Quick note to a01011399 regarding the definitive Creationism challenge

No, I do not believe Creationists can 'reed' my mind.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• a01011399
• definitive
• desertphile
• creationism
• challenge
• positive
• claim
• refute
• debunk
• falsify
• bible
• yahweh
• gods
• noah
• flood
• ark
• firmament
• geocentrism
• flat
• earth

[gavinsstuff]

perhaps i can answer... creationists are fucking idiots

[NomadSoul76]

Scientists find that they are wrong more than they are correct. The answers are found through experimentation and adjustment, not through stating something and refusing to budge.

Once you've convinced yourself, other scientists will disagree and try to prove you wrong. It is still a part of the process.

When someone opts out of that process, instead simply preaching their idea to the public (say, through books and paid lectures), that is a warning sign. The sign says "don't trust me"

[LifeLibertyLove]

@LifeLibertyLove *typo, Evolution can be tested now because it makes a present claim, Creationism can not be tested now because creationism is a historical claim. It can be tested and analyzed using history techniques and philosophy but nothing more than that, nor can any other ancient historical event be tested any other way.

[LifeLibertyLove]

How can you empirically disprove 620,000 people died in the American Civil War? Historical events are utterly inaccessible to physical testing, only "trusted" accounts and archaeology of supposed events can be tested but these are not the events themselves. Perhaps you are trying to compare Creationism which is a historical theory to Evolution which is a continual theory. There is a fundamental difference, Evolution claims to be continual so it can be tested no, Creation is historical past.

[JebusGeist]

There are so many people demanding a1011399 better explain his various positions that he likely doesn't have time to respond to all of them.

Sadly, even when he does take the time to respond to a well structures argument he conveniently fails to address any of the actual questions raised.

When talking to him don't do it because you expect him to learn anything. Do it because you like to rattle peoples self-imposed cages of ignorance.

Or do it to educate everyone but him.

[a01011399]

I asked a few questions regarding the challenge, and you answered them, ¿why making a video explaining the challenge?

And I did answer to the challenge correctly.

[Desertphile]

"You are out of context and I did answer to your challenge."

No and No. You said you do not even understand the challenge: you have not been able to take it. Prove me wrong: please make a video wherein you (1) understand the challenge and (2) take it.

[a01011399]

You are out of context and I did answer to your challenge. But I am still waiting for a note, thanking me for taking my time in taking your challenge.

[Desertphile]

"Darwin didnt know what an allele was...."

What does Darwin's ignorance have to do with the theory of evolution? TAKE MY CHALLENGE ALREADY!

[NomadSoul76]

"do you understand why can´t many micro evolutions lead to macro evolution?"

Let me ask you, do you understand why many feet don't add up to a mile?

[a01011399]

yes, you finally understand, micro evolution can be observed and tested, macro evolution is something that you have to believe by faith ¿do you understand why can´t many micro evolutions lead to macro evolution?

[NomadSoul76]

"but non of the errors produce new information, however I just want to know if you understand what do creationists mean by micro and macro evolution"

Oh I know the difference. Creationists are carefully constructing the concept of micro evolution to mean everything that CAN be observed within a human lifespan. And macro evolution everything that can't, so they can pretend it doesn't happen at all.