Scientist: “Okay, let's look at evolution from a creationist viewpoint…creationist, what have you got?”

Creationist: “Magic did it."

Scientist: “Okay, that's not what the evidence shows. I guess we're done — moving on."

Workch:
Scientist: “Okay, let's look at evolution from a creationist viewpoint…creationist, what have you got?”

Creationist: “Magic did it."

Scientist: “Okay, that's not what the evidence shows. I guess we're done — moving on."

A Christian would have said

Scientist: “Okay, let's look at evolution from a creationist viewpoint

Christian: Objection! The accurate question is let us look at how this world began, as far as is possible.

Scientists: can't do that, I'll be Fired!

Christian: I thought "Science" means "To know"?

Scientists: well, I don't want to know. I just want to be the one to tell the stories as my employers have directed.

Christian: then there is no "let's look" but a "hey, hear what my employers say I should tell you", which you can do to the plants in your house.

Dtruthspeaker:


A Christian would have said

Scientist: “Okay, let's look at evolution from a creationist viewpoint

Christian: Objection! The accurate question is let us look at how this world began, as far as is possible.

Scientists: can't do that, I'll be Fired!

Christian: I thought "Science" means "To know"?

Scientists: well, I don't want to know. I just want to be the one to tell the stories as my employers have directed.

Christian: then there is no "let's look" but a "hey, hear what my employers say I should tell you", which you can do to the plants in your house.

You want us to look at it, then you got to provide evidence.
We only look at the evidence that you have.

Workch:
You want us to look at it, then you got to provide evidence.
We only look at the evidence that you have.

And I always presented the first evidence you yourself have examined and found no fault.

Which is, "is there any thing which made itself from "emptiness" to some thing? Or is capable of making itself, by itself?

Eg. Did a mannequin make itself?

Or can a table make itself?

Oya, rebut, if you can! No invalid or Bad Evidence, No change of post, No Bad Arguments (what you people call Fallacy)

Dtruthspeaker:


A Christian would have said

Scientist: “Okay, let's look at evolution from a creationist viewpoint

Christian: Objection! The accurate question is let us look at how this world began, as far as is possible.

Scientists: can't do that, I'll be Fired!

Christian: I thought "Science" means "To know"?

Scientists: well, I don't want to know. I just want to be the one to tell the stories as my employers have directed.

Christian: then there is no "let's look" but a "hey, hear what my employers say I should tell you", which you can do to the plants in your house.

The rabid imagination of the intellectually moribund.

Meanwhile in saner climes:
With greatly improved infrared resolution and sensitivity, it will view objects too old and distant for Hubble—some up to 100 times fainter.[18][19][20] This is expected to enable a broad range of investigations across the fields of astronomy and cosmology, such as observations of first stars and the formation of the first galaxies, as well as detailed atmospheric characterization of potentially habitable exoplanets.
https://www.google.com/search?q=james+webb+telescope&client=safari&prmd=niv&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjko_GgkNz2AhWZnWoFHcSYAtsQ_AUIFCgA&biw=414&bih=714&dpr=2

KnownUnknown:

The rabid imagination of the intellectually moribund.

Meanwhile in saner climes:
With greatly improved infrared resolution and sensitivity, it will view objects too old and distant for Hubble—some up to 100 times fainter.[18][19][20] This is expected to enable a broad range of investigations across the fields of astronomy and cosmology, such as observations of first stars and the formation of the first galaxies, as well as detailed atmospheric characterization of potentially habitable exoplanets.
https://www.google.com/search?q=james+webb+telescope&client=safari&prmd=niv&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjko_GgkNz2AhWZnWoFHcSYAtsQ_AUIFCgA&biw=414&bih=714&dpr=2

You Fall Twice Here!

1) (Them Say) Hearsay Evidence!

2) Fallabilty of "Argumentum invensionis"- You say it is True because it is known he makes things (AND THIS IS THE TRAP THEY HAVE BEEN PLANNING TO SPIN ALL ALONG, IN CREATING AND CREATING THINGS, SO THAT YOU WOULD BUY THEIR RATSHIT EXACTLY AS YOU HAVE SO BOUGHT AND CONSUMED!

BOTH ARE INVALID! GO FIND A PROPER PROOF OF TRUTH IF YOU CAN.

