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

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

Do you perceive each of these as separate creation events, or do you see them as natural results of the first event?

I think I answered that a few pages back. By 'natural results of the first event' you are implying evolution, correct?

By the way, I went back to the first time I asked this to see if you answered it, and you did not.

Original time this was asked.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.

So the flood never originated? Which means it could not have occurred. Since something must have originated for it to occur.

Evolution is not an origination but a subsequent action. Yet you have tried to bring evolution into your creationism argument. You can't have it both ways real life. You want to pick and choose and then expect everyone else to agree with what you choose. It is your usual BS.

0 Replies

ros,
real life's response to your original question is even funnier in light of his latest tact.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3234416#3234416

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

Do you perceive each of these as separate creation events, or do you see them as natural results of the first event?

I think I answered that a few pages back. By 'natural results of the first event' you are implying evolution, correct?

By the way, I went back to the first time I asked this to see if you answered it, and you did not.

Original time this was asked.

ok my mistake

I think I originally typed in a response, but then changed it after weighing the benefit of derailing the discussion at that point.

rosborne979 wrote:

I was trying not to imply anything. That way you could simply explain what your viewpoint was.

Your original post did imply evolution:

rosborne979 wrote:

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally

and what was being discussed at that point was BB.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Twice? In 200 pages? Is this supposed to be impressive? Haven't I presented exactly that many in ~10 and properly defended them?

There was no mention or thought of being impressive until your rant. Non sequitur. It was informative and if you were as impressive as you imply - you would've studied the material prior to chiming in, thus having the knowledge of each player's position.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Sheesh. You make awfully strong claims considering your unwillingness to ever back them up. "Fundamentally questionable", eh? On what grounds?

Your claim of my dishonesty based on "switching topics" is without merit and another non sequitur. "Switching topics" in the fashion that you descibe implies evasiveness, which is/was not my intent. I clearly stated my intent a number of times - and evasiveness was never a consideration.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Note the synonym of deceptive. The type of attempt at switching topics (usually attempting ot shift the burden of proof at the same time) I've described is not simply, 'hey, let's talk about X', but implicitly diverging from the topic at hand, usually in the form of non sequitur, asking a straw man question, etc. Hopefully I don't need to explain what evasiveness is.

"Evasiveness" does not apply. Focus - it does not apply!

Shirakawasuna wrote:

You must have missed the part where I said to use your own definition, so long as it isn't terribly vague. Of course, if your evidence for creationism, which almost always depends on establishing existence, constitutes an emotional feeling, it operates on no way equivalent to merely establishing 'love' between to people - the people exist already, we don't prove their existence through the love.

30 topics - thirty definitions of evidence? Hey I've got an idea! How about you go back to Webster's and post their definition of 'evidence' for creationism and then post their different definition of 'evidence' for love between 2 or more people? Speaking of candyland & fancy!!! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.

Fine. So what does Creationism address in your view?

uh, well ros........

Creationism addresses........................................creation

I thought that was kinda obvious from the name.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.

Fine. So what does Creationism address in your view?

uh, well ros........

Creationism addresses........................................creation

I thought that was kinda obvious from the name.

That must be why you keep bringing up other stuff then. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Evolution is not an origination but a subsequent action.

oh sorry, I thought evolution was about The Origin of Species[/u][/i]

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Creation addresses the origin of all things. Not the subsequent actions of all things.

Fine. So what does Creationism address in your view?

uh, well ros........

Creationism addresses........................................creation

I thought that was kinda obvious from the name.

That must be why you keep bringing up other stuff then.

Like the flood you keep asking about? No, I didn't bring that up.

0 Replies

I thought the Flood was about the origination of a bunch of water that has since dissappeared. Laughing

0 Replies

Your second post on this thread real life..

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2858943#2858943

0 Replies

parados,

What makes you think that anyone believes that water didn't exist before the Flood?

Where have they said so?

Can you cite it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Been talking to farmerman, I see.

The Flood and creation are two entirely different issues.

