What would be enough proof for a creationist?

quote:

---

"but you are still missing pieces".

---

To be exact.....that very very first initial piece from which all pieces fell....into place.I want to know whence it came? Provide its source, positive.
Thank you.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

So if we don't know where the first piece (first life ? I presume in this case)came from then we can't say anything about what happened to living things after that?

---

Hi again, Ned. What do you mean by "if"?

quote:

---

If that is your firm position then, for now, you may as well drop the discussion.

---

Consider it dropped.

quote:

---

It would be interesting to see the logic behind that though. Would you elaborate?

---

You do not see logic in my question? Science is an incomparable drama playing itself out against the backdrop of the universe. It brings to me more than I could possibly absorb in several additional lifetimes, except that one thing, that FIRST thing.
I want that first thing, Ned. Can you blame me?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

quote:"but you are still missing pieces".

​

To be exact.....that very very first initial piece from which all pieces fell....into place.

​

I want to know whence it came? Provide its source, positive.
Thank you.

---

Above is my initial question. It sprang from the initial poster's bafflement that creationists seem to never get enough information to get off that 'God thing'.

quote:

---

1) If we don't know the origin of life then we can't comment on it's subsequent evolution.
2) We don't know the orgin of life.
3) Therefore any idea of the subsequent evolution of life is wrong.

---

You may comment on anything you wish, draw conclusions on anything you wish, and please do. But that wont make that question go away. Why do you mind it?

quote:

---

However, I don't understand what that has to do with questions for which we do have very good answers. Would you like to make that clear?

---

I have made it clear, unless you don't understand my method of providing clarity. See my words again below.

quote:

---

Science is an incomparable drama playing itself out against the backdrop of the universe. It brings to me more than I could possibly absorb in several additional lifetimes

---

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

i've asked creationists before what proof they required, and they described several things that would actually disprove evolution. cats giving birth to dogs and so forth.

---

You need to speak with some that actually know what that is. The way you would ask a brainsurgeon to check what's wrong with your brain, or even a master at trepanation.Well, don't. Better laughs this way, and better material for criticism.Creationism according to my trusted dictionary:
"Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of creation of the universe and of all living things related in the bible".
Where did you find your meaning of what creation is?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

I'm just too slow at this.
It is clear you don't want to actually answer questions. Enough, I'll not waste time.

---

You don't like the way I have answered your questions. You want them answered your way, the answers you want, the answers you think you should have. I believe I have answered them, according to the way I answer such questions. You also suggested I not participate in this discussion. Now, I have discussed here more than appropriate after I agreed to abide by your request.
I'm not a scientist, and don't need to be one to appreciate what science affords. ALL OF SCIENCE. All the statements science makes, including the non-existence of God. That simply does not trouble me, and I can still, and gladly do, give science the respect and admiration it deserves.
And, I hope with all sincerity, that science finds that very first thing that started it all.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

One issue here was about "proof" for evolution. I'm asking what the origin of things has to do with proof for evolution.

---

I think many people close their mind to any and all possibilities presented by science, for the simple reason that they are being asked to put aside whatever personal experience they have with whatever their idea of God is.
My signature is a quote by Albert Einstein. I think there are many, many scientists who come face to face with the enormity of discoveries and find accident impossible. But to me, that is neither here nor there. It is just their business.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?

---

yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you. "But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?

---

yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you. "But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?

---

yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you. "But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?

---

yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you. "But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

It answers it so far as I'm concerned.

quote:

---

Could you explain how that answers Neds question?

---

Tricky, ain't these things.Apologies for button-pushing ad infinitum. That happens only to me.

quote:

---

You can say that again. Actually, don't.

---

quote:

---

I was just trying to figure out if an uninterrupted string of parents and offspring is what you would require to say, "OK, now I see the evidence for evolution."

---

I require no such thing.Possibilities are limitless, and I would not observe or accept limits other than my physical own.See evidence of evolution? Not seeing it is dishonesty and denial and irrational. Those qualified happen across the board.I am, however, disinclined to judge people on their beliefs. Neither do I wish to be judged.So, why do you think many Christians refuse evolution? ??

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

quote:

---

Requiring an answer to biogenesis before considering the validity of evolution is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. Evolution is a question of how, not when or why.

​

Yes, the answer to the biogenesis would solve many problems. Till then I hope Ned gets a more reasoned discussion than evasion and multiple reposts that are more expected from some of the boot camp denizens.

​

Evolution deals with processes after life started- all else is philosophy,theology, or cosmology pressed past its limits.

​

Don't get me wrong tho; from your previous posts I see that you are generally thoughtful on topics and are on the higher end of (what I assume) creationist or theistic evolution POV; but if I am putting words in your mouth I apologize in advance.

​

edit...via post 31 those reposts were inadvertant...sorry about the boot camp smack banana boy

---

I have absolutely no issue with science, until it makes claims it cannot substantiate. And it cannot substantiate 'first piece'.Ned gets what he asks for - generally speaking - as condescending as you are speaking to me here forgetting that I have reason to believe as strong as you have reason not to believe.Don't get me wrong, tho, you do as you see fit, and then accept what is given in return. It's something like....you think people are idiots for believing there is a God, people think you are one for not believing. It accomplishes nothing, certainly does not add to progress.

quote:

---

"no amount of proof."

---

In a general setting, to educate the masses, science has failed.And will continue to do so. Controversy where the potential for none is a profound possibility. Science, looking down its nose at the hapless creatures who cannot possibly understand goals.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!