Creationists, please provide evidence

[evolved yet?]

We can demonstrate the existence of atoms. We can weigh and measure them and change them through fission and observe them decay.

With a sufficiently powered microscope, I think I heard we can see every atom incept hydrogen (too small).

 

[painted wolf]

With a sufficiently powered microscope, I think I heard we can see every atom incept hydrogen (too small).

Yup.. a type of scanning electron microscope called a Scanning Tunneling Microscope.

The Scanning Tunneling Microscope

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well, since every thing in the known universe was created and no thing in the known universe can create itself, we know at the very least there is a creator.

That does not follow. Also, we cannot, at least for now, know that the universe, in some form or other (a singularity perhaps) did not always exist.
In other words, your conclusion is severely lacking in supporting data.

I would not know about superstitions.

Superstition can be defined as "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural", hence, it applies to most religions and religious faith.

First you explain why you think not. You'll have to do more than say, 'nuh uh' if you want to continue this point.

Actually, since you were the one making the claim, the onus of evidence/supporting data is on you.

I must have missed the time somebody refuted the existence of a creator. It certainly never made it into any mainstream media. Of course, I don't get my information from blogs.

That really depends on how you define said creator. For instance, the Christian version is easily refuted purely by the use of logic. However various religions have made many claims that has been evidentially refuted, such as the power of prayer, faith-healing and so on.

Its okay, I stopped taking most people in this thread seriously a long time ago. Not a lot of thinkers present, just folks trying to maintain the opinions of some scientists they heard or read once without having any real knowledge of what they are talking about. But I used to be that way, so I get a kick out of proving the old me stupid.

Arrogance is such an unflattering characteristic.

You must not have read much of this thread, understandable its really long, but if you just peruse through the last ten pages or so, that's where I jumped in, then you will find my position and all the evidence you will need to attempt to formulate an argument against me.

Well, I'll have a look, but I fully expect your evidence to be of the same mettle as the theists who have tried before you.

Magic is just science we don't yet understand.

Finally something we can agree on.

Thanks I get that a lot.

Sure, and "Sarcasm" is a town in Ukraine.

You can start with Bereshiyth, but its the same story pretty much anywhere you look.

Seeing as I have read Genesis already, I couldn't find anything specifically dealing with gravity. Care to elaborate?

I was just demonstrating how our faith in the existence of atoms is no different than everyone else's faith in a creator. faith is faith.

And as demonstrated they are nothing alike and thus your argument is faulty.
One is belief without evidence, aka "blind faith", and the other is belief with evidence, aka "knowledge".

 

[The_Evelyonian]

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.

Scriptures aren't proof. They aren't even evidence in and of themselves unless you can show that they are anything more than the scribblings of ancient peoples completely ignorant of the world around them.

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.

An excellent combination of red-herrings, straw-men, and ad hominems. You can't defend your own position so you attempt to attack mine. What you fail to realize is that this does nothing to help your own position. Either you have evidence for creation or you don't. Which is it?

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

First you need to prove a creator actually exists. Then we can discuss created vs. uncreated.

 

[Autodidact]

How about a Creator?

Nope. Many religions do not include one at all.

 

[Autodidact]

I just gotten done explaining how wrong that is.

I must have missed that. Are you claiming that Buddhism posts a creator, or that Buddhism isn't a religion?

 

[Autodidact]

because they are not as prevalent.

Actually, they're exactly as prevelent. All have a prevalence of zero.

 

[Autodidact]

Science is definitely a religion. It has a dogma which requires faith, a priest-class that administers the accepted teaching, uneducated followers, fanatical terrorists, and continually points to a creator the more it is understood. The only difference is that the devotees deny their religious affiliation.

Every one of these statements is false.

 

[Autodidact]

Science, while still in its fledgling stage, always works.

It always works, but you don't think it's reasonable to have confidence in it?

Whether or not we use the right equations is another story altogether. We still have to use tremendous amounts of heat and pressure to create material equal what the silkworm can do at room temperature with fiber and acid.

I think you're confused about what science is. It's not engineering. It's a method to learn about the natural world.

To use our level of understanding of science as the measuring stick for whether or not the universe was created is setting the bar awfully low, don't you think.

