Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 1 by Neatras]

I am not speaking in behalf of Creationism.
I am speaking in behalf of fairness.

I'm just expressing my opinion.
I believe this is a bit one sided.
Sort of in the same vein as the evolution theory - having a preconceived idea - testing that hypothesis, which you believe cannot be pulled down by anyone who doesn't work in "the lab".

The way I see it, you have created a post that you designed to your favor.
Whether the others answer or not.
1. If the others don't answer - you consider that you win.
2. If they answer, their answers could be regarded as nonsense, because it doesn't fit into the naturalistic world - so in your opinion, you win.

Would it be fair if someone were to put up 10 questions, and say, "Anyone who believes in the theory of evolution, who can answer yes to any of these questions, proves that the evolutionist are right, but if you can't answer yes, then evolutionist are wrong."
When they know full well that no one can honestly answer yes?

Why not create a fair thread - a 50-50 thread?
I don't know... probably giving the other side, an equal amount of questions to present.

That's just the way I see it. Take for example, this question:

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

It has already been shown. Hasn't it?
But do you accept it? No.

So what now, should Creationist suggest that everyone believing in evolution keep quiet about their beliefs?

I personally believe that everyone has a right to express their belief - right or wrong. Whether it be evolution, or creation.

Nevertheless, that's just my view.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
However, regarding the fossils records, I would expect that the evidence would give us a clear picture of how life arrived on earth.
That evidence proves that the evolution theory is a 150 year old of big lie, and that the i600 year old Biblical explanation that life came by an intelligent creator, is true.
See here for further axplanation.

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
There are a number of explanations given *.
However, Over and over, scietists have had wrong ideas, and guesses, which have been adjusted, quite often.
For example,

• They believe that there was useless DNA, referring to it as junk DNA, and later made an about face.
  The same junk DNA, is where they say they found said ERVs, which they claim are viral infections, passed on by a common ancestor, which is just another theory that can be adjusted later.
• They have recently changed what they believed about bacteria and it sequensing.
  Bacterial genome found within a fly's
  UF discovers house flies carrying five new illness-causing bacteria
  Bacterial DNA in Human Genomes
  Bacterial Gene Transfer Gets Sexier
  Horizontal Gene Transfer: Sorry, Darwin, It's Not Your Evolution Any More
• They believe in their timing, but change is expected... and will be again.
  Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found - Pushes Back Evolution

All of this shows that scientist can again be wrong about their theory of ERVs, since Bacteria, like Viruses, are not all passed through reproduction.
Humans may harbor more than 100 genes from other organisms

Besides, neither do they have to be formed from retroviruses, but like bacteria can naturally be a product of an organism.
There are many other things scientist were wrong about.
As they continue their research, new things will come to light.

Merely believing that an idea, or a guess is right, is not proof that it is right.
I think we can wait for the right explanation to evolve - over a period of time, but for the moment... again...
That evidence proves that the evolution theory is a 150 year old of big lie, and that the i600 year old Biblical explanation that life came by an intelligent creator, is true.
"An ancient retrovirus has been found in human DNA – and it might still be active."
"Scientists discover new roles for viral genes in the human genome."
* See here for further explanation.

By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?

By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
I have no desire to comment on these, because I don't have the power to patch up the problems that, in my opinion man himself creates and will continue to create, due to the fact that in my opinion man refuses to listen to reason.

By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
You'll need to explain the cause of something before you think of preventing it.
So here might be a good start. How do major novel traits originate and diversify in natural populations? This question addresses one of the most fundamental, yet unresolved, issues in evolutionary biology.

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
Bring back the real scientist, and science in my opinion.
See here for further explanation.

[Neatras]

I will gladly agree that this thread has been formed with an intent. A purpose that theStudent has fulfilled.

I gave them everything they say they want, but do not know how to utilize.

I gave the win to Creationism, and asked for answers regarding how Creationism explains reality.

Instead of answering, theStudent has opted for trying to discredit evolution. But that isn't the premise of this thread. He has demonstrated he is incapable of taking the focus of his arguments off of evolution long enough to actually demonstrate the merits of Creationism.

