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

All righty then . . . so, how much proof has been presented for creationism so far? None . . . really? Then surely the theists have admitted that they can present no proof? Really . . . not a peep?

Curiouser and curiouser, Alice . . .

0 Replies

parados wrote:

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.

Can you show how discussion of the BB is not related to discussion of the origin of the universe? No, you can't.

Creation is the origin of the universe by supernatural means.

A discussion of why the universe could not originate by any other means , i.e. natural means , is certainly on topic.

A discussion of the fact that there is NO evidence of the universe beginning by natural means is also on topic.

Now , if you can show that all the matter/energy of the universe CAN be created by natural means, or show that there IS in fact evidence that the 'singularity' of BB lore was actually a naturally occurring phenomenon.........

......by all means do so, and we can resume.

0 Replies

I don't see the bible mentioned in any of your posts RL, and yet a literal interpretation of the bible is the heart and soul of creationism.

Are you embarrassed to admit your belief in creationism?

Or are you now leading us to assume that you believe in a 6000 year old earth, but a 4.3billion year old universe, both created by special supernatural hand-waving from the bearded man?

0 Replies

The member "real life" had made a post in which he stated as a certainty that the universe was not created by natural means. Apart from having asserted that the universe was not created, he had made an assertion for which i would have been delighted to have demanded his proof.

But when i tried to quote him and reply, it was told that i could not "edit" other members posts, and when i looked back at the thread, the post was gone. But even without that, he writes:

Quote:

Creation is the origin of the universe by supernatural means.

A discussion of why the universe could not originate by any other means , i.e. natural means , is certainly on topic.

A discussion of the fact that there is NO evidence of the universe beginning by natural means is also on topic.

And, of course, he is lying again. The topic of the thread is proof of "creationism." The definition of creationism which Ros provided, and which "real life" inferentially accepted entails the acceptance of the literal description of creation in the bible.

None of "real life's" smoke screens about what science can or cannot prove about cosmic origins are in the least bit relevant to a proof for creationism. In some cases, persistence is admirable--in this case, in which "real life" persists in attempting to change the topic of the thread is just pathetic.

The topic is proof for creationism. Never mind that he provides no proof for any type of theistic creation having taken place, and won't admit that he can't--his drivel is off topic because it in no wise constitutes proof for creationism.

0 Replies

I think that RL is tapped out. He has no vast (or even half-vast) store of facts and data to impart that will support his case. His only ploy is to try to evade the original point by baiting the sciences.

It was refreshing and cute 3 years ago, its lame now. I, for one, cant believe how his position, without any new substance , is just as rock steady after three years of additional findings in the sciences. Its like our RL has his head smack up the bum.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

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.

I've stayed away from this joke of a thread for quite a while now - however parados' statement above epitomizes the mindset of those contesting RL's position. RL is correctly "widening the discussion" on an issue that is only narrow to those who strive to keep it that way. It is that same mindset that Ben Stein and his partners targeted in the recent movie. The only reason(s) that anyone would want to narrow a discussion based on the humongous topic of this thread is almost incomprehensible and clearly self-serving. To consider that people of science hold onto this narrow-mindedness is shameful.

And the ad-homs have gotten pretty old and stale. Can't you guys think of something better to do like water some roses or something?

0 Replies

What pray tell are "ad homs?" If by that you mean argumentum ad hominem, which is the logical fallacy of attacking the person rather than the argument, you are clearly wrong.

We always point out to "real life" (and to you, for that matter) precisely why he is (you are) full of sh*t before pointing out that he is (you are) a f*cking idiot.

So tell us, Baddoggie, à propos of the topic of the thread, what evidence do you have for creationism? Or are you willing to admit that you have none? I await your response with breath abated . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What pray tell are "ad homs?" If by that you mean argumentum ad hominem, which is the logical fallacy of attacking the person rather than the argument, you are clearly wrong.

We always point out to "real life" (and to you, for that matter) precisely why he is (you are) full of sh*t before pointing out that he is (you are) a f*cking idiot.

So tell us, Baddoggie, à propos of the topic of the thread, what evidence do you have for creationism? Or are you willing to admit that you have none? I await your response with breath abated . . .

