The best evidence for Creationism

[Davian]

Why doesn't it count?

The bible isn't evidence, it needs to *be* evidenced, lol.

please try and provide evidence against approximately 40 different men gave their accounts of God, which has no contradiction, no error, and accurate teachings, predictions and extra Biblical sources. you won't be able to.

by court of law, that is more than enough witnesses/evidence to prove something true.

Do you have the names of those men and the witnesses?

presupposition isn't evidence. that your personal assumptions.

Exactly. That why your presuppositions are dismissed.

By who? a judge who committed Judicial Activism.

Too bad.

And again, it doesn't disprove Fine Tuning. The earth is so Fine Tuned that 1 little mistake, 1 hair away and life is over. The weak anthopic principle is an assumption.

And enough to dismiss your argument.

No yours is, since morality is obligated and has authority over all of us, and it is our duty, there is a commander commanding these duties, thus the commander has to have authority over all humans.

since there is a commander who has authority over all of us, then there exist a being that is above us and has authority over us, and that is God. God exist.

here's a question for you, who other than God can be the commander who authorizes morality and has authority over all humans?

I do not accept your premise. You have yet to establish the existence of this 'commander'.

1)Infinite regression is impossible, the universe has a beginning. most scientist, will agree. there is no denial to that.

if you object, provide evidence.

Prove to me the universe has not always existed. Something more than your opinion.

2)The universe has a beginning, thus it is not infinite, it was brought into existence, causality shows that every effect has a cause. thus the first cause of everything must be uncause, otherwise we would keep going back in cause and effect for eternity, and as shown, infinite regression is impossible. so we cannot go infinitely in a past of cause and effect.

thus there is a first uncaused cause.

if you object, provide evidence.

If the universe always existed, no 'uncaused cause' required.

3) 1. Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection shows that God exist.

If you object to that, provide evidence, not presupposition/assumptions.

As you provided no support to the resurrection actually happening, there is nothing to counter. The burden of evidence rests with you. Dismissed.

2.Morality being obligated by an authority over all humanity, only logical explanation to that authority is God. God exist.

if you object to that then please provide evidence as to what/who has the universal authority over all humans. only God explains that.

"God" explains nothing. All you have done is used a mystery to attempt to explain a mystery.

3.Intelligent design, irreducible complexity. an intelligent irreducible complex design requires a designer. God exist.

if you object to that, provide proof or an example of an intelligently irreducible complex design that has no designer, came from un-intelligence, came randomly, and by accident.

Where do you see design? I don't see any. There may be the *appearance* of design, but that would not require a creator.

4.Fine Tuning, if you object to that then provide evidence against it, not assumptions.

see above.

5. The Bible and extra Biblical sources proves, God exist.

if you object to that, provide evidence against The Bible, not assumptions/presupposition.

That the bible proves anything *is* presupposition. It proves nothing.

I take your continuous nonsensical assumptions and accusations as a pathetic excuse to not answer the question. I'll keep asking the question until someone answers the question or refuses to and admits they cannot answer it because there is no evidence for "atheism", since no wants to answer, "atheism" does not exist.

Got for it. While you are at it, ask why the sky is seven. Or the boiling point of blue. Demand an answer! Evidence!

also, you have yet to show how my other argument are weak, provide proof why not presupposition/assumptions/opinions.

Now you are not even coherent.

Actually it does, by having no evidence for it, shows that they aren't "atheist", and that "atheism" doesn't exist. if it was real, they would without sweat answer the question, but they cannot, because "atheism" doesn't exist.

Yet it does. How do you explain that?

I take your assumption and you putting words in my mouth as an insult. I'll say it again, where did I say "atheist"?

The playing with words does not excuse your behaviour. From where do you get your morals?

I'll say it again because it is the truth, "atheism"(nonsensical claim, nonsensical claim of "lack" of belief, whichever definition) is a clown and it did not know it. where is any individual insulted?

I am. Do you think insulting others wins arguments?

in fact, I showed sympathy for "atheist"'s in post #574, I wrote
so do not put words in my mouth and hear what you want to hear.

Whatever.

Post #575
Where are you mentioned?

Then why put it in a post to me?

I gave the evidence that shows, God exist. that's why I can say, God exist, because the evidence backs that up.

No, it is only presupposition, which you yourself said does not count.

"atheism" is not a neutral claim, the "atheist" define it as a ""lack" of belief". "lack" of belief does not exist, if it did there would be evidence to support a "lack" of belief. there is none.

Now who is trying to put words in others' mouths? I guess its okay since you are doing it? Atheism is the neutral postion, and requires no evidential support.

"atheism" does not exist.