This falls in line with exactly what I predicted would happen. Creationism is a hollow non-theory with no explanatory power. Its proponents only capable of attacking evolution and asserting victory.

theStudent, you have failed to meet the challenge, because your own rose-tinted glasses have twisted every argument into an opportunity to argue against evolution, in spite of the fact that it isn't an available topic for discussion in this thread. Because you cannot bring Creationism up as a viable retainer for knowledge and scientific scrutiny, you resort to any other tactic you have to "prove" its dominance. You're dragging a corpse up for everyone to look at, and the macabre fact is that you didn't do anything other than rant and rave over something that isn't up for discussion here.

[Donray]

theStudent cannot explain why God created virus. He cannot explain why God created Neanderthals and then why he got rid of them.

theStudent cannot explain why God created humans with vertebrate spinal column that is weak in a human and fit into a four legged animal better.

theStudent cannot explain why God crested a brain subject to mental illness.

theStudent should at least explain Neanderthals.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 3 by Neatras]

I really thought I had answered most of your questions.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood them.
This is what I get for jumping into things I know nothing about.
I'm out.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by theStudent]

.
theStudent and I agree:

We do not know creationist logic. :

That's just the way I see it. Take for example, this question:

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

It has already been shown. Hasn't it?
But do you accept it? No.

When people talk about evidence, we usually mean DO mean tangible things.. not just arguments and some Big Book. We are talking, after all about real things.. and NOT just ideas. There is a LOT of data to take into consideration.

Evolution explains it extremely well.... the creationist side really only convinces the creationists.

And nobody seems to know about creationist logic.

So what now, should Creationist suggest that everyone believing in evolution keep quiet about their beliefs?

We are asking in here to creationists to NOT be silent about their evidence FOR creation. We aren't trying to suppress anyone.

I personally believe that everyone has a right to express their belief - right or wrong. Whether it be evolution, or creation.

That's that the OP asks you to do. It's very strange to find the poster demanding to be heard...

Nevertheless, that's just my view.

It seems bizarre.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".

That's not saying MUCH, is it?.

However, regarding the fossils records, I would expect that the evidence would give us a clear picture of how life arrived on earth.

the poster seems to have expectations that we can know everything... is he disappointed that we don't know everything?

High expectations, indeed.

That evidence proves that the evolution theory is a 150 year old of big lie,

What "evidence" proves it's a big old lie?... the poster makes an empty claim here.
What "EVIDENCE" is he talking about?

The evidence we are preventing creationists to bring forth?

and that the i600 year old Biblical explanation that life came by an intelligent creator, is true.

That's not evidence, that's just the poster's belief. Not everyone believes the same thing as creationists.

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".

I get the feeling that this poster does not know "Creationist logic".

There are a number of explanations given *.

And also a number of pretty colors, too!

However, Over and over, scietists have had wrong ideas, and guesses, which have been adjusted, quite often.

The poster just doesn't understand how science works. Of COURSE there are errors. science is in the business of finding OUT errors and removing them. What the poster thinks is a vice is one of the scientific method's greatest strengths.

For example,

The poster offered us a list that demonstrates why science is so reliable. Science makes PROGRESS due to learning from, and correcting mistakes. Apparently, this concept is unheard of in in creationist circles.

Merely believing that an idea, or a guess is right, is not proof that it is right.

I attribute this idea from a lack of imagination from the part of the poster. Just because creationists think the way he described, he imagines that science uses the same bad thinking methods. Of course, the scientific method does not use confirmation bias. That is a religious specialty, however.

By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?

I have no desire to comment on these, because I don't have the power to patch up the problems that, in my opinion man himself creates and will continue to create, due to the fact that in my opinion man refuses to listen to reason.

All that to say :"No, I do not, but I believe anyway."

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Neatras]

I'm just expressing my opinion.
I believe this is a bit one sided.
Sort of in the same vein as the evolution theory - having a preconceived idea - testing that hypothesis, which you believe cannot be pulled down by anyone who doesn't work in "the lab".

Once again you have displayed a major misunderstanding of how science works. Theories don't come first. The observation and gathering of evidence and data as it relates to a specific phenomena is gathered first. From there a theory is devised that best explains what the data shows. Evolution was not a "preconceived idea". Evolution was the explanation that was derived based on the geological, fossilized, and biological evidences that men were finding all over the planet.

This has been explained to you before in other threads. I'd appreciate it if you would publicly acknowledge that your statement above is erroneous and that you now understand the correct process of how a scientific theory comes to be...

