Proof Creationism Is BS

a reply to: Quadrivium

Which you did, by making a random attack on Creation.

You mean the biblical version of "creation" right? The "Let there be light!" creation story of Genisis and the biblical god's Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and all that, right?

This is what you're on about defending, even though you know science proves it's all wrong?

LOL This thread is a hoot!

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Which you did, by making a random attack on Creation.

First, my posts are not random. They are quite specifically aimed at your unqualified and unproven statements.

Second, my posts are not attacks; they are rebuttal and discussion - conversation. Unless you are arguing that any discussion on creation specifically and religion generally is beyond reproach? I would certainly have something negative to say about that idea.

If you're going to make a significant claim then you have you be able to support that claim, ideally from more than one source.

And I slept well, thanks. Hope you did too.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Yeah, you say a lot, that doesn't make it so.

And you don't seem to understand what I am actually saying.

They defend their faith, like any religious person, when they feel it's threatened or attacked.

While I may agree that some do seem religious about their POV, I see a big difference in how they, compared to people who hold actual religious beliefs, can drop what they believe if a good enough source of data is offered.

The first bolded part is what you keep harping on about, which I said I agree with.

The second is my actual point.

As I said, you say a lot, that doesn't make it so.
That is in reference to your second bolded part above.

If it were shown evolution happens from non random mutation, you think they would accept it, all of them?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
As I said, you say a lot, that doesn't make it so.
That is in reference to your second bolded part above.

If it were shown evolution happens from non random mutation, you think they would accept it, all of them?

I think more of them would, compared to actual religious creationists.

The reason I say this is because they are more open to change than their actual religious counterparts on the other side of the debate, who would most likely not waiver if it was shown that evolution happens from random mutation.

ETA: That is what the alien manipulation of DNA to create humans example was about. The actual religious beliefs go beyond just the creation of man and in that scenario it still wouldn't fit with the creation story of the bible, for example, and for this reason, many wouldn't accept it, maybe even most.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

First, my posts are not random. They are quite specifically aimed at your unqualified and unproven statements.

This post was random.

Second, my posts are not attacks; they are rebuttal and discussion - conversation. Unless you are arguing that any discussion on creation specifically and religion generally is beyond reproach? I would certainly have something negative to say about that idea.

In this post, you jumped into a discussion with a random claim, trying to disprove Creation and actually proved the point I was making to Dask.

If you're going to make a significant claim then you have you be able to support that claim, ideally from more than one source.

I have one source, give it another page or so. I think my other source is working on a reply, after they actually read the thread.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
In this post, you jumped into a discussion with a random claim, trying to disprove Creation and actually proved the point I was making to Dask.

Stop being dishonest, I've told you over and over that wasn't what I was talking about and even quoted the post where I said I agree with that, so why would you be trying to prove that point to me.

a reply to: daskakik
I think you are wrong. They will defend their Faith, just like a Creationist. I know because I have seen it, numerous times.

Those that use science to even try and disprove Creation/God/Intelligent Design, are starting from a subjective view.
They do not understand how science should be done, and like some do with religion, try to use it as a club instead of a tool.

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

But, seriously ...



That all you have? Nipples?

If I tell you that the device you are using to read this thread (smart phone, computer, etc.) just farted itself into existence with no purpose or design determined by an intelligent designer, you would call me an idiot. Structure, complexity, function and purpose are clear evidence to you there exists some form of intelligent design behind the form, function and purpose of this device you are looking at.

Yet, notwithstanding the obvious structure, complexity, function and purpose evident in creation, you will put more blind faith in your belief in The Nothing to magically fart something out of the void than the clear fact that this cosmos was structured by an incomprehensible intelligence.

It's not that you don't believe in anything. The fact is that you hold dear to your core a blind faith in The Nothing.

My faith is informed by observation. Your faith is blind. You hold a blind hatred for the thought that there exists a transcendent Creator behind this creation that is the transcendent standard for morality and ethics. You want to be your own god so you deny the obvious reality of the One who put all this together by the Word of His mouth.