A plea of desperation. Definitions of words are descriptive, not proscriptive. You are SOL on this one.

Testable Evidence Supports a Cosmic Intelligent Designer
<deleted cut-and-paste>

Do you read what you cut and paste into this thread? Do you know what falsifiable means?

If you have a testable definition for this "God" concept, then just say so, in your own words. That wall of text missed the mark.

"abiogenesis" is impossible,

Now you are being silly. I would be just as silly saying "gods are impossible", despite your inability to demonstrate otherwise.

"atheism" is automatically null and void.

Really? What of all the gods you do not believe in? You are an atheist yourself.
-------------------
Despite all of your protestations, the burden of evidence rests firmly with you.

 

[CabVet]

Despite all of your protestations, the burden of evidence rests firmly with you.

Responding to those walls of text is a waste of time, he is just copying and pasting stuff, some from here:

Unintelligent Evolution & Intelligent Design. Testable Evidence of God.

 

[bobsterInJapan]

I'm not sure whether it is the best evidence, but for me at my stage of understanding, the existence of DNA, which is extremely intelligent code, and how it sits on top of RNA like a separate interface, which in turn sits on top of ..proteins and amino acids (I think), and the fact that there is no evidence of a non-DNA/RNA system evolving to a DNA/RNA system. It reminds me of a 3rd generation programing language (like FORTRAN/PASCAL, C, Lisp, etc.) (representing DNA) that converts its code into Assembly language (RNA) and then machine code.

No one has discovered how DNA, which even exists in bacteria, has 'evolved' into existence. Since DNA dictates everything we see in biology, there exists a massive hole in the theory of evolution, and I believe it is a significant one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Tell me how this eternal entity of yours is exempts itself from the laws of thermodynamics.

By not being physical. But you knew that already.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting - Given that intelligence is the only source of intelligence, I'll respond by saying that an all encompassing Creator is the most likely source for our physical and moral laws.

Being that it is not a given, this is dismissed.

Any other sources will be considered in an adequate rebuttal.

Perhaps a edit here might make this sentence comprehensible.

Feel free.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not sure whether it is the best evidence, but for me at my stage of understanding, the existence of DNA, which is extremely intelligent code, and how it sits on top of RNA like a separate interface, which in turn sits on top of ..proteins and amino acids (I think), and the fact that there is no evidence of a non-DNA/RNA system evolving to a DNA/RNA system. It reminds me of a 3rd generation programing language (like FORTRAN/PASCAL, C, Lisp, etc.) (representing DNA) that converts its code into Assembly language (RNA) and then machine code.

No one has discovered how DNA, which even exists in bacteria, has 'evolved' into existence. Since DNA dictates everything we see in biology, there exists a massive hole in the theory of evolution, and I believe it is a significant one.

It would be interesting to know if biology students get much programming instruction. I can relate to your insights from my experience in high level language and html coding.

 

[SkyWriting]

Dear Mr. Copy Pasta,

The Bible is full of errors, fabrications, contradictions and flat out lies.

Sorry.

No person here has successfully documented one yet.
But many have tried. Some claim an "infinite" number, but only
provide the same 6 or 7 when pressed for examples. Please try
to avoid those already covered.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not sure whether it is the best evidence, but for me at my stage of understanding, the existence of DNA, which is extremely intelligent code, and how it sits on top of RNA like a separate interface, which in turn sits on top of ..proteins and amino acids (I think), and the fact that there is no evidence of a non-DNA/RNA system evolving to a DNA/RNA system. It reminds me of a 3rd generation programing language (like FORTRAN/PASCAL, C, Lisp, etc.) (representing DNA) that converts its code into Assembly language (RNA) and then machine code.

No one has discovered how DNA, which even exists in bacteria, has 'evolved' into existence. Since DNA dictates everything we see in biology, there exists a massive hole in the theory of evolution, and I believe it is a significant one.

That we don't know how it could, isn't the same as knowing that it couldn't. The former is a mystery to be solved, the latter is hard evidence against. The sheer abundance of evidence for a common ancestor doesn't suddenly vanish, after all - even if we can't, at present, explain how DNA evolved, we still have sufficient evidence to conclude a common ancestor.

But that's all moot, as it's incorrect to suppose that we don't know how DNA evolved. Very roughly speaking, simple chemicals became amino acids became monomers became polymers became RNA became DNA. Read this paper for an overview.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one has discovered how DNA, which even exists in bacteria, has 'evolved' into existence. Since DNA dictates everything we see in biology, there exists a massive hole in the theory of evolution, and I believe it is a significant one.