The way I see it, you have created a post that you designed to your favor.
Whether the others answer or not.
1. If the others don't answer - you consider that you win.
2. If they answer, their answers could be regarded as nonsense, because it doesn't fit into the naturalistic world - so in your opinion, you win.

But if he is wrong, you should still be able to defeat it. Find a hole in his statements and point it out to everyone. Better yet, how about you actually answer the questions??? It's not like you haven't been asked these things by others in the past. For example, I've asked you for an alternate explanation for the fossil record and geological data that fits the evidence, and none has been forthcoming. Maybe you'd like to give us an explanation now? That would be lovely...

Would it be fair if someone were to put up 10 questions, and say, "Anyone who believes in the theory of evolution, who can answer yes to any of these questions, proves that the evolutionist are right, but if you can't answer yes, then evolutionist are wrong."
When they know full well that no one can honestly answer yes?

Who not just honestly answer his questions, and provide any data or evidence that might support your answers?

Why not create a fair thread - a 50-50 thread?
I don't know... probably giving the other side, an equal amount of questions to present.

There is nothing unfair about his questions. He wants to know how creationists explain these things if we all assume creationism is correct. Why is that an unfair question? Your lack of answering it though screams volumes to me...

That's just the way I see it. Take for example, this question:

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

It has already been shown. Hasn't it?
But do you accept it? No.

You haven't shown anything except links to a few websites where the article doesn't even always support what you claim, along with a few quotes here and there by people who disagree but present no data or evidence, and who do not provide alternate explanations for the facts in play. There's nothing wrong with people disagreeing or not accepting the theory of evolution, but that doesn't make them right just because they say so. It is a very logical thing to ask creationists to explain the data if the theory of evolution is not an acceptable answer. If you want to play science, then play it all the way and provide a plausible explanation for the data and empirical evidence.

So what now, should Creationist suggest that everyone believing in evolution keep quiet about their beliefs?

I personally believe that everyone has a right to express their belief - right or wrong. Whether it be evolution, or creation.

Nevertheless, that's just my view.

I agree everyone has the right to express their view. The right to express one's view, however, does not guarantee that the view is rational or logical in the face of overwhelming evidence, or that the view should be respected or considered plausible.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
However, regarding the fossils records, I would expect that the evidence would give us a clear picture of how life arrived on earth.
That evidence proves that the evolution theory is a 150 year old of big lie, and that the i600 year old Biblical explanation that life came by an intelligent creator, is true.
See here for further axplanation.

The fossil layers show a completely different order of appearance than the Bible. The rock layers contain radioactive isotopes that date significantly older that 6,000 years ago, as well as all kinds of organic remains and archaeological materials that carbon date older than 6,000 years ago.

If the fossil record "proves that the evolution theory is a 150 year old of big lie", then you need to support that claim. I need to read your detailed and specific explanation for the fossil record including its order of appearance and the radioactive isotopes it contains. In other words, answer the questions of the OP

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
There are a number of explanations given *.
However, Over and over, scietists have had wrong ideas, and guesses, which have been adjusted, quite often.
For example,

• They believe that there was useless DNA, referring to it as junk DNA, and later made an about face.
  The same junk DNA, is where they say they found said ERVs, which they claim are viral infections, passed on by a common ancestor, which is just another theory that can be adjusted later.
• They have recently changed what they believed about bacteria and it sequensing.
  Bacterial genome found within a fly's
  UF discovers house flies carrying five new illness-causing bacteria
  Bacterial DNA in Human Genomes
  Bacterial Gene Transfer Gets Sexier
  Horizontal Gene Transfer: Sorry, Darwin, It's Not Your Evolution Any More
• They believe in their timing, but change is expected... and will be again.
  Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found - Pushes Back Evolution

All of this shows that scientist can again be wrong about their theory of ERVs, since Bacteria, like Viruses, are not all passed through reproduction.
Humans may harbor more than 100 genes from other organisms

Great. So explain specifically how the ERVs got into the genome of every single human on planet Earth as well as every single one of the great apes, in exactly the same location of their respective genomes? (By the way, whether or not it is "junk DNA" has nothing to do with ERVs. It's the location of the ERVs that matter, not whether or not they are in an active portion of the genome or not).

