The best evidence for Creationism

[AV1611VET]

On what date did I begin reading threads here as a guest?

Threads?

It only takes one post to pwn you ... and speaking of posts: Posts: 2,235,689.

But to humor myself, qv please: 1

 

[Davian]

<snip>
It is impossible to be an "atheist", "atheism" does not exist.

I do not see how any such things described as a 'deity' could exist, outside of books and stories. There - the impossible is possible.

you cannot prove it, there is no evidence to completely not believe.

In the absence of evidence that any such things described as a 'deity' could exist, I don't see any reason to believe.

when it is shown that it is impossible for an intelligent creator not to exist from an evolutionary standpoint, it is then completely impossible for God not to exist.

This has yet to be shown.

either a person acknowledges God, doesn't know, is unsure, or blatantly denies him.

God is a character in a book. I am sure of that.

I am a Christian because of my personal experience,

Personal experience can be deceptive.

and because the scientific, historical, and logical evidence all points to Christianity, to The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit... God.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[Davian]

Threads?

It only takes one post to pwn you...

a swing and a miss - I never said you had not done so.

... and speaking of posts: Posts: 2,235,689.

Is that not like bragging about how many times you have been somewhere - say, Disneyland - and it is later revealed that you spend your days running through the turnstiles?

But to humor myself, qv please: 1

And how has that been working out for you?

I think you are holding the wrong end of the 'pwning' stick.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Threads?

It only takes one post to pwn you ... and speaking of posts: Posts: 2,235,689.

But to humor myself, qv please: 1

At first I was like...











Then it occurred to me you might be serious, so then I felt ...

 

[AV1611VET]

a swing and a miss - I never said you had not done so.

Is that not like bragging about how many times you have been somewhere - say, Disneyland - and it is later revealed that you spend your days running through the turnstiles?

And how has that been working out for you?

I think you are holding the wrong end of the 'pwning' stick.

Do you have a question for me, Davian? if not, let me repeat myself:

You're not going to get evidence for creationism.

Does that bother you?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Did you bother to read any other creation myths? How is the Bible better than the Zoroastrian creation myth (which doesn't blame the entire existence of evil in the world on the human race, in the masochistic way that Christians enjoy)?



If it is impossible to to be an atheist, why do you have to immediately say you are a Christian, and therefore demonstrate you believe in a God?

If you have to define yourself as something that is not an atheist, it is clearly the case that you admit to yourself that atheism is entirely possible, because you feel the need to justify your own position against a position you claim doesn't exist.

Also since atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God, how is that impossible? I lack belief in Bigfoot. Is that impossible? It's easy to lack belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Incidentally, why do you need evidence for your faith? If you need evidence, then your faith is weak. Did you not read the story of Thomas?

Now your changing the definition of "atheism", "atheist" completely deny God's existence, that isn't a lack of belief. an "agnostic" is someone who lacks belief or is unsure. therefore again... "atheism" doesn't exist.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Now your changing the definition of "atheism", "atheist" completely deny God's existence, that isn't a lack of belief. an "agnostic" is someone who lacks belief or is unsure. therefore again... "atheism" doesn't exist.

Does non-stamp collecting exist? Is not smoking a habit? Does not running a marathon make me a distance runner?

Atheism is the default position. You want me to believe in your god, prove it exists.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Now your changing the definition of "atheism", "atheist" completely deny God's existence, that isn't a lack of belief. an "agnostic" is someone who lacks belief or is unsure. therefore again... "atheism" doesn't exist.

Slight correction inyour characterization:

Atheism can be broken down into two "flavors"

1. Strong atheists say "There is no God"
2. Weak atheists say "I see no reason to believe that God exists"

It's a subtle distinction but quite logicallycrucial. Strong atheism is a "universal negative" and extremely hard to justify logically since one cannot say there is no "X" unless one can see all of space and time simultaneously to know it is absent.

"Weak Atheism" doesn't mean it is a weaker expression, but rather it is a statement of normal disbelief. One who is a weak atheist says that in their experience they see no reason to believe that there is a God. There simply is no data to indicate that such a being exists.

I do not believe there is an invisible nano-elephant living in my fridge, not because I can look in and say there is none (remember, it's invisible and very small, could be hiding behind the milk) but rather because I fail to find any evidence that such a thing exists in my fridge. So why believe in it?

As for the agnostic aspect, well the guy who coined the term, Huxley, felt that agnosticism was not so much a creed as a methodology.

