Where is your evidence creationists?

[AV1611VET]

How does that answer my question?

What do you mean? that answers your question quite well, IMO.

There is nothing to suggest that there is a God so why should anyone believe that there is?

What does God have to do with your question?

What do you guys think of may car? we can't see any car, just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there,
eh..yes it does.

Let's use a better example:

Do we have any evidence that a star formed yesterday 10 light years out?

Does that mean that no stars formed 10 light years out, yesterday?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Nice to see atheists and creationists endlessly complain about each other instead of actually answering OP's question ...

As for those who are atheists on these forums and I can present plenty of evidence that suggests design (intention) is a superior explanation to chance (non-intention) for the nature of the Universe, but that is a different discussion that shouldn't take place on this thread.

That would probably make a more interesting thread. Why would a deist be interested in the design hypothesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice to see atheists and creationists endlessly complain about each other instead of actually answering OP's question ...

Here is a straightforward answer to the OP:

No evidence was generated.

That means that no evidence was left behind, cleaned up, hidden, or anything else.

We call those things "miracles."

 

[OllieFranz]

Are you follow the conversation, OF; or are you just using my post to rant?

Can you answer the question better than I did?

What is the difference between no physical evidence and did not happen?

I think it's a good question, myself.

As I said, there is no philosophical reason why it could not have happened, but no evidence that it did, except for the one single document, which most people either discount for various reasons or which they do not agree it actually makes the claim.


And its existence is not in answer to a choice between "no physical evidence" and "did not happen."

I do not claim that it did not happen. I claim I have been given no reason to believe that it did. You are the one who made a positive claim. You are the one who must back it up with evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are the one who made a positive claim. You are the one who must back it up with evidence.

I'm also making the positive claim that there is no evidence -- and believe me, I'm backing it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is the difference between no physical evidence and did not happen?

That would be like the difference between Leprechauns and a recent global flood. We have no evidence that Leprechauns exist. However, we do have moutains of evidence that a global flood did not occur in the last several million years.

Do you believe that Leprechauns exist, AV? I would assume not, and I would also assume that you do not believe in Leprechauns because there is no evidence that Leprechauns exist. Am I right?

 

[metherion]

There are several differences between 'no physical evidence' and 'did not happen'.

One possibility is the physical impact of an event. Some events have none. For example, earlier today, I had some chicken. While I was eating that chicken, I thought in my head, "Boy, this chicken is tasty." Now, a thought in my head leaves behind no physical evidence. But it happened.

Now, suppose I was eating chicken in an empty room. And suppose I said out loud, "Boy, this chicken is tasty." Would it leave behind physical evidence? Unless it was being recorded, after a moment or two, no. The sound would have stopped, the echoes ceased, the event just didn't have enough force/impact/whatever to leave a definite trace that I said "Boy, this chicken is tasty."

Now, an event that did NOT happen would have evidence of some kind that it didn't happen, as opposed to a lack of evidence. If I say that Russia launched seven nukes at Antarctica in 1970, you could examine Antarctica, do interviews, consult records, and find out that no such thing happened.

So, after listing my examples, I suppose the difference could be worded like this:

An event that leaves no physical evidence can only have a lack of physical evidence that it happened, while an event that did not happen can have either a lack of physical evidence that it happened OR physical evidence that it did not happen, and often both.

Metherion

 

[revo74]

He'll learn that -- soon enough.

He just brushed off my Apple Challenge as "weak" -- and my Apple Challenge is meant to show conclusively that there is no physical evidence for creatio ex nihilo, God's method of choice for creating the universe.

So by brushing it off, he is admitting that there must be evidence somewhere.

I have a feeling he is confused, but doesn't know it.

My guess is that he has a couple initials after his last name; probably got them from Harvard or Yale.

It is you who is confused, not I. I never said your Apple Challenge was weak, although it is. You need to reread my post and do a better job of comprehending it. I claimed that your anti-evolution arguments were weak.

Eyewitness testimony IS a form of evidence in case you haven't been made aware. Not all evidence is empirically based. There is also digital evidence.

If creation ex nihilo is true then how come we don't hear about eyewitness testimony supporting it? How come of all the millions of hours of video footage we have never once has someone picked up something popping into existence? Is god deliberately creating things ex nihilo when nobody is looking? That would be your only argument and if that's true then why? Why hide creating things when he openly reveals creating things through scripture? The only argument you have is nonsensical.

Your assertion that creation ex nihilo cannot be supported by evidence is baseless. All you have is a particular interpretation of religious scripture written thousands of years ago by scientifically ignorant superstitious desert dwellers.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is you who is confused, not I.

I'm immune to confusion -- I'm as ignorant as they come.

It takes an educatee to really be confused about things.

I never said your Apple Challenge was weak, although it is. You need to reread my post and do a better job of comprehending it. I claimed that your anti-evolution arguments were weak.

Whatever.

Eyewitness testimony IS a form of evidence in case you haven't been made aware. Not all evidence is empirically based. There is also digital evidence.

LOL -- you're new here, aren't you?

