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

baddog1 wrote:

That's exactly my point! Creationism is about creation of the physical world, not creation of the physical world. If you don't see the difference, let me know.

Ok, I don't see the difference.

You're being vague - hopefully not on purpose. When you say "some piece of data" please be specific in your expectation.

You're being vague - hopefully not on purpose.

He is saying that creationism is not itself the creation of the world, but rather an account of the creation of the world. All of which, of course, is an exercise in dodging the issue of evidence for creationism, something which he has not provided.

Quote:

You're being vague - hopefully not on purpose. When you say "some piece of data" please be specific in your expectation.

Im not being vague, youre being evasive. If you have no idea what Im talking about , that says alot about you guys. Im letting the choice of the type of data up to you. Well debate its possible significance after you present it. I certainly cannot do your homework for you, try doing some of your own.

your sides ache when you dont understand? Your The one being asked for evidence. Now you want me to tell you what that evidence is? I have no idea of any even existing. Now prove me wrong. You can carry that bit of nonsense only so far until you have to digest it yourself.

There have been several examples produced for the evidence of creationism - you don't like any of them.

farmerman wrote:

your sides ache when you dont understand? Your The one being asked for evidence. Now you want me to tell you what that evidence is? I have no idea of any even existing. Now prove me wrong. You can carry that bit of nonsense only so far until you have to digest it yourself.

fm - I do understand your message and that is why I laugh. It's a matter of futility that strikes me as very funy, especially coming from an 'open-minded' person of science.

There have been several examples produced for the evidence of creationism - you don't like any of them. I listed various 'types' of evidence that were produced on this thread and asked which do not apply to the evidence of creationism - you declined to answer. I used the definition as provided by the author of this thread to show evidence of creationism - you said "nope". And I offered you a carte blanche, outside-the-box scenario to come up with an example to the question at hand - you cannot.

Reasoning deductively - it's fair to say that no answer will be accepted, no matter the evidence provided.

Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position.

baddog1 wrote:

Quote:

There have been several examples produced for the evidence of creationism - you don't like any of them.

Must have missed them. Could you link to just one of them?

Joe(for me, please)Nation

You offered provable, testable evidence? Where? Genesis is not testable.

real life wrote:

I don't think I've said 'it doesn't apply'.

You didn't. BD did.

real life wrote:

Rather I've said 'it may not be attainable'.

Scientific evidence must meet certain standards.

Those standards are often not attainable when investigating one-time historical events (either creation or the evolution of organism X).

You cannot scientifically prove how many earthquakes occurred in California from 500BC to 500AD.

So you admit that you cannot offer any evidence of creation which meets scientific standards.

By the way, nobody asked you to prove earthquakes in 500BC. All that was asked was evidence for creationism. ANY evidence. Not a shred of which either you or BD has been able to offer.

parados wrote:

You offered provable, testable evidence? Where? Genesis is not testable.

parados:

Definition for 'testable': "to require a doctrinal oath of"

Do you consider the Bible to be a doctrinal oath? Genesis?

I am saying that ANY historical event faces the difficulty of producing repeatable evidence. That would apply to evolution and creation both.

Evolution relies heavily , as a result, on circumstantial evidence and inference. (So does creation.)

In that sense, both require some assumptions to be made, and a measure of faith since the event in question isn't replicable.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Yet here it is.

Let's start with that evidence.

How did matter/energy get here , ros? Do you have any evidence of how it occurred without breaking that law[/u][/i], or just speculation (i.e. the Big Bang)?

real life wrote:

I am saying that ANY historical event faces the difficulty of producing repeatable evidence. That would apply to evolution and creation both.

Evolution relies heavily , as a result, on circumstantial evidence and inference. (So does creation.)

In that sense, both require some assumptions to be made, and a measure of faith since the event in question isn't replicable.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Yet here it is.

Let's start with that evidence.

How did matter/energy get here , ros? Do you have any evidence of how it occurred without breaking that law[/u][/i], or just speculation (i.e. the Big Bang)?

Since you are asking how something began you are making the assumption that eternity can't exist.

Do you have evidence that there is no such thing as eternity?