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

Setanta wrote:

The title of this thread is not "Don't tell me there's any proof for the Big Bang." The title of this thread is "Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism."

Yeh, and just in case there's any question, here's the first post from Wilso again...

Wilso wrote:

Ok losers, freaks and weirdo's. Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The title of this thread is not "Don't tell me there's any proof for the Big Bang." The title of this thread is "Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism."

We all know that you always want to distract the conversation from your complete lack of evidence for your imaginary friend superstition. Just because you want to drag the discussion into the paths you wish it to follow is no good reason for others to cooperate.

The burden of the thread is to provide proof for creationism, or to admit that there is none. So far, you have done neither.

If you think that the universe came into existence at the BB, why would you say that it is unrelated to creation?

Many people are focused on 'creation vs evolution'.

But 'evolution' , according to some of our evolutionists friends on A2K , doesn't come into the picture for many years AFTER the BB, i.e. BB>formation of the earth>first life self generates>THEN evolution (Other prominent evolutionists, as I have pointed out, willingly admit that Abiogenesis is considered the 'first step' in evolution.)

Discussing creation and the BB is actually more relevant in some ways that discussing creation and evolution.

If you want to narrow the discussion to 'the creation of man' vs. evolution, then that's a separate issue. But the OP didn't specify 'the creation of man' as his desired topic, but simply 'creation' in general.

0 Replies

Why don't we narrow the discussion to the evidence of creation.

I think that is the topic of the thread.

0 Replies

As Parados points out, the topic of this thread is proof for creationism.

Got any?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Why don't we narrow the discussion to the evidence of creation.

I think that is the topic of the thread.

That IS what we were talking about.

The origin of the universe.

Right?

0 Replies

slimier than a shipworm at low tide.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Why don't we narrow the discussion to the evidence of creation.

I think that is the topic of the thread.

That IS what we were talking about.

The origin of the universe.

Right?

CreationISM you weasel, not creation.

Dictionary: Creationism
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

slimier than a shipworm at low tide.

More slippery than snot on a snake.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Why don't we narrow the discussion to the evidence of creation.

I think that is the topic of the thread.

That IS what we were talking about.

The origin of the universe.

Right?

CreationISM you weasel, not creation.

Dictionary: Creationism
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe[/u] and of all living things related in the Bible.

emphasis mine

So what's the prob?

How is discussion of the BB unrelated to this?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How is discussion of the BB unrelated to this?

So you have to have it hammered into your pin head?

The putative Big Bang is not described in the bobble. The putative Big Bang forms no part of the gospel according to creationism. This thread concerns itself with proof of creationism, not the hypotheses of astrophysicists.

0 Replies

So, in discussing the creation of the universe, you are trying to disallow discussion and/or criticism of the naturalistic alternative hypothesis?

Sorry. Ain't gonna happen.

If you can't handle the scrutiny, maybe the Gardening threads would be more to your liking.

0 Replies

No one is disallowing anything, whiner. It is just being pointed out to you that no one here is stupid enough to fall for your classic attempt to divert the discussion into irrelevant paths.

The topic at hand is proof for creationism. You have neither provided any such proof, nor admitted that you are not able to do so.

0 Replies

There you go again. Laughing

You want to claim that discussion of the BB is 'irrelevant' in a discussion of the creation of the universe.

A completely ludicrous assertion, so, instead of establishing a basis for your claim, all you can do is chirp 'irrelevant, irrelevant'.

0 Replies

No chirping here--the topic is proof for creationism. No one who describes the hypothetical event known as the Big Bang attributes it to a theistic creation, nor does it form any part of the drivel found in Genesis. That is what makes it irrelevant, and i've already pointed that out.

Setanta wrote:

The putative Big Bang is not described in the bobble. The putative Big Bang forms no part of the gospel according to creationism. This thread concerns itself with proof of creationism, not the hypotheses of astrophysicists.

So, once again, you reveal yourself to be an incorrigible liar.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No one who describes the hypothetical event known as the Big Bang attributes it to a theistic creation.

Actually, many do.

0 Replies

A little evidence would make such an assertion more plausible. However, if one refers to the definition of creationism provided by Roswell:

rosborne979 wrote:

Dictionary: Creationism
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

. . . you still have the problem that even someone as twisted as you are when it comes to alleging that scripture means what it patently does not say is not going to be able to plausibly assert that a description of the event known as the Big Bang appears anywhere in the bobble.

I'd ask you to prove your assertion about the big bang and a theistic creation, but i don't want to encourage to lard the thread with any more bullshit than you are accustomed to doing.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
No one who describes the hypothetical event known as the Big Bang attributes it to a theistic creation.

Actually, many do.

A little evidence would make such an assertion more plausible.

Well, since you are apparently unaware of this, I'll let some others explain it to you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Why don't we narrow the discussion to the evidence of creation.

I think that is the topic of the thread.

That IS what we were talking about.

The origin of the universe.

Right?

CreationISM you weasel, not creation.

Dictionary: Creationism
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe[/u] and of all living things related in the Bible.
emphasis mine

So what's the prob?

How is discussion of the BB unrelated to this?

The point that Set is trying to make and you don't seem to understand RL is that even by bolding, underlining and enlarging "creation of the universe" it doesn't make the rest of the sentence go away. "Related in the bible" still applies to the "creation of the universe" even though you attempt to ignore it by distracting from it with your failed sleight of hand.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Why don't we narrow the discussion to the evidence of creation.

I think that is the topic of the thread.

That IS what we were talking about.

The origin of the universe.

Right?

CreationISM you weasel, not creation.

Dictionary: Creationism
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe[/u] and of all living things related in the Bible.
emphasis mine

So what's the prob?

How is discussion of the BB unrelated to this?

The point that Set is trying to make and you don't seem to understand RL is that even by bolding, underlining and enlarging "creation of the universe" it doesn't make the rest of the sentence go away. "Related in the bible" still applies to the "creation of the universe" even though you attempt to ignore it by distracting from it with your failed sleight of hand.

I never claimed that the BB was taught in the Bible.

I said that when discussing the origin of the universe, i.e. creation, it is fair game to compare and contrast the BB with the idea of a supernatural origin such as what is in the Bible.

Hello?

Where did you get the idea that I was saying the Bible taught the BB?

I said that others do attempt to bring the two together. And it's a fact that many do. MANY.

I never said I do. I made it clear that I don't.

Clear , at least to those who read English.

Which part of 'naturalistic alternative hypothesis' did you not understand?

0 Replies

So, you are NOT sticking with the topic of the thread then. You are attempting to widen the discussion rather than keep it narrow and on topic.

Duh.. that is what we have repeatedly said. You won't deal with the topic but insist on bringing up other issues to obfuscate you inability to deal with the topic.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know