Creationists, please provide evidence

[evolved yet?]

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.

Yes, you are right, I thought nobody would get confused of the definition of creationism in an evolution vs creationism forum. If I wanted evidence from theists of god I would have gone to the science vs. religion forum.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

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!"

You'll just have to be more specific. Generalized denials add nothing to the conversation.

I cannot imagine how anyone who has spent any amount of time studying the various world religions and their scriptures would ever make the claim that they are merely writings of men who had no understanding of the world around them.

And yet here we are, still with you claiming I'm engaged in a strawman argument and yet you have not made any meaningful critique of my original posts.

Have you found anything that was not created? When you present it we can continue but until you can make an argument for no creator you have to show me something that was not created so we can debate the validity of your argument.

My argument begins quite simply; every thing was created.
So now, you either agree and we move on or, you disagree and present an argument for why.

I am still waiting for you to present an argument for why.

See, again this seems like you have no real understanding of the various world's religions. You freely interchange the term creator and god as if the meant the same thing across the board. You should know the the dutch word god used for the supreme deity in christianity has nowhere near the same meaning as the gods of brahmanism. God is a loaded word that carries too many definitions but creator in the religious or spiritual sense is always the same whether its followed by god, spirit, essence, etc. Creator is simply that which created every thing.

everything[/I] 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.

Once again, you must first explain to me how it does not? Until you do, I have no idea what you are referring to. How do you explain the existence of anything if not "it was created"? I don't get it.

As I see it,

Every thing was created. Accepted.

Every thing is capable of creating. Accepted.

No thing is capable of creating itself. Accepted.

Therefore, if every thing is created and no thing is capable of creating itself, then some thing superior to or beyond every thing created the first thing.

As far as I know, the universe itself was the first thing.

Then there is nothing that I can do, that is the reality I inhabit.

I don't think it matters what I write, you have denial fever. You seen to have come to a conclusion and are now unwilling to even just imagine beyond what that conclusion represents.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

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

Is there an award for that?

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.

Its much more beneficial if you specify your objections, these generalized denials are trite and unproductive. Are you a Republican Congressman?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I cannot imagine how anyone who has spent any amount of time studying the various world religions and their scriptures would ever make the claim that they are merely writings of men who had no understanding of the world around them.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Have you found anything that was not created? When you present it we can continue but until you can make an argument for no creator you have to show me something that was not created so we can debate the validity of your argument.

Matter, living biological systems, all the physical forces of the universe.

My argument begins quite simply; every thing was created.
So now, you either agree and we move on or, you disagree and present an argument for why.

I disagree, just because something exists does not mean it is specifically "created".

I am still waiting for you to present an argument for why.

People have been telling you "why" for several pages now.

Once again, you must first explain to me how it does not? Until you do, I have no idea what you are referring to. How do you explain the existence of anything if not "it was created"? I don't get it.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. When you make the claim "everything was created", it is up to you to demonstrate that your claim is true. It is not up to other people to prove your claim is false until you have sufficiently evidenced your claim. Using your logic, you could make any claim about anything, and until somebody proves otherwise you're justified in making that claim.

Here's an example: My pet cat has wings. Prove to me that my cat does not have wings.

You see the fallacy in making such a demand, correct? You are not in a position with which you can prove my claim to be false, but that does not automatically mean that my claim is true.

As I see it,

Every thing was created. Accepted.

Every thing is capable of creating. Accepted.

No thing is capable of creating itself. Accepted.

Therefore, if every thing is created and no thing is capable of creating itself, then some thing superior to or beyond every thing created the first thing.

As far as I know, the universe itself was the first thing.

This is a circular argument. If you want to work off the assumption that the Universe was created, you must first demonstrate that it was created.

Then there is nothing that I can do, that is the reality I inhabit.

That's not any kind of reality. It's a logical fallacy.

I don't think it matters what I write, you have denial fever. You seen to have come to a conclusion and are now unwilling to even just imagine beyond what that conclusion represents.

It's simple: demanding other people to prove you wrong is not how rational inquiry works. Furthermore, other people being unable to prove your wrong does not automatically mean you are correct.

Unless you provided sufficient evidence to support your assertion, it can and will be ignored as having no factual basis.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is there an award for that?

It should turn up in the post.

Its much more beneficial if you specify your objections, these generalized denials are trite and unproductive. Are you a Republican Congressman?

A generalized denial? How is pointing out that your argument is nothing more than adherence to a singular logical fallacy "generalized"? It's quite specific.