Who is advocating doing that? Remember, in this thread we all assume that the universe had a Creator, because science works either way. Science isn't about whether God exists. Science is about how God, if any, created all things.

Only the most easily convinced would fall for such a fallible proposition.

It sounds like you're interested in debating atheism. You're in the wrong thread and the wrong forum. Feel free to start a thread on that subject.

 

[Autodidact]

I am as comfortable with not knowing how the creator came to exist as you are with not knowing how your 'gravity element' works. Gravity is actually a type of force, by the way.

Is there some reason you assume the posters here lack the most basic scientific knowledge? I think you'll be surprised at the level of scientific knowledge here.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, since every thing in the known universe was created and no thing in the known universe can create itself, we know at the very least there is a creator.

This does not belong in this thread, where we all know that there is a creator from page one. However, there is a flaw in your logic, which we may want to take up in a different forum.

I must have missed the time somebody refuted the existence of a creator. It certainly never made it into any mainstream media. Of course, I don't get my information from blogs.

Wrong thread.

Its okay, I stopped taking most people in this thread seriously a long time ago. Not a lot of thinkers present, just folks trying to maintain the opinions of some scientists they heard or read once without having any real knowledge of what they are talking about. But I used to be that way, so I get a kick out of proving the old me stupid.

Get read to be put in your place.

You must not have read much of this thread, understandable its really long, but if you just peruse through the last ten pages or so, that's where I jumped in, then you will find my position and all the evidence you will need to attempt to formulate an argument against me.

Buddy, you don't even know what this thread is about.

I was just demonstrating how our faith in the existence of atoms is no different than everyone else's faith in a creator. faith is faith.

No, merely stating something is not the same as actually demonstrating it. But if you want to make that argument, you may want to start a thread on it.

 

[Autodidact]

I just got done pointing out how that is wrong. Are you still going to cling to this discredited opinion? No individual escapes faith or subjective personal experience. That does not occur in reality only on Vulcan, and even there they go sex crazy every once in awhile trying to hold all that reality in.

You don't actually know what science is or how it works, do you?

Then why try and use science as the instrument of understanding what is beyond the physical universe? What, you thing the creator is just over on the other side of the galaxy chillin or something?

I don't know, why would anyone do that? It would be stupid.

 

[fantome profane]

I must have missed that. Are you claiming that Buddhism posts a creator, or that Buddhism isn't a religion?

He did both.

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.

I think you are expanding the definition of creationism and the definition of creator well beyond that which is usually understood. By doing what you are doing you might as well argue that atheists are creationists. Many atheists believe that the universe was “created” through purely naturalistic means, through the laws of nature. This makes the forces of nature the “creator” and it makes atheists creationists who believe in the creator. Obviously this is nonsense, but this is what happens when you expand those terms to the degree that you have.

Also what you are describing may be true in one specific school of Buddhism, but it is not true of all Buddhists. I can assure you that there are Buddhists, and Buddhist traditions that do not believe what you are describing.

The only way you can defined your over-generalization is by over universalizing and over expanding your definitions. You are twisting the concepts to fit your statement.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

I think you are expanding the definition of creationism and the definition of creator well beyond that which is usually understood.

Absolutely, because I am discussing the religions and their messages as they were written to, for, and by, its devotees. Only the most ignorant king of fools would attempt to debate the validity of an anceint religion as understood by the unwashed masses of modernity.

By doing what you are doing you might as well argue that atheists are creationists. Many atheists believe that the universe was “created” through purely naturalistic means, through the laws of nature. This makes the forces of nature the “creator” and it makes atheists creationists who believe in the creator. Obviously this is nonsense, but this is what happens when you expand those terms to the degree that you have.

Creationist has only one definition when applied to an individual: One who believes the universe and all things in it were created, necessarily, by a creator.

One does not have to believe in any known religion to still understand that there is a creator. Again, it does not matter what is generally perceived as definition. Pop culture has no effect on ancient thought.

Also what you are describing may be true in one specific school of Buddhism, but it is not true of all Buddhists. I can assure you that there are Buddhists, and Buddhist traditions that do not believe what you are describing.

