Questions Creationists Never Answer

Creationists don't offer possitive proof of creationism.You want us to take your "theory" seriously, but you offer no evidence FOR your theory.Evidence against other theories is not evidence for yours.And, by the way, before you start. The Bible is NOT evidence.

The thread topic is "Questions Creationists Never Answer". that's what I am posting, and it's what's not being answered.Dead on topic imo That may or may not be so, however what is true is that the OP is from 4 YEARS ago. I'm not even certain the originator even checks the board any more.

Is your question, have we observed macro-evolution in the present, meaning in the last 50 years or so? Or is your question, have we observed evidence of macro-evolution having taken place?And while you're at it, have we noticed any instances of creation? Any animals spontaneously appear out of thin air fully formed, unrelated to anything living or extinct?

Okay, let me rephrase for you then.Can you offer any evidence which supports the theory of creationism, instead of offering critisism of ToE?You say that lots of creationists have done it, but not here. Certainly you aren't offering any up.And as for your, "You haven't tried hard enough to find it" argument, that's just laughable. You've been confronted time and time again with evidence from Evos only to completely ignore them or call them "silly".If you have evidence, bring it. If you don't, stop trying to present your theory as having any sort of equal footing

I won't speak for scientists studying bacteria or fruit flies, etc. But, I'm perfectly willing to admit that we haven't seen any large animal macro-evolution in the last 100 years.I'm pretty sure the ToE doesn't call for it.However, I would suggest that both Creationism and ID would call for it. So, it looks like you've just disproved your own theory.As for part 2, you are saying that no one has witnessed an animal being created. I accept that (since it never happened), but wonder, without any sort of evidence from the fossil record, without any mechanism for this process taking place, without any observations of the process actually having taken place. Exactly what the hell are teachers supposed to teach?"Class, today we're going to discuss the theory of something that never happened, has never been witnessed and for which there is no evidence. Any questions? Great, next topic."

... still waiting for your creationist evidence...

I have no problems with critisisms of ToE, when they are asked in a reasonable fasion, and when the explaination isn't countered with blind retoric.If you have a question about a specific find (Piltdown Man), terrific. Let's discuss.But what you and the other creationists are saying is this:Out of 10,000,000 examples of evolution, I have a problem with these 3, so let's teach my religion to school kids (to the exclusion of ALL OTHER religions) even though I have 0 evidence for it.Evolutionary biologists are CONSTANTLY critisizing each other's work. It's the easiest way to make a name for yourself. It's called "peer review".Creationists have nothing like peer review. Why? First of all, it's impossible to peer review when they don't present any evidence. Second, they have a long history of burning people at the stake for questioning the allmighty power of their one true god.The problem with your debates is that they always work out like this:Thread -- Whale Evolution
Randman -- Pakicetus isn't a whale.
Random Evo -- Actually it's an ancestor of the whale.
Randman -- It's not a whale.
Random Evo -- Right, it predates what we think of as whales, it's a terrestrial animal.
Randman -- It's not a whale. To suggest it's a whale is silly. School kids shouldn't be taught this.
Random Evo -- Well, they should be taught that the family tree which includes Pakicetus evolved into what we think of today as whales.
Randman -- It's not a whale.
Random Evo -- Hello, is this thing on?
Randman -- People keep saying it's a whale, and it's not.
Random Evo -- Rand, who are you talking to? I've answered your question, I've given you links.
Randman -- Pakicetus is not a whale!
Admin -- Alright, time out for Randman, not responsive.Thread -- Jesus, Barefoot or Sandels?
Theist -- Jesus definately wore sandels.
Randman -- Pakicetus is not a whale!!!
Theist -- what is he talking about?

This is the MOST TELLING post of Randman's I have ever read. From the above quote it is obvious what your point of view is. It reveals completely the reasons you can not/ will not listen to reason.You obviously want everything you post to be taken as a statement, accepted on it's face as fact (Truth).If you have a question, raise it. If all you have are "statements" about your all powerful spagetti monster and his magic wand, take them to your temple. Yup, sure have, and once again, you haven't listened to a word of it.If IDrs want to be considered scientists, then PRESENT DATA. I am STILL waiting for you to present evidence FOR your case.You don't because you can't. There's no evidence for the "Magic Wand" theory.Hell, you haven't even suggested what would be evidence for the "Magic Wand" theory. Randman, what country are you from? For a while, I assumed you spoke English as a 1st language, but now I'm not so sure. Which of the words here are you having trouble with? "Less"? "Factual"? "Most"? "Seems"?Can you show me how "most" other theories of creationism are MORE "factual"? Or, does it "seem" that that would force you to post evidence?As for your link, that's simply laughable. I can take a picture of a drawing on a sidewalk and claim it's from Mars, doesn't make it so.Where's the context? Show me the entire wall of art, not a close up on chalk lizard.Further, if "art" was considered proof, that kind of destroys your whole Whale argument doesn't it.Oh, wait, that's right, you didn't present an "argument" because everything you say is Truth straight from the oraface of the Spagetti Monster himself

I see you are back, and I see that the time off hasn't helped your reading skills.Go back and re-read the post. You'll see that I actually looked at and responded to your link.Additionally, you seem to have missed the topic "Questions Creationists Never Answer". I'm not the creationist here, you are. You suggest I'm not posting data, but it's not on my shoulders to do so.The point I made, and I will make again -Creationists / Intelligent Designers have no methodology, no data, no evidence.What you do have are lies, distortions, and flat out fallacies.***ALERT!!! I'm talking about your link ***A close up of a chalk drawing on sandstone without any context whatsoever is not proof of dinosaurs being alive with humans. It's at best evidence that a webdesigner has a 6 year old and a digital camera.

Well, scraf beat me to it on the response but...If you really want, I can start posting links to all sorts of sites giving equal, if not better, evidence for Lock Ness, UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts, Chupacabra, etc.Not to mention the fact that the site you give seriously distorts reality, and simultaneously shows an amazing amount of imagination and a complete lack of it.First of all, the fact that we assign the word "Dragon" to several different creatures in different cultures does not mean that they are the same creature.Second, if you were living in inland China 3000 years ago and found a Meglodon tooth, where would you think it came from?Third, a chalk drawing on a sandstone rock is not evidence.I MIGHT be willing to give the site some thought if it were to show the petraglyph in context, but it does not. There are plenty of places in the southwest where you can see ancient rockart right next to "Led Zep Rulez". Now, while I completely agree that they rule, I don't think that the Anasazi knew that.

You are seeing things. Go back and look at the site.

Rather than coopt this thread further, Im going to open a thread about your link and discuss it there.Please join me