0
   

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

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 11:08 am
baddog1 wrote:
. . .When you speak of "fundamental biblical creation", are you talking about the origin of life? Origin of the Bible? No kidding here - I am unclear on what you're asking for.
Me neither.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 11:11 am
rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
To consider that the reality of anything is not proof enough is laughable.


real life wrote:
Ros asked wouldn't there be evidence of creation in something that is incongruous with the rest of nature?

Really that is silly.

If you were designing something (a car, an airplane, etc) would you include something that clearly didn't fit and didn't work together with the whole? C'mon.


Baddog and RL are no longer arguing in favor of biblical creation. The statements above are more consistent with some form of deistic creation, or even simple acceptance of the Big Bang and Evolution with a "God" that started it all.

I wish they would be consistent about which version of creationism they are arguing for. And I wish they would offer some bit of actual evidence for whatever it is they believe.

Come on guys, do you believe in fundamental biblical creation, or not? If not, then we need to know what you believe before we can have much of a discussion.


Get some coffee before you post , ros.

No idea what you are talking about.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 11:23 am
Did someone say COFFEE?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 12:34 pm
neologist wrote:
Xingu is a master of many straw men. And he doesn't even look like his avatar.


No strawman here. I asked a simple question and I can't get him to answer it. So I gave him a picture. I thought he would understand a picture better than words.

Your Biblical story is full of crap. Vegetation did not emerge on earth before the sun, moon and stars.

Also the first life was marine organisms, not flowering plants. RL presented that argument when he talked about the Cambrian Explosion. They were all marine creatures, no fruit trees or plants of any type.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 12:45 pm
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
If Creationism is real the evidence would be different than what we now see as evidence for evolution. Creationism says all animals, vegetation and insects were created at the same time. . .
Creationism is not able to say anything; but that is besides the point.

The bible does not say everything was created at the same time. This is another of your sophomoric straw men that you continue to use even when shown otherwise. Just because a few preachers with moron IQs have gone on record espousing a certain point does not make it scriptural.

Those who continue to use their stupidity to indict the bible have either descended to their intellectual level or are lying.


Very well not created at the same time then but all life that ever existed was present on earth at some point in time and were loaded onto the Ark. By day six everything that lived was created. Agree?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 01:27 pm
You also have to know if they are young earth or old earth believers.

Are the believers in evolution with an intelligent designer.

Do they think god created everything on earth or just humans.

Do you accept some parts of the theory of evolution but not others.


It can go on and on and on.

It's not like its as simple as Evolution vs. Creationism, even though that is how many of you would like to think of it.

RL strikes me as a Young Earth guy, while Neo seems more OE. I doubt they agree about very much when asked HOW god created everthing. I may be wrong here.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 01:30 pm
xingu wrote:
. . . all life that ever existed was present on earth at some point in time and were loaded onto the Ark.
Not stated. There is no reason to assume that many species had not become extinct long before humans were created.
xingu wrote:
By day six everything that lived was created. Agree?
By the end of day six. I believe so.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 01:40 pm
xingu wrote:
. . . Your Biblical story is full of crap. Vegetation did not emerge on earth before the sun, moon and stars. . .
Neither of us were there as observers, but it seems apparent from the text that the sun and moon were obscured by the expanse and, although light was present, they could not have been observed until the fourth 'day'. To an observer, it would appear as if they had been created at that time.

Just a guess, of course. I may be old; but I'm not that old.

We could ask CI; but I don't think he is that old either.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 02:31 pm
baddog1 wrote:
Ros:

I have no idea what you're referring to and did not realize that there were different versions of creationism. wilso's original post did not offer this information.

When you speak of "fundamental biblical creation", are you talking about the origin of life? Origin of the Bible? No kidding here - I am unclear on what you're asking for.

Sorry BD I didn't mean to lump you in with RL if that's not what's going on here.

But in general, the term 'creationism' typically refers to the fundamentalist interpretation of biblical creation, ie, seven literal days, Adam and Eve, talking snake, man from dust, etc.

That type of creationism is the one most of us (science types) are in disagreement with because it's in direct conflict with physical evidence. Other types of creationism, such as theistic evolution, or deistic creation are not in direct conflict with physical evidence, and need to be discussed at a different philosophical level.

