Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Boadicea

considering how actively you have defended a baseless, unfounded, morally wishy washy and scientifically illiterate hypothesis...

And exactly which baseless, unfounded, morally wishy washy and scientifically illiterate hypothesis would that be, O Omnipotent and Omniscient One??? Christianity in general? Creationism? Funny, others are faulting me for NOT defending my position. Go figure.

But I do so want to be enlightened... Do tell, where is your "Church of Me" where you provide all the answers to the universe so I can learn the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Because you do, of course, know all that, right?

...that has historically torn families apart and burned civilizations to the ground...

Wow. Creationism has done all that??? Oh wait! Silly me... you must mean Christianity. I must really need to go to your "Church of Me"...

your victim act is getting a little transparent.

Victim act? Hahahahaha! Calling out bullies does not a victim make.

more to the point, this isnt about YOU.

Well, yes and no... because the OP was an invitation to anyone who believes in a Creator and creationism, and I do, it is not about me, but about my position on Creationism. As for the rude, insulting, arrogant and intolerant (therefore bigoted) responses to me, they say a whole lot more about the author than me... so you're right, it really isn't about me.

...its about creationism and evidence supporting it.

Yeah, that's what I thought when I entered the thread. I soon found out different.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

PZ Myers is well know, alright. He's a scientist actively publishing in his field and has a long history of science communication.

en.wikipedia.org...

But according to CharlieSpeirs, he's just some random blogger whose critique of papers written about his field is "trashy bloviated opinion full of ad hominem attacks, not a studious rebuttal".

It's nothing more than the classic creationist tactic of grabbing something sciencey that they think supports their position and then running away when the source is exposed to be junk science.

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

Wait, let me jsut parse what you're saying here:

a) Apparently following through with claims by addressing the evidence that they're junk IN A THREAD ABOUT EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM is "jumping through hoops".

b) You refuse to do so because... well, no reason given. I can speculate: you either don't understand the rebuttal to your claims or you avoid it because you know you have nothing to come back with

c) Apparently challenging you on your bogus claims and lies is "bullying", even more laughably soe when you CONTINUE to reply of your own free will

d)... and all of the above because I "can't handle it". Or something.

Do you realise how absurd your posts look?

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

Don't be such a liar. This is you doubling down and refusing to address the claims you've made IN A THREAD ABOUT EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM because you're either too proud, dishonest or incapable of doing so.

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.

Oh deary me! Stepping outside of my box? It's quite clear you don't understand the sources you cited not the sources I cited as my rebuttal.

Even your VERY OWN SOURCE that you cited DEBUNKS what you wrote directly after it:

However, this doesn't mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.

This was the THIRD paragraph of your own source that you didn't even bother to read!

Deary, deary me.

Another keen mind from the creationist camp.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
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?

The purpose for the '101' thread was to have discussion move past the debate on the authenticity of the claims made by theists so people could discuss the content of religion. It wasn't created to protect victims from being 'attacked'.

It seems being a theist now means playing the victim whenever their claims are questioned....

a reply to: GetHyped

As opposed to he classic ad hominem fallacy rife throughout the blog.

Face it, you came into the thread aggressively, mixed up the links I shared, back tracked and started getting rabid when I decided for myself that 1 man's opinion on a study wasn't enough for me to push it aside as worthless.

He didn't counter everything to do with the study, he spoke on snippets...

Your presence has been overtly passive aggressive and definitely not worthy of bowing to in admiration.
Work on your approach to debate and you may have some future success.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Stop making excuses. I posted up 3 rebuttals, one from a prominent evolutionary biologist and one from an astrobiologist. BOTH have pertinent expertise. NEITHER you have addressed. You unironically dismiss the sources as "ad hominem attacks" which BY DEFINITION is an ad hominem attack! You are an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

Are you going to stay on topic and address the rebuttals or continue making excuses in order to save face?

Here they are again for you:

www.freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/15/the-genetic-code-is-not-a-synonym-for-the-bible-code/
www.geneticliteracyproject.org...
doubtfulnews.com...

a reply to: Boadicea

And exactly which baseless, unfounded, morally wishy washy and scientifically illiterate hypothesis would that be, O Omnipotent and Omniscient One??? Christianity in general? Creationism? Funny, others are faulting me for NOT defending my position. Go figure.

yeah, you cant really win around here. doesnt matter what side you are on.

and creationism in general, particularly when paired with politics, doesnt end well. but what more can you expect from weaponizing spirituality? turning it into "us against them"?

But I do so want to be enlightened... Do tell, where is your "Church of Me" where you provide all the answers to the universe so I can learn the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Because you do, of course, know all that, right?

*sigh* wont even dignify that.

Wow. Creationism has done all that??? Oh wait! Silly me... you must mean Christianity. I must really need to go to your "Church of Me"...

I didnt know ISIS was christian.

Well, yes and no... because the OP was an invitation to anyone who believes in a Creator and creationism, and I do, it is not about me, but about my position on Creationism. As for the rude, insulting, arrogant and intolerant (therefore bigoted) responses to me, they say a whole lot more about the author than me... so you're right, it really isn't about me.

yeah, this thread is pretty much a carbon copy of the other one. i dont foresee it going anywhere.

Yeah, that's what I thought when I entered the thread. I soon found out different.

well, its hard to have a lengthy discussion purely about creationism and the evidence supporting it without digressing to why that evidence is flim flam. unless of course the participants are keen on ignoring that it IS flim flam.

i just left another thread that insisted on forum policies enforcing exactly that principle.

a reply to: GetHyped

Okay. It's been... something. At first it was amusing, then it was bemusing, now it's just really really sad and pathetic and I'm ashamed of myself for being part of it. ATS is better than this. We are obviously not, but at least I learned something valuable which I can hopefully put to good use in the future.

