What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I know.
That's why it's not nothing.
I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear....
I think that we are agreeing. And so would Krauss. What people traditionally call "nothing" does not appear to exist. Krauss's a universe from nothing only deals with how people misunderstand how conservation of energy is applied.

And when did Krauss ever try to disprove God? I think I added that in an edit. I would still like that question answered.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How would one "prove God"? Earlier you mentioned ID, as far as evolution goes there is no evidence for an Intelligent Designer. At best one could claim to have found evidence for an Incompetent Designer. The various "proofs" given by IDists have all been refuted.

And where and when has Krauss ever tried to disprove God? I think that you are mistaken. Now one can disprove the God of the Bible if one is at all literal in their interpretation of that book. Which is why it is not a wise belief to have. But I have never seen anyone try to disprove God.

And of course the demand that others disprove God is not a proper argument. The burden of proof is upon those that claim a God exists.
I'm not making any demands...
I said we cannot prove God exists scientifically.

Intelligent Design is a new idea,,,how can it be disproven when it takes years to reach any conclusion?

Krauss makes fun of God. If you know him, you should be aware of this. I'm not taking the time to show this to you...anyone here that knows him knows what he believes.

Incompetent Design...
Think of math....
Think of our reasoning power.
HOW do YOU reason?
Is it your brain?
Your soul?
What IS a soul?

Too many questions not to believe in the metaphysical.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think that we are agreeing. And so would Krauss. What people traditionally call "nothing" does not appear to exist. Krauss's a universe from nothing only deals with how people misunderstand how conservation of energy is applied.

And when did Krauss ever try to disprove God? I think I added that in an edit. I would still like that question answered.
I don't believe I ever said that Krauss tries to disprove God...I know he's rather mocking of the idea of a God.
I don't know HOW God could be disproved...
UNLESS we can find concrete proof of how the universe started and how life started.
I think that would be the only way.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'm not making any demands...
I said we cannot prove God exists scientifically.

Intelligent Design is a new idea,,,how can it be disproven when it takes years to reach any conclusion?

Krauss makes fun of God. If you know him, you should be aware of this. I'm not taking the time to show this to you...anyone here that knows him knows what he believes.

Incompetent Design...
Think of math....
Think of our reasoning power.
HOW do YOU reason?
Is it your brain?
Your soul?
What IS a soul?

Too many questions not to believe in the metaphysical.
I said the claims of all IDists have been refuted. It is another idea with no evidence behind it.

And reasoning appears to be an emergent process. We see that other apes have fairly decent reasoning skills. Other simians less so, and varying amounts in other mammals. What you are proposing now is an argument from ignorance. To have scientific evidence one must be willing to put one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak. Before one can even have scientific evidence one needs a model and a way to test it. In other words one must construct a model that explains the observations and a test based upon the model's own merits must be found that could possible refute it. Without that one only has an ad hoc explanation. Behe claimed to have such a model. It was quickly refuted.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't believe I ever said that Krauss tries to disprove God...I know he's rather mocking of the idea of a God.
I don't know HOW God could be disproved...
UNLESS we can find concrete proof of how the universe started and how life started.
I think that would be the only way.
How quickly people forget:

"And you said you do not see ANYONE trying to disprove God...
Krauss is one...."

EDIT: Even knowing how the universe started would not refute God. It would only tell us if a God was needed or not for that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I said the claims of all IDists have been refuted. It is another idea with no evidence behind it.

And reasoning appears to be an emergent process. We see that other apes have fairly decent reasoning skills. Other simians less so, and varying amounts in other mammals. What you are proposing now is an argument from ignorance. To have scientific evidence one must be willing to put one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak. Before one can even have scientific evidence one needs a model and a way to test it. In other words one must construct a model that explains the observations and a test based upon the model's own merits must be found that could possible refute it. Without that one only has an ad hoc explanation. Behe claimed to have such a model. It was quickly refuted.
I agree.
There is no scientific evidence for ID.
I also believe there is no model.

As to apes reasoning...
Do they reason...or is it instinct?

Even apes that can sign language talk,
or point to images....are they just remembering or are they really thinking?

I don't know the answer to this.

I know that we all have a body, we all have a soul, but we do not all have a spirit.

And I do think, at times, about NDE...what's that all about? There's just too much that goes on that we do not understand.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Intelligent Design is a new idea,,,how can it be disproven when it takes years to reach any conclusion?

Not that new an idea. A lot of the modern versions of ID are extensions of Paley's watch argument.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How quickly people forget:

"And you said you do not see ANYONE trying to disprove God...
Krauss is one...."

EDIT: Even knowing how the universe started would not refute God. It would only tell us if a God was needed or not for that.
What I meant is that Krauss is not interested in disproving God....he's not interested in God at all, except to say that God doesn't exist and he rather makes fun of those that believe He does.