When you say that the fact that a physical world exists is evidence for 'creation', then you are implying a much more generalized form of creationism than the one most of us are objecting to.

And when RL says that my request for something incongruous with nature is a 'silly' request, he implies the same thing. That's why I associated both of your posts as implying the same thing; some form of deist creationism.

I suppose it would help if you defined for us, exactly what type of creation events you think are supported by the evidence. If the only evidence you find for a creation event is what we find in nature, then you are essentially agreeing with science, the Big Bang and Evolution, and you're just proposing that God started it all. And that's a very different form of creationism than strict biblical fundamentalism.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 02:36 pm
maporsche wrote:
You also have to know if they are young earth or old earth believers.

Exactly. That was my point. There are all kinds of creation beliefs. If these guys are not literal biblical creationists, then we need to know what they are exactly.

maporsche wrote:
RL strikes me as a Young Earth guy, while Neo seems more OE. I doubt they agree about very much when asked HOW god created everthing. I may be wrong here.

I think RL's a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) also, but he's been very vague about exactly what he believes (and vague about just about everything else as well).

I don't know about Neo or Baddog at this point. I always thought BD was a YEC like RL, but after his last post I'm not sure any more.

They need to just tell us, so we don't have to guess.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 02:57 pm
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
. . . all life that ever existed was present on earth at some point in time and were loaded onto the Ark.
Not stated. There is no reason to assume that many species had not become extinct long before humans were created.
xingu wrote:
By day six everything that lived was created. Agree?
By the end of day six. I believe so.


Now you have to understand the problem here Neo. Not all Creationist believe the same thing. As far as I can figure RL, to whom I addressed the question, believes all life created was put on the Ark. Therefore all life created was still alive. I assume this because he says, as do other Creationist, that dinosaurs were on the ark.

Instead of addressing all problems I come across in the Bible I will concentrate on a few.

One, the Bible explicitly states the sun, moon and stars were created after trees and plants. Where is the evidence showing the sun, moon and stars were created after plants? Mind you this is, according to Christians, God writing this book of the Bible, not some drunken jerk-off being as how no drunken jerk-offs were yet created. So it could not have been the observers point of view as the only observer was God himself. Are you saying God didn't know the sun, moon and stars were created on the first day?

Two, If the entire earth was covered in water for a year there should be not vegetation on the planet. It would all be dead. I have yet to see a tree submerged in water for a year and come out looking like the trees in the Creationist paintings.

So, assuming all vegetation died, where did our present plants and trees come from? There is nothing in the Bible that says God commanded Noah to gather all the seeds and spores (don't forget mushrooms) and redistribute them to their proper location after the Flood.

Where is the physical evidence showing all vegetation on earth died at the same time?

Where did the water come from and where did it go? RL suggests that the present mountains didn't exist so it would not take as much water to create the Flood.

That doesn't wash with me. To flood the entire earth you have to have an outside source of water. If the source is from the heavens and not from the earth then where did it go? If Creationist say it went into the earth where is the evidence that supports that argument? Where is the evidence to support an outside source of the water? Where is the evidence to support the claim that all life was destroyed with the exception of one human family sometime between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago?

This thread is about Creationist presenting evidence to support their Bible stories. What I am asking is not supernatural. I want to see them present evidence to support their claims that certain events happened on earth.

I would like to see RL and you, if you choose to, present evidence to support your Creationist Bible stories.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 03:06 pm
I believe everything that exists came about through the application of the natural laws of the universe, those we understand, those we have yet to understand, and those we may never understand.

We struggle in our understanding of these laws because we tend to perceive the universe according to the limited constructs of space and time. We are aware that other dimensions may exist, but are unable to articulate them. If there is a creator who authored natural law, he may very well have created or fabricated space and time. There goes all our speculation about causality.

If any of what I have said makes sense, then each of us must take care not to evaluate our life course according to either hope for reward or desire for license.
0 Replies
 
theMadJW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 06:19 pm
Here's the article that proved Evolution to ME! It made SO much sense!

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x161/theMadEntity/EvolutionFish.jpg
0 Replies
 
theMadJW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 06:24 pm
Hello again, Neo! Still spewing your Evolution Gospel, eh?