MEANWHILE, NONE OF YOU ARE REBUTTING MY ASSERTION! YOU HAVE ALL RUN AWAY! WHICH IS VERY GOOD FOR ME, FOR I WIN AND NONE OF YOU CAN ANSWER!

Dtruthspeaker:


You Fall Twice Here!

1) (Them Say) Hearsay Evidence!

2) Fallabilty of "Argumentum invensionis"- You say it is True because it is known he makes things (AND THIS IS THE TRAP THEY HAVE BEEN PLANNING TO SPIN ALL ALONG, IN CREATING AND CREATING THINGS, SO THAT YOU WOULD BUY THEIR RATSHIT EXACTLY AS YOU HAVE SO BOUGHT AND CONSUMED!

BOTH ARE INVALID! GO FIND A PROPER PROOF OF TRUTH IF YOU CAN.

MEANWHILE, NONE OF YOU ARE REBUTTING MY ASSERTION! YOU HAVE ALL RUN AWAY! WHICH IS VERY GOOD FOR ME, FOR I WIN AND NONE OF YOU CAN ANSWER!

You’ve definitely won whatever competition you think you’re in.

KnownUnknown:


You’ve definitely won whatever competition you think you’re in.

Huh! This is too easy na. I thought you guys have upgraded to something stimulating that would have even made me lose today.

Well, no wahala, you guys do not have any valid argument before, but I am just waiting, maybe there might be a person who can validly prove your "Darwinian Lie"

Dtruthspeaker:


Huh! This is too easy na. I thought you guys have upgraded to something stimulating that would have even made me lose today.

Well, no wahala, you guys do not have any valid argument before, but I am just waiting, maybe there might be a person who can validly prove your "Darwinian Lie"

Ah, the “Darwinian lie”. Meanwhile, they drop dead from malaria.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/malaria-mosquitoes-evolving

KnownUnknown:


Ah, the “Darwinian lie”. Meanwhile, they drop dead from malaria...

Same as you guys are dropping dead from the nightly murders from your wives and sex partners!

Dtruthspeaker:


Huh! This is too easy na. I thought you guys have upgraded to something stimulating that would have even made me lose today.

Well, no wahala, you guys do not have any valid argument before, but I am just waiting, maybe there might be a person who can validly prove your "Darwinian Lie"

this guy could pass for the dumbest theist on this platform.
You ironically require prove for Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection but you are the same person who have faith in fictitious deities without any evidence...... you've got shit for brains
By the way,Darwin's [b][/b]discovery could be observed everywhere around you in nature,even in your own body

Dliquidmetal:
this guy could pass for the dumbest theist on this platform.
You ironically require prove for Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection but you are the same person who have faith in fictitious deities without any evidence...... you've got shit for brains
By the way,Darwin's discovery could be observed everywhere around you in nature,even in your own body

You ought to know that you are one of the most stewpidest God hater in this forum.

For I have presented my case, this same case, for He Whom we call God, up here, for the past 4 years and not one of you could get past it and yet you say He is fictitious?

Now you stoopidly rushed to make a case for "Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection" when no one asked you ORIGINAL CHANGE OF POST!

SO YOU SEE, YOU ARE THE VACUUM HEAD ANTI-GOD OF THE DAY SUCH THAT YOU COULD NOT EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT BEFORE YOU, BUT YOU FLEW OFF TO GO SETTING YOUR OWN QUESTION AND ANSWERING IT.

I am sure you are one of those kazeems people should run from.

Customer: 'Oga mercury, the car does not start!"

Dliquidmetal man: "ehen! Na the tyre. Make we pump am!"

What a spectacular slowpoke are you!

Dtruthspeaker:


You ought to know that you are one of the most stewpidest God hater in this forum.

For I have presented my case, this same case, for He Whom we call God, up here, for the past 4 years and not one of you could get past it and yet you say He is fictitious?

Now you stoopidly rushed to make a case for "Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection" when no one asked you ORIGINAL CHANGE OF POST!

SO YOU SEE, YOU ARE THE VACUUM HEAD ANTI-GOD OF THE DAY SUCH THAT YOU COULD NOT EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT BEFORE YOU, BUT YOU FLEW OFF TO GO SETTING YOUR OWN QUESTION AND ANSWERING IT.

I am sure you are one of those kazeems people should run from.

Customer: 'Oga mercury, the car does not start!"