Interesting conversation,,,but it's 1 a.m. here.
'night.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not that new an idea. A lot of the modern versions of ID are extensions of Paley's watch argument.
Right !
I remember hearing the watch argument way back in the 60's. If there's a watch,,,there must be a watch maker.

Now I hear books are used as an analogy...
The book exists...someone had to write it...etc.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
This also has to do with cosmology.
Just a little closer to the sun and we'd burn...
Just a little further away and we'd freeze.

In that case, why did God put Venus and Mercury closer to the Sun (where they are too hot for life) and Mars farther away from the Sun (where it is too cold for life)? Why did God create so many hot Jupiters and so few planetary systems similar to the Sun's?

Also, your statement is not entirely accurate. Mercury is much closer to the Sun than the Earth is, but it has ice in craters near to its poles.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,495
✟236,482.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Right !
I remember hearing the watch argument way back in the 60's. If there's a watch,,,there must be a watch maker.
Paley introduced the analogy of the watch in his 1802 book Natural Theology or the Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Darwin was a great admire of Paley, taking a copy of the book with him on the voyage of the Beagle. If I recall correctly he used some of the structure of that work in planning the layout of On the Origin of Species.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
So, biblical creationists have to satisfy deluded evolutionists while not using God or the scriptures. Got it.

No. In Pitabread's words, you have to provide a detailed explanation of the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and show that this explanation is as good as or better than evolution in fields of applied biology, while using only God or the scriptures as the source of your explanation.
 
Upvote 0

Jay Sea

................ Ke ĉiuj vivu
Mar 28, 2020
340
161
81
victoria
✟26,347.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We live in a turbulent world that needs our attention and care. This debate about science and creationism is a false trail. It does not bring anyone into fellowship. It's like standing in the kitchen arguing about how the gas got lit while the kettle boils dry.

in love
Jay
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I agree.
There is no scientific evidence for ID.
I also believe there is no model.

Not now there isn't. There was, it was refuted.

So why would you give credence to an idea that has no supporting evidence?

As to apes reasoning...
Do they reason...or is it instinct?

They reason. And you should have said "other apes".

Even apes that can sign language talk,
or point to images....are they just remembering or are they really thinking?

I don't know the answer to this.

I know that we all have a body, we all have a soul, but we do not all have a spirit.

And I do think, at times, about NDE...what's that all about? There's just too much that goes on that we do not understand.

Probably none of us have "spirit". Another concept that no one can define properly or find evidence for. But of course other apes reason. They may not reason as well as we do but one cannot call it anything else.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
I agree with you on that. Science is useful and awesome. But it doesn't explain creation and its current theories on the subject are full of glaring holes. But engaging in that argument is really fruitless in my opinion. It's basically a religious argument. You have to have as much or more faith to believe the theory of evolution as you do to accept that God created the universe.

You are missing the point of the discussion. Saying that scientific theories about the origin of the universe and the stars, and the evolution of living things, are full of glaring holes is not evidence that creationism is true. What you and other creationists need to do is show that creationism explains the observed facts of astronomy, geology and biology better than scientific theories, and that it is as good as or better than scientific theories in its practical applications.

Just saying 'God did it' is not an explanation; you have to explain, in detail, how God made all the observed facts that scientists present as evidence for evolution.

By the way, what is a 'glaring hole'?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
And if aliens made us...where did THEY come from?
There just doesn't seem to be an answer other than something must have made us...if it's God, so be it.
I do believe that God, or some spirit, made us, and space, and time, all at the same moment.

If God made us, where did HE come from?
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
You are missing the point of the discussion. Saying that scientific theories about the origin of the universe and the stars, and the evolution of living things, are full of glaring holes is not evidence that creationism is true.

The universe was created. We know that and the evolutionary theorists agree with that. If it wasn't then we're going to have to start arguing about whether it exists or not.



By the way, what is a 'glaring hole'?

Obvious.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The universe was created. We know that and the evolutionary theorists agree with that. If it wasn't then we're going to have to start arguing about whether it exists or not.





Obvious.
No, "created" is a loaded term. More properly the universe as we know it had a beginning.

And saying "obvious" is not a very effective answer. I am beginning to think that you do not have any holes at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
UNLESS we can find concrete proof of how the universe started and how life started.
If we could find concrete proof that you were conceived by your parents, would that prove that God didn't make you? By the same argument, would concrete scientific evidence of the origin of the universe and of life prove that the universe wasn't created by God?

All that this concrete evidence would achieve would be to show that the creation stories in Genesis are not literally true, and most Christians, and probably most Jews, accept that already.
 
Upvote 0