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

parados wrote:

I am certain that an intersection REQUIRES that an intersection occur.

Yes, and I've simply asked that you define what you mean by this.

If two fleets of ships pass through each other on the Pacific without a collision, have they intersected?

Or does it require a collision for an intersection to occur?

Does matter/energy in one universe have to collide with matter/energy in another for your definition of 'intersection' to have been satisfied?

To answer this, you will have to know something about the boundaries of each proposed universe, and their properties.

I've asked how you know specifically about the boundary, the properties etc of an UNKNOWN universe. (Does it even have matter/energy?)

Your response is , well , you just know.

Quaint.

I thought you were all about evidence and proof and I was supposedly the one who did without?

You talk about 'multiverses' that are outside our universe and not subject to the laws of our universe.

When a question arises of the implications of such a view, you fudge that these alternate universes really could be subject to our laws after all.

The point is you really don't know, and are unwilling to look at the consequences of either possibility. You just jump back and forth between them.

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

We have matter/energy.

It cannot be created by natural means.

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

Yes, we've asked for evidence of creationism many times, and the only attempt at an answer we've seen is along the lines of, "sunsets are so beautiful I can just feel god in my heart". I guess we forgot to specify that only non-delusional evidence would be accepted.

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

Yes, we've asked for evidence of creationism many times, and the only attempt at an answer we've seen is along the lines of, "sunsets are so beautiful I can just feel god in my heart". I guess we forgot to specify that only non-delusional evidence would be accepted.

Argument by Exaggeration.

Plenty of evidence has been provided - 'you' do not accept the evidence.

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

Yes, we've asked for evidence of creationism many times, and the only attempt at an answer we've seen is along the lines of, "sunsets are so beautiful I can just feel god in my heart". I guess we forgot to specify that only non-delusional evidence would be accepted.

Argument by Exaggeration.

Plenty of evidence has been provided - 'you' do not accept the evidence.

It should be a simple matter for you to link those posts in which the "evidence" has been provided. Care to put the links where your big mouth is?

Yes, we've asked for evidence of creationism many times, and the only attempt at an answer we've seen is along the lines of, "sunsets are so beautiful I can just feel god in my heart".

Setanta wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

Yes, we've asked for evidence of creationism many times, and the only attempt at an answer we've seen is along the lines of, "sunsets are so beautiful I can just feel god in my heart". I guess we forgot to specify that only non-delusional evidence would be accepted.

Argument by Exaggeration.

Plenty of evidence has been provided - 'you' do not accept the evidence.[/b]

It should be a simple matter for you to link those posts in which the "evidence" has been provided. Care to put the links where your big mouth is?

Once you've provided an equitable definition for "evidence" - one that does not move - my big mouth will be more than happy to do so. (witless emoticon reflecting the cluelessness of this member removed to spare him the embarrassment)

Spendi, Spendi, Spendi. This was the year I was hoping you'd finally seek out the help you so desperately need. Your getting worse and it shows. Just remember, I'm here for you buddy. So, I am sure, are all those illusionary 'viewers' of yours you keep talking about. Feel better!

Just how stupid can the bible-thumpers get ? ! ? ! ?

...Use the definition of evidence you were using yourself when you claim that plenty of evidence has been provided, and link the posts in which that evidence was presented...

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

Yes, we've asked for evidence of creationism many times, and the only attempt at an answer we've seen is along the lines of, "sunsets are so beautiful I can just feel god in my heart". I guess we forgot to specify that only non-delusional evidence would be accepted.

Argument by Exaggeration.

Plenty of evidence has been provided - 'you' do not accept the evidence.

Setanta wrote:

...Use the definition of evidence you were using yourself when you claim that plenty of evidence has been provided, and link the posts in which that evidence was presented...

Exactly as expected - the setanta two-step has begun again. Which foot do you lead with set?

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

Yes, we've asked for evidence of creationism many times, and the only attempt at an answer we've seen is along the lines of, "sunsets are so beautiful I can just feel god in my heart". I guess we forgot to specify that only non-delusional evidence would be accepted.

Argument by Exaggeration.

Plenty of evidence has been provided - 'you' do not accept the evidence.

The type of evidence we are looking for is scientific evidence (using the accepted standards of such).

Perhaps we should ask, what type of evidence are you offering? Are you defining a new class of evidence called anecdotal evidence? Or perhaps you would prefer to offer your "gut feel" as a new class of evidence.

If you are not offering scientific evidence, then what type are you offering?

I've successfully provided evidence based on the standard definition and was subsequently ridiculed for using such low-tech drivel - being told that science uses different means or something to that effect.

baddog1 wrote:

I've successfully provided evidence based on the standard definition and was subsequently ridiculed for using such low-tech drivel - being told that science uses different means or something to that effect./quote]

Link that post . . . that's not an unreasonable request.

Right. :wink:

Your past shows your intentions. Take the time to find the information yourself in order to fulfill your ridiculous desires. And offering to agree to a standard definition of the word 'evidence' is likewise a reasonable (and much more logical) request - so please do so.

By the way, the title of the thread is "Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism"--not evidence, proof. Big difference there, Bubba.