Obviously any Flood took place many years AFTER any creation had happened.

And your ability to take quotes out of context are still boring as all get-out. The Global Flood is part of many people's beliefs in creation stories and they apply it in the context of origins (creation). I prefaced my point with describing it as people who take the KJV at face value in english, no other knowledge required, just accept the Fundamentalist legacy.

Have you honestly never noticed that these people explain the origins of many modern observations with this nonsense? Sea shells on mountains, the deaths of all those animals found in the fossil record? Have you never noticed that some creationists tout their ideas as 'creation science' but for some reason it's never just about the origin of the universe?

Feel free to keep whatever version of 'creation' you'd like, I was specifically talking about another person's, quite explicitly. Define it, present evidence for it. It's quite obvious how little you have to offer, given that all you can do is nit pick, usually mistakenly.

0 Replies

What is the Creationist thinking as to the Origins of Species? Where do species come from?

Joe(let's hear it)Nation

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Your second post on this thread real life..

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2858943#2858943

Please do continue to repost all my stuff.

It makes more sense than anything you are saying. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
Now don't take me wrong, I don't have any prior biases against singularities. It just isn't productive to attempt an explanation of them or speak of implications to someone who so clearly only wants to play the incredulous critic

'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'We have evidence'
'ahem'
'But if someone DARES criticize our position or ask where's the evidence?, well, it's just not productive to speak of the implications'

I've fully explained the context of this, if you want to get in the adult's pool you'll have to prove that you're not a dishonest creep, which is where all signs are pointing. It isn't productive to go into this nonsense because it is in no way necessary for debunking the BS concerning the cosmological argument. You know, the argument you're implying by baiting others about ultimate origins and such.

baddog1, the quote above is a perfect example of what I've described as dishonest. Would you disagree, do you think he's quoted me in context and made even a superficial effort to understand?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

What is the Creationist thinking as to the Origins of Species? Where do species come from?

Joe(let's hear it)Nation

well, since we haven't been able to get a straight answer as to what constitutes a species, that's difficult to answer.

if you accept that a species is:

(n) species ((biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=species

then it is obvious that evolution faces some tough sledding.

As soon as an organism in species X gives birth to the first member of species Y, the family line for Y is doomed if he has no one to interbreed with.

If he can still interbreed with X, then he's not really a 'new species'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Science has 'many different ways to describe' something that you have no evidence even existed, eh?

That's not science, my friend.

That's speculation.

I recommend that you keep a dictionary around for the words you don't understand, 'real life'. I believe I've been over the distinctions concerning theoretical physics and confirmed science. In this case, the models concerning the singularity are indeed speculation. They are also part of science - theoretical (little t) science.

The models which imply a singularity have successfully predicted many things about the universe, the easiest to understand of which is the background radiation.

In any case, none of this is necessary, productive, meaningful, etc. You aren't interested in learning about science or the Big Bang, you only want to poke some holes to avoid the actual point of your inane questions - the cosmological argument. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. I think I've put it in simple enough terms for you to understand, but I won't be surprised if you quotemine me again.

0 Replies

Ah, I can see you haven't been reading my points for comprehension then, baddog1, as you seem to have missed 'real life''s really obvious error as well. Well, have fun with your ignorance, you two! If you'd like to actually address the substance of my posts, my explanations of the cosmological argument and how it does nothing for God nor the creation argument, you are entirely free to do so. But do I expect it? Nope. That's now how you roll, is it? Wink

Oh, but please attempt to take the moral high ground and whine a little, that'll help a lot.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

real life wrote:
Science has 'many different ways to describe' something that you have no evidence even existed, eh?

That's not science, my friend.

That's speculation.

I recommend that you keep a dictionary around for the words you don't understand, 'real life'. I believe I've been over the distinctions concerning theoretical physics and confirmed science. In this case, the models concerning the singularity are indeed speculation. They are also part of science - theoretical (little t) science.

Isn't a 'theory' something that there's at least SOME evidence for?

Or do you get to simply ignore that by making the 't' small?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know