Dliquidmetal man: "ehen! Na the tyre. Make we pump am!"

What a spectacular slowpoke are you!

mehn you on some peyote shit always haha
I don't hate your god,what I hate is falsehood being peddled by you miscreants.
You,ironically require prove of something when you supposedly rely on faith(which isn't evident btw) you don't need prove of anything,just have "faith" in whatever anyone says because thats your Philosophy.
You are anti-reason and you do not have an iota of shame peddling it all around this forum,yours gods are supposedly"All powerful and all knowing and all wise" but the simple tasks of proving and defending him/itself is very hard. Fvcking dunce

Scientists don't like IMAGINATIONS, DREAMS AND GUESSES.

Dliquidmetal:
...You,ironically require prove of something when you supposedly rely on faith.

Can somebori please fill this Vacuum head that "Shifting the burden of Proof" is an invalid argument not to talk of CHANGE OF POST! The contest is not "rely on faith" but it is expected that this Olodo will change his geography question paper into Crk!

The contest is very clear up there. And clearly I have won. You do not have any evidence WHEREAS, MINE IS STANDING THERE WAITING FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS FOR YOU PEOPLE TO VALIDLY TEAR IT DOWN. BUT YOU ARE ALL FAILING!

Your own personal problem is "faith" raise a thread on it, I'll answer you. And like this thread, you would not have any thing valid to say.

So, you just wasted time and energy and anger talking about a different thing!

What a loss and a monumental waste!

It's simple, creation is unfalsifiable, therefore it has nothing to do with science.

The simple scientific methodology is.
1. Make an observation, or define a question.
2. Create a hypothesis, or make predictions.
3. Test the hypothesis, gather evidence, by way of experiments and/or making observations in the natural world, in a repeatable fashion.
4. Analyze data and draw conclusions.
5. Communicate findings.

Do proponents of creation follow these steps?

IMAliyu:
It's simple, creation is unfalsifiable, therefore it has nothing to do with science.

The simple scientific methodology is.
1. Make an observation, or define a question.
2. Create a hypothesis, or make predictions.
3. Test the hypothesis, gather evidence, by way of experiments and/or making observations in the natural world, in a repeatable fashion.
4. Analyze data and draw conclusions.
5. Communicate findings.

Do proponents of creation follow these steps?

You and your myopia again!

Now you confuse the process of the creation of your mannequins, cars and phones with the creation of the things, you did not create eg the land, sea, air, trees, animals, you yourself etc

Even us did not create ourselves, so how then can we possibly "follow those step" when we were not there during the creation period or process?

Please, find something valid to say.

Dtruthspeaker:


See idiota who has been desperately struggling to obtain a Win in a faceless forum BUT BECAUSE OF LOSS, HE IS NOW BITTERLY COMPLAINING ABOUT MY UNENDED WIN!

LOOOSER!



Shitty people are always envious and jealous of other people's Wins and start abusing them WHEN THEY WIN AGAIN!

Shit Face Loser!



If I did, you or one of my many enemies here would surely have pointed it out, but now Because you do not have any valid thing to say, you have desperatell resorted to Lying! Shit Face Lying Complaining Loser!

So, Alli these is just a Loser's Lamentation of Loss!

Diee Looser!

And o, I do know that you are desperately doing all this things because you are afraid that you will be left a lone, unprotected by your company of Anti-God who are seeing that they are indeed foolish for choosing atheism exactly as as Written!

The fool indeed thought there is no God and said it!

Shit Face Fool! The companions of a Fool is still a Pack of Fools! So, no difference. . But shit full fool does not know! What a spectacular Fool!

you don't project yourself on others thinking we are all idiots like yourself alright? But I'm sure you don't have the balls to be this stupid in real life,I'd just take all your ramblings as that of an homeless dog........apply reason and cure your deluded mind,religious robot.

Dliquidmetal:
you don't project yourself on others thinking we are all idiots like yourself alright? But I'm sure you don't have the balls to be this stupid in real life,I'd just take all your ramblings as that of an homeless dog........apply reason and cure your deluded mind,religious robot.

hahahaha BITTER LOSER! SEE PAIN AND LAMENTATION!

ALL BECAUSE, NO ROAD!

Dtruthspeaker:


You and your myopia again!

