The best evidence for Creationism

[selfinflikted]

I am, for sure, a creationist. The best evidence for Creationism is God Himself. I know that won't seem like evidence to you but that is because NO ONE can know God except they first are born of the Spirit. You must be able to enter into the realm of God before you can know God or the things of God. I know God and therefore, I know the things of God. The natural man cannot discern the things of the spirit for they are spiritually discerned. Other than that, I will give you the evidence of MILLIONS+ changed lives when they encounter God.

If you know god, tell me something of his character that could only be known by having a personal relationship with him. In other words, don't regurgitate the Bible. Tell us something we don't know.

 

[CabVet]

Let's observe what you just said. You think those things happened in spite of Creationism but that is because you don't believe in creation. You believe we all came from the same ancestor. (I do too but I call Him God Almighty, the ONE true God) If your theory is true than we should see some intellectual evidence from all these creatures that you think are the same species. Have we ever found evidence of computers in the jungles where these creatures abide? How about an education system? Or hospitals where they do surgery? No, we will not see that because as the Bible teaches man was made in the image of God which is far above these creatures. There is not another animal in the earth that even comes near to man. Yes, here and there they have some similarities but man was put here to have dominion over the earth and he was made in God's likeness and image to be able to do so. Now that is not superstition but reality!

I have seen misunderstandings of evolution before, but this beats a lot of them. How about you try to understand evolution before you criticize it? Nothing in your post has anything to do with evolution. Evolution does not propose that every living organism is part of the same species, neither it says that every species should be intelligent.

Let me try to put it in a way that might make you understand. How would you react if you were discussing something in the Bible and I came into the discussion and said that Jesus was contemporaneous with Mohammed and that they have the exact same teachings? This is how wrong your arguments against evolution are.

 

[Inan3]

I have seen misunderstandings of evolution before, but this beats a lot of them. How about you try to understand evolution before you criticize it? Nothing in your post has anything to do with evolution. Evolution does not propose that every living organism is part of the same species, neither it says that every species should be intelligent.

Let me try to put it in a way that might make you understand. How would you react if you were discussing something in the Bible and I came into the discussion and said that Jesus was contemporaneous with Mohammed and that they have the exact same teachings? This is how wrong your arguments against evolution are.

This is just critical and insulting. I choose not to get into an argument with you. You cannot possibly know what I understand about evolution from that one post and because of your attitude this is all you will get from me.

 

[CabVet]

This is just critical and insulting. I choose not to get into an argument with you. You cannot possibly know what I understand about evolution from that one post and because of your attitude this is all you will get from me.

What? I cannot know what you understand about evolution?? I am sorry if you took insult from that, but what you said clearly demonstrates you completely misunderstand evolution. For clarity I will quote what you said again:

If your theory is true than we should see some intellectual evidence from all these creatures that you think are the same species. Have we ever found evidence of computers in the jungles where these creatures abide? How about an education system? Or hospitals where they do surgery?

Evolution does not go anywhere near predicting that all species are the same or that every species should be intelligent, regardless of who their ancestor is.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What do you want creationists to do ... give you everything?

The computer isn't good enough?

Antiseptic Surgery isn't good enough?

Bacteriology isn't good enough?

Calculus, celestial mechanics, chemistry, comparative anatomy, dimensional analysis, dynamics, electrodynamics, electromagnetics, electronics, energetics, entomology of living insects, field theory, fluid mechanics, galactic astronomy, gas dynamics, genetics, glacial geology, gynecology, hydraulics, hydrography, hydrostatics, ichthyology, isotopic chemistry, model analysis, natural history, non-Euclidean geometry, oceanography, optical mineralogy, paleontology, pathology, physical astronomy, reversible thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamic, stratigraphy, systematic biology, thermodynamics, thermokinetics, and vertebrate paleontology ... aren't good enough?

Can't you guys do something on your own for a change?

God gave you all the hardware and brainware you currently have.

How about using it to do something constructive, instead of whining about 'education levels and creationism today'?

So, creationism orchestrated its own demise. That's one way of looking at it I suppose, I grant you that, AV1611VET.

 

[Elias526]

Or hospitals where they do surgery?

The first book of surgery comes out of Egypt around 5,000 years ago. Rather simple by todays standards but this was a beginning. This was written before Moses gave us the Bible around 3500 years ago.

 

[Elias526]

Can't you guys do something on your own for a change?

God gave you all the hardware and brainware you currently have.

How about using it to do something constructive, instead of whining about 'education levels and creationism today'?

They do not realize that we can do nothing apart from God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is just critical and insulting. I choose not to get into an argument with you. You cannot possibly know what I understand about evolution from that one post and because of your attitude this is all you will get from me.

What you stated was factually incorrect, so much so that anyone who did understand evolution would know that evolution doesn't predict it. So yes, we can indeed know how much you understand evolution - we just need to look at how phenomenally incorrect your assertions are.

I could claim that Christianity is about giving people presents in December - but anyone who actually knows what Christianity is about, knows that's not true. Would that claim not bely a misunderstanding of Christianity?

