Before we begin I have a question: If I cannot provide you direct proof that life originated out of one of the dozens of origin of life hypothesis ( read: Not theories ) do you assume that creationism is by default true?>>>
Firstly, creationism is based upon faith and faith is based upon evidence. For example, if I go to a desert island and I step off my boat and I notice a set of footprints on the beach that is evidence that someone else has been there. I don't have to actually see the person in order to come to that conclusion.
False analogy. You already know that those foot prints belong to a human being, so your conclusion is based on what you already have knowledge of not of knowledge you gained.
Faith cannot be based upon evidence, because the definition of 'faith' exists in contradiction to what evidence is supposed to do.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faithMental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim; Belief and trust in the Christian God's promises revealed through Christ in the New Testament; A feeling or belief, that something is true, real, or will happen; A trust in the intentions or abilities of ...
Likewise, if I see something in nature that has purpose and design that evidence would prompt me to ask the logical question, "who is the designer?" Again, notice I wouldn't have to actually see the person responsible for the thing produced in order to come to the conclusion. The faith part of the equation is, WHO is responsible instead of "what" is responsible.
Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question ( Circular Fallacy )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionIn contemporary usage, "begging the question" often refers to an argument where the premises are as questionable as the conclusion.
You have to demonstrate that there is purpose or design, before using it as your premise. It simply begs the question of how you did that, which inevitably leads us down the road of constant special pleading. The argument for design is inevitably and by necessity one made purely on circular reason.
The real dishonesty here is using an analogy where you can identify the designer, in order to conclude design in comparison to something you can neither identify design or designer - in order to conclude in a circular fallacy that there is infact a designer you know the identity of.
Notice that when when we start asking WHAT instead of Who, the whole thing is thrown into confusion. We are thrown into the primordial stew with different people sticking their spoons in and coming out with contradictory hypothesis, speculation and conjecture.
You built the logical fallacy, it is your responsibility to correct the fallacy and it cannot simply be dismissed as 'asking what instead of who'. You have yet to demonstrate design or purpose. This is an example of special pleading.
The biggest problem for evolutionists is that have dismissed the idea of a CreatorFalse.
"Evolutionists" is a coined creationist term meant to refer to anyone that accepts evolutionary science, it often includes many associations meant to further elicit a stereotypical 'enemy image' of the person in question. Such as the idea that all individuals who accept science ( evolutionary science ) are atheist, which is false and not even logically consistent. Pay very close attention as this has been pointed out to you several times already Nothing about evolution proves or offers to disprove the notion of a god or gods.
More importantly, scientists do not sit around calling each other 'neo-darwinist' 'darwinist' or 'evolutionist'. They simply call each other biologist, geologist, micro-biologist etc.
and now desperately trying to find evidence to prove the theory.
No desperation required. The very foundation of all biological sciences is the notion of evolutionary change, which would include several theories beneath the 'evolutionary sciences'. There is no 'theory of evolution' for example, as evolution itself is simply a word to desribe a field of research that consists of dozens of individual findings/observations/theories. That being said: evidence, observations, experiments, and predictability all lend themselves towards testing theories like the theory of natural selection. It has already been demonstrated to an extreme degree.
The problem is how to prove something when no evidence exist to support it.
Chromosomal relationships, tracing/comparing genetic break downs of individual species, and protein mapping. Not to mention that all of this ( arrived to through seperate individual research ) creates a nested heirarchy pattern that not only mirror each other but also mirror the growing understanding of the 'tree of life'.
Not to mention the same pattern of inheritance of transposons, pseudogenes, sex chromosomes ( beyond other shared chromosomal relationships ).
Hell, we havn't even gotten into the fossil record yet. Oh btw, that fossil record also matches the same nested heirarchy that occurs above.
Well, you invent it. Piltdown man, for example. "For decades, a fossil skull discovered in Piltdown, England, was hailed as the missing link between apes and humans. Entire careers were built on its authenticity. Then in 1953, the awful truth came out: "Piltdown Man" was a fake!" It was just one of the many crutches that were produce to support the lie.