It is a differnt thing to say I fail to believe in something because I fail to see any reason or evidence to believe that and saying that the answer may never be knowable.

Atheism exists. It just seems to threaten believers disproportionate to the relative number of atheists. We aren't as scary as some believers feel we are. Most of us are "OK" people.

And when not filing our horns down (or eating kittens) you could hardly recognize us on the street as the vile monsters we apparently are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheism can be broken down into two "flavors"

1. Strong atheists say "There is no God"
2. Weak atheists say "I see no reason to believe that God exists"

Did you see the Johari window someone posted on that awhile back?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Does non-stamp collecting exist?

That is my MAIN HOBBY! I believe I actively spend approximately 99.999% of my time not collecting stamps! It might actually be 100% of my time, but I'm scared to completely rule out the possibility that I might accidentally, you know,when I'm not paying attention, collect a stamp or two.

Is not smoking a habit? Does not running a marathon make me a distance runner?

Well not-smoking definitely makes not running a marathon...wait...no, smoking would make running a marathon harder, so not smoking would make not running a marathon...wait, scratch that.

Atheism is the default position. You want me to believe in your god, prove it exists.

How about this!

QED.

Wait, I'm an atheist and all that makes me believe in is neotony! Hold it...am I a "Neotonist"?????? :o

 

[thaumaturgy]

Did you see the Johari window someone posted on that awhile back?

No, I prefer to use inferrential logic from statistics:

Null hypothesis (H[sub]o[/sub]): There is no God.

I simply fail to reject the null hypothesis based on the data I have available.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"evolution" is a faith. the chances of it happening are impossible. the proof? since the character limit doesn't allow me to copy and paste the whole thing,
on mathematics of evolution .com on chapter 15 and icr.org article entitled, The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution

The mathematical argument used there boils down to "the odds of genes being formed are the same as the works of Shakespeare being formed by a random letter generator - virtually impossible". The premise of the argument is false, so the conclusion is unsound.

The Universe has a beginning(most scientist agree), it is not infinite thus logically something must of brought it into existence that has always existed and is uncaused. logically that first uncaused cause is, God.

1) There is no evidence the universe had a beginning. If you disagree, cite your evidence.
2) There is no evidence the universe is not infinite. If you disagree, cite your evidence.
3) Even if the universe had a beginning and isn't infinite, that doesn't mean that, logically, something must have brought it into existence.
4) Even if something brought it into existence, that doesn't mean that something had to be either a) eternal, or b) uncaused.
5) Even if there was something eternal and uncaused which created the universe, that doesn't mean it was a deity.
6) Even if the universe had such a cause, and that cause was a deity, that doesn't mean if was the God of Christianity - it could be any of the other thousands of deities humanity has invented, or it could be a deity that has had no interaction with humans.

Those are your six core assumptions, none of which are supported by a shred of evidence. If you disagree, please, by all means, cite your evidence.

Because again, no random act could've created this earth, has to be something intelligent. thus that first uncaused cause is intelligent, thus it is God.

I don't think you know what 'thus' means. Anyway, you've yet to demonstrate that the Earth could not have formed by natural processes. There is a strong body of evidence that demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth formed by the accretion of an interstellar dust cloud, the remnant of a star that had gone supernova. This is evident in, for example, the abundance and distribution of elements in the Earth and the solar system.

Because again, no random act could've created this earth, has to be something intelligent. thus that first uncaused cause is intelligent, thus it is God. saying that it would happen randomly and accidentally for the sake of it would reply on faith not fact. it is a fact that this earth has intelligent design, and since it has that, logically it must have an intelligent designer, God. to say otherwise would rely on mere faith, that's why "atheism" is nothing but a faith. when it is logically and mathematically impossible for "evolution" to have occurred, and you say otherwise, then that is just relying on faith and not fact.

First, you've yet to provide any substance to your continual claim that evolution is mathematically impossible - even the article you cite doesn't say it's mathematically impossible, only improbable.

Second, even if both the cosmological and teleological arguments worked (hint: they don't), there's nothing to suggest that the first cause and the designer are, in fact, a single deity. It could be, for instance, that any intelligent design on Earth is from an alien intelligence that developed, by wholly natural processes, elsewhere in the universe. That is as plausible as your "Goddidit" scenario.