It won't end well for you as you will ultimately be given what you think you want.
:

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Quadrivium
In this post, you jumped into a discussion with a random claim, trying to disprove Creation and actually proved the point I was making to Dask.

Stop being dishonest, I've told you over and over that wasn't what I was talking about and even quoted the post where I said I agree with that, so why would you be trying to prove that point to me.

Regardless of what you were talking about, which I understand (but do not agree with), Terra proved the point I was making.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: daskakik
I think you are wrong. The are will defend their Faith, just like a Creationist. I know because I have seen it, numerous times.

But the scenario you proposed has never happened, so you really can't use what you have seen to support that claim.

Those that use science to even try and disprove Creation/God/Intelligent Design, are starting from a subjective view.
They do not understand how science should be done, and like some do with religion, try to use it as a club instead of a tool.

But those that use science, even if incorrectly, are more open to a change because that is the nature of science, while their actual religious counterparts are also starting from a subjective view based on a data set that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Regardless of what you were talking about, which I understand (but do not agree with), Terra proved the point I was making.

If you had really understood what I was saying you wouldn't have spent all this time trying to prove a point I said I agreed with in my first post.

a reply to: daskakik
And again, I respectfully disagree as I have seen it personally, numerous times.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Regardless of what you were talking about, which I understand (but do not agree with), Terra proved the point I was making.

If you had really understood what I was saying you wouldn't have spent all this time trying to prove a point I said I agreed with in my first post.

And you call me dishonest?

What I knew or didn't know, regarding your argument at the time, has no bearing on the point I was making when Terra interjected, proving the point I (me not you) was making.


The post you are now arguing over had nothing to do with your point of view. It was a post to Terra, about them proving my point of view

originally posted by: incoserv
blah blah blah function and purpose blah blah blah:

Please do tell what is the function and purpose of life on Earth.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
And again, I respectfully disagree as I have seen it personally, numerous times.

No you haven't, show a link that shows "evolution happens from non random mutation".

originally posted by: Quadrivium
originally posted by: TerraLiga

First, my posts are not random. They are quite specifically aimed at your unqualified and unproven statements.

This post was random.

Second, my posts are not attacks; they are rebuttal and discussion - conversation. Unless you are arguing that any discussion on creation specifically and religion generally is beyond reproach? I would certainly have something negative to say about that idea.

In this post, you jumped into a discussion with a random claim, trying to disprove Creation and actually proved the point I was making to Dask.

If you're going to make a significant claim then you have you be able to support that claim, ideally from more than one source.

I have one source, give it another page or so. I think my other source is working on a reply, after they actually read the thread.

That post was supplementary to Ravenwatcher's. You picked it up though. It tries to explain that if we, as you claim, are made as a reflection of your god - and we are so fundamentally flawed - what does that say about your god?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
What I knew or didn't know, regarding your argument at the time, has no bearing on the point I was making when Terra interjected, proving the point I (me not you) was making.

But you said "...proved the point I was making to Dask."

You made it repeatedly although I said I agreed with that in my first post, so why were you making it to me?

Some might say it was because you think I was arguing against that point. One of those people might even be you.
Me:

Then you missed my point, I never said "evolutionists" didn't do that.

You:

That is exactly what you have been saying.

a reply to: daskakik

ok

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: Quadrivium
originally posted by: TerraLiga

First, my posts are not random. They are quite specifically aimed at your unqualified and unproven statements.

This post was random.

Second, my posts are not attacks; they are rebuttal and discussion - conversation. Unless you are arguing that any discussion on creation specifically and religion generally is beyond reproach? I would certainly have something negative to say about that idea.

In this post, you jumped into a discussion with a random claim, trying to disprove Creation and actually proved the point I was making to Dask.

If you're going to make a significant claim then you have you be able to support that claim, ideally from more than one source.

I have one source, give it another page or so. I think my other source is working on a reply, after they actually read the thread.

That post was supplementary to Ravenwatcher's. You picked it up though. It tries to explain that if we, as you claim, are made as a reflection of your god - and we are so fundamentally flawed - what does that say about your god?

ok