You're committing the fallacy of reaching a conclusion based on a false premise. In this case, you falsely assert that "everything is created", and therefore falsely conclude "everything needs a creator".

 

[Herman Tripleton]

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.

So, you are telling me that here, in this forum, the term creationist has a definition unlike anywhere else in the known universe? Is this a new twitter-generation thing?

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.

You are not making any points. You are just ranting. Do you have a point? Do you have multiple points? Because I would love to debate them if you made actual and specific points that I could address.

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.

So you are saying that you are willing to accept, on faith alone, the word of the consensus of the mainstream scientific professors of the world the, the Ph.Ds?

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

I would be happy to address any of these alleged specific points of yours anywhere. Just make one and let me know where its at if its not right here and I will get on it.

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

Damn, I wish you wrote this earlier, but its nice to know for the future that you won't be upset if I ignore that which has no bearing on any topic.

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.

I am not going through the whole buddhism thing again, you can look back over the thread for that. But can you provide an example of one of these alleged native and pagan religions without a creator?...?

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.

religionfacts
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."
The World Buddhist Sangha Council

Sweep the Dust, Push the Dirt
Buddhist Answers

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.

I don't understand how so many people in this thread get confused about the difference between a creator and a god? Notice how nothing you pasted dismissed a creator, merely a god that created and has influence. Do you notice the difference? Because if you do not then I think we have reached an impasse.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you are saying that you are willing to accept, on faith alone, the word of the consensus of the mainstream scientific professors of the world the, the Ph.Ds?

It's not faith if the reason you trust them and their methods is because they have, throughout the last hundred years and more, proven that their methods are reliable.

For example, when you get your hair cut, do you take it "on faith alone" that you would trust a qualified hairdresser who has cut your hair (and the hair of hundreds of other people) several times in the past successfully over, say, a six-year old brandishing a meat cleaver wearing a blindfold?

People trust science, and by extension scientists, because science and the scientific method have demonstrated that they are trustworthy by consistently delivering clear and demonstrable results.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You'll just have to be more specific. Generalized denials add nothing to the conversation.

How much more specific can I be? I reject scriptures by themselves as evidence. If you want to use them to help you make an argument, feel free. But I will not accept your argument if it is based solely on a holy book.

1) "The Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old and here's evidence that it's true..." <- This is acceptable.

2) "The Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old, therefore it is." <- This is not.

[Note: I'm just using the Bible as an example. Feel free to use whatever religious text you want. Just have evidence to back it up.]

I cannot imagine how anyone who has spent any amount of time studying the various world religions and their scriptures would ever make the claim that they are merely writings of men who had no understanding of the world around them.

As Immortalflame said, No True Scotsman.

And yet here we are, still with you claiming I'm engaged in a strawman argument and yet you have not made any meaningful critique of my original posts.

You made assertions. You've failed to back those assertions with evidence. How's that?

Have you found anything that was not created? When you present it we can continue but until you can make an argument for no creator you have to show me something that was not created so we can debate the validity of your argument.

I'm not making an argument. I'm rejecting yours until you back it with evidence. Again, debate 101.

My argument begins quite simply; every thing was created.

This isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

So now, you either agree and we move on or, you disagree and present an argument for why.

No, you either present evidence for your assertion or you drop it. Debate 101.

See, again this seems like you have no real understanding of the various world's religions. You freely interchange the term creator and god as if the meant the same thing across the board. You should know the the dutch word god used for the supreme deity in christianity has nowhere near the same meaning as the gods of brahmanism. God is a loaded word that carries too many definitions but creator in the religious or spiritual sense is always the same whether its followed by god, spirit, essence, etc. Creator is simply that which created every thing.

I agree that the term "god" is all but meaningless. If it will make things go more smoothly, I'll refrain from using "god" and instead use "creator"

Once again, you must first explain to me how it does not? Until you do, I have no idea what you are referring to. How do you explain the existence of anything if not "it was created"? I don't get it.

Nope. Again, you are the one making the assertion that everything was created. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove it.

As I see it,

Every thing was created. Accepted.

Every thing is capable of creating. Accepted.

No thing is capable of creating itself. Accepted.

Therefore, if every thing is created and no thing is capable of creating itself, then some thing superior to or beyond every thing created the first thing.

That is a massive circular argument. "Everything is created, therefore everything is created."

You can't simply assert that everything is created and go from there. You have to demonstrate it.

Then there is nothing that I can do, that is the reality I inhabit.

As immortalflame said, It's not reality, it's a fallacy.