Do you want to know who found piltdown man was a fraudulent? The same scientists that go on to discover the thousands of transitional fossils for hundreds ( if not thousands ) of species ( including ourselves ). The reason creationist concentrate on Piltdown Man, is because they really have no other adequate example to attack. They cannot actually bring themselves to the table of valid criticism and they must concentrate on examples that have nothing to do with what we understand in the modern biological sciences today. They ignore by willful omission the countless transitional fossils for not only other species, but ourselves. Cherry picking what they want to address and ignoring all the important findings.
It is dishonest and ignorant, it also simply begs the question:
Why are all these examples being ignored?
Why is misinformation being presented by creationist?
Why are creationist often attacking evolution as if it had anything to do with atheism?
Why all the lies for jesus?
Interestingly and contrary to the beliefs of the less well informed, there isn't ONE stitch of evidence scientific or otherwise to support evolution.
There are mountains, but first you have to stop using misinformation long enough to actually concentrate on the examples. Piltdown man is not evidence for evolution, perhaps you could bring yourself to the table to actually concentrate on evidence for evolution?
So you see why I wouldn't even waste time in asking you to "provide direct proof" as it is a lost cause already even though you might not realize it as yet.
No, I do not. I see you acting in a manner that is demonstrateably dishonest, woefully misinformed, and logically inconsistent.
The fact of the matter is that most people are just running with the theory because they do not like the alternative which is God.
Evolution does not disprove or prove a god in any form. The only morons that believe this are creationist, who in a way that is more telling of their attitude - are attempting to draw the association in order to demonize both non-christians, science, scientists, and even christians that do not have the same dishonesty/willful ignorance to science itself.
I've even pointed this out where christians ( creationist ) were attacking other christians ( for not believing in creationism ).
You see accepting there is a God requires people to admit that they are sinners in bondage to habits of vice and lust and selfishness of one kind or another.
False. I can accept that human beings have bondages of vice with or without god belief, it is irrelevant.
False. Evolution has nothing to do with disproving or proving a god or gods.
False. Nothing about believing there is a god requires the belief sinners/bondage/vice etc. Most of what your repeating is simply the christian perspective, and it can be applied to any belief in a god or gods and is irrelevant.
Admitting God demands repentance and change.
False. I've explained, see above.
Some are running desperately seeking shelter in and idea that has not foundation in reality, in history, in religion nor science nor common sense.
False. You have presented no evidence to support this claim and infact you have by far attempted to use ad hominens/emotional attacks/lies/misinformation instead.
We are attempting to get you to be honest and actually come to the table of communication, but you'll never get there blindly lashing out at others based on imagined perceptions that apply to no one except yourself.
The Big Bang supposed to have started with nothing but over zillions of years the nothing has become us.
False. The big bang theory does not state there was 'nothing'. You are wrong again.
Here we are driving cars and flying airplanes which we were only able to produce within the last 100 years even though we were supposed to have been around for the past 100, 000, 000 years.
False. Humans have only been around about 100,000 years at most. That time period is vague and often debated, but it falls to within that spectrum.
You just couldn't make it up and even you did no one would believe it but incredible they did make it up and millions have embraced the idea.
Nothing was ever 'made up' and lying about it in order to criticize a position you have no working knowledge of does not make you convincing. It makes you appear to be a lying moron.
This is nothing less than mass deception.
You havn't demonstrated it to be deception. You have in turned, presented a series of misinformation that would be deception and that we have addressed pointing out that fact exactly.
Seeing that people on this forum are avowed atheist does that mean you cannot be honest?
Strawman and ad hominen. You havn't demonstrated us to be dishonest, however we have pointed out where creationist claims are often based in dishonesty and are easily demonstrateable.
If you will not accept religion then will you not accept science?
False. Religion and science are not comparable.
Evolution is NOT Science,
Evolution is not observable
Evolution is NOT testable
and, Evolution is NOT repeatable.
Can I invite you to stop looking at the hypothesis and start looking at the hard scientific evidence.
You havn't produced any kind of information to support any of your own claims and you havn't produced any viable criticism of the field of science your attempting to attack. Emotional pleas, insults, lies, and ignorance do not make for convincing arguments. More importantly, when those same ridiculous statements are based on bigoted associations.
The missing link is still missing because it never existed!
Categorically False. When we can get you to come to the table to actually address the information, this discussion can begin. Until then you are simply engaging in insults, emotional attacks, and strawmen. You make no attempt to even communicate with us that is productive or positive.