The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Perfection]

Wrong again. God is capable of anything. If he saw fit to test creationism in a way which would be deemed negative, He could easily do so. But it is not in His best interests, so He does not.

How does that allow humans to create a positive or negative test for creationism (or god)?

On the contrary, Faith is the most scientific thing you will ever encounter, yet it is also something that you will never understand. Faith is an enigma, yet it is also one of the most basic things ever.

How is it scientific? It is not testible.

I return to my argument that things exist, and therefore God created them, which you cannot disprove. All your silly arguments about fossils, and different types of evolution which have been revised (by revisionists) over time cannot override the argument that stuff exists.

1. Don't try to derride science for revising, that's how we get sceintific progress, Einstien certainly revised Newton, doesn't make either of their arguements wrong.
2. Stuff exists doesn't require a god it can simply exist without causation.
3. What about evolutionary creationism? (the belief that god worked through evolution)

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Perfection: Do you too find yourself longing for the sound argumentation of FL2?
Moderator Action: warned flaming (of P N)
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Perfection]

@Perfection: Do you too find yourself longing for the sound argumentation of FL2?

Hell, I'd take Ham-Babs!
Moderator Action: warned flaming two counts
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

How is it scientific? It is not testible.

Tell that to the billions of Christians out there, and they will say it is. How many lives has God saved because of their faithfulness in Him? Too many to count.

1. Don't try to derride science for revising, that's how we get sceintific progress, Einstien certainly revised Newton, doesn't make either of their arguements wrong.
2. Stuff exists doesn't require a god it can simply exist without causation.
3. What about evolutionary creationism? (the belief that god worked through evolution)

1. It's also how we revert.
2. No, but you cannot prove that either.
3. Look in the bible. Evolutionary creationism is a lie.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

@Perfection: Do you too find yourself longing for the sound argumentation of FL2?

Shut up unless you're going to do something other than cheerlead.

 

[Inter4]

Faith is not scientific.

Definition of faith:

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

Note that this post is just to reply to perfection's post and tell hiem what faith is according to the bible.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Tell that to the billions of Christians out there, and they will say it is. How many lives has God saved because of their faithfulness in Him? Too many to count.

Slightly problematic that the same can be said (except with smaller numbers) of quite a few other faiths?

It doesn't amount to experimental verification in any case - too many unknown variables.

As for appeals to the Bible, they're not gonna get you anywhere here.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Shut up unless you're going to do something other than cheerlead.

Me, shutting up? Quite an optimist you are, eh?

 

[carlosMM]

Number one: anyone who claims evolution is cold hard fact has no business being in society.

hm, you guys have failed admirably to bring ONE SINGLE HARD FACT forth that DISproves evolution, while there are tons that prove it, and you failed admirably to bring ONE SINGLE HARD FACT forth that proves reation happened.

Number two: there is plenty of evidence that creationism is indeed fact: stuff exists. You can post all the "evidence" and "fact" you want, but creationists such as myself always have one indisputable fact to fall back on: stuff exists. You can't disprove that, and since you can't disprove God exists, all your arguments are by default moot.

clouds are white and grey. Duct tape is grey, cotton wool is white. So clouds must be made from cotton wool and duct tape.

obviously, just because things are there is NO REASON FOR ANY SANE MAN to claim they MUST have been MADE by a god.

I hope you realize I have just rendered all your arguments pointless.

I jsut realize that your logic is as flawed as with most religious nutcases. Should I count you amongst them? Or are you maybe able to concede the point that there is NO stringent connection between the biblical God and the existence of things?

 

[carlosMM]

It's not provable either; it's a matter of faith, which by definition precludes proof. But that being said, until you're able to prove God doesn't exist, you cannot disprove Creationism. This whole thread is pointless.

eh, if people tell you God wants yo to give all your money to them - can you disprove that?


so, basically, do you watn teaching in school and decisions on medical stuff to be based on 'well, we can't disprove it, so we should do it' or on 'we have a lot of strong evidence it is nonsense so we won't spend funds on it'?

btw, evolution has never been disproven despite serious tries by experienced scientists. Creation in the biblical sense as defined by perfection repeatedly in this thread has.

is that soooo tough to admit?

 

[carlosMM]

Wrong again. God is capable of anything. If he saw fit to test creationism in a way which would be deemed negative, He could easily do so. But it is not in His best interests, so He does not.

I see a lot of very very improbable claims from you.
not a single fact that we can check. Nothing testable at all.

weird.

On the contrary, Faith is the most scientific thing you will ever encounter, yet it is also something that you will never understand. Faith is an enigma, yet it is also one of the most basic things ever.

ah, I do not mean to patronize you, but do you know what science is?

I return to my argument that things exist, and therefore God created them, which you cannot disprove. All your silly arguments about fossils, and different types of evolution which have been revised (by revisionists) over time cannot override the argument that stuff exists.

hm, the great radioactive monkey wants you to give me all your money. Otherwise he will castrate you and sell your toes for food.
You cannot disprove it.
Do you want me to give you my routing instructions for the wire transfer?

 

[carlosMM]

Tell that to the billions of Christians out there, and they will say it is. How many lives has God saved because of their faithfulness in Him? Too many to count.

untestable hearsay.

Boooooo!

2. No, but you cannot prove that either.

hm, nuclear physics and astrophysics are doing a pretty good job of explaining more and more. Been doing that for a few decades, too.

3. Look in the bible. Evolutionary creationism is a lie.

Hehe, the bible is so full of lies and misunderstandings that anybody who bases his arguments on it should immediately be deemed wrong!

 

[SolarKnight]

Pasi Nurminen

If you feel that people who believe in evolution do not belong in society and your arguments make this whole debate pointless;

Then we might as well give up on science altogether, there have been many accounts in history when science has gone against the church, such as when it was discovered that the earth was the centre of the universe, the church resisted bitterly, until it was eventually accepted it as truth.