I don't think it matters what I write, you have denial fever. You seen to have come to a conclusion and are now unwilling to even just imagine beyond what that conclusion represents.

No. If your argument is logically sound and has sufficient evidence to support it, I'll accept it. That's the requirement you have to meet.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

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".

Truth is, you rant has gone on for so long I don't even know what this particular topic is referring to.

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

Okay, so write you argument here and please try and be specific. You have give these one sentence responses for so long I have no idea what you are talking about any more.

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

I already posted it in this thread. You can reference that post if you would like to make a specific point.

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.

So, then the only reason you are responding to me to have a bit of a rant and pat yourself on the back? I don't get it, why not just make clear and specific points and have debate about belief?

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

Dude, I have posted it in entirety, I have expounded on several points, you gotta just read what I have already wrote before thinking I gotta write it all again just for you.

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.

Its alright, usually its from those incapable of understanding. I'm not really all that concerned with their opinions of me anyways, I mean heck, all their other opinions of reality are so far off base to begin with. I am more worried when they start agreeing with me. The last thing I need is another cult.

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

The wind or spirit represents force, just as the waters or deep represent energy.
The first duad is always force and energy.

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

okay.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Yes, you are right, I thought nobody would get confused of the definition of creationism in an evolution vs creationism forum. If I wanted evidence from theists of god I would have gone to the science vs. religion forum.

So you are telling me that when you wrote creationists, in this forum that means young earth whackos only? And people know that? What term do you use to define all the other creationists?

 

[Herman Tripleton]

How much more specific can I be? I reject scriptures by themselves as evidence. If you want to use them to help you make an argument, feel free. But I will not accept your argument if it is based solely on a holy book.

1) "The Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old and here's evidence that it's true..." <- This is acceptable.

2) "The Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old, therefore it is." <- This is not.

[Note: I'm just using the Bible as an example. Feel free to use whatever religious text you want. Just have evidence to back it up.]

Are you really going with a literal reading of the bible?

As Immortalflame said, No True Scotsman.



You made assertions. You've failed to back those assertions with evidence. How's that?

I'm not making an argument. I'm rejecting yours until you back it with evidence. Again, debate 101. This isn't an argument, it's an assertion. No, you either present evidence for your assertion or you drop it. Debate 101.

You are being rather childish don't you think. I mean if you cannot come up with an example of some thing that was not created, fine. But why act so immaturely. If I gave you an apple would you tell me that that apple was not created? You don't seem to be making any sense at all.

I agree that the term "god" is all but meaningless. If it will make things go more smoothly, I'll refrain from using "god" and instead use "creator"

great.

Nope. Again, you are the one making the assertion that everything was created. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove it.

Sorry man but until you can articulate to me how you think that any thing was not created I can not explain to you how it was. I can't argue against you until you tell me where you are coming from.

That is a massive circular argument. "Everything is created, therefore everything is created."

I think you just skimmed over it. It does not say that at all. How did you come to that conclusion?

You can't simply assert that everything is created and go from there. You have to demonstrate it.

Actually you start from a question like, "I wonder what was created and what was not." But really, nothing meaningful occurs until you come to the conclusion that there is no thing in the known universe that was not created. I have not come across anything that has been published on the topic. There are a few quirks that seem to spontaneously manifest, but since no consensus has been formed I am of the opinion that there are just factors we are not aware of at play in the matter, if you forgive the pun. So, if no thing in the known universe was not created, then all things in the known universe were created.

No. If your argument is logically sound and has sufficient evidence to support it, I'll accept it. That's the requirement you have to meet.

how does it not get more logically sound than all things were created? I just do not understand where you are coming from. And if you are unwilling to explain to me why you think such things then where can we go from here?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Truth is, you rant has gone on for so long I don't even know what this particular topic is referring to.

Okay, so write you argument here and please try and be specific. You have give these one sentence responses for so long I have no idea what you are talking about any more.

I already posted it in this thread. You can reference that post if you would like to make a specific point.

Dude, I have posted it in entirety, I have expounded on several points, you gotta just read what I have already wrote before thinking I gotta write it all again just for you.

How about this: Just state your hypothesis clearly and I'll deal with the argument(s) within. And since you claim to have written it in this tread before, you should have no problems just cutting and pasting it if it is too much work to write it out again.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Matter, living biological systems, all the physical forces of the universe.

What matter was not created? what living biological systems? and forces are not things. Things are formed of nature which is all energy.

I disagree, just because something exists does not mean it is specifically "created".