Well, what is true for many jews is not necessarily true for many christian, muslims, mormans, or rastafarians but they are all devotees of the same religion. They just have their own slant on the same teaching. Which always happens over time. In fact, because of the multitude of bhuddist missionaries in palestine in the centuries leading up to jesus, christianity is most probably just a buddhist variant of judaism.

How individual sects, over time, couch the message in story never changes the underlying esoteric message. So, while an individual in a particular sect of a religion may not believe one thing, it it irrelevant to what the message of the religion is.

The only way you can defined your over-generalization is by over universalizing and over expanding your definitions. You are twisting the concepts to fit your statement.

No I am using the concepts as how they were intended, not how modern pop cultures accepts them.

We can demonstrate the existence of atoms. We can weigh and measure them and change them through fission and observe them decay.

You can not demonstrate, weigh or measure god... let alone observe god.
Science is not based on faith, but on what has been and can still be repeatedly demonstrated as existing.

I already have, everything was created, hence the existence of a creator. If you cannot wrap your mind around that then there really is not much more I can do.

Scientific method limits subjectivity and personal experience by insisting on repeatability by several independent researchers. There are no lonely prophets in science.

I feel like there have been many lone prophets of science who do the work alone and in the shadows until they can acquire enough popularity that their ideas are accepted into mainstream dogma.

I never have... nor do I know any other scientist who has every tried to.

Thats exactly what this whole thread is about; trying to prove the existence of a creator, that is clearly only immanent in the universe, by scientific standards.

Nope... my view of creator isn't so fantastical...

Its for the best.

That does not follow.

It follows exactly and is pretty basic thought.

Also, we cannot, at least for now, know that the universe, in some form or other (a singularity perhaps) did not always exist.
In other words, your conclusion is severely lacking in supporting data.

Until we discover the higgs boson we cannot be sure that anything we believe to know is true. Right now our math is held together by faith. For instance, we know that everything in the universe changes and yet we apply laws and equations statically throughout time. Perhaps at some point in the past the laws we accept today somehow changed? It is more possible than the antithesis in the universe we observe.

Superstition can be defined as "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural", hence, it applies to most religions and religious faith.

I suppose you are right from a certain perspective. If you took scripture as a literal story it would all be superstitious. However, if you took only the esoteric message of scripture, well, then it is the only realistic cosmogony known to mankind.

Actually, since you were the one making the claim, the onus of evidence/supporting data is on you.

The onus is irrelevant, if you wish to illicit more from me on this topic then you have jump through my hoop. And my hoop is that you have to elaborate on your point in greater terms than just "nuh uh." You have to play by my rules if you want my opinions.

That really depends on how you define said creator. For instance, the Christian version is easily refuted purely by the use of logic. However various religions have made many claims that has been evidentially refuted, such as the power of prayer, faith-healing and so on.

My only definition of creator is and always has been the one by which all things in the universe including the universe itself were created. No other definition, aside from your own, apply to our debate. And, if you cannot agree on my terms then there is no point in debating. I am not going to defend that which I do not understand.

Arrogance is such an unflattering characteristic.

I get that a lot as well.

Seeing as I have read Genesis already, I couldn't find anything specifically dealing with gravity. Care to elaborate?

You are just not reading correctly. Unless you use the same terms in the same way as those that wrote the text, it won't mean anything to you. I mean its still a pretty good story, a little long on the begatting, but you know...

And as demonstrated they are nothing alike and thus your argument is faulty. One is belief without evidence, aka "blind faith", and the other is belief with evidence, aka "knowledge".

Beware the half-truths. Understand that opposites are the same in nature only different in action. Light and dark, hot and cold, high and low, faith and knowledge, all are extremes of the same nature. Where does one begin and one end? At what point do you need scientific proof rather than just have faith in your knowledge? And, perhaps more importantly, at what point does the word of another become acceptable fact? An adult, your parent, a teacher, an author, a person on tv, a person of office, a person with a gun? There are immeasurable amounts of "facts" we accept as truth that we have never bothered to do the work to understand. Why is it okay for some truths and not for others?

Scriptures aren't proof. They aren't even evidence in and of themselves unless you can show that they are anything more than the scribblings of ancient peoples completely ignorant of the world around them.