No one discusses eyewitness testimony in the creation of this earth more than I -- (As far as I know, that is. I haven't really visited other subforums here).

If you want, I'll hunt up one of my posts where I explain the creation week in terms of who the eyewitness were.

If creation ex nihilo is true then how come we don't hear about eyewitness testimony supporting it?

Because you're a newbie?

How come of all the millions of hours of video footage we have never once has someone picked up something popping into existence?

Because God ceased from creatio ex nihilo on the 7th day?

Is god deliberately creating things ex nihilo when nobody is looking?

No -- God ceased from creatio ex nihilo on the 7th day.

That would be your only argument and if that's true then why?

Why would that be my only argument?

It's your argument, not mine -- and it's wrong to boot.

Why hide creating things when he openly reveals creating things through scripture? The only argument you have is nonsensical.

-- Huh?

Your assertion that creation ex nihilo cannot be supported by evidence is baseless.

Baseless, huh? then take my Apple Challenge, and let's see if you can stand behind that adjective for very long.

All you have is a particular interpretation of religious scripture written thousands of years ago by scientifically ignorant superstitious desert dwellers.

You may be new here, but you talk like a Harvard graduate.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Too late we already have proven that evolution is a religion and gave absolute design proofs that creation is by design.

Sorry too late.

Try in a million years, when evolution still fails to magically come up with new species.

Oh you can;t that's right, the Lord has some other things planned before that time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too late we already have proven that evolution is a religion and gave absolute design proofs that creation is by design.

Sorry too late.

Try in a million years, when evolution still fails to magically come up with new species.

Oh you can;t that's right, the Lord has some other things planned before that time.

Ya -- the fruit bat or tse-tse fly or whatever it is creates a new generation every 24 hours - 9 days, and has been doing that for centuries, yet there's no evidence they have ever microevolved into another genus.

 

[revo74]

I'm immune to confusion -- I'm as ignorant as they come.

It takes an educatee to really confuse things.

Whatever.

LOL -- you're new here, aren't you?

No one discusses eyewitness testimony in the creation of this earth more than I -- (As far as I know, that is. I haven't really visited other subforums here).

If you want, I'll hunt up one of my posts where I explain the creation week in terms of why the eyewitness were.

Because you're a newbie?

Because God ceased from creatio ex nihilo on the 7th day?

No -- God ceased from creatio ex nihilo on the 7th day.

Why would that be my only argument?

It's your argument, not mine -- and it's wrong to boot.

-- Huh?

Baseless, huh? then take my Apple Challenge, and let's see if you can stand behind that adjective for very long.

You may be new here, but you talk like a Harvard graduate.

You have created a huge problem for yourself.

If god ceased to create ex nihilo on the 7th day (genesis story) then that means every single creature on earth descends from those that were on Noah's arc. Do you believe this yes or no? If no then explain please. If yes then you have all sorts of problems to contend with.

If species don't evolve into different species then the only way to get more species is if god creates them. We know that many species go extinct every year. If this is true then we will eventually hit 0 since god is not making any more. Do you believe this as well? If no then explain please.

According to your belief, every species on earth was once on Noah's arc and the number of species living on earth today is significantly less than during the time of Noah since species go extinct every year by the thousands and god isn't creating any more of them

The entire Noah's story is riddled with problems if taken literally. Problems that can only be dismissed by someone who's incapable of reasoning honestly.

 

[OllieFranz]

Too late we already have proven that evolution is a religion and gave absolute design proofs that creation is by design.

Sorry too late.

Try in a million years, when evolution still fails to magically come up with new species.

Oh you can;t that's right, the Lord has some other things planned before that time.

If they are not examples of evolution "com[ing] up with new species, then what exactly, in your "expert" opinion, are phenomena such as Ring species?

Or why are there plants and animals that can hybridize across species lines (horse+donkey=mule, donkey+horse=hinney, lion+tiger=liger, tiger+lion=tigon, etc)?

 

[AV1611VET]

You have created a huge problem for yourself.

I can assure you the problem is not mine; if anyone's, it's yours.

If god ceased to create ex nihilo on the 7th day (genesis story) then that means every single creature on earth descends from those that were on Noah's arc.

Yes, sir.

Do you believe this yes or no?

Yes.

If yes then you have all sorts of problems to contend with.

Sweet -- I'm a problem solver.

If species don't evolve into different species then the only way to get more species is if god creates them.

Yes, sir.

We know that many species go extinct every year.

I'll take your word for it.

If this is true then we will eventually hit 0 since god is not making any more.

God will return before that.

Do you believe this as well? If no then explain please.

God will return before that happens.

According to your belief, every species on earth was once on Noah's arc and the number of species living on earth today is significantly less than during the time of Noah since species go extinct every year by the thousands and god isn't creating any more of them

Then you don't know my belief, do you?

The entire Noah's story is riddled with problems if taken literally.

As it should be, if interpreting Noah's Ark with current science sans miracles.

Problems that can only be dismissed by someone who's incapable of reasoning honestly.

