Creationists: Please Play by the Rules.

I'm getting very tired of the creation debate. Creationists often outright claim that Atheists are saying "things happened at random just because". Well, there was a process to the multiple ideas of life arising. In my esteemed and rather unhumble opinion, "just because" would most certainly encompass a creator. What motivation would a creator have for making life? It's all speculation as to why a creator would make anything. If someone can prove he has reasonable motives for making anything beyond "just because", please inform me.

Looking for a purpose to creation is retarded. It is impossible to imply correctly a purpose for anything without knowing first what it actually is. Nobody knows how creation happened for sure or the extent of it, so suggesting a purpose for it is nothing short of pure speculation.

I really get pissed off when creationists use the dodge of "well it's spiritual not scientific". Newflash: It becomes a scientific proposal when you actively propose countering ideas to current hypothesis and it becomes the business of any scientifically minded human being when that idea is invasively imposed on a community that continues to reject it. So, you have two errors going on, scientifically speaking: You can't hide behind faith if you are imposing it in a scientific way and you can't claim it's a reasonable counter to anything if it's not accepted and is constantly beat down as an idea. Stop hiding behind "how do you know" and "prove it". You are making the claim that there is a creator, please provide evidence.

It is a classic defense of faith to make a positive claim and then regress to a passive "prove your view". If you are making the initial claim, namely that a creator exists and did anything, you are responsible for providing evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; you cannot say "you can't disprove anything". The way it works is that if you cannot back up your claims for the existence of your idea, then you are wrong. Stop debating like pussies and stop trying to fit yourself into a community with rules when they are consistently broken by you.

Evolution debates ALWAYS regress into a creation debate. Evolution is NOT the same as creation. It's a cognitive regression to move from an evolution debate, where the average creationist gets landslided, to move into creation. Debate one or the other and stop using the lack of knowledge in one to disprove another. That is cowardly.

Let me now take a moment to point out that the creation of life is pretty much a stupid debate. Short of time travel, which I assure you is impossible unless time is infact a malleable and not conceptual entity, finding out how our discrete form of life was created is impossible. The truely amazing part in all this is that the closest we can get is by studying fossils and using the powers of comparative anatomy, as well as other scientific processes. However, there is a large portion of creationists that simply reject fossils or seem to discount them entirely!

The group that discounts fossils can be referred to as stupids, but for the purposes of this diatribe I am going to call them YEC's, or Young Earth Creationists. Many, many of these people simply don't understand what they are debating against. Even more of them are finally willing to admit that microevolution occurs, but won't admit to macro. The missing element here, of course, is time. One million years is a long, long time. Depending on the creature, that can be tens of thousands of generations on average. Thinking the Earth was created as the bible says is a foolish thing to do in a dogmatic way; it has been mistranslated and your creator may not be the creator, so says Genesis. The only way this idea can even come close to being legitimized is by rejecting tons of scientific concepts, such as radiometric dating. I won't get into that at this time, since I could go on for hours.

This makes me really want to do an entry about dogma.