meh pbear, reef shark will merely say that he doesn’t have to explain that because creationism is not taught as fact in science textbooks.
Which is kind of interesting because tacitly its admitting that creationism (and by extension the bible) is a nice story that shouldn’t be held to any standards of proof. On that we can agree.
I have. It’s not new. Reef shark has yet to provide a single new, unique argument that hasn’t already been answered and reanswered a thousand times over.
I do have a question for him, however. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a God who is in some way ultimately responsible for the existence of the universe. Now, as we have examined the universe around us, we have discovered that it is ruled by physical laws, which are, for the most part, simple and easy to understand. Some, like quantum mechanics or chaos theory, may not be easy to understand, yet they are still within our mental grasp.
Let us further assume for the sake of argument, that reef shark is right, and that simple physical processes are completely incapable of explaining life, its origins, and its development over time. Let us say that the only clear and logical explanation for life’s existence in all its many forms is that God Himself came down to Earth from Heaven and specifically snapped his fingers and magicked each and every individual species into existence out of thin air. We will ignore, for the moment, the logical inconsistencies with this state of affairs, such as extinction and other so-called “scientific” evidence.
My question is two-fold. First, why would God go to the trouble of creating this universe and all its natural and physical laws, which govern everything from the behavior of a black hole to the quantum fields of electrons to the fusion reactions of the sun to the flow of the atmosphere around the Earth, and then say “screw it, I’m just going to use magic to make life.”? Is there any explanation for this inconsistency?
Secondly, what about faith? Aren’t we supposed to have faith in God? Isn’t it against the teachings of most religions to believe that God will provide us simple proof of his existence? After all, if there’s proof, there’s no need for faith. In that case, if God truly did fill this entire planet with life forms that could only have come into existence through God’s magic, isn’t that absolute and incontrovertable proof that God exists? So where does that leave faith? How is that any different than God appearing in the air to the whole population of the Earth and demanding that we all worship Him?
Just missed the edit window. Wanted to add:
I’ve asked this question of several different creationists so far, and have had no answer beyond a resounding silence. Not even the standard “we can’t understand God’s motives” creationist non-answer.
Biblical floods are not necessary to form fossils. But thanks anyway!
Which is what we keep saying to you.
All the life forms on this planet have come to be how they are, through EVOLUTION, over billions of years.
Which is consistent with what we see.
If all creatures had been created as they are, all at once, some 10.000 years ago, we would see different things.
For instance, all the fossils would be jumbled up, not in layers. Dinosaur fossils could be found in layers above those containing mammoths or contemporary animals.
There should even be plenty of actual dinosaur bones, that haven’t petrified.
Like we find plenty of bones from mammoths.
If all creatures had been created as they are, all at once, some 10.000 years ago, with man as the perfect being, on top of the pyramid, why aren’t we better designed?
Why do we share so much communality with other animals. Why aren’t we more special? We just seem to be a kind of ape.
Why were there even different kinds of humans? Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc etc.
Why were there animals made extinct, during this flood of yours, in the first place?
You still haven’t answered my question on that.
The bible says Noah took specimens from ALL animals on board.
Do you see how the flood story would make sense to a bronze age people that had never heard of the America’s or Australia? That thought the world was just a few thousand kilometers in diameter. That didn’t know how many kinds of animal there were and thought they knew them all and they would fit into a big boat.
Do you see how you need to twist yourself and the observable, for this story to remain believable to a mankind that has learned so much more about the world he lives in?
The budget ran out, so God rushed out the beta version human. A customer service rep showed up later offering a patch, but customer reaction was really bad; they practically crucified him over it.
Proving evolution is a difficult task, simply because the evidence present for it is so completely comprehensive that actually explaining all of it involves many years of study. But let me show you in the right direction…
As far as really simple proofs, none of the following really demonstrate that evolution is fact, but if this doesn’t make you look over your position and think “Huh. Why is that a fact?”, then I can’t really help you.
I’m aware that none of this “proves” evolution. But we don’t have to prove evolution to you. I’m aware this sounds arrogant, but evolution is fact. It’s proven fact, accepted by essentially all authorities on the subject, and the small minority of people who disagree show a consistent lack of education, understanding of the subject matter, and honesty – the aforementioned Kent Hovind, for example, did not go “undefeated” in debates; multiple people have told him (and AiG, and Eric Hovind, and every other creationist hack) exactly why they’re wrong countless times. They’ve explained why Hovind’s attempts to disprove carbon dating were so inherently flawed. They’ve explained why AiG’s claims are false (to the director, no less!), gotten no answer, and the claims have remained up. There is an entire index to creationist claims (most of your posts in this thread can be found here)
Nope. It relies on some degree of chance, to be sure, but natural selection is anything but random.
