Creationists, please provide evidence

[Herman Tripleton]

Then your argument should be with the fool's interpretation, not with the religion.

And please, if your are going to take part in a forum about religious debates then you have to at least understand the terms being used. The fool is an important archetype in all mythologies.

The majority of posts in this thread represent only the fear and ignorance of those that hurt, or have been hurt, in the name of religion. For that alone, these posters take refuge under the archetypal umbrella of the fool.

 

[jonman122]

this thread is still alive? you mean after reading the posts in here people still believe the world is 6000-10000 years old? guys, i think all possibility of finding someone rational to see their error is turning implausible.

 

[Autodidact]

Then your argument should be with the fool's interpretation, not with the religion.

That's exactly what we're arguing. This isn't a thread about religion, but about the fool's interpretation, to use your phrase.

And please, if your are going to take part in a forum about religious debates then you have to at least understand the terms being used. The fool is an important archetype in all mythologies.

Among other meanings, yes. But in modern termilogy, the most commonly understood meaning is –noun 1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.

The majority of posts in this thread represent only the fear and ignorance of those that hurt, or have been hurt, in the name of religion. For that alone, these posters take refuge under the archetypal umbrella of the fool.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? It has nothing to do with that. It's a thread about evidence for the Young Earth Creationist hypothesis.

 

[Big_TJ]

The point was - and you deliberately missed it - the point was that you have no more reason for your substitution and interpreting than she does with hers.

BOTH are worthless.

um . . What???

Did you get all this from her post, or are you now interpreting what she meant?
:cover:

 

[Autodidact]

I think Wotan may have lost track of whose post was whose.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

That's exactly what we're arguing. This isn't a thread about religion, but about the fool's interpretation, to use your phrase.

That may have been how it turned out, but it was certainly not how it started.

Among other meanings, yes. But in modern termilogy, the most commonly understood meaning is –noun 1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.

I think that that is exactly the source of most of the ignorance and fear in this thread. People are using modern terminology while debating ancient terms. Another reason why the appellation of fool is aptly applied.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? It has nothing to do with that. It's a thread about evidence for the Young Earth Creationist hypothesis.

Actually, if you refer to the beginning of this thread you will see quite clearly that this thread was began by an actor playing the part of the fool ranting to EVERY religious person on this planet to provide proof, in excess of all the volumes of religious scripture written throughout history, for their belief in the origin of Everything. As if just because the fool is incapable of understanding, or chooses not to, the myriad of "proofs" already presented, negates them entirely.

I suppose the fear and ignorance displayed throughout this thread cannot be but expected with such an irrational foundation.

"PROVIDE PROOF!!" is exclaimed over and over by the blind; unable to understand the simple fact that ALL things in the universe are created, and NO thing in the universe can create itself.

 

[Autodidact]

That may have been how it turned out, but it was certainly not how it started.



I think that that is exactly the source of most of the ignorance and fear in this thread. People are using modern terminology while debating ancient terms. Another reason why the appellation of fool is aptly applied.



Actually, if you refer to the beginning of this thread you will see quite clearly that this thread was began by an actor playing the part of the fool ranting to EVERY religious person on this planet to provide proof, in excess of all the volumes of religious scripture written throughout history, for their belief in the origin of Everything. As if just because the fool is incapable of understanding, or chooses not to, the myriad of "proofs" already presented, negates them entirely.

I suppose the fear and ignorance displayed throughout this thread cannot be but expected with such an irrational foundation.

"PROVIDE PROOF!!" is exclaimed over and over by the blind; unable to understand the simple fact that ALL things in the universe are created, and NO thing in the universe can create itself.

Really? A simple fact? How do you know?

Here is the OP:

You like to attack evolution but I have never heard positive evidence for your beliefs please provide some.

It is directed specifically toward creationists, meaning Young Earth Creationists. It is not about religion, except for those people whose religion includes a belief in Young Earth Creationism. It's not every religious person on the planet, on the contrary, it is a small minority of them. And it is not ancient terms at all, but a contemporary issue, at least in American society, where such people falsely claim that modern science supports their position, which should be taught as such in the public schools.

Any special reason why your posting style is so arrogant, pompous and innacurate?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Actually, if you refer to the beginning of this thread you will see quite clearly that this thread was began by an actor playing the part of the fool ranting to EVERY religious person on this planet to provide proof, in excess of all the volumes of religious scripture written throughout history, for their belief in the origin of Everything. As if just because the fool is incapable of understanding, or chooses not to, the myriad of "proofs" already presented, negates them entirely.