My point is this, while the theory of evolution may have flaws and slight problems with it, or hasn't been absolutely and completely proven to be the truth, does not mean it never will, it can take many years for theories to become scientific law.

Even if Evolution does become scientific law, what threat does it pose to your religion, it may contradict what your religious text may say, but does it really threaten the existence of your religion, since so many people have these belives one way or another, one theory being proven will hardly crush the entire religion.

If your faith in god is as strong as you make it out to be, then you will probably follow your religion for many years, which is an honourable thing. You just need to remember that there will always be people with faith as strong as yours in other areas, such as science, and this will always be the case.

Why can't we all just keep our minds open to the possibility that these theories may be have happened, after all, if we accept the POSSIBILITY of these things happening, it will be less of a shock if it is proven true and also it will enable people to forge closer ties socially and enable us to discover the truth together faster and more effectively.

There is no need to be hostile in these debates, just accept that other's views may be different.

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when open.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@SK: A theory about the physical world, like Darwinian evolution, cannot be absolutely proven. They can have arbitrary amounts of observational evidence going for them, but they never become absolutely proven in the way a mathematical theorem can.

 

[SolarKnight]

maybe not, but they can be refined and found to be similar or close to the truth, that is what i was trying to refer to.

(That and trying to encourage some of the people here to open their eyes to the wider world)

 

[RedFusion]

Wrong again. God is capable of anything.

Pasi, if God is capable of anything, then i propose this.

Let's say we have a wall that cannot be jumped over (Since God can do anything, then he can create a wall that cannot be jumped over). But if the wall cannot be jumped over, then God can't jump over it. Therefore, he can't do anything.

But if God can jump over it, then it isn't a wall that cannot be jumped over, since God jumped over it. Therefore, God isn't capable of creating a wall that cannot be jumped over.

We can conclude from this that a God that is capable of anything cannot exist.

 

[Perfection]

Tell that to the billions of Christians out there, and they will say it is.

Then those billions of Christians are ignorant to the nature of science.

How many lives has God saved because of their faithfulness in Him? Too many to count.

And how many were destroyed in inquisitions, and witchhunts? countless as well. Of course, lives gained/lossed is not the measure of science

1. It's also how we revert.

No, it's how science progresses. The whole point of being a scientist is to discover new things and to make (and verify) new explainations, sometimes that requires altering a portion of older theories. For example Darwin used a uniformatarian form of gradualism for evolution however subsequent research has shown that it is more of a punctuated equilbrium form. This revision doesn't change his central arguements but merely corrects a portion. One should not expect a scientist to be right all the time, it is impossible as they are humans with limited knowledge and the propensity to make an occasional logical error, that is why scientists collaborate and revise, to iron out the problems. Do you honestly think we should expect Darwin to understand all the facets of evolution when there was no knowledge of genetics (and little about heredity), a smaller fossil record to work with, and no method of dating rocks, among countless other setbacks?

2. No, but you cannot prove that either.

So, you can't disprove it. The fact is god is not the only explaination therefore you cannot use it as evidence that he does.

3. Look in the bible. Evolutionary creationism is a lie.

You are now quoting religious texts as de facto correct, that is obviously not valid scientific reasoning and therefore is nonscientific.

 

[Perfection]

Pasi, if God is capable of anything, then i propose this.

Let's say we have a wall that cannot be jumped over (Since God can do anything, then he can create a wall that cannot be jumped over). But if the wall cannot be jumped over, then God can't jump over it. Therefore, he can't do anything.

But if God can jump over it, then it isn't a wall that cannot be jumped over, since God jumped over it. Therefore, God isn't capable of creating a wall that cannot be jumped over.

We can conclude from this that a God that is capable of anything cannot exist.

Actually this arguement is flawed. An all powerful god could easily create a wall he could not jump over by limiting his jumping power, afterwords he would not be all powerful but before he limited his power he would be. An all powerful god can logically cease being all powerful.

 

[Smidlee]

Pasi, if God is capable of anything, then i propose this.

Let's say we have a wall that cannot be jumped over (Since God can do anything, then he can create a wall that cannot be jumped over). But if the wall cannot be jumped over, then God can't jump over it. Therefore, he can't do anything.

But if God can jump over it, then it isn't a wall that cannot be jumped over, since God jumped over it. Therefore, God isn't capable of creating a wall that cannot be jumped over.

We can conclude from this that a God that is capable of anything cannot exist.

The problem with this statement is it contradicted the very language that you use. There many contradictions like this in the English language since human knowledge is limited. noone with common sense should have a problem understanding what is it meant when someone says "God can do anything." Even if you remove "God" in your statement is still is a self contradicting statement.

 

[carlosMM]

why do atheists and scientist go so far out of their way to twist the very language they use - and that is being used to try to disprove them , desitined to failure as the attempt must be - just to accomodate the illogical and unfounded superstitions of the ignorant and propaganda-influenced minds of the un-questioning?

'God can do anything'
'God will juge'
'God favors the faithful'
'in God we trust'
'God's own country'


what BS is this?

quite obviously, to insist on the very existance of any god in any argument longer than a '1 sentence each' exchange require such twists and absurdities in logic that any listener will automatically doubt the intellectual abilities of the debating parties to make the idea of an omnipotent god absurd.
'Credo quia absurdum' - heard that ever before? (if not, read up on your theology and church history - you'll be dumbstruck at the nonsense put forth by church authorities!)

read Douglas Admas if you can't follow!
if you can't find the article by him on atheism I'll be happy to retype it for y'all!

if you can continue to believe in anything but the most abstract version of a god after reading that I will happily ask my doc to refer you to an institution.