Third, the teleological argument doesn't work. You might have been suckered in by televangelists talking about fine tuning, how if the Earth were a gnat's hair closer to or further from the Sun we'd boil or freeze, etc. Not only are they simply not true, the Anthropic Principle easily rebuts any notion that the Earth, with its particular properties, was designed by God. Unless you can find a manufacturer's logo on the bottom of Thailand, the fact that, say, the specificity of oxygen is 'just right' for life means squat.

So you admit God's existence is possible.

Of course I do, I'd be a fool if I didn't. But let's not go into the tired old argument of, "Oh, you're an atheist, therefore you say there is no God! That's faith".

face it, only one and one way only that all those logically and mathematically impossibilities(as explained above) would have occurred is if God made it happen, that is the only way "evolution" can be logical. So again, either God made the earth the way he did in the bible(which is the most logical and possible) or he guided the evolution.(the only logical way evolution happened is with God)

That is why I am a Young Earth Creationist, God creating the earth the way he says in The Bible makes the most logical, possible and scientific sense.

Fantastic, on top of your previous six core falsehoods, you've now made a seventh:

7) Even if the universe had a cause, and that cause was a god, and that god is the Christian God, that doesn't mean the Bible is literally true.

No, irreducible complexity shows all or nothing. an accident statistically cannot make something so complex and this is common sense.

"evolution" is like saying a pencil can magically scribble itself on a paper until it forms a proper sentence, that would never happen.

No, it isn't. If you think it is, then you don't understand what evolution is. It would be more accurate to say that evolution is like a pencil writing 43 random letters on a line, then repeating that series of letters onto the next line, with some minor mistakes. Any letters that happen to be in the right place for "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", those letters are 'locked'. After only a few 'generations', this system of reproduction and imperfect inheritance with an external selection process, will create, from randomly generated letters, a coherent sentence.

Naturally this is not perfectly analogous to evolution, but it's better than yours, and better than "tornado through a junk yard", or any of the others that Creationists have come up with.

The core principle Creationists don't seem to grasp is that of natural selection: random variation becomes a powerful tool for creative change when there is a selection process preferentially picking beneficial traits over detrimental ones.

Me sacrificing myself for a loved one, for love doesn't have anything at all to do with survival of fittest. that would actually be the complete opposite, in no way would that keep us surviving. to deny that we all have obligated objective morals and love that we live by and to say that they evolved from "survival of the fittest" when they in no way help us survive is illogical and relies wholly on faith.

*sigh* How about this: instead of leaping to the conclusion, you just ask a question. Makes for a better discussion; you come off as a frantic terrier.

Anyway, ignoring the hysteria, the core question of this paragraph is, "How can altruism evolve, if it actively encourages individuals to kill themselves?" And that's a good question. The answer is that the difficulty lies in an overly literal idea of "survival of the fittest", and how evolution works. Evolution works by the propagation of genes. Ensuring the host's survival will improve its odds of reproducing, which of course ensure the propagation of the host's genes.

However, reproduction is not the only way genes can survive into the next generation. To a large extent, your genes also exist in your siblings - unique mutations that arose in your parents survive in all siblings. Thus, one sibling who sacrifices himself to ensure the survival of his brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews, is indirectly ensuring the survival of his genes - because his genes also exist in his close kin.

Now, what does this have to do with the evolution of altruism? Well, your objection is that such a trait would go against evolution, but as you can see evolution works through the propagation of genes, which doesn't always need the direct reproduction of the host.

In general, altruism evolves through a process called kin selection, which is a form of selection whereby traits are selected that benefit a social species, a species where organisms are living close together and their neighbours are their kin - so saving a random baby will most likely have a close relation to you, thus helping your own genome.

This manifests in a general, instinctive urge that it is 'right' that we help our fellow man, even if it harms or even kills us. It's a trait that evolved because it made our ancestors better at living together in a society, and it evolved because our neighbours are genetically similar to us.

see this is where you rely on faith to imply that the reason rape is wrong is because it "destroys parent bond" , that is not why it is wrong and you know it. I assume you have morals, so i ask you, do you feel rape is wrong? and if you do(hopefully you do because it is wrong) why is it wrong to you? if you think morals aren't objective and that nothing matters, what prevents you from not breaking morals?

What prevents me from breaking my morals? Simple: my morals. That's what they are. Everyone has their own instinctive senses of these nebulous concepts of what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', and these can be tempered or exaggerated through culture.

As I said, the core reason we feel rape is wrong is because we have an evolved instinct. The cause of that instinct I've already explained.

If you say you think rape is wrong because of "evolution" and "destroys parent bonds" then I would be really shocked. I'm sure you know better than that, I'm sure you know rape is wrong because it's sickening, abuse, traumatizing, and just pure evil.