To which "proofs" are you referring? I've been keeping an eye on this thread and there has been nothing even approaching "proof' for creationism.

"PROVIDE PROOF!!" is exclaimed over and over by the blind;

No, "provide proof" has been exclaimed by those who are unwilling to accept, on faith, the claims made by creationists. It has been exclaimed by those who understand that the claims of creationists have not met their burden of proof. Until you (or any other creationist) can provide evidence for the claims you make, we have no reason to believe you. Simply calling those who demand evidence "fools" or "blind" doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof.

unable to understand the simple fact that ALL things in the universe are created, and NO thing in the universe can create itself.

Assertions are not evidence. You need to do better.

 

[darkendless]

"PROVIDE PROOF!!" is exclaimed over and over by the blind; unable to understand the simple fact that ALL things in the universe are created, and NO thing in the universe can create itself.

You're wrong. Its a challenge to the religious to prove scientifically their aged scripture. As a result, we who are not blinded by meaningless words in an ancient book, demonstrate that there is no realistic evidence avaliable from these books measurable on a scientific level.

You have the nerve to call us blind. However, in an attempt to slam the intellectual, you expose your own epic self imposed ignorance of how the world works.

Creation is for the lazy or the scientifically bankrupt.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Really? A simple fact? How do you know?

Here is the OP:
It is directed specifically toward creationists, meaning Young Earth Creationists. It is not about religion, except for those people whose religion includes a belief in Young Earth Creationism. It's not every religious person on the planet, on the contrary, it is a small minority of them. And it is not ancient terms at all, but a contemporary issue, at least in American society, where such people falsely claim that modern science supports their position, which should be taught as such in the public schools.

Any special reason why your posting style is so arrogant, pompous and innacurate?

All religions are creationist, I challenge you to provide me one example of a non-creationist religion. Young earth creationists are the tiny minority of all the religious people in the world. If you use the terms correctly, you will not be so offended by the caliber of responses you receive.

To which "proofs" are you referring? I've been keeping an eye on this thread and there has been nothing even approaching "proof' for creationism.

I am referring to every religious scripture available to you today. The posters in this thread just refer to the ones they are familiar with.

No, "provide proof" has been exclaimed by those who are unwilling to accept, on faith, the claims made by creationists. It has been exclaimed by those who understand that the claims of creationists have not met their burden of proof. Until you (or any other creationist) can provide evidence for the claims you make, we have no reason to believe you. Simply calling those who demand evidence "fools" or "blind" doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof.

And yet you are willing to accept the magical "Boson field" for which there is no evidence? You are willing to accept magic to make your precious higher maths make any sense but are unwilling to accept that you, me, and everything were created? It seems to me you're just one priest-cult bashing another. Typical religious behavior.

Assertions are not evidence. You need to do better.

If you can demonstrate to me an example of a thing that was either not created or created itself, I will concede my point, but until you can provide me with one, doesn't it seems kind of juvenile to just say that you don't believe me? That doesn't really make for a debate

You're wrong. Its a challenge to the religious to prove scientifically their aged scripture. As a result, we who are not blinded by meaningless words in an ancient book, demonstrate that there is no realistic evidence avaliable from these books measurable on a scientific level.

"Scientifically," he snorts, and I chuckle to myself. Fine, let us hold ourselves to a scientific standard, I boast. I will provide for you, every "thing" in the known universe as evidence for what was created and could not create itself. Now, you provide for me evidence of the "boson field" which, in order for your precious higher maths to make any sense, all matter must pass through to gain mass. Can you do that?

I think my snake-staff just beat your snake-staff.

You have the nerve to call us blind. However, in an attempt to slam the intellectual, you expose your own epic self imposed ignorance of how the world works. Creation is for the lazy or the scientifically bankrupt.

You of course are entitled to your opinion, however, I doubt any particular majority would join you with those opinions.

 

[fantome profane]

All religions are creationist, I challenge you to provide me one example of a non-creationist religion. Young earth creationists are the tiny minority of all the religious people in the world.

Perhaps you could explain in what sense Buddhism is a creationist religion?

 

[Autodidact]

All religions are creationist, I challenge you to provide me one example of a non-creationist religion. Young earth creationists are the tiny minority of all the religious people in the world. If you use the terms correctly, you will not be so offended by the caliber of responses you receive.

