Discussing the evidence that support creationism

quote:

---

In the glaring absense of any evidence that supports creationism, we got bored and drifted.

​

I do hope that some creationist will present some actual evidence so that we do not stray again.

---

I imagine that your reservoir of hope is infinite then. I've never seen a creationist argue that literal creationism is true without attacking evolution. Furthermore, when placed in the context of another religion's origin story creationists either pack up and leave or never even post.

quote:

---

There are a specific 20 that are needed for DNA to be created.

---

Of course. I can see a huge flaw already in your argument. Early life wasn't DNA based. It was RNA based. Which is simpler and easier to make. Furthermore, your argument is seemingly implicitly arguing that the same level of complexity we see in DNA now is the same as it was back then.

quote:

---

So, to start the cycle you need DNA, but DNA needs those 20 proteins, and those proteins need DNA.

---

No you don't. Look up RNA and then get back to me.Let me guess, you get all of your info from Answers in Genesis?

She has a point. I already discussed how your argument was flawed by ignoring RNA in post 173. You completely ignored it.

quote:

---

Creationists come to EvC Forum to evidence Creationism and show the falsity of Evolutionism.

---

Then they must have infinite determination as they have failed countless times and will keep marching on the path to failure. As noted, there hasn't been evidence presented that supports creationism, just goddidit.

quote:

---

Show us your calculations of the odds for abiogenesis happening and show us your calculations of the odds for God existing.

---

You should note that you want calculations for co-current trials. Not the sham and lies of single sequential trials that creationist pander in the face of the modern world.

And just how many of those do you expect me to buy? Especially when it is extremely likely that those have already been refuted and you're just using the standard wash, rinse repeat tactic of creationists?I COULD go and spend a large chunk of time refuting your garbage (as others have done so), but I see little point when all you will do is pretend I never made the refutation and in a few weeks you simply repeat the same refuted argument verbatim hoping that people forgot that such a argument was refuted.I know just how dishonest creationists are and that much of their 'victories' are only gained through a war of time attrition.And if there was no evidence for creation, why is that you and many other creationists simply flee from many threads showing it?

Why am I not surprised you're pulling the 'my belief is a victim' card.If you had evidence you would have presented it.

Just like the many posts you make and then never back in any way.Looking at your posts list, you have a very long list of posts that you ran away from. For someone who criticizes others for substance free posts, you sure make a very large number of them yourself. But I guess it takes one to know one eh?Simply put, if you had evidence you would have presented it. What you instead do is just run away from evidence free posts as evident by your very long list of waiting replies.

The point is that Buz does not take into account the availability of resources. His argument is essentially assuming a constant growth pattern not taking in to account the scarcity of resources much less plagues and natural disasters. The point has been made to Buz at least three times and he ignores it every single time. What is funny is that Buz and other creationists attack evolution for assuming constant radioactive decay, except he uses the same argument in principle only with something we know did not follow constant rates.Buz's argument is total hash because of his failure to incorporate the scarcity of resources.

quote:

---

I thought Buzsaw was talking only about humans?

---

I don't see how that disqualifies the criticism of his argument.

quote:

---

But let me say this: if resources are as you say then how do you explain the nature we see today - the same of which was destroyed by the Flood about 5300 years ago?

---

Seeing as no creationist has ever proved the flood occurred (and most just flee from a honest discussion about it), you are using the fallacy of begging the question. As noted in prior threads, the salt water from the flood would have resulted in salted soil, resulting in virtually no food for herbivores. If the flood occurred, there wouldn't be life beyond herbivores capable of surviving off salt tolerable plants and a few predators. And those herbivores are few. Your point is moot as a condition you assume to be true results in a world vastly different then what we have today and that you've, like all creationists, have completely failed to prove that the flood occurred.

quote:

---

Resources are not the paucity that you make them out to be.

---

And your argument only works in fantasy land where the laws of physics, chemistry and biology don't apply and everything that doesn't make sense is credited to God. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Buz, how can your model be valid when it fails to incorporate changing resource availability, diseases which wiped out millions of people, war, massive migrations which curtail population growth, and assumes a constant rate of growth?Hasn't the past 50 years showed that human population growth rates are indeed not constant?I noticed your numbers do not show a decrease, such as when 1/2 of the population of Europe was wiped out, or when the Spanish nearly eliminated the South American natives, or the Spanish Influenza or the myriad of other population reducing events through out history.Could you care to explain how your model is valid when it fails to incorporate large reductions in human numbers?

but you have no evidence that indeed they are included?Can you cite any evidence on his page that shows he in fact did include these things?

Alright. Fair enough.

Let's run with that shall we?Which God? Which set of Gods? Do we even have knowledge of the true God(s)?Why wouldn't life arise on its own without Gods?