This post demonstrates to me that you barely understand the teachings of any religion. I generally do not like to waste my time getting people up to speed with basic religion motif unless it comes up in topic.

An excellent combination of red-herrings, straw-men, and ad hominems. You can't defend your own position so you attempt to attack mine. What you fail to realize is that this does nothing to help your own position. Either you have evidence for creation or you don't. Which is it?

Unless you have something new to add to your opinion I don't see what more can come of this. You didn't add anything in this post.

First you need to prove a creator actually exists. Then we can discuss created vs. uncreated.

I have proven a creator exists fourteen times already. have you found anything that was not created yet? Then, please quite with the same stupid argument over and over. Either accept a creator or deny everything you observe. Those are your two options. Pick one and give me four reasons why its true. Anything short of that and I really have lost interest.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

It always works, but you don't think it's reasonable to have confidence in it? I think you're confused about what science is. It's not engineering. It's a method to learn about the natural world. Who is advocating doing that? Remember, in this thread we all assume that the universe had a Creator, because science works either way. Science isn't about whether God exists. Science is about how God, if any, created all things. It sounds like you're interested in debating atheism. You're in the wrong thread and the wrong forum. Feel free to start a thread on that subject.

I will direct you to the opening post of this thread. You seem to be confused as to the nature of the topic. This thread is a direct challenge from a non-creationist, a person who does not believe in the existence of a creator, to creationists, people who do believe in the existence of a creator, to present evidence for the existence of a creator. I have already pasted the title and message of the opening post in this thread and cannot be bothered to do it again. You'll have to do your own homework this time.

Is there some reason you assume the posters here lack the most basic scientific knowledge? I think you'll be surprised at the level of scientific knowledge here.

The reason I presume that most posters here have not actually performed an eighth of the experiments required to prove the existence of any of the things they believe in is because I know it is true. Most posters here have only ever read some story written by some authority they have faith in telling them how, scientifically, the world works. That's just a fact of life. Do you really think that the majority of posters here have conducted the experiment to prove the existence of atoms, gamma rays, viruses, etc., etc., ad nausea? If you do, then you have more faith than I.

This does not belong in this thread, where we all know that there is a creator from page one. However, there is a flaw in your logic, which we may want to take up in a different forum.

Well, since you don't have any other points to make why don't you articulate the flaw you perceive. I am assuming that nobody here is telepathic.

Wrong thread.

Get read to be put in your place.

Buddy, you don't even know what this thread is about.

No, merely stating something is not the same as actually demonstrating it. But if you want to make that argument, you may want to start a thread on it.

You don't actually know what science is or how it works, do you?

I don't know, why would anyone do that? It would be stupid

Every one of these statements is false.

Actually, they're exactly as prevelent. All have a prevalence of zero.

All of these responses only demonstrate your inability to defend your own points. You will have to articulate and elaborate on your thoughts if you wish to solicit a reply.

Nope. Many religions do not include one at all.

Well, besides buddhism which I already proved has a creator, name one.

I must have missed that. Are you claiming that Buddhism posts a creator, or that Buddhism isn't a religion?

You did miss that, its in the thread if you care to have a look.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

This post demonstrates to me that you barely understand the teachings of any religion. I generally do not like to waste my time getting people up to speed with basic religion motif unless it comes up in topic.

Well, that's a beautiful way of dodging the issue, isn't it? "I could explain it to you but I don't wanna." It's kind of like the kid who falls off of his bike and then declares, "I meant to do that!"

For your edification, I have spent years studying the various world religions and their scriptures and I probably know most of them better than you do. But, like I said before, scriptures aren't evidence unless you can show that they are anything more than the writings of men who had no understanding of the world around them.

Unless you have something new to add to your opinion I don't see what more can come of this. You didn't add anything in this post.

Like I said, you assigned a position to me then attacked it. That's a strawman. Beyond that, attacking the person you're debating does nothing to help your position. That is debate 101.

I have proven a creator exists fourteen times already.

No, you have made a number of assertions but I've yet to see anything resembling "proof".

have you found anything that was not created yet? Then, please quite with the same stupid argument over and over.

