Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Phantom423

Maybe you can come up with 156,000+ research papers supporting Creationism.

Nope. Won't even try. I have no desire to convince you or anyone else of anything.

Once again, I invite you to debate. ]

No, thank you. I won't debate. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not up to the challenge, and I could not do the subject justice.

So, you answer the rhetorical question and ignore the point hes making....well done. Dodged beautifully.

a reply to: spygeek

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life…

Convenient, that.

creationism says it was made here in its current form..

Like I said they got it wrong, too.

in my opinion…

a reply to: Boadicea

Still waiting for this evidence...

Edit: 6 pages in and nothing. Zero. Nada.

Yet whenever there's a thread about an evolutionary discovery, the creationists are MORE than happy to chime in with juvenile posts such as

Evolution a fairy tale for adults

and

If a tornado passes through a junkyard full of car parts 10 billion times, do you think it'll ever build a functioning car?

and

Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?

that are completely off-topic and contribute nothing to the discussion.

Yet when a thread is made to justify the beliefs they are oh so pleased to smear over other unrelated threads when it suits them, all we get is:

crickets

Followed by:

"You're bullying us by expecting us to stick to the OP and justify our baseless hit-and-run statements!"

"This is so unfair, the scientific evidence is merely a difference of opinion!"

"The science is wrong! YOU'RE wrong!"

Cute, but all we're asking for is "Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us".

THAT is the topic of the thread.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not up to the challenge, and I could not do the subject justice.

In that case, I think one is entitled to ask: why are you on this thread expressing your opinion? What value could it possibly have to anyone, even to yourself?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Phantom423

Maybe you can come up with 156,000+ research papers supporting Creationism.

Nope. Won't even try. I have no desire to convince you or anyone else of anything.

Once again, I invite you to debate. ]

No, thank you. I won't debate. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not up to the challenge, and I could not do the subject justice.

Well at least you're honest. I do hope you clicked on the links which I provided in a previous post. I and others on this board have made a monumental effort to post hard scientific evidence, whereas the Creationists have never posted zip.

The offer to debate on the moderated Debate forum is open to anyone. I've mentioned this on numerous occasions. To date, no one has accepted the challenge. Too bad because I think it would be informative for both sides.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: spygeek

I'm going to predict that you will get the same responses I did when I tried this very same thread. A bunch of Creationists from different religions getting mad at you for pigeonholing their beliefs into Young Earth Creationism beliefs, while maybe one or two Young Earth Creationists stops by for a drive by post or two. Good luck though.

Thanks, I kinda had a similar thought.. I just got mad that they won't answer the same questions they pose us, and still expect to be taken seriously..

So tired of hearing "God of the gaps or it didn't happen.."

Whoa, let's be fair here. ATS is full of threads & posts attacking religions and religious theories, particularly against Christianity. The anti-Islamic threads tend to focus both on attacking Islam & grouping Islam with terrorism.

In fact, this thread "ALL MEMBERS READ - Moving Past Religion 101 and Staying on Topic" seems to say the "Religion, Faith, and Theology" subforum was specifically made to be a place people could post about religious topics without having to worry about being attacked by atheist & anti-theist arguments. That shows how frequently your side attacks religious views. So don't act like you're being victimized here just because someone gave your side a taste of its own medicine.

I actually agree with the purpose of that other thread simply because it calls out the hypocrisy of the anti-theist crowd. So many on your side say people are fools for believing in something, yet your side readily admits that your arguments aren't foolproof either. So both creationism & science require faith & hypotheticals to be valid.

As an example, I believe God created & perfected the laws of Nature then said "Be!" and our universe began (or "banged", if you will). The anti-religious crowd usually agrees w/Hawkings and says "There was nothing, even no laws of Nature, all compressed in a single point; and then suddenly the Big Bang happened and all of the laws of Nature just came out, already perfected". It makes more sense to me that something created & perfected the laws of Nature before creating Nature. But I don't have any proof of that.

However, the anti-religious side also has no proof of their versions of the initial creation of the universe, either. Then your side usually starts throwing out hypotheticals about this "bang" being just one bang in a cycle of bangs, expansions, and contractions. That way, perhaps the laws of Nature already existed before our universe "banged". But there's no more proof of that than there is that Shiva created the Universe by doing the Tandava, his mythical dance of destruction and creation.

So why does your side get to use hypothetical situations as an argument but ours doesn't? And how can you expect your side to be taken seriously when all you can do is point to the teachings of one of your prophets like Kaku or Hawkings and recite what they taught? Even though their works may be proven false in the future, kind of like Aristotle's Ether, Newton's laws of gravity, all of the race based psuedo sciences of the 1800s & 1900s, and how Hawkings already admitted he was wrong about everything being destroyed upon entering a black hole?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Boadicea

Here's my question: Why do you care what I believe?

I don't, and neither does the OP.

But... but... but... that's exactly what the OP specifically asked for!!! [smh]

Unfortunately, religious people aren't content to let it be at that. They want to tell us (and our children) that we are wrong and they are right.

