I Am Christian

I've just had a pretty hilarious conversation with a creationist who accepted that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim but insisted that he didn't need to provide proof for god on the basis that he was not convinced by my evidence for evolution.
Why are creationists so afraid of the burden of proof?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

dunston17 · 51-55, M

Hey. I believe in God. Would probably be classified as a Christian. I like God, the people on his team, I'm not so sure about. Maybe opening myself up to criticism with that comment. However in believing in God, I believe that there is room for creationism and evolution. Can't explain, but that's why God is God and we won't completely understand.

MetalGreymon · 36-40, M

@dunston17:

Agreed.There is no way to prove that god is not involved in evolution. To that extent, god and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@MetalGreymon: The pertinent point is that, for evolution, magical entities are surplus to requirements. There's no need for them, so postulating their involvement is merely an unnecessary complication... an unnecessary bastardisation of a robust and powerful scientific Theory.

Why on Earth would we want to do that?

MetalGreymon · 36-40, M

@newjaninev2:

Well I wouldn't lol. There is no need for god to account for evolution. I was just acquiescing to the fact that you can't disprove god.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@MetalGreymon: Yes indeed. The creationists are dragging the god postulation around like a child's security blanket, and trying to stuff it into any nook or cranny they see, in a desperate attempt to somehow make it necessary... or even relevant.

That same lack of compelling necessity to even postulate its existence renders moot any argument about proof either way.

MetalGreymon · 36-40, M

@newjaninev2:

At is base level it's really still just the god of the gaps.
A tremendous argument from ignorance.