You're asking me to name something that I believe was not created or created itself. Well, that easy for me to do. I don't believe anything was created in the "god did it" sense of the word because there is no evidence to support the existence of a creator, hence my participation in this thread and hence my earlier request for you to provide evidence of a creator.

However, that's not the point.

You are making the assertion that everything around us designed or, at the very least, points to a creator. The onus is on you to back that claim up with evidence. Until you do, I have no reason to believe you, nor do I have to provide any reason beyond that for rejecting your claim. That, again, is debate 101.

Either accept a creator or deny everything you observe.Those are your two options.

False dichotomy. Nothing I observe points to a creator. You're going to have to do better than that.

Pick one and give me four reasons why its true. Anything short of that and I really have lost interest.

I reiterate my earlier question: Do you have evidence to support creationism or not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Absolutely, because I am discussing the religions and their messages as they were written to, for, and by, its devotees. Only the most ignorant king of fools would attempt to debate the validity of an anceint religion as understood by the unwashed masses of modernity.

This gets my vote for "most pretentious/arrogant comment of the year".

I already have, everything was created, hence the existence of a creator. If you cannot wrap your mind around that then there really is not much more I can do.

And if you cannot see that this is a circular argument and, therefore, a fallacy then I doubt you're in a position to be criticizing anyone for not being able to "wrap their minds around" things.

 

[Autodidact]

I will direct you to the opening post of this thread. You seem to be confused as to the nature of the topic. This thread is a direct challenge from a non-creationist, a person who does not believe in the existence of a creator, to creationists, people who do believe in the existence of a creator, to present evidence for the existence of a creator. I have already pasted the title and message of the opening post in this thread and cannot be bothered to do it again. You'll have to do your own homework this time.

No, you're mistaken, ask the OP. Here the word "creationist" does not refer to religionist, but is a short-hand for Biblical creationists, whether old-earth or young-earth, that is, people who take Genesis as scientifically correct. The hint is the forum, as well as common terminology here at RF.

The reason I presume that most posters here have not actually performed an eighth of the experiments required to prove the existence of any of the things they believe in is because I know it is true. Most posters here have only ever read some story written by some authority they have faith in telling them how, scientifically, the world works. That's just a fact of life. Do you really think that the majority of posters here have conducted the experiment to prove the existence of atoms, gamma rays, viruses, etc., etc., ad nausea? If you do, then you have more faith than I.

You're not responding to the point I'm making. When you say things like, "gravity is a force, you know," you only make yourself look like a pompous ***, and you wouldn't want that, would you? We have at least one physics grad student, and one evolutionary biology degree candidate here. I am not asserting that all of us have done the actual science, merely that many of us are quite knowledgeable about science.

However, I do not accept your implication that we're only privy to that scientific knowledge that a single person has observed directly. I am willing to accept the consensus view of the scientific mainstream on anything on which I lack a Ph.d. level of knowledge, which is to say, anything. I don't think I'm qualified to reject it without that level of knowledge myself. My personal knowledge of science would be awfully limited if I had to throw out Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Crick, Hubble, etc.

Well, since you don't have any other points to make why don't you articulate the flaw you perceive. I am assuming that nobody here is telepathic.

If you care to meet me in a new thread for the subject, I would be happy to.

All of these responses only demonstrate your inability to defend your own points. You will have to articulate and elaborate on your thoughts if you wish to solicit a reply.

Feel free to reply to anything I post, or not, as you prefer.

Well, besides buddhism which I already proved has a creator, name one.

I'm sorry, I failed to notice you proving anything of the kind; quite the contrary. Unless you define your terms in some very idiosyncratic ways, neither Buddhism nor many native and pagan religions worship or even assert a creator God.

You did miss that, its in the thread if you care to have a look.

NO, I saw it, you're just mistaken that you proved anything of the kind. After all, you can't prove something that's false.

As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God." {1}
According to BuddhaNet, a major Buddhist website:

There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being. {2}​

The Buddha himself rejected metaphysical speculation as a matter of principle, and his teachings focused entirely on the practical ways to end suffering.

religionfacts

Buddhists are Atheists because we do not believe in a God or Savior--we are our own Saviors. The Buddha was not a God but rather was a highly intelligent man who mapped out a path to great and everlasting peace whether in good times or bad.

