Evidence for creationism

[MobBoss]

I'm asking you to provide something a bit more than "my gut" as evidence. "My gut" is relevant to Jesus, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you want to fall back on faith, I'm not going to stop you. Don't propose it as an answer to scientific questions though.

I have provided stuff better than 'my gut', however, since its anecdotal, you wouldnt accept it anyway.

My counter is has science answered all the questions of the universe? No?

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

Get back to me when it has found all the answers to the currently unanswerable questions. We'll talk.

 

[warpus]

We are here. And most people in history have believed in God. Most people who are atheists have NOT been that way all our lives. The reason being because we have to convince ourself there is no God.

That is proof enough of God.

No it's not. At one point in time most people believed that the world was flat. What people do or don't believe has no bearing at all on reality.

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

That's such a copout.

"Hey, show us proof for that thing you say that exists"
"YOU ARE BLIND, YOU WILL NEVER SEE IT"

 

[stuge]

The biggest problem with evolution is trying to explain how we got here in the first place. There is no scientific evidence on how the first cell appeared. All previous attempts to explain how it happened have failed miserably. If everything is done naturally, then there has to be an explanation of the first cell, but that has not happened. This has been an area of experimentation for many decades and no viable solution has been found, so much so that some evolutionists just side step the issue.

Why does there need to be something supernatural to make possible something we don't understand? For thousands of years there wasn't a correct explanation for how the sun works. Yet it wasn't because of some sun god. We've been studying the origin of life scientifically for what, about a hundred years and don't have an answer yet. It doesn't mean that the spontaneous appearance of a single-cell organism has to be a miracle and contrary to natural order.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You said it was a good analogy. Does good = inane for you?

That was sarcasm, sorry if that was unclear

Because you can imagine I'm not being to pleased by analogies claiming me as an atheist = teh blind, while you as the theist = teh can see? Your analogy was a little condescending.

My counter is has science answered all the questions of the universe? No?

Nope! And it's very honest about it. Countercounter question, has religion answered all the questions of the universe?

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

Damn skippy. And when they were, they adjusted. Science really does kick some ass like that.

Get back to me when it has found all the answers to the currently unanswerable questions. We'll talk.

It's so funny, why we don't talk anymore

Science never ever claims to have absolute truth. All it does is saying: based on this data we made a model which complies with that data. We're already looking for something better.

 

[MobBoss]

That was sarcasm, sorry if that was unclear

Because you can imagine I'm not being to pleased by analogies claiming me as an atheist = teh blind, while you as the theist = teh can see? Your analogy was a little condescending.

In the matters of my faith and God....in which you dont believe at all? Its not condescending in the least just a reality of the situation.

Should I be pleased about an analogy that equates my God as fiction? Isnt that more than bit condescending as well? Yet, I am expected to simply accept it and deal with it since its an atheist just 'telling it like it is'.

I see.

That's such a copout.

"Hey, show us proof for that thing you say that exists"
"YOU ARE BLIND, YOU REFUSE TO SEE IT"

Fixed that for you for accuracys sake. As there are indeed a lot of atheists who still do manage to eventually see it and repent, I dont think 'never' is an accurate word to use there...

 

[warpus]

Fixed that for you for accuracys sake. As there are indeed a lot of atheists who still do manage to eventually see it and repent, I dont think 'never' is an accurate word to use there...

"If you really want to see it, you can" can be used to "prove" almost anything.

If I try hard enough I can probably see bigfoot running around the forest at night.. but that doesn't mean that he actually exists.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In the matters of my faith and God....in which you dont believe at all? Its not condescending in the least just a reality of the situation.

So you'll no longer feel offended when someone refers to the Bible as fairy tales when in their perception that's the reality of the situation?

Should I be pleased about an analogy that equates my God as fiction? Isnt that more than bit condescending as well?

Yes it is. Only Contre didn't use an analogy for God, but for the proof of God.

I see.

Wow, defensive. Sorry I asked mate.

 

[emzie]

I have provided stuff better than 'my gut', however, since its anecdotal, you wouldnt accept it anyway.

You're right. Anecdotal evidence has very little weight in the system of thought we're currently discussing. A bit more to the point, anecdotal evidence has no weight when it is countered by opposing anecdotal evidence.

Like I said, if you keep "my gut" and anecdotal evidence to a defined school, say, your faith, I'm not going to object. I may disagree, but I won't object. When you try and bring it into scientific reasoning, I absolutely shall object.

My counter is has science answered all the questions of the universe? No?

Who has ever claimed this? At best, you will have someone bold enough to claim that scientific reasoning will be able to answer all the questions of the universe. I certainly wouldn't go that far (I would use "may be" in place of "will be"). But that's all beside the point. You are making an argument from ignorance. I just finished chastising another poster for this. It is a logical fallacy to say "they don't have an answer for X, so X must be the result of God"

Arguing lack of knowledge of something is a very foolish way to go about debate, for two reasons: falsifiability and ignorance. First, once something does come forward to explain the phenomenon, your argument looks very silly. More importantly though, you are trying to exploit the idea that science freely admits what it doesn't understand... yet. So much of scientific pursuit is about finding answers to current challenges. When you hold up one of those challenges as an example of science not having all the answers, you miss the point of science. The rend result of such thought is this

Newton: Wow, the moon's motion sure is complicated. I'm not going to work on that issue. I'll just say God holds it there.

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

Absolutely. That's the whole point of the scientific method. I hate to just link graphics and I'm not trying to belittle your faith. I am trying to point out the huge problem I have with creationism. The underlying principal of creationism is just repulsive:

Get back to me when it has found all the answers to the currently unanswerable questions. We'll talk.

This is just such a copout and you know it. You are above this, MobBoss. I can turn it around on you and say, "get back to me when God reveals a unified theory" but that would be quite childish. So is your "argument" here.