If you will review the thread, I think you will see that it is directed primarily at Young Earth Creationists, and secondarily at other people who prefer a myth-based explanation of biology to a scientific one. It is premised on the assumption that God created all things, and inquires into the evidence supporting a specific hypothesis for HOW He did so, namely, Magic Poofing.

In other words, the OP agrees with and accepts (for the purpose of argument) your view that God created the universe and everything in it. The OP agrees with you that Genesis should not be read literally, and does not provide an accurate specific explanation for the origin of species. The people you should be taking issue with are the people on the other side, who assert that it does.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

If you will review the thread, I think you will see that it is directed primarily at Young Earth Creationists, and secondarily at other people who prefer a myth-based explanation of biology to a scientific one. It is premised on the assumption that God created all things, and inquires into the evidence supporting a specific hypothesis for HOW He did so, namely, Magic Poofing.

In other words, the OP agrees with and accepts (for the purpose of argument) your view that God created the universe and everything in it. The OP agrees with you that Genesis should not be read literally, and does not provide an accurate specific explanation for the origin of species. The people you should be taking issue with are the people on the other side, who assert that it does.

For your convenience I have pasted here both the title and the message of he original post:

Creationists, please provide evidence
You like to attack evolution but I have never heard positive evidence for your beliefs please provide some.

Could you please show were it states the things you assert, above?

Perhaps you could explain in what sense Buddhism is a creationist religion?

While not strictly a religion, rather more of a philosophical approach to easing the dissolution of form, I will still answer your question. In Buddhism, the cultivation of Dhyana produces the gradual development of the indifference to either life or death. When man utterly loses sight of his physical and dual individuality, composed of soul and body he is united with this third and higher immortal self , the real and heavenly man then merges into the divine essence where his own spirit proceeded from. The Buddhists maintain that there is no creator but an infinitude of creative powers that collectively form the one eternal substance from which all things are created. Still creationists.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

On a side note. Guatama Buddha clearly did not invent his own philosophies but came to many of his understanding under the tutelage of Jain gurus, who coincidentally accept a creator but think it is a waste of time to speculate anything about the nature of the creator.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

If these threads link to each other the then things I have mentioned regarding the original post should be disregarded. I have been under the assmption that each thread has its own original post and the one I pasted was the basis for this debate.

 

[jarofthoughts]

"PROVIDE PROOF!!" is exclaimed over and over by the blind; unable to understand the simple fact that ALL things in the universe are created, and NO thing in the universe can create itself.

That would of course include god, right?
So, who created god?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am referring to every religious scripture available to you today. The posters in this thread just refer to the ones they are familiar with.

Scripture is not evidence, except perhaps, of the fact that someone wrote them. For confirmation you need independent evidence.

And yet you are willing to accept the magical "Boson field" for which there is no evidence? You are willing to accept magic to make your precious higher maths make any sense but are unwilling to accept that you, me, and everything were created? It seems to me you're just one priest-cult bashing another. Typical religious behavior.

The Higgs Boson, like Superstrings and numerous other hypotheses are not currently backed by evidence, but unlike "god did it" they are at the very least proper scientific hypotheses. That doesn't mean that neither we, nor the scientists, consider them to be facts. For that we need to do a lot more work, and perhaps we will find that these ideas were not correct, at which point they will be discarded. Religious faith does not enter into it mate. Now stop with the strawmen please.

"Scientifically," he snorts, and I chuckle to myself. Fine, let us hold ourselves to a scientific standard, I boast. I will provide for you, every "thing" in the known universe as evidence for what was created and could not create itself. Now, you provide for me evidence of the "boson field" which, in order for your precious higher maths to make any sense, all matter must pass through to gain mass. Can you do that?

How do you know that the matter that makes up the universe has not always been there?

 

[Autodidact]

I realize it's a long thread, here are some excerpts. From p. 6:
For the purposes of this discussion, we can all assume that God created all things, living and non-living, on earth and throughout the universe. It will not have any bearing or cause any change in ToE or any other scientific theory, all of which are compatible with that idea. So, in short: all.

You seem to be making the common ignorant error of confusing ToE, a scientific theory, with atheism, a philosophy. They are quite separate.



Chance doesn't enter into it. Again, we are all agreeing that God created everything. *Is already tired of repeating herself.* HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO. HOW. How did God create these "kinds," (whatever they may be.) Before you can look for evidence, you first have to state your hypothesis. According to you, how did God create these "kinds." And btw, what is a "kind?"



