Evidence for creationism

[MobBoss]

How come the most educated people in the world tend to be atheist?

What proof do you offer to back this up?

How come the most backwards and hateful groups are religious?

Maybe they are getting it wrong.

There is no proof of God. This world has no place for imaginary friends.

I have personally found enough proof to convince me, so thats all I need. And making lite of peoples faith as believing in 'imaginary friends' is insulting.

 

[Smidlee]

That's just an argument from ignorance that does nothing to prove creationism.

Which part of the above quote do you disagree with?

 

[Arakhor]

Arakhor isn't atheist. He's Universalist, but not atheist.

Well, I was raised as a Christian Scientist, hence my belief in an infinitely loving and forgiving omnipotent God. However, I don't believe that Judaeo-Christian mythology even begins to accurately explain the scientific origins of the world, the universe and humanity as a whole.

That said, dismissing me as an atheist for not believing in mythology is equally rude.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Interesting... I read the wiki page on Christian Science when you mentioned it before... even posted a question based on it in the ask a Theologian thread. You should start an "ask a..." thread, even if you have lapsed.

 

[Smidlee]

Because in the lab, applying the idea of microevolution, I can turn one strain of bacteria into a completely new strain within my life time -- something that is by all definitions macroevolution. The terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are applications of time, nothing more. To use them as difference concepts is like saying years and decades don't measure time, or that years don't add up to form decades.

Lab studies has shown so far there is a big difference between asexual and sexual creatures.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/edsumm/e100930-09.html
Fruit flies seems to be resisting evolution so does this mean they are creationists while bacteria are evolutionists?


It's seems, from lab studies so far, evolution has a serious sex problem.

 

[civver_764]

Nope, you can choose not to believe. Not to mention that its VERY arrogent to prove you are the highest life in the Universe.

Wait what? What does that have to do with what I posted?

And no you can't really choose what you believe, I can't just decide to believe in God because I know it would be stupid to do so. I'd have to erase my memories. However I don't see how this is relevant.

Nope, they are wrong. However, them BEING wrong DEMANDS that there is someone to declare them wrong. What is that thing? If its the law, then yes, that is reletive. I would say since God disagrees with those opinions, those opnions are by DEFINITION wrong. However, they are opinions. They can't be proven like a scientific issue, and can't be approached the same way.

Again you're going off a tangent. Believing in God is an opinion too.

Not really. You called most people in history "********." I'm not willing to QUITE draw that conclusion. All things aside, our founders were pretty intelligent people (Well, except John Adams, he was stupid.)

If George Washington started preaching politics today he would be laughed at.

Also a lot of our founders were not Christian, so probably a bad example to use on your part.

Not really.

YES really. Macroevolution is just how we describe it happening over long periods of time.

I choose to believe that the Earth is between seven and ten thousand years old (I think six thousand is a bit implausible, though still more so than BILLIONS)

Dude we have CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the world is billions of years old as well as the universe. You can't just dismiss scientific facts because you want to. Well you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

Thanks for reinforcing why I'm not a Christian though

Not to mention that God created Adam and Eve mature. Who says he couldn't have done so to the rest of the world? That is a hint, not psychoness.

?

I am incapable of showing a blind man what color is.

Try me.

 

[Ajidica]

What I suggest is: Pray and Search. Ask God to reveal himself to you. If you truly seek him, you will.

What if it is in Gods plan for them to be Athiests?
I forget which philosopher it was (I think it was James), but he said that we adopt the ideas that make sense for us based on our perception. Where you see God, I see science. You derive your belief through scripture, I derive mine through observation.

And, just so we're all clear, I don't think being a YEC is essential to be a Christian. I myself am a YEC because I believe its the more logical position in the light of science and scripture, but I don't think its MANDATORY to believe in that to be a Christian.

Just to play devils advocate, if the Bible is infallible and the Literal Word of God, how can someone be a Christian yet ignore parts of it?

 

[Smidlee]

Just to play devils advocate, if the Bible is infallible and the Literal Word of God, how can someone be a Christian yet ignore parts of it?

The "Literal Word of God" according to scripture is Christ.

 

[Ajidica]

So the entire Old Testament is right out?
Then why are there YECers who say they believe in Genesis due to biblical literalism?

 

[Smidlee]

So the entire Old Testament is right out?
Then why are there YECers who say they believe in Genesis due to biblical literalism?