You are welcome to disagree, but can you explain why or how? What would be an example of a thing that was not necessarily created?

People have been telling you "why" for several pages now.

That is a convenient excuse but I am asking if you, specifically, can articulate a reason why?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. When you make the claim "everything was created", it is up to you to demonstrate that your claim is true. It is not up to other people to prove your claim is false until you have sufficiently evidenced your claim. Using your logic, you could make any claim about anything, and until somebody proves otherwise you're justified in making that claim.

Here's an example: My pet cat has wings. Prove to me that my cat does not have wings.

You see the fallacy in making such a demand, correct? You are not in a position with which you can prove my claim to be false, but that does not automatically mean that my claim is true.

Thats not a very good example, because I could just come to your house and see for myself if your cat had wings. Just as I could come to your house and see for myself if you had a thing that was not created. Where your analogy fails is that you can go anywhere you like, ask anyone you like, research the compendium of human knowledge on the known things in the universe and find that there is no known thing that was not created. Which necessarily means that all known things were created, moreover, it means that you cannot provide an example of any thing that was not created. So why are you drawing this out?

This is a circular argument. If you want to work off the assumption that the Universe was created, you must first demonstrate that it was created.

Done and done ten times over. Whether you choose to realize it or not.

It's simple: demanding other people to prove you wrong is not how rational inquiry works. Furthermore, other people being unable to prove your wrong does not automatically mean you are correct.

I am not demanding that you prove me wrong, I am just asking to rationally articulate why you think I am wrong. I do not know how one could think that there is any thing that was not created and I just want you to explain how you do.

Unless you provided sufficient evidence to support your assertion, it can and will be ignored as having no factual basis.[/quote]

 

[Herman Tripleton]

It should turn up in the post.

That's what they all say

A generalized denial? How is pointing out that your argument is nothing more than adherence to a singular logical fallacy "generalized"? It's quite specific.You're committing the fallacy of reaching a conclusion based on a false premise. In this case, you falsely assert that "everything is created", and therefore falsely conclude "everything needs a creator".

What the heck are you talking about here. How does this have anything to do with the topic?

 

[Herman Tripleton]

It's not faith if the reason you trust them and their methods is because they have, throughout the last hundred years and more, proven that their methods are reliable.

What!?! That has got to be almost verbatim the argument every priest of very cult has every made throughout history! I mean really, stop for a minute and read that. That statement is truly timeless!!!

For example, when you get your hair cut, do you take it "on faith alone" that you would trust a qualified hairdresser who has cut your hair (and the hair of hundreds of other people) several times in the past successfully over, say, a six-year old brandishing a meat cleaver wearing a blindfold?

What? Where are you coming from with this, that's crazy? But you almost had me. Let me make my point with some of your words.
For example, when you get your hair cut, you take it "on faith alone" that a qualified hairdresser who has cut your hair (and the hair of hundreds of other people) several times in the past successfully, will not F*** your hair up this time.
You have faith that this hairdresser would not cut your hair if he felt ill, or crazy, or having bad motor skills. Do you interview your hairdresser every time you sit down in the chair? I have faith that my hairdresser would not intentionally do anything to mess up by experience.

People trust science, and by extension scientists, because science and the scientific method have demonstrated that they are trustworthy by consistently delivering clear and demonstrable results.

Again, you can substitute in any cult for science and have another time preist-class talking point. Yeah, science ultimately comes up with answers but only after it eliminates all other possibilities and you will note that nowhere in the mainstream scientific community has there been a paper regarding the discovery of a thing that was not created.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

How about this: Just state your hypothesis clearly and I'll deal with the argument(s) within. And since you claim to have written it in this tread before, you should have no problems just cutting and pasting it if it is too much work to write it out again.

How about this, just find it and reply to it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

How about this, just find it and reply to it.

Seems to me that all you have are claims with no backing. You seem to completely misunderstand, wilfully or not, basic principles of presenting an argument, and when I, and several other posters, have asked you to present your arguments and your hypothesis, dodging the question in this and similar manners is your "way out".

Now, I can't find your hypothesis anywhere, so unless you repost it here, I will be forced to assume that you have none, just like all the other creationists who have replied in this tread.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Are you really going with a literal reading of the bible?

I am an Atheist. I don't go with a literal reading of any holy scripture. I used the 6000 year line because I hear it so often, no other reason.

You are being rather childish don't you think. I mean if you cannot come up with an example of some thing that was not created, fine. But why act so immaturely. If I gave you an apple would you tell me that that apple was not created? You don't seem to be making any sense at all.

