There is no Creation Debate

[Hieronymus]

I am unaware of this scripture and these prophets.

No you're not.

Could you please elaborate because I have never heard of such things.

Darwin and his book, Dawkins and his book, etcetera...

I'm sure you are aware of them..

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No you're not.

Since when do you get to decide what people think?

Darwin and his book, Dawkins and his book, etcetera...
I'm sure you are aware of them..

I've never read "The Origin of Species" Which Dawkins book? There are several of them. Most of them are about science. I've only read two of them. I found them entertaining and educational but I certainly don't worship them or get together with groups of people on a specific day of the week to analyze them.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

There is even more scientific evidence to show it is impossible or at least very very very unlikely.

They very conveniently forget this aspect don't they? Also, take a look at this website to see how well (not) they know their subject http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html Why they actually think that countries like Australia existed before the flood (and therefore, presumably the mountains we see today) so that immediately shows how ignorant some of these so-called Bible-debunking websites really are. I venture to suggest that they haven't even read the book they are trying to ridicule with their false claims or else they wouldn't write such obvious nonsense.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The simple fact that ice floats tells us that there was no global flood.

How so, there almost certainly wasn't any ice around before the global flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so, there almost certainly wasn't any ice around before the global flood?

We have ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years. If there had been a flood the original ice would have floated away and we would not have these ice cores.

 

[Larniavc]

There is no creation debate. What we have is science showing how limited it is in trying to talk of creation. The debate is all about the misconceptions, limitations, and changing fables of science.

Another world beating thread in the offing.

 

[Larniavc]

Then you need to be explained why it is that creation can not be debunked.

That is because it is unfalsifiable and therefor has no explanatory power.

 

[Hieronymus]

They very conveniently forget this aspect don't they?

They just don know, nobody tells them, it has no platform like naturalism.
It's even prohibited (or just 'not done' ) to teach it in schools.
So what do you expect?
People who openly doubt naturalism or the E.T. are ridiculed, in public.
...and not always without reasons either...

Also, take a look at this website to see how well (not) they know their subject http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

No thanks, i'm fed up with people's blatant stupidity quite enough as it is...

Why they actually think that countries like Australia existed before the flood (and therefore, presumably the mountains we see today) so that immediately shows how ignorant some of these so-called Bible-debunking websites really are. I venture to suggest that they haven't even read the book they are trying to ridicule with their false claims or else they wouldn't write such obvious nonsense.

It's confounding...

 

[Hieronymus]

That is because it is unfalsifiable and therefor has no explanatory power.

Your "therefore" makes no sense buddy.
It's still the obvious explanation for our reality.
The alternative is believing dead unconscious things outperforming humanity by lightyears.

Maybe you have heard of "Occam's razor" ?

 

[Larniavc]

Then why don't you educate yourself before you come here boasting and scoffing?
(not just you).

Could you provide such evidence?

 

[Larniavc]

The alternative is believing dead unconscious things outperforming humanity by lightyears.

If it is unfalsifiable it useless as a theory. Occam's razor would not support the addition of an additional entity into a theory of where the universe came from.

What do you mean 'unconscious dead things outperforming humanity'? What unconscious dead things do you mean?

 

[Hieronymus]

Could you provide such evidence?

Would it make a difference?
I doubt it...

It just strikes me every time how most atheists have no clue about the other side of the story, but decide to ridicule it anyway, even on a Christian forum.

I'm not even sure why i comment on their posts...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your "therefore" makes no sense buddy.
It's still the obvious explanation for our reality.
The alternative is believing dead unconscious things outperforming humanity by lightyears.

What are you going on about? Like most creationists it appears that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

Maybe you have heard of "Occam's razor" ?

Yes, another concept the sinks creationism.

 

[Larniavc]

Would it make a difference?
I doubt it...

It just strikes me every time how most atheists have no clue about the other side of the story, but decide to ridicule it anyway, even on a Christian forum.

I'm not even sure why i comment on their posts...

I don't beleive I in particular have ridiculed anything. If you could provide the evidence of which you speak I would be very greatful.

 

[Hieronymus]

If it is unfalsifiable it useless as a theory. Occam's razor would not support the addition of an additional entity into a theory of where the universe came from.

Wrong.
I.D. is obvious.
Yes, it implies an I.B. (intelligent being), but it doesn't elaborate on that, just that there must be an I.B.
Without an I.B. you have to make naturalism plausible, which is much more difficult and complex, and it still doesn't explain reality...
Also, an I.B. answers many more questions life throws at us.
Obvious is obvious, far fetched is far fetched.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I.D. is obvious.

Deemed as unscientific in a court of law....more than once. How is it obvious?

Without an I.B. you have to make naturalism plausible, which is much more difficult and complex, and it still doesn't explain reality...

Your logical fallacy is argument from personal incredulity. Everything that science has ever discovered throughout human history has pointed to natural causes and not an intelligent being.

Also, an I.B. answers many more questions life throws at us.

Intelligent design cannot make predictions nor does it explain anything.

 

[PerpetuallyCurious]

Here is a youtuber (Dr. Kent Hovind) who strongly believes in creationism.

A debate between him and a sceptic (Dr. Mike Shermer)

Main Reasons supporting creationism (according to the video):

• Something from nothing? Highly unlikely
• Millions of missing links - where did they go? (Lucy fails the test)
• Petrified trees through layers of Earth
• Carbon Dating can be inaccurate at the best of time
• Macro Evolution - never been observed (though I understand that it would take a long time)
• Everything has a function

Dr. Hovind's channel where he goes into more detail - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxiEtqPja47nnqsJNrdOIQQ

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a youtuber (Dr. Kent Hovind) who strongly believes in creationism.

A debate between him and a sceptic (Dr. Mike Shermer)

Main Reasons supporting creationism (according to the video):

• Something from nothing? Highly unlikely
• Millions of missing links - where did they go? (Lucy fails the test)
• Petrified trees through layers of Earth
• Carbon Dating can be inaccurate at the best of time
• Macro Evolution - never been observed (though I understand that it would take a long time)
• Everything has a function

Dr. Hovind's channel where he goes into more detail - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxiEtqPja47nnqsJNrdOIQQ

So you want people to take a debate between a convicted liar and an honest man seriously?

But let's look at your claims:

Something from nothing?

Observed quite often in the world of physics.

Millions of missing links?

Sorry, the fossil record is so complete that almost all fossils are considered to be transitional today. And how does Lucy fail the test?

Petrified trees do through multiple layers. Even the vertical ones tend to be in one layer. Hovind does not know what a stratum is.

Carbon dating is accurate if used properly. If you have an idiot that uses a screwdriver as a hammer you don't blame the screwdriver.

Macro evolution is observed in several different ways. Hovind keeps himself blind.

And lastly Hovind only showed that he does not not what a vestigial organ is.

You need to do a lot better than to post a link to a nut spewing a series of PRATT's if you want to refute the theory of evolution.

 

[dad]

.......changing fables of scienctism would I think be more correct. Science properly understood and used is a very strong tool for understanding the universe.

Not at all. No matter how one uses blindness it won't help one see. Science has a godless skewed dream fantasy version of what the universe is all about and where it is going and came from. Total demon dreams. One cannot properly understand stars or the far universe or past and future or spiritual with science of any variety. They grop blindly.

 

[dad]

Do you even know what atheism is?

Who really cares!? Unbelief is ugly in any dress.