Naturally, and I would agree with you, but why do you think you feel it's sickening, abusive, traumatising, and pure evil? The answer is that we have evolved that way.

If someone were to rape a loved one, I would get sad because the person I love was violated, hurt, abused, and I wouldn't want to see anyone suffer that. not because it "decreases parent bond" or because society says so but because plain and simple, it is sick. no way anyone can defend rape and murder unless they are twisted.

And no one's trying to defend rape. I'll thank you not to accuse me of something so wicked.

How? that's actually true. as explained, "evolution" doesn't explain morals. the facts are morals go beyond us, we don't control them. if I felt regret for doing something wrong, "evolution" would not, and could not explain it. the fact would be, I feel bad for doing something wrong because I knew it was wrong, you rely on faith, that takes all logic out the window, that "evolution" would explain morals when it simple cannot.

Your only objection to an evolutionary explanation for our sense of morals is that you 'feel' it's wrong, you just 'knew' it was wrong. In other words, you have an instinctive reaction.

Sorry but "evolution" doesn't have any logical explanation on morality, none. doesn't explain where morals come from, doesn't explain why there are objective morals. they only assume that morals aren't objective or created for survival (which they are not as I explained)

You've yet to explain why morals are objective - your only objection is that... well, you don't like the alternative.

 

[mkatzwork]

Now your changing the definition of "atheism", "atheist" completely deny God's existence, that isn't a lack of belief. an "agnostic" is someone who lacks belief or is unsure. therefore again... "atheism" doesn't exist.

No - atheism is the absence of a belief in a deity, contrasting with theism, which is the presence of a belief in at least one deity, and maybe more. I don't deny anything - do you even know what denial is? It's predominantly a Freudian concept.

Agnostic derives from the concept of knowledge, not belief - it comes from the greek word A&#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962; meaning unknown. Agnostics say it is not possible to know whether it is true that there is a god or not, amongst other metaphysical claims. You can be both agnostic and atheist.

Learn a bit about what you're talking about, then come back, you'll do a lot better. At best you're just being disrespectful right now, as disrespectful as I would be if I defined Christians as "anybody who eats fish on a Friday".

 

[mkatzwork]

By the way, you forgot to answer, savedbychrist:

Why is the Biblical creation myth superior to the Zoroastrian one (to take just one example?).

 

[Davian]

Do you have a question for me, Davian? if not, let me repeat myself:

You're not going to get evidence for creationism.

Does that bother you?

Not at all. Repeat yourself as often as you see fit.

Will point out, however, that plenty of evidence has been provided as support for a variety of creation myths. Just watch one of those Kent Hovind videos linked to recently.

It is just not very good evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is just not very good evidence.

You can believe some people present [not very good] evidence if you want to.

I happen to believe there is no evidence, because none was generated.

Here's my first post in this thread: 10

 

[Davian]

You can believe some people present [not very good] evidence if you want to.

I happen to believe there is no evidence, because none was generated.

Here's my first post in this thread: 10

I am speaking to the op.

Is not your 'no evidence' assertion directed specifically at the instantiation of the cosmos and the initial creation of all the stuff in it (planets/stars/galaxies already in motion etc)?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

You can believe some people present [not very good] evidence if you want to.

I happen to believe there is no evidence, because none was generated.

Here's my first post in this thread: 10

Which is why no one really cares what you believe, as if beliefs are somehow important or relevant to reality. Of course one should always strive to contstruct their beliefs to best model reality. Which is, admittedly, something you have trouble with because you choose to believe that which has no evidence or basis in reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why no one really cares what you believe, as if beliefs are somehow important or relevant to reality.

LOL -- those who don't believe me will go through life looking and asking for something they'll never find.

I've been here six years, and I've see the same person asked over and over for evidence of the Creation event.

So don't believe me, if you don't want to; but you'll go the rest of your life asking for something you'll never get.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

LOL -- those who don't believe me will go through life looking and asking for something they'll never find.

I've been here six years, and I've see the same person asked over and over for evidence of the Creation event.

So don't believe me, if you don't want to; but you'll go the rest of your life asking for something you'll never get.

LOL -- like that one time when we asked for evidence for god, and you know, there wasn't any --LOL

I believe you when you say there is no evidence for creation, which necessarily leads one to conclude it never happened. So, what you perceive as us asking for evidence for something that never happened, we see you as believing something without justification.