Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

I've asked him time and again for pages and pages what he alleges his dinosaur bullshit has to do with evidence of creationism. I don't expect a direct or coherent answer from him--but i do intend to keep asking him, because otherwise, he gets a free ride.

So, "real life," even if one were to stipulate your nonsense about "dino-like" images (the point has been well made that you are gradually backing down) was worth a discussion, how does that relate to evidence for creationism?

0 Replies

Kicky:
I thought that I had moved on to just pointing out Real Lies lies and the ridiculousness of his statements but if you see anywhere you think I am doing anything else please point it out to me so I can modify my behavior.

0 Replies

There is a disconnect in all of "real life's" arguments which people often fail to take into consideration. Take, for instance, his remarks about whether or not there were liquid water on the earth at the beginning of its history. He's dropped that one like a hot rock now, because, of course, his object was only to sneer and sow doubt, not to make a solid point. He has consistently said in these fora for years that he believes the earth to be thousands or years old, not either millions or billions of years old. But here he has advanced "evidence" (by specifically ignoring the qualifier of "if" the atmosphere billions of years ago were as it is now) that liquid water were not possible on the early earth. But by his stated time line, any contentions about how luminous the sun were billions of years ago is meaningless, because in his chronology, the sun would not have existed billions of years ago. He's just playing games, and as his object is not to convince skeptical, critically thinking individuals, but only the casual, gullible reader, it doesn't matter to him that he is routinely exposed as a bullshit artist.

Wilso's thread enjoins people not to tell him that there is any proof for creationsism. The member "real life" has observed that injunction--he has not offered a single word in proof of creationism.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I've asked him time and again for pages and pages what he alleges his dinosaur........

The fact that you don't like an answer doesn't mean it hasn't been offered.

The answer to this particular question I had thought was fairly obvious.

Apparently it either isn't as obvious as I had considered it to be, or you just like to pretend that it's 'unanswerable'.

But in either case it was addressed.

0 Replies

Getting tired of reading this thread.

Would a creationist please provide a single piece of evidence to be reviewed. Evidence is not challenging altrnative theories. I'm talking about real evidence.

Put up or shut up. You have it or you don't.

If you have it, you're not sharing it.

If you dont' have it, you need to just be honest and say you don't have any. It's incredibly dishonest to present yourself any other way.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I have no proof. Only reasons.

That is why this thread is so exasperating to those expecting and to those attempting 'proof'.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I have no proof. Only reasons.

That is why this thread is so exasperating to those expecting and to those attempting 'proof'.

Thank you. Honesty is all I asked for.

You'll understand then why I have my own reasons to believe otherwise.

T
K
O

0 Replies

TKO:
No, you were given the answer but you must have missed ityeathat's rightmissed it! Now Homeland Security has determined the answer is secretyeasecret! So I'd love to repeat the answer but I'mnotallowedYeanot allowedand I'mapatriotyea a patriot.

Any resemblance of this answer to a poster named Real Lies is purely coincidental!

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

TKO:
No, you were given the answer but you must have missed ityeathat's rightmissed it! Now Homeland Security has determined the answer is secretyeasecret! So I'd love to repeat the answer but I'mnotallowedYeanot allowedand I'mapatriotyea a patriot.

Any resemblance of this answer to a poster named Real Lies is purely coincidental!

That hurts my mind
K
Ouch1

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Which I thought was the point of the post, that there is no SCIENTIFIC proof for a purely religious concept, which others have been trying to say there is on other threads. I though the original post meant to show the absurdity/futility of any attempt to do this. I may have misunderstood.
Exactly.

What we accept as evidence and how we evaluate such evidence differs between disciplines.

That is the point I have made as well.

Scientific proof is based on observation, experimentation, repetition.

Creation and evolution are both postulated as historical occurences.

What happened then cannot be observed or repeated now.

That is why both evolution and creation use primarily circumstantial evidence. Inferences are drawn from what we see in the present to try to determine what happened in the past.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

No, you were given the answer but you must have missed it.....