OT pointed to the NT. OT made it clear there will be a NT in the future.
By the way it's should be clear that scripture is not a science book, it's a Life book. There is more to life than just science. So Genesis has a lot of spiritual meaning. For example it's no accident in Genesis light came before the sun.

 

[Ajidica]

What passages support that? Last I checked Christ didn't meet most of the requirements in Ezekiel and Isaiah to be a Messiah.

 

[warpus]

I never said you're blind - there is a difference in being blind (physically), and being able to see (context: grasp, understand, comprehend, accept....), but apparently the nuance was lost on you.

You said

I am incapable of showing a blind man what color is.

when asked to provide evidence for your God

The nuance wasn't lost on me - but that line of reasoning is a cop-out. You say that because there is no evidence for such a thing.

 

[superisis]

Nope, they are wrong. However, them BEING wrong DEMANDS that there is someone to declare them wrong. What is that thing? If its the law, then yes, that is reletive. I would say since God disagrees with those opinions, those opnions are by DEFINITION wrong. However, they are opinions. They can't be proven like a scientific issue, and can't be approached the same way.

Where does the bible say that slavery is wrong?

Has science been wrong about something it thought it was previously right about? Absolutely.

I'll answer in youtube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0

In other words, if your belief is only based on things you can see and touch, then you are faithless indeed.

Yes, wasn't doubting Tomas thoroughly dissed by Jesus for wanting evidence of his resurrection that he could see and touch?

I see no issues with believing in God, since God can mean many things and the lowest common denominator is quite low. But to subscribe to certain religions seem to me silly, especially if one observes all the specific and minute rules for nonsocial/traditional reasons. Read up on the different myths and sects that existed in the time before and during Christ and see how many Messiahs have been born. On a personal level, I feel that God is capable enough to communicate with me (and others) personally and thus needs no book or scroll or old guy with a big hat as a go between.

As to the main debate about evolution, once again I youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY

I'd like to say that creationism argues differently from science in plenty of areas. But mainly on evolution and abiogenesis. I'm not very familiar about it (the little I know comes from wikipedia and a part of a chapter in Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker) thus why I've focused on evolution. But the argument of creationism vs abiogenesis is one worth having (since I believe biogenisis beats creationism, but that's just me )

Yes, repent, as being an athiest would qualify as being in sin in Gods eyes.

On a last note I'd like to say, as someone who believes in God, that I don't agree with this statement. And with that I'd like for people who DO believe in God to refrain from speaking as if they were the sole representative of believers everywhere (and preferably, though I know this is dreaming here, to refrain from speaking as if they were the sole representative of God. If he's such a powerful guy, can't he speak for himself?).

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, repent, as being an athiest would qualify as being in sin in Gods eyes.

So God endorses thoughtcrime? Should God not prefer an honest Athiest over a lying Christian?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Which part of the above quote do you disagree with?

The absence of logic.

You cannot get from "Abiogenesis has never been observed" to "Abiogenesis is impossible" without resorting to an argument from ignorance. It simply doesn't follow.

 

[cardgame]

*Cough, prophecy, Cough*

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

34:4 Yet hear the word of the LORD, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the LORD of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword:
34:5 But thou shalt die in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the LORD.

52:10 And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah.
52:11 Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.

And making lite of peoples faith as believing in 'imaginary friends' is insulting.

If you don't want your beliefs to be mocked, maybe you shouldn't have such silly beliefs. Explain to me how exactly God isn't an imaginary friend, and perhaps I can respect your position more.

 

[bathsheba666]

So, no evidence at all then.

 

[innonimatu]

None whatsoever.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

What proof do you offer to back this up?

I am incapable of showing a blind man what color is.

I have personally found enough proof to convince me, so thats all I need. And making lite of peoples faith as believing in 'imaginary friends' is insulting.

Great, either your standard of evidence is significantly less than mine, or you have been given evidence that I have not. And calling people's lifestyles "sinful" is insulting.

 

[Smidlee]

The absence of logic.

You cannot get from "Abiogenesis has never been observed" to "Abiogenesis is impossible" without resorting to an argument from ignorance. It simply doesn't follow.

My statements were biogenesis not abiogenesis. Is there any scientist that would disagree all known physical life today comes from life and so far they have found no exception to this? Thus if there is no argument but agreement on these facts then your "argument from ignorance" doesn't apply.
Science can only study life today and apply it to the past.
abiogenesis can never be falsified it can only be verified.