Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In other words, you want me to keep quiet, while you guys claim we don't provide any physical evidence for the Creation event?
No, he suggests that you're in the wrong place
We know you don't claim to have evidence. However, other creationists have repeatedly done so, and other creationists have tried to sell creationism as science. The thread is about them.It is. It's usually used in the context of "zero evidence --> no reason to believe claim"
Let me get this straight, Naraoia.No, he suggests that you're in the wrong place
It is. It's usually used in the context of "zero evidence --> no reason to believe claim"
That's incorrect.
Not much to say about that.
No evidence that a deity had anything to do with it at all... but onward.
Likely this meant "the sky" but you've interpreted it to mean "space". Either way, not exactly correct. There was a singularity and nothing else. It didn't expand to fill space. It expanded and space was where it expanded. So was matter. It's still expanding. Stars are still being born. It's not like this creation event happened once and stopped. The first generation of stars had to come and go before we could have any of the heavy elements that make up the earth.
about eight billion years later. So it's wrong in the very first sentence.
Plenty of creationists claim that creationism is scientific, or that there is some way in which creation is evident in the world around us. Telling them that there's no justification for that view, and asking them to provide evidence to back it up doesn't seem all that unreasonable in the science forums.
You're claiming creation isn't scientifically verifiable, so why would it be relevant in the science section?
You don't really agree with us. The only way I can imagine that you think that is in an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of a way, but since you think that creation happened and not in any kind of scientifically verifiable way, again, why would it be relevant in the science section?
So? what do you guys care?
C'mon now. I think it is ridiculous to claim AVET shouldn't be posted about creationism in the "Creation and Evolution" subforum. Especially since there are few (if any) creationists who's real argument is not faith-based.
I'm not sure that Naraoia was agreeing with Delphiki. She was explaining his position.
We certainly agree with you about the evidence. I personally support you posting here that there is no evidence for creationism. Keep on truck'in, buddy!
-- thank you.
That. Oh, AV, don't get me wrong, you can grate on the nerves... but if I really wanted you gone, I could just ignore you like I do dad
Just don't expect anyone to be convincedWe certainly agree with you about the evidence. I personally support you posting here that there is no evidence for creationism. Keep on truck'in, buddy!
I care that people know the truth and speak the truth, surely you can appreciate that.
See above. I don't think I'll ever know where you're coming from, because I cannot fathom the kind of thinking that allows one to remain a creationist in the presence of all the evidence against it.
If you are who I think you are, and you're from where I think you're from, you guys tried to undermine this Christian nation twice and got pwned.
