again I ask....how does an assembly line of organelle evolve?

 

[mikeT]

Use your common sense. You are relying on the scince of the gaps to justify your position.

Every time a Creationist mocks his own POV (by using it as an insult), evolutionists win.

 

[CrowCross]

Every time a Creationist mocks his own POV (by using it as an insult), evolutionists win.

Perhaps you ought to use some common sense.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Use your common sense.

I'm not aware that common sense is part of the scientific process. Do you have a citation or link for that?

You are relying on the scince of the gaps to justify your position.

Can you explain how?

Have you ever seen an assembly line? The way you respond to this subject seems to indicate you haven't ever seen an assembly line.

What is that relevant?

 

[TeabagSalad]

Gus in the post right above yours said "If we can't (yet) explain how the organelle evolved, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution"

Yet you act as if it has been explained.

So, once again I ask....how does an assembly line of organelle evolve?

Through the normal process of evolution; mutation and natural selection. Have in mind that chemistry also plays a major part too.

 

[mikeT]

Every time a Creationist mocks his own POV (by using it as an insult), evolutionists win.

Perhaps you ought to use some common sense.

You've rejected it for yourself, and thus have no basis for complaining if others do the same.

Every time a Creationist uses a stupid phrase like "science of the gaps" - he mocks his own God of the gaps position. That mockery is a win for evolutionists; it's a concession that the Creationist knows he's been beaten.

 

[Temujin]

Have you ever seen an assembly line? The way you respond to this subject seems to indicate you haven't ever seen an assembly line.

Do you honestly think that the "assembly line" of the organelle resembles in any way at all an actual assembly line in an actual factory? Surely you don't believe that the cartoon animation that you are so fond of is remotely like what actually happens? It more closely resembles the scrum at a railway terminal ticket booth during rush hour.

 

[The Pixie]

You're still avoiding the question....how does and assembly line of organelle evolve?

That is not true. Did you not read my post? Or just ignored what I said?

Post #119: I am happy to say we do not know one way or another. Are you willing to say the same? If not, then the onus is on you to prove your position.

Post #122: I do not know. I said this before.

Please stop pretending I have not answered your question.

Now it is your turn. Do you have proof the assembly line of organelle could NOT evolve? If not, then we are in the same position - it is neither proved nor refuted.

 

[ferengi]

No. I accept the Theory of Evolution because I have taken the time to study the theory and the evidence that supports it.

What evidence? Present it.

 

[CrowCross]

That is not true. Did you not read my post? Or just ignored what I said?

Post #119: I am happy to say we do not know one way or another. Are you willing to say the same? If not, then the onus is on you to prove your position.

Post #122: I do not know. I said this before.

Please stop pretending I have not answered your question.

Now it is your turn. Do you have proof the assembly line of organelle could NOT evolve? If not, then we are in the same position - it is neither proved nor refuted.

Wht don't you wake up to reality?

There are to many independent steps that would have to evolve. Common sense tells us they didn't evolve.

In fact you can't explain how they arrived. Yet you fight the truth.

 

[Temujin]

Wht don't you wake up to reality?

There are to many independent steps that would have to evolve. Common sense tells us they didn't evolve.

In fact you can't explain how they arrived. Yet you fight the truth.

If common sense is the arbiter then six days of creation, a talking snake, fruit with magic powers, a world wide flood and a talking, burning bush are right out of the window.