The Buddhist Blog

Thera, Nyanaponika. "Buddhism and the God-idea". The Vision of the Dhamma. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. Buddhism and the God-idea. "In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."

We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.

The World Buddhist Sangha Council

(1) The is no creator God or direct salavation in Buddhist practice

Sweep the Dust, Push the Dirt

But do Buddhists believe that a God created everything and manipulate human lives? No, we do not.

Buddhist Answers

Do Buddhist believe in god? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says: "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Buddha Dharma Education Association

So other than disregarding the actual beliefs of Buddhists and Buddhism, yeah, you completely proved that Buddhism believes in a Creator.

 

[painted wolf]

I already have, everything was created, hence the existence of a creator. If you cannot wrap your mind around that then there really is not much more I can do.

What evidence exists that everything was created?

I feel like there have been many lone prophets of science who do the work alone and in the shadows until they can acquire enough popularity that their ideas are accepted into mainstream dogma.

That's the problem with feelings... they aren't reliable. While we like to hold up individuals as being the sole source of ideas, that isn't the way it works in reality.

Thats exactly what this whole thread is about; trying to prove the existence of a creator, that is clearly only immanent in the universe, by scientific standards.

Actually, it's about providing evidence for "the science of creationism".

Its for the best.

I tend to think so.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

It follows exactly and is pretty basic thought.

It follows no school of logic that I am aware of so I'm afraid you will have to elaborate as to why this is so "obvious".

Until we discover the higgs boson we cannot be sure that anything we believe to know is true. Right now our math is held together by faith. For instance, we know that everything in the universe changes and yet we apply laws and equations statically throughout time. Perhaps at some point in the past the laws we accept today somehow changed? It is more possible than the antithesis in the universe we observe.

In addition to being incorrect, this addresses the argument I made not at all.

I suppose you are right from a certain perspective. If you took scripture as a literal story it would all be superstitious. However, if you took only the esoteric message of scripture, well, then it is the only realistic cosmogony known to mankind.

And what, I wonder, according to you, is that esoteric message?

The onus is irrelevant, if you wish to illicit more from me on this topic then you have jump through my hoop. And my hoop is that you have to elaborate on your point in greater terms than just "nuh uh." You have to play by my rules if you want my opinions.

Eh... Sorry, but I don't play by "your rules". It is a logical consequence that whoever makes a claim, which you did, is the one who has to back it up. I'm not -that- interested in your opinions that I am willing to accept this as the Kingdom of Herman. This is not your sandbox and we don't have to play by your personal concept of how an argument is made. It is much more tempting to put your arrogant and apparently ignorant behind on ignore. You are not some sage to whom we come to seek wisdom. At the moment you are just slightly above the "I can barely be bothered to reply" level but unless you at least attempt to back your claims up that is likely to change.

My only definition of creator is and always has been the one by which all things in the universe including the universe itself were created. No other definition, aside from your own, apply to our debate. And, if you cannot agree on my terms then there is no point in debating. I am not going to defend that which I do not understand.

Then explain your hypothesis for why there should be a creator in the first place.

I get that a lot as well.

I don't know if you've heard but that is not a compliment. Especially when the arrogance seems utterly unjustified. Call it "blind arrogance" if you like.

You are just not reading correctly. Unless you use the same terms in the same way as those that wrote the text, it won't mean anything to you. I mean its still a pretty good story, a little long on the begatting, but you know...

Then explain how you get the Theory of Gravity from Genesis, since I'm apparently not seeing it.

Beware the half-truths. Understand that opposites are the same in nature only different in action. Light and dark, hot and cold, high and low, faith and knowledge, all are extremes of the same nature. Where does one begin and one end? At what point do you need scientific proof rather than just have faith in your knowledge? And, perhaps more importantly, at what point does the word of another become acceptable fact? An adult, your parent, a teacher, an author, a person on tv, a person of office, a person with a gun? There are immeasurable amounts of "facts" we accept as truth that we have never bothered to do the work to understand. Why is it okay for some truths and not for others?

Check my self appointed title and you will know the answer to that.