Lightning strikes the 'Primordial Sea' SOMEHOW igniting life in the chemical soup- even tho trained scientists with all the technology and controlled environments HAVEN'T been able to!
The spark of life in the 'simple'-celled amoeba (no cell is REALLY simple- in ANY way) SOMEHOW continues to survive undeveloped in a hostile environment. It SOMEHOW finds and assimilates some type of food. It SOMEHOW figures out a need for- and develops- eyes, mouth, fins- and a female fish to procreate with!

After further adapting (definition of adapt= to make fit, as for a specific or new use or situation, often by modification) they crawl onto land and SOMEHOW develop just the features they need to switch to a COMPLETELY different environment, with completely different food sources. How many millions of years do YOU think it took to develop LUNGS??? How did they develop? They didn't need them to survive; they already WERE in the water- and STILL are- even with pollution and over-fishing!

Skipping all the nonsense of how a fish SOMEHOW became a mammal, how is it that the FEMALE fish (or Ape, if you choose to say it was a sexless fish by itself) 'evolved' at the same pace- and in the same DIRECTION as it's mate? How did a Female come about in the FIRST place?


And why didn't civilizations, races & languages originate in different parts of the earth- instead of the Near East- as the sciences show (and the Bible)?

These are just the simple BASIC flaws to the Religious Doctrine of Evolution; 'religious' because believers worship science (man's 'understanding' of the universe around him), and have the same blind passion for their opinions!


http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x161/theMadEntity/Cellreproduction.jpg
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 07:03 pm
Cool pictures. Welcome to the forum, Mad. Looks like someone stole your avatar
0 Replies
 
theMadJW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 09:16 pm
Thank you, Neo! I've tried to load it- but failed! Kept the size & dimensions smaller than the limit- but no dice!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 09:47 pm
Perhaps it senses your madness
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 04:31 am
Quote:
Skipping all the nonsense of how a fish SOMEHOW became a mammal, how is it that the FEMALE fish (or Ape, if you choose to say it was a sexless fish by itself) 'evolved' at the same pace- and in the same DIRECTION as it's mate? How did a Female come about in the FIRST place?


I see your showing your ignorance by asking these questions. How embarrassing.

Can you suggest an alternative and support it with evidence?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 04:46 am
I know I know.

All creation began in the same moment with all the creatures of the earth, including us, being made at the same time. Nothing has changed, all of the species there once were are still here and none have formed or are forming. The dinosaur is a hoax.

Let's see. Oh, all this happened 6000 years ago.


Joe(about 2000 years after humans domesticated the dog.)Nation
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 04:50 am
theMadJW wrote:
Hello again, Neo! Still spewing your Evolution Gospel, eh?

Lightning strikes the 'Primordial Sea' SOMEHOW igniting life in the chemical soup- even tho trained scientists with all the technology and controlled environments HAVEN'T been able to!
The spark of life in the 'simple'-celled amoeba (no cell is REALLY simple- in ANY way) SOMEHOW continues to survive undeveloped in a hostile environment. It SOMEHOW finds and assimilates some type of food. It SOMEHOW figures out a need for- and develops- eyes, mouth, fins- and a female fish to procreate with!

After further adapting (definition of adapt= to make fit, as for a specific or new use or situation, often by modification) they crawl onto land and SOMEHOW develop just the features they need to switch to a COMPLETELY different environment, with completely different food sources. How many millions of years do YOU think it took to develop LUNGS??? How did they develop? They didn't need them to survive; they already WERE in the water- and STILL are- even with pollution and over-fishing!

Skipping all the nonsense of how a fish SOMEHOW became a mammal, how is it that the FEMALE fish (or Ape, if you choose to say it was a sexless fish by itself) 'evolved' at the same pace- and in the same DIRECTION as it's mate? How did a Female come about in the FIRST place?


And why didn't civilizations, races & languages originate in different parts of the earth- instead of the Near East- as the sciences show (and the Bible)?

These are just the simple BASIC flaws to the Religious Doctrine of Evolution; 'religious' because believers worship science (man's 'understanding' of the universe around him), and have the same blind passion for their opinions!


http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x161/theMadEntity/Cellreproduction.jpg



This thread was started because one of your deranged lunatic creationist brethren refused to provide his evidence of creationism on a thread discussing evolution. So why don't you take your worthless trash to that thread, and spend your time on this one providing some evidence for poofism you pathetic f@cking loser.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 09:54:33