 

[MobBoss]

Nope! And it's very honest about it. Countercounter question, has religion answered all the questions of the universe?

No, but it makes them irrelevant!

Damn skippy. And when they were, they adjusted. Science really does kick some ass like that.

Except for the time lost thinking something was fact, when it wasnt due to faulty science.

Science never ever claims to have absolute truth.

Science may not claim this, but certain people believe that about science. Many treat it more like a religion in a lot of aspects.

If I try hard enough I can probably see bigfoot running around the forest at night.. but that doesn't mean that he actually exists.

So you seem to be comparing faith, which deals with things not seen, with actual physical proof of bigfoot in the forest?

Ok.

So you'll no longer feel offended when someone refers to the Bible as fairy tales when in their perception that's the reality of the situation?

As I have said, I have had to deal with it. You can too from the opposite side of the coin.

Fair enough?

 

[Arakhor]

As there are indeed a lot of atheists who still do manage to eventually see it and repent, I dont think 'never' is an accurate word to use there...

Repent? Really? Besides which, you're still derailing for thread, which is about evidence for creationism.

 

[warpus]

So you seem to be comparing faith, which deals with things not seen, with actual physical proof of bigfoot in the forest?

No, I am pointing out how silly your earlier point was.

And how does faith deal with "things not seen" ? I've read the Bible - there are tons of examples of things being seen, heard, touched, etc. Not only that, plenty of people claim to have talked to God, seen angels, etc.

Obviously it does not exclusively deal with things "not seen"

 

[MobBoss]

Repent? Really? Besides which, you're still derailing for thread, which is about evidence for creationism.

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

No, I am pointing out how silly your earlier point was.

Then I suggest you at least do so in an informed manner and be accurate. Trying to prove me silly by using totally unrelated examples isnt very effective.

And how does faith deal with "things not seen" ? I've read the Bible - there are tons of examples of things being seen, heard, touched, etc. Not only that, plenty of people claim to have talked to God, seen angels, etc.

Obviously it does not exclusively deal with things "not seen"

You just need to read your bible more. A couple of examples of what I am talking about.

Hebrews 11
By Faith We Understand

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

2 Corinthians 4

16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

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

 

[warpus]

That doesn't really address how "you're blind, you'll never see it" isn't a silly point

 

[GhostWriter16]

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

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

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

I agree

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

So if scientific evidence causes me to doubt, what then? How can I have faith and yet be intellectually honest at the same time? As you soon as you adhere to one faith or another, you immediately give up the objective search for truth and start having to fill in the gaps of your chosen belief. It isn't because I don't want to believe; life was easier when I did, and I'd give just about anything to go back.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So if scientific evidence causes me to doubt, what then? How can I have faith and yet be intellectually honest at the same time? As you soon as you adhere to one faith or another, you immediately give up the objective search for truth and start having to fill in the gaps of your chosen belief. It isn't because I don't want to believe; life was easier when I did, and I'd give just about anything to go back.

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

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.

 

[MobBoss]

That doesn't really address how "you're blind, you'll never see it" isn't a silly point

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.

I also didnt say 'you'll never see'......I can't tell the future, so I have no idea what will occur. You might experience some life changing event that might just change your mind. Or not. I dont know.

So, if you would actually address things I say accurately, or even in context, then perhaps we can have a discussion. Until then....not so much.

 

[Left]

My counter is has science answered all the questions of the universe? No?

Get back to me when it has found all the answers to the currently unanswerable questions. We'll talk.

This validates every single religion ever, though. If your going to argue for creationism by a higher power, you could use this argument literally for any religion that explains creation or ever will try to explain creation. But I don't think your arguing that Thor's hammer causes lightning - like people used to believe. You imply that any answer, no matter how ridiculous it is - like Thor's hammer causing lightning, is better than science being yet unable to explain something.

Now science can explain lightning. Does that invalidate my belief in Thor's involvment in the process? I could still claim that Thor creates the conditions for the electrical activity to occur. My belief in Thor is just as valid as a belief in the Christian God's involvement in lightning - it can't be addressed by science. Either of them have an equal chance of causing lightning. You are only blind to Thor's existence, I can clearly see the signs.

No, but it makes them irrelevant!

Literally anything is possible to explain with this. But as a Christian you subscribe to a very specific set of beliefs, why those?

 

[MobBoss]

This validates every single religion ever, though. If your going to argue for creationism by a higher power, you could use this argument literally for any religion that explains creation or ever will try to explain creation. But I don't think your arguing that Thor's hammer causes lightning - like people used to believe. You imply that any answer, no matter how ridiculous it is - like Thor's hammer causing lightning, is better than science being yet unable to explain something.

Now science can explain lightning. Does that invalidate my belief in Thor's involvment in the process? I could still claim that Thor creates the conditions for the electrical activity to occur. My belief in Thor is just as valid as a belief in the Christian God's involvement in lightning - it can't be addressed by science. Either of them have an equal chance of causing lightning. You are only blind to Thor's existence, I can clearly see the signs.

Maybe Thor's Hammer was just a Hammer shaped tesla coil?

 

[Luckymoose]

We are here. And most people in history have believed in God. Most people who are atheists have NOT been that way all our lives. The reason being because we have to convince ourself there is no God.

That is proof enough of God. Doesn't disprove evolution, but proves God. I'll let Classical_hero disprove evolution, he's better at it then me

However, I will comment that evolution has NEVER been observed. Except for microevolution, but that I believe in.

If god is real and we have to disprove ourselves of god. Then why is our religion based almost entirely on the culture we are born into? How come the most educated people in the world tend to be atheist? How come the most backwards and hateful groups are religious? There is no proof of God. This world has no place for imaginary friends.