Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

I think that you are afraid of the rather obvious answer so you continue to duck the question.

and you are your own creation?

there are better questions than yours

 

[Sapiens]

and you are your own creation?

there are better questions than yours

No doubt, but why can't you answer my poor questions?

 

[Darkstorn]

there are better questions than yours

This is a subjective assessment, just like your statement there is a subjective assessment:

You haven't been able to show that there are. Your question was definitely not better. I mean, using my subjective assessment.

 

[gnostic]

I still haven't seen a single convincing evidences from the creationist camp.

All I see is a lot of misinformation and misleading claims from creationists about evolution, which is actually really about "abiogenesis", not "evolution"...and that lead to ignorance, because they cannot recognise and understand the distinctions between the two, which lead to faulty argument.

Dishing evolution, doesn't mean creationism is right.

 

[Polymath257]

I still haven't seen a single convincing evidences from the creationist camp.

All I see is a lot of misinformation and misleading claims from creationists about evolution, which is actually really about "abiogenesis", not "evolution"...and that lead to ignorance, because they cannot recognise and understand the distinctions between the two, which lead to faulty argument.

Dishing evolution, doesn't mean creationism is right.

Oh, there is much more than simply a misunderstanding between evolution and abiogenesis. There is also a huge misunderstanding about dating methods (hint: C14 isn't used for dinosaurs). There is basic misunderstandings of physics (uniformity of laws of nature, variable speed of light, gravity), history (Egypt ruled the area around modern Israel when the exodus was supposed to occur), etc.

Let's face it, creationists aren't exactly a well-informed crowd.

 

[Thief]

No doubt, but why can't you answer my poor questions?

no point....and they lead the discussion in the wrong direction

 

[Thief]

This is a subjective assessment, just like your statement there is a subjective assessment:

You haven't been able to show that there are. Your question was definitely not better. I mean, using my subjective assessment.

it takes you to the beginning

verifying evidence for creation?
that is wishful demand of a nonbeliever

all we can do is think about it

start at the beginning

 

[gnostic]

Let's face it, creationists aren't exactly a well-informed crowd.

Yeah, you can say that again.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't have a religion
that misconceptions come and go....is a fault to religion AND science

So, you don't believe in and worship God or gods? I feel like you have just contradicted much of what you've said on this site. Keep in mind, he didn't say "organized religion" or "religious organization".

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that misconceptions come and go....is a fault to religion AND science

These two are not as equivalent or symmetrical as your comment suggests,

Only science labors to identify and correct its errors. Religious apologists labor to defend theirs.

As has been noted repeatedly, science has also corrected some biblical errors, but the reverse has never happened.

Most Christians tacitly concede that science, not their Bibles, is the arbiter of truth about physical reality. They do so every time they tell us that their Bible predicted that the universe had a beginning before science confirmed it, but then ignore all of the differences between the two accounts.

By telling us what the scripture got right and ignoring what it got wrong, or trying to reconcile the apparent scriptural errors with claims of biblical allegory, for example, they are giving the nod to science.

If they considered their Bibles more authoritative, they'd be telling us what science got wrong, like not finding the firmament or the waters above it. Only the creationists go that route.

You can't put science and religion on the same shelf.

 

[Sapiens]

no point....and they lead the discussion in the wrong direction

But there is a point when the obvious answer to such a poor question leads directly in the direction of the heart of the matter and falsifies your primary thesis. Sorry 'bout that. Trying to dodge answering shows good sense, however.

 

[Thief]

These two are not as equivalent or symmetrical as your comment suggests,

Only science labors to identify and correct its errors. Religious apologists labor to defend theirs.

As has been noted repeatedly, science has also corrected some biblical errors, but the reverse has never happened.

Most Christians tacitly concede that science, not their Bibles, is the arbiter of truth about physical reality. They do so every time they tell us that their Bible predicted that the universe had a beginning before science confirmed it, but then ignore all of the differences between the two accounts.

By telling us what the scripture got right and ignoring what it got wrong, or trying to reconcile the apparent scriptural errors with claims of biblical allegory, for example, they are giving the nod to science.

If they considered their Bibles more authoritative, they'd be telling us what science got wrong, like not finding the firmament or the waters above it. Only the creationists go that route.

You can't put science and religion on the same shelf.

in terms of why people believe......yeah ....they are on the same shelf
motivation is the point

check the reason you believe.....
check your motivation for posting

 

[Thief]

These two are not as equivalent or symmetrical as your comment suggests,

Only science labors to identify and correct its errors. Religious apologists labor to defend theirs.

As has been noted repeatedly, science has also corrected some biblical errors, but the reverse has never happened.

Most Christians tacitly concede that science, not their Bibles, is the arbiter of truth about physical reality. They do so every time they tell us that their Bible predicted that the universe had a beginning before science confirmed it, but then ignore all of the differences between the two accounts.

By telling us what the scripture got right and ignoring what it got wrong, or trying to reconcile the apparent scriptural errors with claims of biblical allegory, for example, they are giving the nod to science.

If they considered their Bibles more authoritative, they'd be telling us what science got wrong, like not finding the firmament or the waters above it. Only the creationists go that route.

You can't put science and religion on the same shelf.

I noticed the 'firmament notation when I was a boy
I figured it out

science helped

no need to over look one for the other
science and religion will come together

 

[Thief]

So, you don't believe in and worship God or gods? I feel like you have just contradicted much of what you've said on this site. Keep in mind, he didn't say "organized religion" or "religious organization".

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

your def....left out the notation
religion is a practice
a collection dogmatic views
a practice of ritual and litany

not for me
I have faith....belief

no religion

 

[leibowde84]

your def....left out the notation
religion is a practice
a collection dogmatic views
a practice of ritual and litany

not for me
I have faith....belief

no religion

Religion doesn't necessarily mean that you practice in any specific way. Just that you believe in and worship God or gods.

 

[Thief]

Religion doesn't necessarily mean that you practice in any specific way. Just that you believe in and worship God or gods.

not buying that

I know of no congregation to which I would fit in

rogue theologian

 

[leibowde84]

not buying that

I know of no congregation to which I would fit in

rogue theologian

Congregation? You are thinking of "organized religion". "Religion" only signifies belief and worship of God or gods. I know that describes you ... or at least from what you've said on this site.

 

[Thief]

Congregation? You are thinking of "organized religion". "Religion" only signifies belief and worship of God or gods. I know that describes you ... or at least from what you've said on this site.

you can't label me

not really your privilege

and it won't work

I have no religion

 

[Darkstorn]

you can't label me

not really your privilege

and it won't work

I have no religion

Take it up to the people who decide on matters of language. By its definition, you definitely do fit the bill on what counts as religious. It's just not very well organized, but it's obvious from your actions, and your use of language, that you do have a religion. Your very own.

You might not have any followers. But it's only because you couldn't convince one to believe your assertions. Even the bible tries to explain their position, you are incapable of it. You just say:

"This is how it is, the end. No arguments. No evidence. Nothing except my own word."

 

[leibowde84]

you can't label me

not really your privilege

and it won't work

I have no religion

So, you don't believe in and worship God?