That's not fair or accurate. The title of the OP specifically asks for evidence of creationism. So anyone who dares answer the question, no matter how nicely or politely or respectfully is subject to attacks and abuse? Okay... but that's called an ambush and/or a sucker punch where I come from. It's the sign of a bully, and therefore a coward.

Don't forget that this thread is a response to one by another member demanding proof of evolution.

And??? So??? Presuming (based on your words) that the creationists demanding proof of evolution were just as rude and obnoxious as those responding to me in this thread, that makes it right for evolutionists to do so? If you look at that thread, I did not post even one reply. I had absolutely nothing to do with that thread whatsoever. But I'm going to be judged and punished for their transgressions? Because that fixes everything? Of course not.

This is pathetic and pitiable. All I've learned from this thread is who I do not want to be. And I thank all that is holy that I am not THAT person.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

No dodge. If I had slunk away like a dirty snake and refused to engage, THAT would be dodging. I responded directly and unequivocally.

I am not going to waste my time and energy jumping through hoops for bullies. Think what you will. Say what you will. Believe what you will. It all says a whole lot more about YOU than it does about ME.

Some of us have the courage and strength of our convictions and cannot be bullied into submission. Nor do we need or want to bully and harass others to validate ourselves.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Religious poster: "The atheists attack us!"

Let me pull up some random creationist posts from the first page or so of this forum:

"Evolution a fairy tale for adults"

"Just more fairy tales from science"

"Pulling back this veil we can see evolution is rooted in extreme racism"

"Not to mention natural selection and survival of the fittest is mumbo jumbo"

"This whole idea of one species changing into another is just hogwash, how we can take this stuff seriously without a shred of evidence?"

"Ok, so in other words you only agree with evolution because the idea of a creator or designer is beyond your comprehension right?"

"This video is honest admissions by evolutionists THEMSELVES about the hopelessness of finding credible transitional fossils."

"The only evidence I've seen is evidence of fraud"

"What I find so preposterous is why so many Darwinists have proven themselves to be so famously gullible even after countless frauds have been exposed"

"Your scientific evidence is nothing but a 'crapload' of lies and false theories"

"Evolutionists are a joke"

"Seriously guys. You keep showing me evidence of things adapting, that's cool, I'm not denying that. Still waiting for evidence that things can evolve into a different species. Yet you all keep banging the same drum like a bunch of sheep"

------------------------------

Yeah, it's all those big, mean atheists who are "attacking".

Find me ONE intellectually honest creationist from this forum who actually understands evolution before attacking it and I will eat my hat.

a reply to: Boadicea

You keep playing this game of "But I AM on topic, I posted evidence :'(" yet adamantly REFUSE to continue the discussion by addressing the glaring flaws that have been brought up against it.

Is this the classic creationist "hit and run" tactic of posting up a bogus source and then refusing to deal with any further discussion that shows the source to be bogus support?

Question time:

Do you or do you not accept that the "mitochondrial eve" source you posted not only didn't support your position but actually refuted it?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Phantom423

Maybe you can come up with 156,000+ research papers supporting Creationism.

Nope. Won't even try. I have no desire to convince you or anyone else of anything.

Once again, I invite you to debate. ]

No, thank you. I won't debate. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not up to the challenge, and I could not do the subject justice.

Well at least you're honest.

Just facing facts!

I do hope you clicked on the links which I provided in a previous post. I and others on this board have made a monumental effort to post hard scientific evidence...

I believe those are the ones I have opened tabs for, but I have not yet read them. I am always happy to learn and expand my knowledge... As I have said, science can only expand and enhance my faith and understanding of creation, and, perhaps, the Creator.

whereas the Creationists have never posted zip.

No, not "zip." I can only speak for myself, because I haven't had the chance to read everyone else's replies, but I did in fact post something which was roundly attacked and rejected. And that's fine. I would have enjoyed a reasonable and friendly discussion, but that's not what I got.

The offer to debate on the moderated Debate forum is open to anyone. I've mentioned this on numerous occasions. To date, no one has accepted the challenge. Too bad because I think it would be informative for both sides.

I think it could be beneficial for all too. But if this thread is any indication of the level of dialogue, can you really blame anyone for not accepting the challenge? And I'm speaking for all "sides" of the debate. If I am, as one person so eloquently stated, "unethical and disgusting" for daring to accept the science and recognize how science and faith complement each other, then what hope is there for a reasonable debate? I am still trying to wrap my head around that. Seriously.

a reply to: GetHyped

But we both know I did post my "evidence" and what happened? Just how many nasty posts have you directed towards me? Did you really think you were facilitating reasonable discussion? Of course you didn't. Maybe you just have such a closed mind and tunnel vision that you cannot venture out of your comfort zone and anything that threatens your bubble must be destroyed...