So have we observed supernatural deities magically poofing DNA into existence, or manipulating DNA to produce new species? No. Isn't that a problem for creationism? In absence of this evidence, can we just simply state that abiogenesis must therefore be true?

If you want to play the false dichotomy, be aware that it cuts both ways.

Like others have stated, what we do know strongly evidences common ancestry. For example, we know how DNA accumulates mutations and recombines. We know how retroviruses insert into host genomes. From that knowledge we can determine if humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Specifically, we can look to see if the same retroviral insertions are found at the same positions in both the human genome and the genomes of other apes. Guess what? That is exactly what we find. The evidence for common ancestry is clear and unavoidable. The origin of DNA may be a mystery, but common ancestry is not.

If you will, we can take a different angle on this discussion. What scientific theory do you accept? Germ theory perhaps? Perhaps we can discuss a theory you do accept and see if it stands up to your criticisms.

 

[Davian]

By not being physical. But you knew that already.

Telling me what it *isn't* does not tell me what it *is*.

Is this 'entity' capable of expending energy, and if so, how does this eternal 'entity' of yours exempt itself from the laws of thermodynamics?

Any other sources will be considered in an adequate rebuttal.

Pointing out your unsupported presuppositions is an adequate rebuttal.

Feel free.

Fix your own sentences.

 

[selfinflikted]

So, of the 63 pages (so far) in this thread, has anyone compiled a "best of" list of evidence for creationism?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

So, of the 63 pages (so far) in this thread, has anyone compiled a "best of" list of evidence for creationism?

Er... goddidit?

 

[Davian]

From Dr. William Lane Craig, ReasonableFaith.com:

Wow, Cyrus, that is quite a mouthful! While a few of these objections strike me as misconceived, many of them raise substantive questions which merit a response. In order for me to get through them all, my responses are going to have to be very terse.

It’s important to take these objections in a different order than you present them, since my arguments build upon one another. For example, one of my arguments for the cause’s being personal is its timelessness and immateriality, so one must consider those properties before one looks at the arguments for the personhood of the cause. So we need to consider the objections in the proper logical order.

But before we do, let’s note what you do not dispute: that there is a cause of the beginning of the universe and that this cause is itself uncaused, beginningless, and enormously powerful. That much we agree on.

So, first, is this first uncaused cause changeless? The answer is “Yes,” if my arguments against the possibility of an infinite regress of events are sound. Since you don’t dispute those arguments, we can agree that there is an absolutely first event. Since a change is an event, the cause of the first event must therefore be changeless.

To this you object:

"3.When God created the universe, a change occurred from a timeless state of affairs to a spatio-temporal state of affairs, which shows that timelessness does not imply changelessness."

I agree that God changed in creating the universe. But that only proves that He’s not immutable. Don’t confuse changelessness with immutability. A timeless being must be changeless, but that doesn’t entail it is immutable (incapable of change). You’re confusing a de facto property with a modal property. God can be changeless but mutable sans the universe.

So now we know that the cause of the universe is changeless sans the universe. A couple of important properties follow. First, its immateriality. Anything material is constantly changing, at least on the molecular and atomic levels. So we’re dealing with an immaterial being here. Second, its timelessness. On a relational view of time, time does not exist in the utter absence of events. So a changeless state must be a timeless state. Even on a non-relational view of time, time could at best be an undifferentiated time in which literally nothing happened; no change occurs. Third, its spacelessness. Anything that exists in space must be temporal, as it undergoes at least extrinsic change in relation to the things around it. So our cause must transcend space and time, at least sans the universe.

This immediately disqualifies your objection:

"2. The cause could have existed in other regions of space-time outside of the universe."

For they are not characterized by changelessness, immateriality, timelessness, and spacelessness. Moreover, this speculation was already undermined by the arguments against an infinite regress of events (including in other regions of spacetime) and rendered improbable in light of our discussion of multiverse scenarios.

So we’ve got an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful cause of the universe. Already, there’s nothing like this in a naturalistic worldview, but it fits right in with classical theism. But there’s more! Consider now whether this cause is personal. I give three arguments for the personhood of the first cause.

First, the argument, inspired by the Islamic Principle of Determination, that only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause. (See the exposition of the argument in either the Blackwell Companion, pp. 193-4 or in Reasonable Faith [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008], pp. 153-4.)

You object:

"6. We parsimoniously should accept by Occam's Razor the initial big bang singularity as the cause of the universe rather than extending the causal chain further to God."

This rejoinder is futile because if the initial cosmological singularity is a physical state of affairs, as you think, then it is the first state of the universe (its initial boundary point) and, hence, began to exist a finite time ago. It cannot have come into being out of nothing, as you agree. So there must be a transcendent cause of the first state of the universe. Here my second argument, borrowed from Swinburne, for the personhood of the first cause becomes relevant. As I explain,

there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. . . . Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 192-3).

