A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[justlookinla]

I will ask you again, would you accept any evidence he provided or would you dismiss it as not being evidence?

I would examine any evidence he provided, which has been absolutely none so far. How can I know if I'll accept it unless he posts it? That's apparently not going to happen though.

Anyone can make the baseless claim that they have 'mountains of evidence' for their position, but without presenting it for all to read and examine it's meaningless.

 

[justlookinla]

Not for him because he thinks he's is always being fair to everyone, as far as he is concerned creationists never tell lies.
We know creationists tell lies because creationism only exists because creationists tell lies, creationists can't see the lies because they do not want to see the lies.

The issue is someone claiming they have 'mountains of evidence' and then not posting it. They're seemingly afraid to have their 'mountains of evidence' critically examined.

 

[Delphiki]

The issue is someone claiming they have 'mountains of evidence' and then not posting it. They're seemingly afraid to have their 'mountains of evidence' critically examined.

No, the issue is people posting mountains of evidence and idiots thinking that nothing but the bible counts as evidence.


That, and inventing some impossible criteria that they think evidence should be in attempt to claim they haven't been provided with any.

 

[justlookinla]

No, the issue is people posting mountains of evidence and idiots thinking that nothing but the bible counts as evidence.

Not true. The poster made the claim that he had 'mountains of evidence' in response to my request for proof that all life is totally and completely the result of naturalist mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. The evasion dance of providing the 'mountains of evidence' then began.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would examine any evidence he provided, which has been absolutely none so far. How can I know if I'll accept it unless he posts it? That's apparently not going to happen though.

Anyone can make the baseless claim that they have 'mountains of evidence' for their position, but without presenting it for all to read and examine it's meaningless.

How about you present evidence for your position so we can get an idea of what you consider evidence

 

[justlookinla]

How about you present evidence for your position so we can get an idea of what you consider evidence

I've said repeatedly my position is a faith based position with the bible as a guideline. I've said repeatedly that the complexity and variety of life is best explained by a creator instead of a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism acting on a single life form from long long ago.

How about the guy actually posting the 'mountains of evidence' he claims he has and let the examination of his evidence begin? The truth is this, it's very likely his 'evidence' is just more of the guesses and suppositions, the maybe's, the could be's, ect. of atheistic creationism. In other words, it's also a faith-based view of creation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've said repeatedly my position is a faith based position with the bible as a guideline. I've said repeatedly that the complexity and variety of life is best explained by a creator instead of a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism acting on a single life form from long long ago.

How about the guy actually posting the 'mountains of evidence' he claims he has and let the examination of his evidence begin? The truth is this, it's very likely his 'evidence' is just more of the guesses and suppositions, the maybe's, the could be's, ect. of atheistic creationism. In other words, it's also a faith-based view of creation.

What is your evidence that a creator is a better explanation?

 

[RickG]

I've said repeatedly my position is a faith based position with the bible as a guideline. I've said repeatedly that the complexity and variety of life is best explained by a creator instead of a random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism acting on a single life form from long long ago.

How about the guy actually posting the 'mountains of evidence' he claims he has and let the examination of his evidence begin? The truth is this, it's very likely his 'evidence' is just more of the guesses and suppositions, the maybe's, the could be's, ect. of atheistic creationism. In other words, it's also a faith-based view of creation.

Well then, how about explaining the fossil record without evolution. How did all those fossils get into the strata they are located at just the right time and place?

 

[justlookinla]

What is your evidence that a creator is a better explanation?

It's my subjective opinion, as it's the subjective opinion of Darwinist creationists that all of life was created only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Well then, how about explaining the fossil record without evolution. How did all those fossils get into the strata they are located at just the right time and place?

Nope, not going to get sidetracked on the creationist question here. Your attempt to divert is a common one, but stick with creationism, i.e, the various views of how/who created humanity.

 

[RickG]

Nope, not going to get sidetracked on the creationist question here. Your attempt to divert is a common one, but stick with creationism, i.e, the various views of how/who created humanity.

In other words, you can't explain the fossil record without evolution. You are asking for evidence of evolution and I am asking for evidence that shows no evolution with reference to the fossil record.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's my subjective opinion, as it's the subjective opinion of Darwinist creationists that all of life was created only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Your opinion doesn't matter in the context of these conversations

 

[justlookinla]

In other words, you can't explain the fossil record without evolution. You are asking for evidence of evolution and I am asking for evidence that shows no evolution with reference to the fossil record.

I've probably asked over a 100 times now for evidence that all life to be entirely, without any other impetus, the complete and total result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I've asked you more than once to provide evidence that the variety and complexity of life we observe today was created in such a manner. You then respond with a post which doesn't provide one bit of evidence for such a view but instead respond with the very very common attempt to change the issue from the impetus driving creationism to something else.

 

[justlookinla]

Your opinion doesn't matter in the context of these conversations

Neither does your opinion matter and neither does the opinion of any Darwinist creationist matter in the context of these conversations.

Everybody has opinions.

 

[Delphiki]

I've probably asked over a 100 times now for evidence that all life to be entirely, without any other impetus, the complete and total result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Because, what you are asking for is all of the evidence, which nobody has the time to copy and paste to a web forum. All the evidence ever found, only shows natural processes being responsible for everything, in every field of science, not just biology. Nobody is going to post the entirety of humanity's current knowledge of the universe on christianforums.com because that would take literally forever, since it is logically impossible.

You want evidence? Start using your five senses.

You're making the claim that something other than natural is involved, so the onus is on you to show the evidence for it. Until then, stop lying.

 

[Delphiki]

Neither does your opinion matter and neither does the opinion of any Darwinist creationist matter in the context of these conversations.

Everybody has opinions.

Again, calling evolution "creationism". Again, you expose your position as a lie.

 

[justlookinla]

Because, what you are asking for is all of the evidence, which nobody has the time to copy and paste to a web forum. All the evidence ever found, only shows natural processes being responsible for everything, in every field of science, not just biology. Nobody is going to post the entirety of humanity's current knowledge of the universe on christianforums.com because that would take literally forever, since it is logically impossible.

You want evidence? Start using your five senses.

You're making the claim that something other than natural is involved, so the onus is on you to show the evidence for it. Until then, stop lying.

No, the burden of proof is on those who claim that the creationist view that all of life is the result of only, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

No evidence at all has been provided for such a creationist viewpoint.

 

[justlookinla]

Again, calling evolution "creationism". Again, you expose your position as a lie.

I'm not calling evolution "creationist", I'm identifying the creationist view that all of life was created only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[Delphiki]

No, the burden of proof is on those who claim that the creationist view that all of life is the result of only, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Which is not a claim anyone is making. That claim is your own invention, and I'm not the only person to explain that to you.

No evidence at all has been provided for such a creationist viewpoint.

Because you made it up. It is a straw man.

Particularly, the "only, totally, solely" part.

 

[justlookinla]

Which is not a claim anyone is making. That claim is your own invention, and I'm not the only person to explain that to you.

Because you made it up. It is a straw man.

Particularly, the "only, totally, solely" part.

What other forces were involved in the creation of humanity from a single life form other than naturalistic mechanisms?