 

[Elias526]

There is a religious cortex?

Religion will cause areas of your brain to light up like a christmas tree. Without religion those area of the brain remain dormant and unused. So people that have no religion tend to have a brain that is not as well developed. God in your brain: Scans show more activity when religious people meditate | Mail Online

 

[Loudmouth]

Religion will cause areas of your brain to light up like a christmas tree. Without religion those area of the brain remain dormant and unused.

Do those same areas light up regardless of which god you believe in? If those same areas lit up in a Hindu who believed in the Hindu pantheon, would this convince you that the Hindu pantheon is real?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Religion will cause areas of your brain to light up like a christmas tree. Without religion those area of the brain remain dormant and unused. So people that have no religion tend to have a brain that is not as well developed.

Ooooh, no. All of a person's brain is used (don't listen to that 10% myth). That a religious experiences lights up a part of your brain, doesn't mean it's not lit up by other experiences - what the theist associates with God, the atheist may well associate with a simple sense of awe.

 

[Davian]

Religion will cause areas of your brain to light up like a christmas tree. Without religion those area of the brain remain dormant and unused. So people that have no religion tend to have a brain that is not as well developed. God in your brain: Scans show more activity when religious people meditate | Mail Online

Which gods where these Tibetan Buddhists thinking about when these brain scans were done?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Which gods where these Tibetan Buddhists thinking about when these brain scans were done?

Christ, clearly

 

[Davian]

Which gods where these Tibetan Buddhists thinking about when these brain scans were done?

Christ, clearly

Now that you've made the suggestion, pareidolia has done its thing, and I can clearly see an outline of Jesus in the right side image.

And in the left, funny enough.

 

[Belk]

Religion will cause areas of your brain to light up like a christmas tree. Without religion those area of the brain remain dormant and unused. So people that have no religion tend to have a brain that is not as well developed. God in your brain: Scans show more activity when religious people meditate | Mail Online

Only if you think activity equates to development.

 

[Elias526]

Do those same areas light up regardless of which god you believe in?

Yes.

 

[Elias526]

Only if you think activity equates to development.

That is the conclusion of the people that did the study.

 

[Elias526]

doesn't mean it's not lit up by other experiences

Talk is cheap, produce your study and lets see your results.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Talk is cheap, produce your study and lets see your results.

First, let's see yours. Specifically, for the claims that:

1. "Without religion those area of the brain remain dormant and unused"
2. "People that have no religion tend to have a brain that is not as well developed"

These claims are not borne out by the study you cite. Newberg's study found increased bloodflow to certain regions of the brain when Buddhists meditate. That's it. The study does not say that the non-religions have dormant, unused, or less developed areas of the brain.

So, where's your evidence for making those claims?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

You did not address a single question I asked. Instead you spam C&P from a non science source with a complete misrepresentation of the geologic column. Providing a link will suffice in the future. However, I expect that link to be from legitimate scientific sources from experts in the field being discussed. Henry Morris was no expert in the field of geology, he was a Civil Engineer.

There is no place on earth where the entire geologic column is in tact. Geology makes no such claims. However, much of the geologic column does exist in its various parts all around the world. The earth is not a static body, it is a dynamic system. The earth's dynamic forces of plate tectonics, orogenic uplift, sedimentary deposition and erosion are always in action.

Again, please answer the question:

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

EVOLUTION: The Evidence Says No


The Geologic Column Does not Prove Evolution Because absolute dating methods vary so much, evolutionists often use index fossils and the geologic column to obtain their dates. The geologic column is the layering of the earth's surface -- an example of which can be seen by viewing the sides of the Grand Canyon. Usually the smaller and simpler fossils are found at the lower levels of the earth's surface. The evolutionists say that thousands of years elapsed between each layer and use it as a proof of evolution; they say the simpler life forms at the lower levels evolved into the more complex life forms (at the higher levels). But the problem is that some scientists say "thousands of years separate each layer in the geologic column, therefore it proves evolution," while other scientists say "evolution is true, therefore it proves that thousands of years must separate each layer in the geologic column" (Morris 1977: 37). This is circular reasoning, and does not prove anyt ing. Henry Morris suggests that a world-wide flood (recorded in Genesis) could do as well to explain why the smaller simpler life forms are found at the lower levels of the earth's crust. It was because they were less mobile, and may not have been able to move to higher elevations when the world was flooded (Morris 1977: 36-38). A flood would also explain why geologists find so many indications of sea life (including marine fossils) in dry land areas and on mountain tops.


There are no transitional fossils, so explaining it with "macro-evolution" is out of the question. a flood explains it.

if there are no transitional fossils, then there is no "macro-evolution".

there are no transitional fossils, thus "macro-evolution" did not happen. if you object, provide the evidence for transitional fossils

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.

I know, I mentioned that and proved that what wiccan_child did was slander God's Holiness, The Holy Word of God, in post#610

I proved wiccan_child's slanderous false accusations wrong,

Deut. 22:23-24 is adultery.