Ockham’s Razor has nothing to do with it. The question is whether everything that begins to exist has a cause.

On the other hand, of course, if the singularity is just a mathematical idealization, then it does not exist and, hence, cannot be the cause of anything. Your response that mathematical objects are viewed by some philosophers as real objects evinces a misunderstanding about the nature of idealizations in science. Idealizations, like a point at infinity at which two parallel lines meet, are taken to be non-existent; that’s the very point of calling them idealizations. They’re useful fictions.

WLC says "The question is whether everything that begins to exist has a cause."

The universe has *not* been shown to have a beginning. WLC makes a beginner's mistake.

 

[Davian]

So, of the 63 pages (so far) in this thread, has anyone compiled a "best of" list of evidence for creationism?

My vote is for design and irreducible complexity.

But all we have so far is the *appearance* of design, and finding something that can be shown to be irreducibly complex has been... problematic.

 

[selfinflikted]

Davian. I totally just said "gullible" very slowly. And now I feel dumb after having laughed at myself uncontrollably and nearly wetting myself. Thank you for that. I just went up two points on the "Fun Scale" for today.

 

[NailsII]

My vote is for design and irreducible complexity.

But all we have so far is the *appearance* of design, and finding something that can be shown to be irreducibly complex has been... problematic.

For design to be a realistic 'theory' you have to have an explanation for the bad designs, or the mindless rampaging parasites that plague life.
And as irriducible complexity has fallen quite spectacularly at the first hurdle, is there any sensible reason to keep looking at it as if it was an answer to anything?

 

[Davian]

Davian. I totally just said "gullible" very slowly. And now I feel dumb after having laughed at myself uncontrollably and nearly wetting myself. Thank you for that. I just went up two points on the "Fun Scale" for today.

I have the "If you say 'gullible' slowly it sounds like 'oranges'" T-shirt graphic on my ipad, and showed it to my mother-in-law at the dinner table the other day. She sounded it out three times before saying that she didn't get it. lol.

Then again, back when I told her there were three kinds of people in this world - those that can count, and those that can't - she patiently waited for me to provide the third type...

 

[Elias526]

this is citation isn&#8217;t even addressing a rape case at all.

22:25 Talks about rape: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die." The women is expected to scream for help if she can. If there is no one there to help her, then it is considered to be rape.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

22:25 Talks about rape: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die." The women is expected to scream for help if she can. If there is no one there to help her, then it is considered to be rape.

What if the man told her he would kill her if she screamed? What then?

 

[bobsterInJapan]

That we don't know how it could, isn't the same as knowing that it couldn't. The former is a mystery to be solved, the latter is hard evidence against. The sheer abundance of evidence for a common ancestor doesn't suddenly vanish, after all - even if we can't, at present, explain how DNA evolved, we still have sufficient evidence to conclude a common ancestor.

But that's all moot, as it's incorrect to suppose that we don't know how DNA evolved. Very roughly speaking, simple chemicals became amino acids became monomers became polymers became RNA became DNA. Read this paper for an overview.

Indeed there is sufficient evidence from DNA to conclude that every living thing has a common ancestor that evolved in a hierarchical manner. My concern is that, is this the only possible conclusion? I wonder if the likes of Richard Dawkins, who is very intelligent, pretended to believe in God the creator for 12 months, would come up with a different solution/conclusion.

I will read that paper when I find the time. I understand the DNA/RNA to be a digital system. A 3rd Generation programming language (or higher) that converts (via a compiler or two) its code into machine code would be absolutely useless if we did not first understand Boolean algebra, which is essential to utilize ON/OFF gates (or whatever they're called) in, e.g., a CPU. Since DNA/RNA is a digital system, it would have to obey Boolean algebra (or an equivalent) principles, it cannot rely on a hit-and-miss principle in order to function, surely. Don't we observe DNA pushing all the right buttons?

 

[Elias526]

So, of the 63 pages (so far) in this thread, has anyone compiled a "best of" list of evidence for creationism?

The best evidence right now is: Stephen C. Meyer: Signature in the Cell: DNA the Evidence for Intelligent Design. This is of course an ongoing discussion and the book will soon be outdated. Then on the other side you will find the skeptics like Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins.

For me the skeptics look tired and drained. They do not seem to have an energy at work in them that believers have. Some call this energy Chi, others call this the power of God. Although Stephen Hawking is clearly an enigma because something is keeping him alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy0_Mn1s1xo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5a4iJuUuDk&feature=related