Say what you will, think what you will, do what you will... and I will do the same of course. But I will no longer be part of this.

a reply to: GetHyped

More personal attacks.

Awww diddums.


Look, your sources are trashy opinions, nothing more....


The study itself was done by astrobiologists and has no mention whatsoever of religion or anything close to what your sources have been trying to attack...

It merely states, with science, that there is implications towards design...

Doesn't say God, or gods, or aliens, or advanced humans, or the GAOTU, just says points towards design.

Secondly it doesn't even talk about human biology, but universal biology across species.



I'll take the astrobiologists who did the study on their word instead of who you want to force me to accept.

Douche.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: GetHyped

More personal attacks.

Douche.

Hypocrite.

I'll take the astrobiologists who did the study on their word instead of who you want to force me to accept.

Yeah, what would an evolutionary biologist know about biology?

Then why don't you address the astrobiologist's takedown instead? Because you can't.



Still no rebuttal. Still trying to save face. Still off-topic. Yet another creationist hit-and-run.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: GetHyped

More personal attacks.

Awww diddums.

Douche.

lol

A leg to stand on you have not...

7 PAGES IN

Let's look at the highlights:

1) 1 crappy study that doesn't even reach the conclusion the poster claims it does.

Directly addressed.

Rebuttal: none

2) 1 source that literally debunks the poster's own argument.

Directly addressed.

Rebuttal: none

I'd be lying if I expected more but c'mon!

a reply to: Prezbo369

You understand self deprecating irony?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: GetHyped

Okay. It's been... something. At first it was amusing, then it was bemusing, now it's just really really sad and pathetic and I'm ashamed of myself for being part of it. ATS is better than this. We are obviously not, but at least I learned something valuable which I can hopefully put to good use in the future.

Say what you will, think what you will, do what you will... and I will do the same of course. But I will no longer be part of this.

not like you really contributed anything anyway.

theres always next week to take another swing. im sure if you dont post a thread, someone else will. maybe i will see you there. depends on how bored i am.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Raggedyman
About as much as there is for evolution

Your appendix
Wisdom teeth
Tonsils

You have evolved to not need them any more.

Add to that antibiotic resistant strains of diseases and you have proof of evolution.

Actually, while they are less necessary than they were for our distant ancestors, they are still necessary, except wisdom teeth. Your appendix is a sort of digestive bacteria repository in your intestines and your tonsils are a lymph node set. So, yes the wisdom teeth are a sign but the other two are still in use though people are born without the latter two of the three on a fairly regular basis.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

Notice how the skeptics rant and rage...

Insults are always a sign of desperation.

They also indicate that they are coming from a very weak position.

They are clearly worried.

"The louder the opposition protests, the more I know I am on the right track."

Another poster summed it up nicely:

originally posted by: Skyfloating
But you want to know what actually convinced me of the ID crowd? 10 years of seeing the completely spiteful, mocking and ignorant behavior of atheists/evolutionists on online forums, with their childish remarks on "you believe in the toothfairy, nanananana!"

Seeing such a stark contrast in mentality, decency, respect and kindness makes it pretty obvious which if these sides have refined and cultured minds and which are of more simple and coarse intelligence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Boadicea

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.

This is why I proposed that the debate be held in the Debate Forum. It would be moderated and the formal rules of debate would be enforced. The rules are posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There could be two debate teams - one presenting evidence for evolution; the other presenting evidence against. Anyone can join either team depending on their views and the amount of knowledge and evidence they bring to the debate.

I would like to point out that Creationism is not simply a religion. It would make no sense to debate science versus religion as one is faith-based and the other is fact-based. Creationism basically purports to have its own interpretation of science presumably with supporting evidence. And that would be essence of the debate - one view of science versus another.

a reply to: Murgatroid

both sides have been lowering themselves to each others levels in turns. dont act like the righteous have been anymore respectful than the heathens.

also, "skyfloating" is basing his/her opinion on a freakin' conspiracy forum. lets take a meander around the globe and see how that ID/creationist philosophy is treating society in the real world. particularly in theocratic settings.

a reply to: Phantom423

Creationism basically purports to have its own interpretation of science presumably with supporting evidence. And that would be essence of the debate - one view of science versus another.

but only one is verifiably scientifically correct. so it wouldnt be a debate at all. like texting lingo vs actual english.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

Attacking your argument isn't the same thing as attacking you personally. You are trying to paint yourself as the victim when you did not address anybody's counterpoints toward your article. If you don't want to back up your claims or even discuss it with folks that don't agree with you, why even post it in the first place? Disagreement with your article and what the article proves is not an attack on you. It's an opportunity for you to justify your position, but instead you ignore everybody's concerns about your misunderstandings about the article and play the victim card. It gets tiresome. If you aren't willing to even discuss it, so why are you still posting here? Did you not expect to be met with disagreement or something?

Everyone deals with adversity differently. If somebody posts something that goes against one of my posts or disagrees, I'll break down my position in more detail to try to help people understanding it. I don't claim I'm being attacked and regress into a corner swinging in self defense. Many people on here are very intelligent and many work in various scientific fields, so they understand the subject matter. Some people are meaner than others about it, but if you aren't willing to even discuss the issues people brought up with your article and what you claimed it proved, then why post it in the first place? My posts get attacked on here constantly, but I man up and post detailed rebuttals. If people attack your posts, then offer a rebuttal, otherwise you really have nothing left to say.