No one buys into your (not so clever) choice of wordage when leaping off-subject in order to attack someone; most particularly when you have no reasonable answer to the question(s) posed. It's a common theme of yours that is laughable.

And the 'evidence" (I thought you changed to "proof") that I have on this subject has been documented more than once on this idiotic bait-thread. Look it up or just let this repititious and beastly thread die now.

0 Replies

You have provided no evidence or proof--all that crap you posted was very quickly disposed of.

There have been no questions to which i have responded by "leaping off subject."

It is you who have come in here to distract from the topic, which is proof of creationism. Ros has provided a definition of creationism, and you can either provide proof that the account in the bobble is a description of reality, or you can admit that you have no proof, or you can argue that the definition he has used is not correct.

If you claim you have provided proof for creationism, i have not seen it. It would be a simple matter for you to at least link the posts in which you have provided it. You saying you have done so, however, does not make it so.

If you think this is just a bait thread, why do you rise to the bait and post here?

0 Replies

BADDOG

Quote:

And the 'evidence" (I thought you changed to "proof") that I have on this subject has been documented more than once on this idiotic bait-thread. Look it up or just let this repititious and beastly thread die now.

What you may consider "evidence" is merely some vague biblical reference with no foundation. It may work for you but we cant build a railroads with it.
I can understand the frustration that Creationists have with trying to favor their worldview . There is no science behind it no matter how hard they duck and weave. So, if baddog wishes to admit defeat, who are we to disagree.

I too am tired of the same bleeding non-arguments (floods and everything created at once, the blending of evolution with cosmology,

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

parados wrote:
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.

I've stayed away from this joke of a thread for quite a while now - however parados' statement above epitomizes the mindset of those contesting RL's position. RL is correctly "widening the discussion" on an issue that is only narrow to those who strive to keep it that way. It is that same mindset that Ben Stein and his partners targeted in the recent movie. The only reason(s) that anyone would want to narrow a discussion based on the humongous topic of this thread is almost incomprehensible and clearly self-serving. To consider that people of science hold onto this narrow-mindedness is shameful.

And the ad-homs have gotten pretty old and stale. Can't you guys think of something better to do like water some roses or something?

I see, so in talking about Jesus Christ we should talk about Buddha and Mohammed. So, does your church teach about Mohammed Baddog? Or do you do strive to keep your religion narrow?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You have provided no evidence or proof--all that crap you posted was very quickly disposed of. Even after you & others moved the definitions of evidence and proof from hither to yon - my position was true. I no longer desire to chase your endless emotion-based diversions.

There have been no questions to which i have responded by "leaping off subject." Wrong. You're lying again!

It is you who have come in here to distract from the topic, which is proof of creationism. Ros has provided a definition of creationism, and you can either provide proof that the account in the bobble is a description of reality, or you can admit that you have no proof, or you can argue that the definition he has used is not correct. I provided evidence of Ros' definition and also of 'creation'. You and others didn't like the answers - doesn't mean the answers were wrong. Besides all of that - the definitive issue is not so much about creation or creationism, but about 'evidence' and/or 'proof'. BTW: Which of the two are you riding on this day?

If you claim you have provided proof for creationism, i have not seen it. It would be a simple matter for you to at least link the posts in which you have provided it. You saying you have done so, however, does not make it so. Of course you didn't see it. That is what being narrow minded is all about!

If you think this is just a bait thread, why do you rise to the bait and post here? I recently posted here because I tire of the juvenile, school-yard bullies who fire at RL and others for no other reason than; they (you) don't like the answers produced. Why do you rise to the bait and post on bait threads?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
parados wrote:
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.

I've stayed away from this joke of a thread for quite a while now - however parados' statement above epitomizes the mindset of those contesting RL's position. RL is correctly "widening the discussion" on an issue that is only narrow to those who strive to keep it that way. It is that same mindset that Ben Stein and his partners targeted in the recent movie. The only reason(s) that anyone would want to narrow a discussion based on the humongous topic of this thread is almost incomprehensible and clearly self-serving. To consider that people of science hold onto this narrow-mindedness is shameful.