I'll dismiss that as an emotional conclusion, since you're a newbie.

 

[revo74]

I can assure you the problem is not mine; if anyone's, it's yours.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Sweet -- I'm a problem solver.

Yes, sir.

I'll take your word for it.

God will return before that.

God will return before that happens.

Then you don't know my belief, do you?

As it should be, if interpreting Noah's Ark with current science sans miracles.

I'll dismiss that as an emotional conclusion, since you're a newbie.

So you acknowledge that miracles are required in order for the flood story to work. The problem is there are many 'dozens' of problems that require miracle's, which makes it very difficult to believe, even for many Christians. Many Christian denominations actually abandoned their interpretation of the story for a different one because of this.

Let us examine some of the scripture and then I have some questions to ask of you.

5 ¶ And G[SIZE=-1]OD[/SIZE] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

1. It was god who created man, was it not? Not exactly a job well done if almost all of them turned out to be wicked.

2. God is supposed to be omniscient. He knew he was going to have to go back to the drawing board. Why would he deliberately design something that he knew wasn't going to produce the result he wished?

3. Why not just make all the wicked people disappear? Why flood the entire earth?

4. Repenting and grieving are human emotions. He deliberately designed a world that he knew would make him repent and grieve. Then take it out on everything he created by whipping it out. Doesn't sound to godly to me.

This is just a small sample of a long, long list of problems the flood story faces.

Finally, you brought up emotions. Religion is the biggest manipulator of human emotions. The reason why you don't realize how silly some of your beliefs are is precisely because your emotional attachments to those beliefs are so strong that they trump and cloud your critical reasoning. I will be starting new thread soon going into detail about this particular subject; the role emotions play with our beliefs, particular those that derive from religious indoctrination.

 

[CabVet]

1. It was god who created man, was it not? Not exactly a job well done if almost all of them turned out to be wicked.

2. God is supposed to be omniscient. He knew he was going to have to go back to the drawing board. Why would he deliberately design something that he knew wasn't going to produce the result he wished?

3. Why not just make all the wicked people disappear? Why flood the entire earth?

4. Repenting and grieving are human emotions. He deliberately designed a world that he knew would make him repent and grieve. Then take it out on everything he created by whipping it out. Doesn't sound to godly to me.

I doubt you will get any kind of answer, these are logical questions, religion defies logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. It was god who created man, was it not? Not exactly a job well done if almost all of them turned out to be wicked.

2. God is supposed to be omniscient. He knew he was going to have to go back to the drawing board. Why would he deliberately design something that he knew wasn't going to produce the result he wished?

3. Why not just make all the wicked people disappear? Why flood the entire earth?

4. Repenting and grieving are human emotions. He deliberately designed a world that he knew would make him repent and grieve. Then take it out on everything he created by whipping it out. Doesn't sound to godly to me.

1. God did not embed Murphy's Law into His creation. They turned out all (not almost all) wicked because of their freewill.

2. And what result was that? Yes, He could have produced robots, but He didn't. As the saying goes: If you love someone, set them free.

3. Because had He just made them disappear, there would have been no chance for repentance and salvation on their part. One minute, they are living a productive life, the next moment they are in Hell. At least with the Flood, they had a chance to cry out for salvation, and I'm sure many did. As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

4. You keep bringing this 'deliberately designed' thing up. He designed it, we did the deliberating.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt you will get any kind of answer...

Don't underestimate me ... I could have QV'd him to about three other times I have answered one of his questions above, but I didn't.

5. Had God 'struck everyone dead' on the spot, then there would have been no chance for anyone to repent and cry out for mercy. Doing it the way He did, God gave them a chance to get saved before they drowned. As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

Through Noah's preaching, I'm sure many (if not all) got saved.

As they say, there are no atheists in foxholes, and Noah would have given them the One to report to for salvation.

 

[Davian]

Then forget the universe -- use a marble.

What is the difference between 'no evidence' and 'did not happen'?

The marble.

If we use the marble example, is your claim of it having been created out of nothing compatible with having an opened bag of new marbles in your pocket, and a receipt for them in your wallet?

So, like the universe, we have your claim of how and when it was created, no evidence (as you say) to support your claim, but there still exists evidence to the contrary?

 

[Davian]

...
3. Because had He just made them disappear, there would have been no chance for repentance and salvation on their part. One minute, they are living a productive life, the next moment they are in Hell. At least with the Flood, they had a chance to cry out for salvation, and I'm sure many did.

Yes, the flood was a much better way to do it.

It is a shame that all of those children had to die that way, but, obviously, God was limited in His choices.

But we can celebrate those deaths with cute toys like this:

Fisher-Price Little People Noah's Ark Playset - Fisher-Price - Toys "R" Us

Note: the 'drowning families' figures are available separately.

As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

An incorrect saying at that:

From wiki: "In October 2006, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, at its annual convention in San Francisco, gave Paulson its first "Atheist in a Foxhole" award. He attended although he was barely able to travel due to his deteriorating health."

Philip K. Paulson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

I Was An Atheist In A Foxhole