Deut. 22:25-27 is rape, where only the rapist is punished, justice is served and rape is condemned.

and Deut. 22:28-29 I'm confident is pre-martial sex, even if not, rape is still condemned.

God never condones rape, God condemns rape. God is Holy and Righteous and the slanderer knows it, wiccan_child's slander was pathetic. he took God's Word, The Bible out of context on purpose.

deep down inside "atheist" know God exist, they have the evidence and the answers, and the evidence and the answer is, Jesus Christ is The Lord, God exist.

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.

Of course I copy and pasted. why does that stop you from replying to the argument?

it doesn't matter if it's my words, or someone elses, as long as I provide the evidence is all that matters, doesn't matter who it's from. if it's no problem then don't make excuses.

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

Yes The Bible is evidence, if you object please provide evidence, not opinion. just because you don't think it is evidence, doesn't mean that it isn't. your opinion is not evidence.

The Bible is evidence that is backed up.

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

Who were the authors of the books of the Bible?

That is more than enough witnesses/evidence in a court of law for an event to be true. these men all witnessed God, they gave their accounts with no error and no contradiction.

The Bible alone makes "atheism" nonexistent.

Exactly. That why your presuppositions are dismissed.

I have been providing evidence that proves God exist. you're the one who is closing your eyes and covering your ears, you're the one with the presuppositions and you have not and cannot provide any evidence for "atheism".

Too bad.

So basically you admitt I'm right, "too bad" because Judaical activism occurred? you're basically admitting that it happened.

And enough to dismiss your argument.

Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design | Reasonable Faith

from WhyIBelieve.org on the weak principle:

Essentially, this argument says "it's all a coincidence. Because in fact we are here, that proves that the improbable did happen." This is an appeal to infinite chances, which is an absurd notion. Infinity is a meta-physical notion, not observed anywhere in nature. William Lane Craig has created an analogy that describes the issue well. Suppose a prisoner was to be executed by a firing squad consisting of 100 sharpshooters at 10 paces. If the prisoner survives the firing squad, he would certainly be surprised. He could safely assume that there was intent behind his survival, since the odds of all 100 sharpshooters missing are absurd. Hence, when we consider the odds of our cosmos sustaining our life, we can safely assume intent behind our existence.

It wasn't chance, the universe is Fine Tuned.

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

Yes I have, there is a commander who has authority over all humans and authorizes morality, thus making morals our duty.

I ask you, who is above humanity and has authority over all humanity that can obligate morality?

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

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

Scientists Concluding Universe had a Beginning? God Smiles! | Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

Not an opinion, but a fact. "atheist" know the universe had a beginning and that proves God exist. so they came up with the "infinite universe" lie, but that turns out to be a lie, incoherent and has no evidence.

since most scientist agree that the universe has a beginning, there is a first uncaused cause, and that is God.

infinite regression is impossible. the universe isn't infinite, and the universe had a beginning and hasn't always existed thus a first uncaused cause exist, thus the first uncaused cause can only be God. if you object provide evidence.

The first uncaused cause argument alone proves that God exist. add that up with the Fine Tuning, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, The Bible, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Morality, Ontological and without question, God exist.

The universe had a beginning, there is a first uncaused cause, thus God exist.

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

† Proof Jesus Christ is A.L.I.V.E. †

there is the evidence. now if you object, then provide evidence.

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

I just proved how God is the only logical commander of morality, and you say it explains nothing.

so I'll repeat, morality is universal law, thus it needs a universal law giver.

since morals are our duty and we are obligated to follow it, then they have an obligator who commands these duties to all humans. since there is a commander who obligates, the commander must have the authority to obligate things to humanity and must be above all humanity.

who is the commander who obligates morals, makes them our duty, is above all humanity, has authority over all of humanity?

The only logical explanation is, God.

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

So first you say you don't see any design, then you say that there is an appearance of design. that's contradicting.

of course it appears to be intelligently designed, because it is intelligently designed, thus there is an intelligent designer.

so instead of ignoring, what proof or an example is there of an intelligent irreducible complex design that required no designer, came randomly, accidentally, and from nothing?

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

Nope, actually The Bible can be backed up by extra Biblical sources, The Bible is evidence. the only presupposition is you closing your eyes, covering your ears, and denying the evidence when the proven evidence is provided.

Yet it does. How do you explain that?

then where is the evidence for "atheism"?

there is no evidence for "atheism", "atheism" doesn't exist.

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

I am. Do you think insulting others wins arguments?

I haven't insulted anyone. I used evidence and evidence only to prove God exist. I let the evidence that proves God exist speak for itself.

I see you using this pathetic excuse to take leverage off the fact that you are losing this debate, and have not provided any evidence for any of your arguments, and have not provided any evidence whatsoever for "atheism" because there is no evidence for "atheism". "atheism" doesn't exist.

Then why put it in a post to me?

Because you said I was breaking forum rules when I wasn't, so I made reference that the people who truly break forums rules on here, are some of the "atheist" on this site who have slandered and insulted God.