If you gave me an apple I would assume the apple came from a tree, as apples do. If you said that the apple was created, I'd ask you to prove it.

great.

Well, at least there's that.

Sorry man but until you can articulate to me how you think that any thing was not created I can not explain to you how it was. I can't argue against you until you tell me where you are coming from.

For the purposes of this debate, I am taking a neutral stance. I am not claiming that everything is created. Nor am I claiming that nothing is created.

I am making no claim of my own.

The only one on the table is yours.

"Everything is created."

Prove it.

I think you just skimmed over it. It does not say that at all. How did you come to that conclusion?

You started with the assumption that everything is created and then reached the conclusion that if everything is created there must be a creator. That is a circular argument. At no one point in your argument did you attempt to prove any of it. You simply stated it as fact and went from there.

Actually you start from a question like, "I wonder what was created and what was not." But really, nothing meaningful occurs until you come to the conclusion that there is no thing in the known universe that was not created.

How did you reach that conclusion?

I have not come across anything that has been published on the topic. There are a few quirks that seem to spontaneously manifest, but since no consensus has been formed I am of the opinion that there are just factors we are not aware of at play in the matter, if you forgive the pun. So, if no thing in the known universe was not created, then all things in the known universe were created.

Two questions:

What makes you think anything was created in the first place?

When you see something, how do you tell if that something is created or not? (I.E. What intrinsic difference does a created thing have from an uncreated thing?)

how does it not get more logically sound than all things were created?

You provide evidence to back the assertion.

 

[Autodidact]

So, you are telling me that here, in this forum, the term creationist has a definition unlike anywhere else in the known universe? Is this a new twitter-generation thing?

No.

–noun 1. ...

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter

) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

[dictionary.com, emphasis added]

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

Merriam Webster

You are not making any points. You are just ranting. Do you have a point? Do you have multiple points? Because I would love to debate them if you made actual and specific points that I could address.

Sorry, I thought my point was clear. When you imply or assume that people here lack basic scientific knowledge, you are mistaken, and give a poor impression thereby. Just trying to be helpful.

So you are saying that you are willing to accept, on faith alone, the word of the consensus of the mainstream scientific professors of the world the, the Ph.Ds?

Only in a completely different sense of the word "faith" than religious faith. I would say that I provisionally accept that consensus because of the confidence that you and I share in the scientific method, confidence that is warranted by historical experience.

I would be happy to address any of these alleged specific points of yours anywhere. Just make one and let me know where its at if its not right here and I will get on it.

No, the subject is innapropriate in this forum. It would belong in general religious debates. Manners, you know.

Damn, I wish you wrote this earlier, but its nice to know for the future that you won't be upset if I ignore that which has no bearing on any topic.

Entirely up to you. I do think it's rude to ignore polite, direct, relevant questions. Other than that just reply to whatever you like.

I am not going through the whole buddhism thing again, you can look back over the thread for that. But can you provide an example of one of these alleged native and pagan religions without a creator?...?

Yes, I understand that you don't want to acknowledge the several Buddhist sources that make it clear that you're wrong.

Moving along to the many indigenous animistic/shamanistic religion that emphasize spirits, rather than a creator God or gods, such as the Okinawan, s well as ancestor worship, such as in ancient China. Neither of these broad groups of indigenous religions focus on a creator.

I don't understand how so many people in this thread get confused about the difference between a creator and a god? Notice how nothing you pasted dismissed a creator, merely a god that created and has influence. Do you notice the difference? Because if you do not then I think we have reached an impasse.[/quote] Go back and read again. What is rejected is specifically a creator-God, the world having been created, or that "a God created everything." Unless you're asserting that Buddhism holds that something other than a God created everything? If so, what?

 

[Autodidact]

So you are telling me that when you wrote creationists, in this forum that means young earth whackos only? And people know that? What term do you use to define all the other creationists?

So, a little tip. You may want to familiarize yourself with the forum before making assumptions and trying to impose them on the community, lest you make a fool of yourself.

In this forum--Evolution vs. Creationism, the word "creationism" refers to specific psuedo-scientific views that God created living creatures (or sometimes, the entire universe) magically, in a way different from current scientific thinking. The most popular version is Genesis-based Young Earth Creationism, but occasionally we get a Muslim, an Old Earth Creationist, or even an ID proponent, all of them equally anti-scientific. Discussions about theism vs. atheism take place in General Religious debates.