Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would be enough proof for a creationist?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 63 (179540)
01-22-2005 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bob_gray
01-21-2005 7:53 PM


It seems that from the creationist point of view there aren't enough transitional fossils.
i believe there wording is "any." yet showing them a thousand doesn't seem to sufficient, because they just block it in as one animal or another so it's not really transitional. see, creationism really has nothing to do with god, it's about classify animals into kinds.
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.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-22-2005 02:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bob_gray, posted 01-21-2005 7:53 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-22-2005 8:48 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 18 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 1:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 63 (179713)
01-22-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PecosGeorge
01-22-2005 8:48 AM


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.
actually, i've seen a few explain their ideas about how noah's boatload became the diversity of animals we have today. and they described rather precisely the process of evolution. i about died laughing.
Well, don't. Better laughs this way, and better material for criticism
of the creationists you mean.
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?
that's nice, which account would that be? genesis 1? genesis 2? there's a couple in psalms...
heck, i believe we should read it literally, often more so than the creationists. they like to skip over bits they don't like, like the contradictions. i just don't thik we should believe it literally, as the stories, plural, are trying to convey something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-22-2005 8:48 AM PecosGeorge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024