Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Askthepizzaguy]

@stuge I see your peanut butter and I rise you a banana

Awesome comment:

"I can think of something else that fits perfectly well into my hand. Was that specifically designed for that purpose by God as well?"

Spoiler :

My addition: Not just the mouth, but other areas of the body as well...

Spoiler :

Oh wait, that's sodomy, and thus, not what God wants of us....

Spoiler :

BUT IT FITS SOOOOO WELL....

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Awesome comment:

"I can think of something else that fits perfectly well into my hand. Was that specifically designed for that purpose by God as well?"

Spoiler :

My addition: Not just the mouth, but other areas of the body as well...

Spoiler :

Oh wait, that's sodomy, and thus, not what God wants of us....

Spoiler :

BUT IT FITS SOOOOO WELL....

Man you've a dirty mind.

 

[PeteAtoms]

So it can be deduced that man was meant to eat bananas.

I wonder what shape the fruit off the Tree of Knowledge looked like? If we weren't meant to eat that fruit, especially that fruit, I can only imagine what sort of god-awful, horrendous, downright disturbing shape that was in...

Are we not meant to eat pineapples either? Don't see a fancy grip on one of those... It must be a sin to eat pineapple. Or anything not easily foraged...

 

[negZero]

So it can be deduced that man was meant to eat bananas.

I wonder what shape the fruit off the Tree of Knowledge looked like? If we weren't meant to eat that fruit, especially that fruit, I can only imagine what sort of god-awful, horrendous, downright disturbing shape that was in...

Are we not meant to eat pineapples either? Don't see a fancy grip on one of those... It must be a sin to eat pineapple. Or anything not easily foraged...

Pineapples, and Coconut a Christian's nightmare.

 

[Fr8monkey]

So it can be deduced that man was meant to eat bananas... &

Monkeys eat bananas... =

Man evolved from monkeys

Problem solved!

 

[PeteAtoms]

Pineapples, and Coconut a Christian's nightmare.

That's really cool, I felt so witty with my post, but now I see I'm a little behind the curve when it comes to sarcastic (though logical) responses to creationist 'evidence.' I'v honestly never seen that video, I feel so unoriginal now

 

[uat2d]

I am still waiting for the day I meet someone that actually believes in Creationism.

But then again, that is very unlikely considering that I don't live in the US and that most of the people I hang with are people my age that also have a decent education, so yeah...

Even the religious people I meet don't go as blind as to get to the point they actually believe in talking snakes and all of the 'man was made out of dust and woman out of a man's rib' fairy-stories.

 

[negZero]

That's really cool, I felt so witty with my post, but now I see I'm a little behind the curve when it comes to sarcastic (though logical) responses to creationist 'evidence.' I'v honestly never seen that video, I feel so unoriginal now

Creationist haven't come with an original idea for years now, so we haven't had a new branch of material to make jokes out of. So don't worry about it. Though I do want some of stuff God was on when he made the pineapple, it seems like some damn good stuff.

 

[cardgame]

I am still waiting for the day I meet someone that actually believes in Creationism.

But then again, that is very unlikely considering that I don't live in the US and that most of the people I hang with are people my age that also have a decent education, so yeah...

Even the religious people I meet don't go as blind as to get to the point they actually believe in talking snakes and all of the 'man was made out of dust and woman out of a man's rib' fairy-stories.

Everyone where I live believes in such. Luckyu duck.

 

[sophie]

I like that Dommy conspicuously disappeared from this thread as soon as I started showing him the volumes of evidence readily available and easily obtained for evolution.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I like that Dommy conspicuously disappeared from this thread as soon as I started showing him the volumes of evidence readily available and easily obtained for evolution.

No, I just want to read it before I comment, and I don't have time right now. Stay tuned

 

[negZero]

No, I just want to read it before I comment, and I don't have time right now. Stay tuned

Am I going to get my miracle that science can't explain away?

 

[Luckymoose]

I already proved in a previous thread by using Dommy's own posts that he believes in microevolution and thus evolution. Why is there even an argument?

 

[magicfan101]

Spoiler :

If the Universe needs a Creator, why doesn't the Creator need a Creator?

i never said that everything needs a creator. but the laws of nature(which are forces that are so constant that no know test has been shown to falsify them) dictate there needs to be a lawgiver. you are more than welcome to believe that the universe created itself but then you must concede that there is no purpose to why life exist.

Explain why this Creator needs to go outside the physical laws of the Universe that he designed in order to make His Will happen. Seems to me, if he designed it properly, it should function without His intervention as soon as he speaks it into existence. After all, he's omniscient and omnipotent and flawless, so it should work exactly as He intends it to as soon as he presses the "on" button, without further fiddling.

he doesn't. The physical laws are only sustained by his will.

Demonstrate positive scientific evidence of there being a Creator, rather than absence of evidence for scientific explanations. Positive evidence, rather than negative evidence. (No God of the Gaps)

this logic you presented to me is flawed. The design aspect of the creation proves a creator. Stop attributing everything as explained through the theory of evolution. I can just as easily ask you to present provable, testable scientific evidence on how the first cell came into being without any gaps in your explanation.

Demonstrate how anything about this Creator is capable of being known

.
through his spoken word in the Bible.

Demonstrate why other theories about a Creator that contradict your own theory are false

.
non can account for the ability reasoning , uniformity of nature(which science is based on), and morality (what is right and wrong). don't get me wrong everyone uses them but they can not consistently account for them in their religion or worldview especially in a materialistic way.