And the ad-homs have gotten pretty old and stale. Can't you guys think of something better to do like water some roses or something?

I see, so in talking about Jesus Christ we should talk about Buddha and Mohammed. So, does your church teach about Mohammed Baddog? Or do you do strive to keep your religion narrow?

Actually, my preacher (and good friend) & I often talk about many religions and have included Buddhism and Islam in our discussions.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Even after you & others moved the definitions of evidence and proof from hither to yon - my position was true. I no longer desire to chase your endless emotion-based diversions.

Wilso defined proof at the very beginning of the thread. Nobody moved the definitions, and you're the only one who has become emotional, whining when what you offered as proof was rejected because it didn't meet any plausible criterion. You jumped in to provide a convenient definition which did not meet Wilso's standard, and yours was the only attempt to "move the definition."

Quote:

Wrong. You're lying again!

You and "real life" are the ones who consistently lie. I have consistently reminded the bobble thumpers here of the topic, because the bobble thumpers have consistently attempted to avoid the topic. So, Liar, if you believe that i have moved the thread off topic, it were a simple matter to provide a quote which shows me moving off topic, and which was not a response to any of the bobble clowns attempting to move off topic first. What's that? You can't produce evidence of that either? Imagine my surprise.

Quote:

I provided evidence of Ros' definition and also of 'creation'.

You're lying again. Roswell provides the definition i refer to on page 171, in post #3215530, which was literally months after the last time you darkened this thread. It appears that you can't even keep track of what is going on in this thread, which probably accounts for your outrageous lies.

Quote:

You and others didn't like the answers - doesn't mean the answers were wrong.

Given that Ros provided the definition on April 29th, long after the last post you had made in this thread, and before you re-appeared here, this is what ought to be for you embarrassing evidence of your penchant to responding to accurate charges against you by lying.

Quote:

Besides all of that - the definitive issue is not so much about creation or creationism, but about 'evidence' and/or 'proof'. BTW: Which of the two are you riding on this day?

No, the definitive issue is whether or not there is proof of creationism. That is the topic of this thread. That is the issue you are attempting to dodge. That is the proof which you have failed to provide, but which you won't admit to not having.

Quote:

Of course you didn't see it. That is what being narrow minded is all about!

No, i haven't seen such proof because you haven't provided it. In post #3215226 Ros quotes Wilso to put the issue of proof back into focus. You have failed to meet the standard which Wilso established at the beginning of thread.

Quote:

I recently posted here because I tire of the juvenile, school-yard bullies who fire at RL and others for no other reason than; they (you) don't like the answers produced. Why do you rise to the bait and post on bait threads?

It's not a question of whether or not one "likes" the answers, it is whether or not you or any of the bobble thumpers produce proof for creationism--so far, none of you have done so. Once again, if you have done so, it is a simple matter to point it out. You don't because you can't.

I post on bait threads, but only to laugh at those who attempt to bait me--i don't rise to their bait. You have taken the hook in your mouth so often it would not surprise me to learn that you have to hold your hand to your cheek when you eat so that the food does not fall out of the gaping hole left there.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Actually, my preacher (and good friend) & I often talk about many religions and have included Buddhism and Islam in our discussions.

Let me guess..

You discuss that since there is no proof that Buddha or Mohammed talked to God it proves that Jesus was God.

0 Replies

Santa:

Will you be watching Ben Stein's new movie?

0 Replies

is there prof that Buddha or Mohammed are real Question

and what prof is there that evolution is real Question

please tell me Smile

0 Replies

Start a new thread, or peruse any of several other threads on those subjects.

The topic of this thread is clearly laid out in the thread title--proof for creationism. Do you have any such proof you care to share with us, or did you just show up to stir the turd?

0 Replies

your up Calvin!

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I see, so in talking about Jesus Christ we should talk about Buddha and Mohammed. So, does your church teach about Mohammed Baddog? Or do you do strive to keep your religion narrow?

parados:

Member setanta left a message for you based on your questions above: Laughing

Start a new thread, or peruse any of several other threads on those subjects.

The topic of this thread is clearly laid out in the thread title--proof for creationism. Do you have any such proof you care to share with us, or did you just show up to stir the turd?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know