I see you haven't yet learned to use the 'Search' function. Rolling Eyes

Here is where I addressed Setanta's question http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2881118#2881118

If you had read the entire thread, that would be another method of finding it. It wasn't that long ago. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Which I thought was the point of the post, that there is no SCIENTIFIC proof for a purely religious concept, which others have been trying to say there is on other threads. I though the original post meant to show the absurdity/futility of any attempt to do this. I may have misunderstood.
Exactly.

What we accept as evidence and how we evaluate such evidence differs between disciplines.

That is the point I have made as well.

Scientific proof is based on observation, experimentation, repetition.

Creation and evolution are both postulated as historical occurences.

What happened then cannot be observed or repeated now.

I see.. but you are capable of claiming that dinosaurs lived with humans even though it can't be observed or repeated now?
You claimed the oceans were frozen 3 billion years ago but you have never observed it and it certainly can't be repeated.
You claimed the sun was cooler 3 billion years ago but you have never observed that.

Funny how you are quick to jump on "scientific" proof when it supports you wacky ideas. Maybe you should try meeting the standards you set for others.

Quote:

That is why both evolution and creation use primarily circumstantial evidence. Inferences are drawn from what we see in the present to try to determine what happened in the past.

So, are you ready to admit the oceans were not frozen?
Are you ready to admit that you have never seen a dinosaur live with a human?
Are you ready to admit you are completely nuts for suggesting the sun was cooler 3 billion years ago?

Of course you still haven't answered how the sun could even exist 3 billion years ago since it is only 6000 years old.

0 Replies

Lessee, who was it who tried to trash me for posting answers in the 'wrong thread' to 'dance' in avoidance of answering?

Oh yeah, that was Parados. Rolling Eyes

And which thread were we discussing the Faint Young Sun paradox and the frozen oceans in?

Oh yeah, that was the Evolution thread. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Creation and evolution are both postulated as historical occurences.

Creation however even if treated as a historical occurance is recorded in so many forms that it does not converge on a singularity.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Are you denying that you made those statements? I never said you made all those statements in this thread. I am only pointing out you made those statements and how they don't meet the standard you claim science has to meet to be valid.

You did a direct quote from one thread and responded to it in the other thread. Get as snotty as you want to. I don't care. It only shows how petty you are when you can't deal with the issues. I don't think you will find too many of my posts where I haven't dealt directly with issues you or someone else raised.

0 Replies

annoying.

Just address the inconsistancies in your posts RL as parados has lined out.

Your cowardice has no end.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

No, you were given the answer but you must have missed it.....

I see you haven't yet learned to use the 'Search' function.

Here is where I addressed Setanta's question http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2881118#2881118

If you had read the entire thread, that would be another method of finding it. It wasn't that long ago.

This is more of our typical bullshit. If one were to stipulate--merely for continuing a pointless discussion with someone who knowingly avoids direct answers to direct questions, obfuscates by introducing irrelevant and willfully disingenuous arguments, and uses materials which are contradicted by his own stated world view--that the earth were not as old as science so justifiably estimates it to be: that would still not constitute proof of creationism.

Even if you succeeded (which you never will) in discrediting a theory of evolution, that does not constitute proof that there were a theistic creation. We don't live in a cosmos which is rigidly bound by your unimaginative dualistic views--the failure of science to answer any goofy question you are pleased to ask (or any apparent failure which is not an actual failure) does not mean that you get to therefore assert that your imaginary friend created the cosmos.

Therefore, what proof have you provided in this thread for creationism? That crapola you linked in the quoted text above doesn't fit the bill.

0 Replies

to TKO's response:

And the choir sang "AAAAAAMMMMMEEEENNNNN"

0 Replies

parados wrote:

You claimed the oceans were frozen 3 billion years ago but you have never observed it and it certainly can't be repeated.

The Snowball Earth theory has been gaining ground in recent years. But the time period referenced for that is 550mya to 750mya (not 3 billion). I don't know what RL is talking about.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't know what RL is talking about.

Neither does "real life"--but that has never troubled him, nor lessened the frequency with which he demonstrates the case.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know