Demonstrate how Creationism can be taught as science without evidence of God, or miracles, or divine intervention, and with logical inconsistencies and outright contradictions in the supposedly flawless book detailing his supposedly flawless existence.

the mere fact that science is consistent is more than enough evidence for creation. which is not what we expect in a random chance universe.

Explain why cultures that existed before Judaism had no knowledge of this God or the creation story that happened in the Bible. It seems to me they should have been experts on the subject of what happened closer to their time period, and that all people on earth should have been a believer in this specific God, since every single living person would have had a direct ancestor that had actually spoken directly with God, according to Genesis. Where did they get polytheistic views and pantheistic views, if they were all descendant from those who had direct contact with the Abrahamic God? Or is it possible the Abrahamic view of God is incorrect?

incorrect. everyone knew God at one time in history. there are ancient cultures around the world that recorded a high God . (shangdi) I can dig up some more on native American, African, and Australians.

What are the actual, documented miracles that science has yet to explain which are not mythological or otherwise lacking evidence that they occurred?

if your computer elevated three feet of the ground right now. you would never attribute it to be a miracle but to some unknown scientific phenomena that has yet to be explained

How can God be tested scientifically? (If applicable, what about Satan? Or Angels? Or demons?)

god can not be tested scientifically since he is beyond the creation. but if there is design there is a designer. DNA is a information system which must have a programmer.

 

[magicfan101]

A compendium of UC Berkeley articles on Evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

First link in the above that gives an overview of the evidence used that validates the fact of evolution. Here's an excerpt.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Roadblocks/IIIC1aICR.shtml
lol we made it on the berkley website

 

[Brian Shanahan]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Roadblocks/IIIC1aICR.shtml
lol we made it on the berkley website

And it quickly leads here, which quickly and concisely calls it a big steaming pile of cow faeces (well more politely that that).

 

[History_Buff]

i never said that everything needs a creator. but the laws of nature(which are forces that are so constant that no know test has been shown to falsify them) dictate there needs to be a lawgiver. you are more than welcome to believe that the universe created itself but then you must concede that there is no purpose to why life exist.

Who among as said life has to have a purpose? If I may quote the words of a very wise man:

If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life's fundamental truth: that life's only purpose is life itself.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Am I going to get my miracle that science can't explain away?

Keep saying it, negZero; I don't want you to ever let up on it. I'm going to keep a running tally of how many times you say it.

Twice a day doesn't count, but for every day that goes by and you say this, I'll give you a million creationist dollars*

*I will create a million dollar bill using a sheet of paper and a green crayon

Which you can turn it at all Askthepizzaguy's Pizza locations worldwide.**

**There aren't any

 

[sanabas]

you are more than welcome to believe that the universe created itself but then you must concede that there is no purpose to why life exist.

Happy to concede there's no inherent purpose to it. I've never suggested otherwise. I expect most of the rational people posting in this thread would agree.

this logic you presented to me is flawed. the design aspect of the creation proves a creator. stop attributing everything as explained through the theory of evolution. i can just as easily ask you to present provable, testable scientific evidence on the first cell came into being without any gaps in your explanation.

If you're going to critique people's logic, you should actually understand some logic first.

How about preventing some positive scientific evidence to PROVE there was design? Not evidence that says 'that's too complicated for me to figure out how it happened, therefore it was designed, therefore there's a designer.' Prevent positive evidence of design, and then I'm happy to infer the existence of some sort of designer. If we can make it to that step, then we can worry about proving that your version of the designer is correct, and my version is wrong.

non can account for the ability reasoning , uniformity of nature(which science is based on), and morality (what is right and wrong). don't get me wrong everyone uses them but they can not consistently account for them in their religion or worldview especially in a materialistic way.

Sure they can. I could write my own creation myth with less contradictions than genesis & the rest of the old testament if you gave me a couple of weeks, and use it to account for all sorts of stuff. How would you prove that what I wrote is wrong?

the mere fact that science is consistent is more than enough evidence for creation which is not what we expect in a random chance universe.

IT'S NOT RANDOM. Gravity isn't random. Evolution isn't random. Even stuff like electron positions which get expressed as probabilities, they're not purely random either.

incorrect. everyone knew God at one time in history. there are ancient cultures around the world that recorded a high God . shangdi i can dig up some more on native American, African, and Australians.

Please do dig up the evidence that says Aboriginal Australians were monotheistic, that they had a 'high god'. I'm curious to read it.

god can not be tested scientifically since he is beyond the creation. but if there is design there is a designer. DNA is a information system which must have a programmer.

So give us positive evidence of design. Even a tiny bit will do.

 

[negZero]

Okay am going to say this using the Bible as one and only source of proof of God's existence, is circular logic which is a fallacy. Or in other terms by saying the Bible is all your proof of God's existence, your saying you have no real proof.

Also question time, Magicfan for $2000 name me 15 negative genetic traits that fit criteria I previous gave you?

Keep saying it, negZero; I don't want you to ever let up on it. I'm going to keep a running tally of how many times you say it.

Twice a day doesn't count, but for every day that goes by and you say this, I'll give you a million creationist dollars*

*I will create a million dollar bill using a sheet of paper and a green crayon

Which you can turn it at all Askthepizzaguy's Pizza locations worldwide.**

**There aren't any

As long as Dommy posts in this thread I will keep saying it.