Please show that creationism is reasonable and true

<staff edit>

Explain then, in this hypothetical situation, that if you dont believe that a "quark" exists, then if i provided you, with reasonable and objective evidence for the existence of a "quark" how you could accept such evidence as reasonable and objective whilst still maintaining that the said "quark" does not exist.

Note: for purpose of the question, a "quark" is just a fictional name.

__________________
loud graphical signatures are against my religion.

Originally Posted by marktheblake

<staff edit>

Explain then, in this hypothetical situation, that if you dont believe that a "quark" exists, then if i provided you, with reasonable and objective evidence for the existence of a "quark" how you could accept such evidence as reasonable and objective whilst still maintaining that the said "quark" does not exist.

Note: for purpose of the question, a "quark" is just a fictional name.

Substitute "quark" for "evolution" and you've described the average creationist... and many of the above-average ones, as well.

__________________
"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!'
But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door,
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!"
-- The Who

Not at all, the creationist does not say, "prove evolution to me and i promise to be objective" - what a load of bulldust.

the creationist is not objective, and neither is the OP, he proves it in every post he makes.

There is nothing wrong with having faith, as all knowledge is based on some faith.

__________________
loud graphical signatures are against my religion.

Originally Posted by marktheblake

Not at all, the creationist does not say, "prove evolution to me and i promise to be objective" - what a load of bulldust.

the creationist is not objective, and neither is the OP, he proves it in every post he makes.

Too bad, because truth is objective... and you've just illustrated that you're not interested in it.

There is nothing wrong with having faith, as all knowledge is based on some faith.

But not all faith comes in spite of knowledge. I see far too much spite in creationism to willingly inflict it upon myself or anyone else.

__________________
"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!'
But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door,
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!"
-- The Who

Oh, pardon me. I thought that an article entitled ”Christianity Is Not Merely A ‘Belief’ It Is A FACT - You Can Prove it!” might prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is real. As we can see, it didn’t. So how about you find the very best article on that site—the one that really does prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is real—and present it here so that we can discuss it. Can you do that?

If you can provide sound, objective evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is real then I will accept it. This would indeed have a major impact on my view of the world and myself. I’m not denying that or evading the issue. However, for this to occur, you first need to provide some sound, objective evidence, which is the request you have been evading constantly throughout this thread.

I couldn’t. I would have to accept that your “quark” exists, but first you would have to provide the reasonable and objective evidence, which you appear unable and unwilling to do. Please prove beyond reasonable doubt that creationism is reasonable and true. You are yet to attempt to do that.

The problem with this equivocation is that, in the religious context, faith is just a euphemism for gullibility misrepresented as a virtue.

__________________