I’d point out to you that your links above talk about bacterial contamination of cancer cells, and about the bacteria that a fly carries on it (not in its DNA), and a fruit fly genome with bacterial (not viral) insertions into the DNA, and bacteria to bacteria transfer of genetic material, all of which has NOTHING to do with the VIRAL insertion in ape genomes, but surely you must have read all these things before you posted the links for them…right?....Right? Wait, you mean you just googled something and started slapping links into your post? Since this has happened before, I can’t say this surprises me. Do you want to be taken seriously in these discussions? I have to wonder if this was an honest mistake or an attempt at subterfuge.

I should thank you for the links by the way. Even though they are off-topic for ERVs, gene transfer doesn’t affect the theory of evolution. Didn’t you realize that? Evolution is the change in inheritable characteristics of a population of animals over time. If gene transfer is a possible mechanism of that, it still doesn’t change what the theory states. Amazing how solid evolution still is after all these years…

Besides, neither do they have to be formed from retroviruses, but like bacteria can naturally be a product of an organism.
There are many other things scientist were wrong about.
As they continue their research, new things will come to light.

Which is still evolution. So the give us an explanation why we see these things then if evolution is wrong. In other words, answer the OP...

Merely believing that an idea, or a guess is right, is not proof that it is right.
I think we can wait for the right explanation to evolve - over a period of time, but for the moment... again...
That evidence proves that the evolution theory is a 150 year old of big lie, and that the i600 year old Biblical explanation that life came by an intelligent creator, is true.
"An ancient retrovirus has been found in human DNA – and it might still be active."
"Scientists discover new roles for viral genes in the human genome."
* See here for further explanation.

People accept the theory of evolution because of the "proof", Student. No one, including all the atheists at this site, think that their acceptance of evolution is "proof" of anything. It's the "proof" that makes evolution acceptable. Once again you have the workings of science completely backwards...

If viral insertions are active in the human genome, that still supports the theory of evolution. In my opinion you really need to think this stuff through before you post it. How many times have I pointed out to you in the past that your “links� don’t actually support your claim. Here we go again…

By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?

By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
I have no desire to comment on these, because I don't have the power to patch up the problems that, in my opinion man himself creates and will continue to create, due to the fact that in my opinion man refuses to listen to reason.

You dodged the question. Your avoidance is noted...

By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
You'll need to explain the cause of something before you think of preventing it.
So here might be a good start. How do major novel traits originate and diversify in natural populations? This question addresses one of the most fundamental, yet unresolved, issues in evolutionary biology.

This isn’t an answer to his question. Your linked paper is about evolution, and supports the theory of evolution rather well (you didn’t read it, that much is obvious). Remember he is saying that creationism wins. You have to describe and explain the question from the winning creationist side, remember? So why don’t you do that for us this next go around, eh?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution?

I don't know " By Creationist logic".
Bring back the real scientist, and science in my opinion.
See here for further explanation.

A “real scientist�, who starts talking about the origins of life, which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution…your continual intellectual dishonestly in attempting to link these two separate things together is bordering on insanity. You know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Dr Wells book, “Icons of Evolution�, has been reviewed and shredded by most scientists. There is even a detailed review of his book titled "Icon of Obfuscation". Wells has been accused of quote mining among other things, something you are familiar with.

Since the vast majority of scientists have pointed out flaws in his work, and many quoted in his book said he took comments out of context to justify his claims, why in your opinion Student should we accept what he says over the word of so many other scientists???

[Donray]

theStudent needs to supply us with his theory that includes explanations for all the fossils, for Neanderthals man and other human people.

As a basic it should include a time line since creationists don't seem agree on a timeline. The time line should include the big bang, creation of dinosaurs, creation of bids, world flood, etc.

Also should explain the level of evolution that must be believed to account for everything going haywire after Eve wanted some knowledge.

[Donray]

I think theStudent left the arena!

[PghPanther]

theStudent cannot explain why God created virus. He cannot explain why God created Neanderthals and then why he got rid of them.

theStudent cannot explain why God created humans with vertebrate spinal column that is weak in a human and fit into a four legged animal better.

theStudent cannot explain why God crested a brain subject to mental illness.

theStudent should at least explain Neanderthals.

the Creationist simply states that they are due to sin...................the fall of man and you have flesh eating flesh and farts..........not to mentioned everything else you just mentioned above.....

Nice huh?