It doesn't matter. Science is nuetral regarding the existence of God. NUETRAL. (add this to the list of things I wish I never had to explain again.) ToE is true whether or not God created all things, so let's just agree that He did and get on with figuring out how. How do you think He did it?

p. 8
Now, show me some positive evidence that Creationism is correct. You know, testable observable reproducible evidence. I don't care why you think Evolution is wrong. That is not what this tread is about. In order to have a scientific theory of any kind you MUST have positive evidence.

p.9:
First: provide us with the Creationist hypothesis (which by the definition of hypothesis must be testable), THEN provide us with the evidence that said hypothesis is correct.

Each person should examine the evidence for himself/herself and make their own decision about how life began and whether creation or evolution fits the facts, and not be intimidated by ToE advocates or believers in Creation.

p. 10: HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

Why can you not grasp this simple concept? We are not discussing WHO created the universe, but HOW. Yes, God created and designed everything on earth and in the heavens. That's a given. We're all agreeing with you. Got that? It's not that complicated, really. Now the question is: HOW? How did God create the many species on earth? What is your hypothesis for HOW God created the tremendous variety of species?

You can't begin to look for evidence until you first state your hypothesis, which you have not done.

We're all waiting.

Suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the rate of Jewish net increase; the present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733.

These calculations have greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask. The ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the rate it has for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. (lost the page)

p. 14: You need to first clearly state your hypothesis, then figure out what evidence would tend to show it to be true. And remember, we're not looking for who--we know who (God). We're looking for how. How did God go about creating all the different species?

Creationists: Do you understand what you are being asked for?
First, state in clear terms how you believe God actually went about creating the many different species we see on earth.
Second, state what evidence would tend to support or disprove that hypothesis.

p. 15: The evidence for creation has already been established in the scientific community. One only needs to separate fact from hypothesis to observe it. The topic is huge and a post cannot do the topic justice. So I’ll take on a couple of little points. Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve have already proven the creation of mankind.

p. 16:
Yes the hypothesis agrees with evolution but the facts do not. The creation occured with that first organism of its kind. The split from the tree of life is the assumption/hypothesis. One or some flowers were created as flowers and diversified. They did not split from anything. This is a hypthesis. What scientists should be looking for is how many flowers were initially created by God that then went onto diversify.

p. 19:
1. Create hypothesis.
2. Describe to us your hypothesis.
3. Is the hypothesis empirically testable.
4. Oh wait I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

p. 20:
God created one, a few, several or hundreds of initial breeding pairs or individual organisms. Most likely they were created in a geographic area (Garden of Eden). Then they spread and adapted and diversified. Except for mankind who was created fully formed as a thinking and reasoning individual, 6000 years ago. How about that?

etc.
So, as you see, the thread is an effort to get Biblical Creationists to specifically state a hypothesis as to HOW God created all things, and then subject that hypothesis to scientific testing.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

That would of course include god, right?
So, who created god?

Depends on what you mean when you say god. Define your term.

Scripture is not evidence, except perhaps, of the fact that someone wrote them. For confirmation you need independent evidence.

Every religion, from all parts of the world, and throughout time is not enough "independent" evidence for ya? How about the fact that every 'scientific' alternative with any amount of credibility still requires a leap of faith? You are willing to accept faith one belief but not in another?

The Higgs Boson, like Superstrings and numerous other hypotheses are not currently backed by evidence, but unlike "god did it" they are at the very least proper scientific hypotheses. That doesn't mean that neither we, nor the scientists, consider them to be facts. For that we need to do a lot more work, and perhaps we will find that these ideas were not correct, at which point they will be discarded. Religious faith does not enter into it mate. Now stop with the strawmen please.

Do you not see that by placing your 'faith' in these causal hypotheticals like the higgs boson you are allowing yourself to believe in everything else they represent? How is that different than any other religion?

How do you know that the matter that makes up the universe has not always been there?

Religion declares it and modern science backs it up. Besides everybody knows that matter wasn't created until after electrons were.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

...So, as you see, the thread is an effort to get Biblical Creationists to specifically state a hypothesis as to HOW God created all things, and then subject that hypothesis to scientific testing.

My first post in this thread addressed all that but nobody wanted to subject it to scientific testing but I would direct you to my thread titled COSMOGONY for a discussion of that if you are interested. Mostly though, posters here just seem to want to argue about why their faith is better than another's. Apparently faith in science is more valid than faith in any other religion.