Diversity remains a one way street

[catocom]

that makes my statement above a response to gonzs post about global warming i believe. But im keen to know... what evidence is there for creationism as you attest?

Lets look at History a minute.....
Do you believe there was a person name Jesus?
Do you believe there was a king Solomon?
Do you believe there was a man name Noah, that built an ark?
Do you believe there was a man named Adam?
...

 

[Thulsa Doom]

how is this at all relevant to the question?

 

[catocom]

It is part of the evidence that is support of Creationism.
It's the start of making the case.
Isn't it?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

No its irrelevant to the question of evidence FOR creationism. "Because god said he created adam" isnt evidence.

 

[chcr]

We're back to two arguments:
1. Is the bible history?
2. Is history fact?

In my opinion, biblical proof of creation is one of the worst forms of proof because by simple mathematics it requires that the earth (and therefore the universe) be less than 10,000 years old.

 

[catocom]

I haven't said anything about "Because god said he created adam" .
At this point I'm mearly backtracking history.

Putting together a case like a DA.

 

[chcr]

Ah, but law and science differ greatly in what they consider proof.

Edit: effing typos!

 

[catocom]

IMO Actually Creationism, and Scientology, and to some degree Evolution,
co-exist, and compliment each other.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Well thats a rather broad statement really (although Im not sure why you toss the scientology thing in there). One could argue that "god" "created" the universe at the point of the big bang and then he let natural forces like evolution take over from there. If you go that route then you lose a huge swath of doubters. even among scientists. But if your argument is for traditional YEC fundamentalism then youve got a serious uphill battle. and yes... zero evidence.

 

[catocom]

Well at this point, I can see there is no 'reasoning' at all taking place,
therefor there is no point in trying to make a point anymore, much less
put the points together to draw the picture.

 

[Gonz]

For those that believe, the only evidence needed is simple existence. For those question creationism, Darwin is their man. Both are theories. There will never be a way to prove either one. For the religious, death is a means to an end. For atheists, death is the end. One is hope. The other, finality. Why is it so important for so many to disprove God? If you don't believe, fine. I find the average atheist as distasteful as the religious extremist.

 

[Winky]

There will never be a way to prove either one.


One is already a proven theory.
The other is merely a superstition
and requires no proof.

 

[freako104]

We're back to two arguments:
1. Is the bible history?
2. Is history fact?

In my opinion, biblical proof of creation is one of the worst forms of proof because by simple mathematics it requires that the earth (and therefore the universe) be less than 10,000 years old.

1) no. It is based in old myths and legends.
2) yes. but interperted and also given from one view

 

[Gonz]

Evolution is still a theory.

 

[freako104]

yes but it has a tiny bit more to back it up. Creationism is also a theory but is based more around faith

 

[Gonz]

Creationism has 5000+ years of belief. The Theory of Evolution is maybe a century.

 

[freako104]

ok. so people believed it for thousands of years. the theory of evolution still has a bit more facts behind it.

 

[Winky]

Gonz look up the definition of theory.

then belief

and then know that any comparison between scientific fact and superstition is just that.

 

[Gonz]

Winky, you realize that theory, until proven, is belief. Should a better, more fitting theory come along the previous one is usually abandoned. Should one single thing disprove a theory, it becomes junk.

I subscribe to the theory of evolution. I don't beleive in a deity. I have faith in neither.

 

[Winky]

So what are you saying?