Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[ThinkForYourself]

Obviously you are basing that totally on opinion. Creationism has many interpretations as well. You being a believer I find that a little weird, you don't believe that God created the universe?
​

Actually, evolution is essentially a fact. It is based on an overwhelming collection of evidence collected over centuries. The discoveries of every science confirm it's veracity.

Creationism on the other hand has zero evidence. The only "evidence" I have ever seen presented is finding things science can't explain, and thus claiming god must have done it. That makes no sense, you might as well thus claim that Santa Claus did it.

 

[FatBurk]

You being a believer I find that a little weird, you don't believe that God created the universe?

I believe in God and I also know that evolution is a fact, put the two together and I believe that God must have used evolution, as for the universe I am torn between reality and my belief in God.
I was subjected to a small amount of fear when I was young but no where near as much as creationists must have been.

With Christianity on a scale of 1 to 10 with creationists being 10, I am about a 4, if I was told that to be a Christian I must believe like a creationist I would rather be an Atheist, in my book creationism is denial taken to extremes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, evolution is essentially a fact. It is based on an overwhelming collection of evidence collected over centuries. The discoveries of every science confirm it's veracity.

Creationism on the other hand has zero evidence. The only "evidence" I have ever seen presented is finding things science can't explain, and thus claiming god must have done it. That makes no sense, you might as well thus claim that Santa Claus did it.

Evolution is not an either or proposition. Evolution is not something that is opposing creation. Evolution's evidence is not evidence against creation. Creation has evidence that supports it. Creation is a very consistent and logical position compared to naturalism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I believe in God and I also know that evolution is a fact, put the two together and I believe that God must have used evolution, as for the universe I am torn between reality and my belief in God.
I was subjected to a small amount of fear when I was young but no where near as much as creationists must have been.

With Christianity on a scale of 1 to 10 with creationists being 10, I am about a 4, if I was told that to be a Christian I must believe like a creationist I would rather be an Atheist, in my book creationism is denial taken to extremes.

Well then my fellow believer you have a journey ahead of you. Evolution is not opposing creation. Reality, the universe points to God. The evidence is there for His creation of the universe. It is scientific and it is reasonable. I hope that your mind will be changed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, evolution is essentially a fact. It is based on an overwhelming collection of evidence collected over centuries. The discoveries of every science confirm it's veracity.

Creationism on the other hand has zero evidence. The only "evidence" I have ever seen presented is finding things science can't explain, and thus claiming god must have done it. That makes no sense, you might as well thus claim that Santa Claus did it.

Evolution is not opposing Creation. Much of the evidence we have today fits more cohesively and rationally in the creation model.

 

[Nithavela]

No.

 

[Oncedeceived]

 

[FatBurk]

Evolution is not an either or proposition. Evolution is not something that is opposing creation.

How can evolution oppose an idea?

Evolution's evidence is not evidence against creation.

Evolution's evidence opposes nothing, it's just there.

Creation has evidence that supports it.

You will need to produce this evidence if you wish to be taken seriously.

Creation is a very consistent and logical position compared to naturalism.

No it's not, it requires a supernatural being, tell us what the supernatural is and we might get somewhere.
What is the 'Supernatural' and how do you know it exists?
We will leave 'What is a God' for another time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How can evolution oppose an idea?

You said that evolution has evidence and Creation has none so you are the one opposing them. On one hand you claim one has evidence and the other doesn't. That is opposing positions in your claim.

Evolution's evidence opposes nothing, it's just there.

Yes, and evolution is not to be a belief system but it turns out to be the case more than not.

You will need to produce this evidence if you wish to be taken seriously.

Sure.

No it's not, it requires a supernatural being, tell us what the supernatural is and we might get somewhere.
What is the 'Supernatural' and how do you know it exists?
We will leave 'What is a God' for another time.

If you are claiming to be a believer you would know what supernatural is. So I must assume that you are really not a believer. So why the deceit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said that evolution has evidence and Creation has none so you are the one opposing them. On one hand you claim one has evidence and the other doesn't. That is opposing positions in your claim.

You are conflating evolution, which is a fact and the theory of evolution. Here is an easy fix for you, switch "gravity" for "evolution" in the previous sentence. You can see how the theory of gravity might oppose some ideas where gravity itself does not.

Yes, and evolution is not to be a belief system but it turns out to be the case more than not.

Again, this can be cleared up by substituting the word "gravity". Is gravity a belief system? I don't think so.

If you are claiming to be a believer you would know what supernatural is. So I must assume that you are really not a believer. So why the deceit?

Now how would you know that? There are thousands of different cults of Christianity. They have many different beliefs. This sounds like a variation of the "No true Scotsman Fallacy".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oncedeceived, the fact that there is not scientific evidence that supports creationism is the fault of creationists, not evolutionists.

It looks like you are another creationist that needs to learn what is and is not scientific evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are conflating evolution, which is a fact and the theory of evolution. Here is an easy fix for you, switch "gravity" for "evolution" in the previous sentence. You can see how the theory of gravity might oppose some ideas where gravity itself does not.

No I am saying that his claim was that evolution opposes Creation.