Now you confuse the process of the creation of your mannequins, cars and phones with the creation of the things, you did not create eg the land, sea, air, trees, animals, you yourself etc

Even us did not create ourselves, so how then can we possibly "follow those step" when we were not there during the creation period or process?

Please, find something valid to say.

You seem frustrated.
Go drink tea, and relax.

And creationism is not science. And scientist have no obligation to entertain unprovable claims. Take it or leave it.

IMAliyu:

You seem frustrated.
Go drink tea, and relax.

And creationism is not science.

How you people always set your own question (CHANGE OF POST) when you can not answer the Question set in front of you is always hilarious.

The question is not "creationism" but how this world began, as far as is possible to see. Very clear question.

But you people just must Change the question.

IMAliyu:

And scientist have no obligation to entertain unprovable claims.Take it or leave it.

hahahahaha
The Scientians are Running Away and Making Excuses SINCE THEY CAN NOT ANSWER! hahahaha hooo

SEE HOW THEY RUN, STUPID BIG FAT LIARS!

Dtruthspeaker:


How you people always set your own question (CHANGE OF POST) when you can not answer the Question set in front of you is always hilarious.

The question is not "creationism" but how this world began, as far as is possible to see. Very clear question.

But you people just must Change the question.

See definition of creationism in the screenshot.

You have a problem with me saying creation or creationism is not science, because it doesn't and follow the scientific method?
You are free to make a philosophical case for it, but that isn't science.

hahahahaha
The Scientians are Running Away and Making Excuses SINCE THEY CAN NOT ANSWER! hahahaha hooo

SEE HOW THEY RUN, STUPID BIG FAT LIARS!

You see your inflated ego?

Science, never makes claims about things it doesn't have proof/evidence for. And is comfortable with the answer "I don't know".
No one knows what sparked the beginning of the current universe, and science does not commit the God of the gaps fallacy.

If you are sure you know with great certainty, you should have no difficulty presenting what evidence you have and allowing it to be scrutinized.

IMAliyu:

See definition of creationism in the screenshot.

Your screen shot is still departing from the question.

We are not talking about what anyone believes in, WE ARE STARTING AT THE BEGINNING, WHICH IS INQUEST TO "how this world began, as far as is possible to see and validly prove."

Worckch sneakily and invalidly introduced evolution, and I kicked it out

I have presented Nature's Law of Existence and creation AND NO ONE COUNTERS.

So these are the defined sides of inquest. And any thing which does not validly answer the question "how this world began" is not relevant.

That is what is going on!

IMAliyu:

If you are sure you know with great certainty, you should have no difficulty presenting what evidence you have and allowing it to be scrutinized.

I have already presented my evidence up here. AND YOU SAW IT AND NONE OF YOU COULD REBUT, SINCE MORNING TILL NOW, SINCE 4 YEARS AGO!

So you can not pretend "lack of knowledge" for it is clearly expressed up there. Therefore, it is because you have no valid rebuttal, you are now trying to feign "lack of knowledge".

Dtruthspeaker:


Your screen shot is still departing from the question.

We are not talking about what anyone believes in, WE ARE STARTING AT THE BEGINNING, WHICH IS INQUEST TO "how this world began, as far as is possible to see and validly prove."

Worckch sneakily and invalidly introduced evolution, and I kicked it out

I have presented Nature's Law of Existence and creation AND NO ONE COUNTERS.

So these are the defined sides of inquest. And any thing which does not validly answer the question "how this world began" is not relevant.

That is what is going on!


I have already presented my evidence up here. AND YOU SAW IT AND NONE OF YOU COULD REBUT, SINCE MORNING TILL NOW, SINCE 4 YEARS AGO!

So you can not pretend "lack of knowledge" for it is clearly expressed up there. Therefore, it is because you have no valid rebuttal, you are now trying to feign "lack of knowledge".

You made the assumption, I read the previous posts besides the op's.
I see, you thought my first post here was directed at you, no wonder you seemed frustrated.

Let's see, I assume this reply is what you meant by this "Worck.ch sneakily and invalidly introduced evolution, and I kicked it out"

Dtruthspeaker:


A Christian would have said

Scientist: “Okay, let's look at evolution from a creationist viewpoint

Christian: Objection! The accurate question is let us look at how this world began, as far as is possible.

Scientists: can't do that, I'll be Fired!

Christian: I thought "Science" means "To know"?

Scientists: well, I don't want to know. I just want to be the one to tell the stories as my employers have directed.

