Why do creationist arguments usually have nothing to do with creationism?

Question

Ever notice that? Just about every creationist debate will in no way attempt to prove creation- It always starts babbling about 'macro evolution can't be real'..Duh. Anyway- These arguments are always directed at DISproving evolution. Not proving their 'theory'- Just disproving ours. Well allow me to bring attention to this- DISproving evolution (even if you somehow managed to do that) does NOT prove creation. At all. It just disproves evolution.


There are still, oh, what 57,000 other myths concerning where human life originated? There's a few where the god got sick and vomited up everything in existance. Well g'head and disprove the other ones when you're done with evolution- You could disprove them all, still doesn't mean yours is correct.-

-The ring of debris around Uranus.

Don't jump on me about the 57,000, that's not a factual statement, just a random number off the top of my head. But wait, go ahead and disprove it. Ahh..hah.

MrGlass: As I'm aware of it- Creation has been disproven more times than humanly countable.

Answer 1

"There's a few where the god got sick and vomited up everything in existance."


OMFGLMAOSTFU!

Answer 2

Since you do not see the point of a religious reason then an argument for creationism would not be helpful unless evolution is debunked first as the end all be all of science. Once an actual debate can be had then we can make a better case, but as it is now creationists have to say wait a minute, evolution is not the answer and here is why until people actual understand why evolution is not true. Those who believe in evolution have been so brainwashed by propaganda that they have to be deprogrammed before any arguments for creationism makes sense.

Also you have not proven evolution either but just seek to disprove creationism so the same complaint can be made to your side as well.

Answer 3

Because arguments rarely help a person to accept a position that requires faith. The bottom line to creationism is belief that God's word is true--a position that the world at large cannot accept (because people don't want to appear at odds with the majority opinion, and foolish). So, the easiest way to enter the battle is to shoot holes in the evolutionists' suppositions.

You are trying to approach a spiritual issue, where minds are generally made up. There are no intellectual arguments strong enough to change a self-entrenched mindset.

Answer 4

A BOOK IS A BOOK

You read a book where a man is made out of the dust elements of the earth into a soul, the maker gives him spirit and breath and he becomes a living soul, all of his kind born after him has the same Isa.42:5; The created only has one thing dependent on the creator, the spirit in the created is his life that belongs to the creator, as long as he is able to stay in contact with the creator, he can maintain that spirit and have life and be a living soul.
This soul can disconnect himself from his source of life and began the death process and this condition can be passed onto his seed as offsprings [ they are innocent, but he is guilty, yet he can pass the death penalty onto his offsprings ], So the book tells us why we are born under the death penalty.

That which was created and called man, Adam was not food for animals or for his offsprings Eccl.3:19-21; 12:7; Animals are food for animals and man.
The innocent one produced by him to be under the death penalty will in a time frame of the creator as to the promise being given, be saved to have the same chance the first created man, Adam had, [ his first perfect day was 1000 years ], the same is promised to all the offsprings of the created man, Adam so that each that might loose his resurrected gift of life, has only self to blame 1Cor.15:22-28,51-53; This is called a second death.

A book is a book, there is a book that explains creation and it involves ages in time for everything, and planet earth is ages in time before it begans to be prepared ages in time for eternal life creation if all goes well, eternal life for the offsprings within a time frame if all does not go well [ rather than wipe it all out and start over, and if that has ever been done, the book does not tell about that ].
So far everything is right on schedule with the time frame of the book on creation.

If there is a book on evolution and I guess there is, it came into focus after my
time.

The creation book gives heaven and earth with their inhabitants a time frame in this we have now that is not life sustaining but life threatning to to the short life allowed, all this has got to be made new. 2Pet.3:13; Rev.21:1-5;

The bottom line is that once we are dead, if the promise comes true, is that a better offer than evolution?
From dust we are and to dust we shall return, what does evolution promise after that [ do both books promise that ], and the creation book promise more?

Answer 5

Creationism has no scientific base. That's why religious people can't argue to prove it, you would sound absurd. In other hand, evolution is formed on the scientific method. And since science is debatable and always changing, theists can scrutinize every single part of evolution.

Evolution may not be the right answer but it certainly is the likeliest.

Answer 6

The dishonest ones know they can't really prove creationism, so they dodge the question. The brainwashed ones just parrot arguments made by the dishonest ones, never considering the issue. The stupid ones don't realize it's a problem.

Answer 7

I'll give this a shot.........





CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION =)

Virtually NO NEW Phylum after the Cambrian layer.

These both point to Creation, however JUST LIKE evolution, no one was there so we have to interpret what we see and if you truly look at what the evidence shows (WITHOUT being told what it is) you will come up with MANY questions as to why someone could believe the theory of evolution...

Answer 8

because the christians don't think they need to prove creationism...according to their beliefs, it's in the bible, and the bible is 100% correct...which is why you can't argue anything with them-they just fall back to "because the bible says so"

Answer 9

You noticed that too, huh?

They say creationism is purely scientific, yet they never provide us with this "scientific" evidence they have.

Answer 10

If you are serious please consider the work of Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross, who is an "old earth" creationist who believes in the Big Bang.

http://www.reasons.org/