A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
[…]
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]
So we cite one of the foremost and respected evolutionary biologists on the planet, and you cite a creationist hack who has been debunked more times than Loose Change?
Go get an education. Seriously.
Moderating
This post brings up several separate issues.
First, you are reacting to a post in which a Mod “defended” you by Warning another poster for insulting you and there have been other Mod instructions to refrain from attacks on you, as well. So it is interesting that you used that post as a trigger for your odd comments, here.
Second, I have not insulted you and I do not recall Marey insulting you, so your accusation seems a bit out of line. (Pointing out errors in fact or logic or poor exposition is not insulting you, even if you choose to be insulted by it.)
You, on the other hand, have made much more insulting remarks to Marley with your scornful attack on the loss of his grandparents. Not enough to earn you a Warning, but certainly outside decent behavior and a pretty good example of what would generally be regarded as “unChristian” behavior.
Third, we really would not “love” to ban you. Outside of spammers, banning posters requires a bit of effort in which we have to gather evidence that a poster has broken sufficient rules for a sufficient length of time to persuade other members of the staff to agree to the banning, then we have to document the violations and (for posters who have been here awhile), publish them to demonstrate that we were not banning a poster capriciously. It is much easier for us if you simply post in a reasonable manner, even if we disagree with you.
Finally, you have explicitly stated that if we ban you, you will return as a sock-puppet. That is a violation of the rules.
= = =
I have no desire to ban you, (I would prefer that you actually posted something worth reading), but if you continue to post one-liners and other drivel instead of actually engaging in a serious debate–particularly since most of the one-liners you post are simply C&Pd from a website that is, itself, pretty dishonest in its presentation of evolution–then I probably will shut down this thread. It is too much of a hassle to keep having to read through this nonsense just to see whether you have provoked someone into insulting you, and, since you are not actually debating with any honesty, here, the thread is pretty much a waste of time and server space.
[ /Moderating ]
Move it to the pit instead of closing it! I have some choice words for the OP that I can’t really offer in GD! 
You can always open a new thread, there, yourself.
Wrong and a half. Where do you get your “facts?”
After you:
I’ll repeat what I wrote so you can do more than just ignore it:
Not only are there two creation accounts there, there is no evidence that the earth was created before the Sun. Further, the account in the first chapter of Genesis is incoherent for a variety of reasons:
Those just popped out at me. How is this anything other than an obvious creation myth?
Also, it looks like others have explained it to you…
Oops, got scooped by about a dozen people. I’ll just slink on out of here. 
Hovind doesn’t explain anything; Dawkins does.
DNA is easily explainable.
And bacteria asexually bequeath genes to offspring all the time.
Three strikes. Next batter?
On feathered dinosaurs:here and here are some examples- there are plenty more from fossil evidence in the first link.
In addition to all the organisms that use asexual reproduction, there’s parthogenesis ( growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization), apomixis (similar method for plants), and all the ways that plants can be reproduced via propagation (how do you think we get seedless grapes?)
In addition, unicellular organisms can exchange DNA strands. And there are viruses, which have to invade the cell of another organism to reproduce.
I noticed you have yet to respond to my post. Couldn’t come up with any answers to my questions, could you?
Here’s another - creationism is heavily reliant on the idea that the earth was created in 6 days. What makes you think that these were six human days and not 6 days as experienced by God? The new testament says that in with God, “a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter, 3:8)
Wait, how can somebody watch the bones when they mate? Unless I’ve misread the thread, you can’t even see the bones unless the only part of the whale that’s present is the skeleton (which one might expect to preclude any mating activities). Is there a video somewhere online that shows two whale skeletons fucking each other?
Wait, my bad. I forgot about Rule 34.
If you’re watching something mate, by definition you’re watching a bone.
Y’know, I thought you were joking, but, no… Several pictures of whales in flagrante. God, I love the internet!
One of the things that always irks me about this class of creationist – and it applies to people who dispute Einstein, too – is that they think they can win the debate at a very simple level of technical discourse. It’s as if evolution – or relativity – can be disproven at the Junior High School level of scientific knowledge.
If this were so – if a hydraulics engineer can see how it is all completely false – then what are tens of thousands of people doing in our universities? What are the biologists actually working on? It’s as if they – and Hawking, Penrose, and others – are all secretly writing “All Work and No Play” on reams of paper, hoping that no one will catch wise.
It’s like a bad Jimmy Olsen comic book from the 1960’s. The scientist offers a new theory, but the boy reporter instantly says, “No! This is a hoax! The speed of light is different than the speed of sound!”
It’s the same “magic word” kind of thinking that’s behind the tax resistance guys; as if they’re the only ones who know the truth – that the 16th Amendment isn’t really the law of the land. All those tens of thousands of lawyers who think otherwise are ignorant of this!