Or maybe you just still want to pull my pigtails. It's okay. I understand. I am so awesome you just can't help yourself.

a reply to: Boadicea

Question time:

Do you or do you not accept that the "mitochondrial eve" source you posted not only didn't support your position but actually refuted it?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I actually agree with the purpose of that other thread simply because it calls out the hypocrisy of the anti-theist crowd. So many on your side say people are fools for believing in something, yet your side readily admits that your arguments aren't foolproof either. So both creationism & science require faith & hypotheticals to be valid.

Religious faith is believing in something for no good reason (always very a foolish thing to do), accepting a scientific theory is done for very good reasons.

No hypocrisy there i'm afraid....

a reply to: Boadicea

considering how actively you have defended a baseless, unfounded, morally wishy washy and scientifically illiterate hypothesis that has historically torn families apart and burned civilizations to the ground, your victim act is getting a little transparent. more to the point, this isnt about YOU. its about creationism and evidence supporting it. make a thread about being personally attacked for your beliefs if you wish, but lets stay on subject here.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well said. The crocodile tears ain't fooling anyone.

Religion is a delusion taught to people mostly at a you age. People are brainwashed into believing that religion is real. Evolution contradicts their delusion destroying the foundation of their beliefs. You can't reason with them using logic because they have none. There is nothing logical or rational about religion.

a reply to: GetHyped

So wait, are you disagreeing with what I said here? This is what I said:

ATS is full of threads & posts attacking religions and religious theories, particularly against Christianity.

Because you can find just as many examples to support my argument as you can to support yours. That's why I pointed out the thread "Moving Past Religion 101 and Staying on Topic". It shows that the entire reason the "Faith, Religion, and Theology" forum exists is so people can post about religion without being attacked by atheists & anti-theists. That shows just how frequently your side attacks us; so much that a separate "safe haven" sub-forum had to be created to shield our threads from your side.

Are you disagreeing with that point?

And what's there to debate about evolution? In micro terms, it makes sense. Though I would refer to that as "adaptation" or "small mutations within a species that can get passed down to specific bloodlines/lineages within that species". After all, nearly all "large" lifeforms in Nature have their own minor mutations, which is what makes each one different from the rest of its species. And if a lifeform has an extremely detrimental mutation in nature, it normally doesn't get to breed (through selection or being sterile) and that detrimental mutation gets bred out.

But I have extreme doubts about evolution on a macro level. It doesn't make sense to me that a chimpanzee, an unknown primate, or an early known hominid gave birth to the first "Homo Sapien". Then a second, likely unrelated creature mysteriously gave birth to another pure "Homo Sapien". Then the 2 were able to find each other (having apparently been birthed in the same timeframe) & successfully mate to form a new species we now call Homo Sapiens. There's simply no proof of that happening. And there's no proof of that happening in other species, either.

It would be the same as a pride of lions giving birth to a jaguar, which is a completely different species genetically. Or a colony of bees giving birth to a wasp and that new type of wasp miraculously finding a wasp that can successfully breed with it. And I have even more doubts about the theory that life just popped up out of inanimate elements & compounds. There's no proof of that happening, either.

Evolution on a macro level would make a lot more sense to me if there was genetic engineering involved. But if it's acceptable to believe that ancient civilizations, ancient aliens, or something else genetically engineered new species from existing species, why isn't it acceptable to believe an unseen Creator being did the same thing?

Though I have to admit, the mad scientist in me has an alternative idea. I wish we would reach the point where we did dna tests on every "disfigured" or otherwise "freak" birth that occurs in nature (including the extreme examples in humans). Then we could settle the debate once and for all. If those disfigured or mutated births have the dna of a completely different species, tada! Macro evolution may be true after all. Especially if it is able to successfully reproduce with a similar "new species" (perhaps a "match" is created in a lab?). But if they still have the same dna as their parents, where's the macro evolution?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Boadicea

You keep playing this game of "But I AM on topic, I posted evidence :'(" yet adamantly REFUSE to continue the discussion by addressing the glaring flaws that have been brought up against it.

Yup. I have adamantly and unequivocally refused to jump through your hoops. And I told you directly in no uncertain terms that I refuse to do so. And you continue to harass and bully... because YOU can't handle it.

Is this the classic creationist "hit and run" tactic of posting up a bogus source and then refusing to deal with any further discussion that shows the source to be bogus support?

Nope. This is the classic case of someone who cannot be bullied making the bullies bat# crazy.

Question time:

Do you or do you not accept that the "mitochondrial eve" source you posted not only didn't support your position but actually refuted it?

Answer time: Nope. It served my purpose... just not yours. If I thought you were capable of stepping outside your box, I would expand. But I don't think you are, so I won't. No matter how many times you pull my pigtails.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Hold up a tic, Charlie.

You would find his biography and credentials interesting, I think.
Not everyone who "blogs" is unintelligent. The guy is a University professor in science. He's fighting against the religious Fundamentalists (Christian) effort to eliminate science. He knows what he's talking about.
You could at least give him a chance.

I'm going to bookmark his blog and peruse it some more later.