Thread where Creationists attempt to persuade us with evidence.

[Danyc]

Ok, first thing, I don't want a lot of satirical posts coming from the Evolution side making up the first 2 pages, as I'm sure would happen. I want the first couple of posters after me to have thoughtful comments, or evidence for creation.

This is the thread where Creationists can attempt to present their evidence for a young earth.

Remember, Creationists, before posting: EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. SO DON'T USE IT.

Thank you.

I look forward to a great thread full of the eye-opening, groundbreaking new evidence for a young earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I want the first couple of posters after me to have thoughtful comments, or evidence for creation.

No such evidence exists, as this challenge demonstrates.

 

[Danyc]

No such evidence exists, as this challenge demonstrates.

Just as there can be proof that the earth is old, so can there be proof that the earth is young.

I am not looking for proof that God created everything. I am looking for evidence of a young earth.

That is what Creationists, such as yourself, espouse, of course.





So, with that out of the way...any takers?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am looking for evidence of a young earth.

The timespan of man upon it.

And, yes, I know what you're gonna say --- so let me disagree ahead of time.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

Threads like these have been going on since I've been on CF (2004) and the story is the same every time. The thread gets derailed, the topic is changed completely, or the thread is blatantly ignored by creationists. Though in any other thread, they always assert there's plenty of evidence for creation and the scientific community is involved in a conspiracy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Threads like these have been going on since I've been on CF (2004) and the story is the same every time. The thread gets derailed, the topic is changed completely, or the thread is blatantly ignored by creationists. Though in any other thread, they always assert there's plenty of evidence for creation and the scientific community is involved in a conspiracy.

You don't know my threads then. Especially the one where I get you guys to admit that there's really no evidence for the very thing you're demanding evidence for.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

We know there's no evidence for creationism, AV1611VET. Which is why those of us who don't believe in it dismiss it.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know there's no evidence for creationism, AV1611VET. Which is why those of us who don't believe in it dismiss it.

I do believe in Creationism --- and dismiss any kind of evidence outright - (except the Bible).

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

I do believe in Creationism --- and dismiss any kind of evidence outright - (except the Bible).

Fundyism in a nutshell.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fundyism in a nutshell.

If you personally think there should be evidence for the Creation, then I invite you personally to take this challenge. If you think I'm out of order by rejecting physical evidence for something I believe in --- again, take my challenge. Let's see your evidence - (or lack thereof).

 

[Logic_Fault]

I do believe in Creationism --- and dismiss any kind of evidence outright - (except the Bible).

Should I bother submitting this to FSTDT or has everyone already done that for me?

Really AV, I don't see how you function in the real world with views like that.

 

[Logic_Fault]

If you personally think there should be evidence for the Creation, then I invite you personally to take this challenge. If you think I'm out of order by rejecting physical evidence for something I believe in --- again, take my challenge. Let's see your evidence - (or lack thereof).

Haven't you been embarrassed enough the first time you brought those "challenges" up? Why keep dragging them out when it's pretty clear they don't show what you think they show?

 

[Danyc]

Guys, please, don't derail this thread.

I want creationists to give honest attempts at showing their scientific reasoning behind why they believe the earth is young.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You don't know my threads then. Especially the one where I get you guys to admit that there's really no evidence for the very thing you're demanding evidence for.

But, AV, don't you consider the Bible "evidence" for Creationism?

You can hardly tell us that there is no evidence if you yourself take the Bible as evidence.

The debate will then follow the standard path of why you believe the Bible when the physical evidence indicates something else. And in the end you'll tell "evidence" to take a hike, but you yourself still have what you consider evidence.

Face it the way this debate will go is that you will demand your evidence be accepted, and when people start in again on the "prophecy counts" etc. it'll go the same way it always goes.

What you, AV, seem to want is to eliminate the physical evidence, you like your "ex nihilo" challenges precisely because they are the epitome of unfalsifiability. But when you do that you are not making a positive claim about the validity of your evidence, you've just wiped all the other players pieces off the board. You still don't seem to be able to convince the other side that your particular favorite evidence is any more accurate.

Let the games begin.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Guys, please, don't derail this thread.

Hate to tell you this but this is the best conversation you're going to get in this thread.

I want creationists to give honest attempts at showing their scientific reasoning behind why they believe the earth is young.

You don't seriously think you're going to get an answer from them, do you? This isn't exactly an original thread topic. They never answer because they have no evidence.

 

[Danyc]

Hate to tell you this but this is the best conversation you're going to get in this thread.


You don't seriously think you're going to get an answer from them, do you? This isn't exactly an original thread topic. They never answer because they have no evidence.

I like to to give people the benefit of the doubt.

If anything, I can quote this thread at the creationists who say there are mounds of evidence for a young earth. They had their chance, they failed.

Anybody want to redeem themselves?

 

[Logic_Fault]

I like to to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough. Still, they're not going to post anything here. Creationists avoid such threads for obvious reasons.

If anything, I can quote this thread at the creationists who say there are mounds of evidence for a young earth. They had their chance, they failed.

It wont do any good. There's at least a handful of such threads already, both asking for evidence in general and evidence for specific claims. Pointing creationists toward those threads seems ineffective to say the least.

Anybody want to redeem themselves?

Here's hoping...

 

[RiemannZ]

AV's stance regarding creation is completely rational, even if it fails parsimony. A god could've just created a universe that just looks really old.

You might get better response asking for evidence for a global flood, a god could've of course destroyed all the evidence that a flood ever happened but it seems much more silly than just making an old-looking universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Should I bother submitting this to FSTDT or has everyone already done that for me?

Really AV, I don't see how you function in the real world with views like that.

If you think I'm wrong LF, then let's see the evidence --- it's as simple as that. Unless, of course, you agree with me that there is none?

 

[AV1611VET]

Haven't you been embarrassed enough the first time you brought those "challenges" up? Why keep dragging them out when it's pretty clear they don't show what you think they show?

My Apple Challenge shows that no one --- not one person --- can produce evidence - (even hypothetically) - that they would deem acceptable enough to convince a friend that it happened. Even you can't.