Again, this can be cleared up by substituting the word "gravity". Is gravity a belief system? I don't think so.

I don't think so. His ( I think it is he I didn't look) claim was that evolution not gravity or anything else opposed Creation.

Now how would you know that? There are thousands of different cults of Christianity. They have many different beliefs. This sounds like a variation of the "No true Scotsman Fallacy".

We will see.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived, the fact that there is not scientific evidence that supports creationism is the fault of creationists, not evolutionists.

It looks like you are another creationist that needs to learn what is and is not scientific evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that supports Creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is plenty of evidence that supports Creation.

Very very weak evidence. And there is, by definition, no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then my fellow believer you have a journey ahead of you. Evolution is not opposing creation. Reality, the universe points to God. The evidence is there for His creation of the universe. It is scientific and it is reasonable. I hope that your mind will be changed.

I think this is where you started to go off the rails.

You keep making unsupported claims, even when challenged to find some support.

How does the "universe point to God"? That is a extraordinary claim and as you should know requires extraordinary evidence.

And as discussed earlier your evidence cannot be scientific evidence. That is a special class of evidence with a special definition.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Very very weak evidence. And there is, by definition, no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

That is simply false.

1. Universe has a beginning.
2. Universe is expanding.
3. Laws governing the universe
4. Constants being precisely tuned to life.
5. Origins of life is more cohesive and rational in the Creation Model.
6. Intelligence is more cohesive and has more explanatory power than evolution.
7. Information in the system is more in line with intelligent design than mindless evolutionary processes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think this is where you started to go off the rails.

You keep making unsupported claims, even when challenged to find some support.

How does the "universe point to God"? That is a extraordinary claim and as you should know requires extraordinary evidence.

And as discussed earlier your evidence cannot be scientific evidence. That is a special class of evidence with a special definition.

The fact that the universal constants are so precise that life could not have arisen is evidence to support design. Those constants and their precise measurements are scientific and testable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is simply false.

1. Universe has a beginning.
2. Universe is expanding.
3. Laws governing the universe
4. Constants being precisely tuned to life.
5. Origins of life is more cohesive and rational in the Creation Model.
6. Intelligence is more cohesive and has more explanatory power than evolution.
7. Information in the system is more in line with intelligent design than mindless evolutionary processes.

No, it is clearly true. Your silly post has nothing to do with whether or not creatioinism has any scientific evidence that supports it. You do not know what scientific evidence is.

But let's look at your claim:

1. Maybe. To be honest the Big Bang is as far back as we can go theoretically right now. That does not mean that was when the universe started. Second, even if it is that is not evidence for god even, and it definitely is not evidence for creationism.

2. Yes. So what?

3. It would be better to say that the universe reacts in predictable ways.

4. Nope. Not even close.

5. Nope. Not even close.

6. Definitely not.

7. Another foolish unsupported claim

Is that all you have is a bunch of fail to oppose me? That was so poor it can be denied with the wave of a hand. Claims made without any evidence can be denied without any evidence.

Meanwhile I am ready to support my claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that the universal constants are so precise that life could not have arisen is evidence to support design. Those constants and their precise measurements are scientific and testable.

Simply not true. Without any evidence, and you need to do better than to use lying creationist sites, I can simply deny this foolish claim.

It is easy to show that the universe is very hostile to life. It can only exist in a very very few select locations at the most. That does not sound very finiely tuned to me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it is clearly true. Your silly post has nothing to do with whether or not creatioinism has any scientific evidence that supports it. You do not know what scientific evidence is.

But let's look at your claim:

1. Maybe. To be honest the Big Bang is as far back as we can go theoretically right now. That does not mean that was when the universe started. Second, even if it is that is not evidence for god even, and it definitely is not evidence for creationism.

New evidence supports the big bang and that the universe did have a beginning and has an age associated with that.

2. Yes. So what?

supports my position

3. It would be better to say that the universe reacts in predictable ways.

The laws of physics are constant and that is what makes science work.

4. Nope. Not even close.

5. Nope. Not even close.

Sorry you are wrong.
The Hoyle state plays a crucial role in the helium burning of stars that have reached the red giant stage. The close proximity of this state to the triple-alpha threshold is needed for the production of carbon, oxygen, and other elements necessary for life. We investigate whether this life-essential condition is robust or delicately fine-tuned by measuring its dependence on the fundamental constants of nature, specifically the light quark mass and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. We show that there exist strong correlations between the alpha-particle binding energy and the various energies relevant to the triple-alpha process. We derive limits on the variation of these fundamental parameters from the requirement that sufficient amounts of carbon and oxygen be generated in stars. We also discuss the implications of our results for an anthropic view of the Universe.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 112502 (2013): Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass

I have others, many others.

6. Definitely not.

So tell me how intelligence arose from mindless process. In nature we only see intelligence arising from intelligence.

7. Another foolish unsupported claim

DNA?

Is that all you have is a bunch of fail to oppose me? That was so poor it can be denied with the wave of a hand. Claims made without any evidence can be denied without any evidence.

Meanwhile I am ready to support my claims.

So there you go. Support to my claims.