Christian: then there is no "let's look" but a "hey, hear what my employers say I should tell you", which you can do to the plants in your house.

And this means this reply
"I have presented Nature's Law of Existence and creation AND NO ONE COUNTERS."

Dtruthspeaker:


And I always presented the first evidence you yourself have examined and found no fault.

Which is, "is there any thing which made itself from "emptiness" to some thing? Or is capable of making itself, by itself?

Eg. Did a mannequin make itself?

Or can a table make itself?

Oya, rebut, if you can! No invalid or Bad Evidence, No change of post, No Bad Arguments (what you people call Fallacy)

If I'm not mistaken.

before you confirm the above, let me address this "And any thing which does not validly answer the question "how this world began" is not relevant."

The observable scientific evidence shows the universe expanded form a single point, and this is dubbed the BigBang (I am willing, to individually lay out the observations and evidence if requested).
If the nature of your question is "what sparked the universe into existence" the straight answer is IDK, and there exists no scientific explanation with proof at the moment, so scientists in the field will say they don't know, it's all in the realm of philosophy and hypothesis right now.

IMAliyu:

You made the assumption, I read the previous posts besides the op's.
I see, you thought my first post here was directed at you, no wonder you seemed frustrated.

I knew it was not directed at me but as long as at it was not True, i came to tear it to shreds!

IMAliyu:

The observable[b] scientific [b]evidence shows the universe expanded form a single point,
and this is dubbed the BigBang (I am willing, to individually lay out the observations and evidence if requested)...

First, you are supposed to lay down the evidence you claim to have for us to see. BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!

IMAliyu:

If the nature of your question is "what sparked the universe into existence" the straight answer is IDK, and there exists no scientific explanation with proof at the moment, so scientists in the field will say they don't know, it's all in the realm of philosophy and hypothesis right now.

That is the question, which is "how this world began".

Thus, if your answer is "I Don't Know" (iDK) then you really can not participate in this issue.

We want people who know to speak on it.

Therefore, this answer cancels your earlier answer on Uncle Bang Bang, for you don't know.

Dtruthspeaker:


And I always presented the first evidence you yourself have examined and found no fault.

Which is, "is there any thing which made itself from "emptiness" to some thing? Or is capable of making itself, by itself?

Yes. Obviously. Least if you do God, whom, as far as is claimed, came out of emptiness, unless you want to claim a superior made God.

KnownUnknown:


Ah, the “Darwinian lie”. Meanwhile, they drop dead from malaria.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/malaria-mosquitoes-evolving

I so love the world we live in where ignorance is rewarded with death.

The Nigerian breeds mosquitoes in gutter farms and feeds them human blood and in the process, die from the resulting malaria the mosquito gladly gives them, but instead of learning to eradicate farms, let us please pray.

Now, if only the book were read and understood instead of merely believed.

Dliquidmetal:
this guy could pass for the dumbest theist on this platform.
You ironically require prove for Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection but you are the same person who have faith in fictitious deities without any evidence...... you've got shit for brains
By the way,Darwin's discovery could be observed everywhere around you in nature,even in your own body discovery could be observed everywhere around you in nature,even in your own body

Sorry, but working eyes are required for that, hence the optician called Jesus the eye opener. Unfortunately, looking, some see not, for they are blind.

orisa37:
Scientists don't like IMAGINATIONS, DREAMS AND GUESSES.

Yes they do. Lots of science has resulted from "IMAGINATIONS, DREAMS AND GUESSES", just that when you wake up you got to test what you imagined, dreamt or guessed.

I used to dream I had Naira when I was poor and 13. I'd hide the money in my dream and go look for it when I woke up, but just as I'd wake up hungry from dreaming I'd eaten a huge delicious meal, so was I nairaless and poor despite all my imagining and dreaming and guessing.

I solved my nairalessness with use my senses science, and figured out how to convert dream Naira to real wide awake naira and have never been nairaless ever since.

budaatum:

Yes. Obviously. Least if you do God, whom, as far as is claimed, came out of emptiness, unless you want to claim a superior made God.

INVALID RESPONSE!

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS WORLD AND THE THINGS IN IT, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN AND KNOWN.

AND NO SPACE TRAVEL TO GOD'S WORLD WHICH NO MAN HAS SEEN AND CAN KNOW!

SO, INVALID!