Are there any arguments for creation...

[Dorothy Mae]

Where did you get that idea from?

DNA is called and is in function CODE. Are you aware of this? It is the information the cell uses to build. I have talked with atheists who actually refuse to use the word “code” because they couldn’t then defend their position. Are you one of those?

And yes, that one fails miserably since those using it usually cannot even define the terms that they use.

Do I have to type out what DNA stands for to prove I know what those letters mean? I could draw it for you, I know it so well.

How are you measuring not being able to define it? Looks to me more like you dismiss the problem by attacking the persons intellectual understanding instead. This is, of course, a useful but empty response.You could universally apply it. Whatever your opponent says in any subject (especially the one for which you have no answer), you just say their argument fails cause they can’t define the words they are using. You don’t ask for definitions, but accuse them of not using a dictionary, essentially. Can be used anytime.

First off, it is an error to call DNA a code in the same way that the Morse Code is a code. That is an equivocation fallacy.

Ah so you’re one of those who plays with semantics. On one level you’re right. Morse Code is way too simple to be really called a code in comparison with the DNA code. That’s a dimensional code where it’s very shape communicates information. We even know what bits provide the information for what target area.

Seriously do you think that you have something that is not a PRATT?

Ok, I see this discussion won’t be fruitful. Are you sure that you want to explore new thoughts on the subject? I understand why ifnot. It’s a dangerous road, this questioning the basis for your atheism. It has led many an atheist to abandon that faith. They thought it was the beginning of seeing, however. Wishing you well...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Theory has broader definitions. Since we have established that according to science we cannot prove God I am not using the term "theory" in a scientific sense.

Keep in mind that according to science you cannot prove honor or courage or kindness or even pleasure in some foods that others dislike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Theory has broader definitions. Since we have established that according to science we cannot prove God I am not using the term "theory" in a scientific sense.

In a scientific discussion one uses the scientific definition. Just as in a legal discussion one uses the legal definition of terms. If one does not do that one can easily be guilty of an equivocation fallacy.

 

[DamianWarS]

Who do you think is assuming "not God"?

I've inferred it and if I'm wrong I apologize, but it doesn't matter, reject the notion that we can empirically prove or disprove God. In the end its a stale mate but we choose if we live our lives based on choices impacted by if there is a God or not. I choose to live as though God exists but you can't choice to live as though God may or may not exist, your actions will show what you ultimately value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DNA is called and is in function CODE. Are you aware of this? It is the information the cell uses to build. I have talked with atheists who actually refuse to use the word “code” because they couldn’t then defend their position. Are you one of those?
Do I have to type out what DNA stands for to prove I know what those letters mean? I could draw it for you, I know it so well.

No, this is merely an equivocation fallacy. Atheists refuse to use the term because creationists abuse it. This is why you lose the debate.

How are you measuring not being able to define it? Looks to me more like you dismiss the problem by attacking the persons intellectual understanding instead. This is, of course, a useful but empty response.You could universally apply it. Whatever your opponent says in any subject (especially the one for which you have no answer), you just say their argument fails cause they can’t define the words they are using. You don’t ask for definitions, but accuse them of not using a dictionary, essentially. Can be used anytime.
Ah so you’re one of those who plays with semantics. On one level you’re right. Morse Code is way too simple to be really called a code in comparison with the DNA code. That’s a dimensional code where it’s very shape communicates information. We even know what bits provide the information for what target area.

When a term is properly defined one can tell what belongs in that category and what does not. And no, I am not accusing you of not using a dictionary. If you could define your terms properly they would be accepted. Please don't make false accusations.

Please don't accuse others of your sins. You need to be ready to define your terms properly.

Ok, I see this discussion won’t be fruitful. Are you sure that you want to explore new thoughts on the subject? I understand why ifnot. It’s a dangerous road, this questioning the basis for your atheism. It has led many an atheist to abandon that faith. They thought it was the beginning of seeing, however. Wishing you well...

You claimed to have arguments that atheists were not aware of. So far all you have posted are PRATT's. Now that you have failed you are trying to blame me. If this discussion won't be fruitful then at least try to define your terms and it would be wise to take me up on my offer to discuss the concept of evidence. Yes, knowledge is dangerous to creationist beliefs. But as the saying goes, the truth shall set you free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've inferred it and if I'm wrong I apologize, but it doesn't matter, reject the notion that we can empirically prove or disprove God. In the end its a stale mate but we choose if we live our lives based on choices impacted by if there is a God or not. I choose to live as though God exists but you can't choice to live as though God may or may not exist, your actions will show what you ultimately value.

Acting as if God does not exist is often the more moral route to take. Many Christians think that they only have to apologize to God to atone for doing wrong things to others. Atheists realize that they are responsible themselves for their wrong doing and must act positively to correct those actions.

But just in case you did not know most atheists simply lack a belief in a God due to lack of evidence. That is not the same as believing that God does not exist. You will constantly here atheists asking for evidence. Not believing until sufficient evidence is presented is the rational approach to any belief.

 

[DamianWarS]

In a scientific discussion one uses the scientific definition. Just as in a legal discussion one uses the legal definition of terms. If one does not do that one can easily be guilty of an equivocation fallacy.

We have already established science has no capacity to measure God so why continue to use science to find something it can't see and is out of reach? This is also not an established scientific discussion so we are not bound by it here and I may use pure logic or philosophical arguments without it agreeing with science.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Citation needed. A real source, not a comedy one please. If a source requires that one not follow the scientific method it is a comedy source.

So? What does that have to do with it? If gravity was the reason that many became atheists would you oppose gravity?

If you cannot respond without sarcastic absurd statements we need to move in to other matters.
I’m going to wait to see if you can be civil before I show you where you can find those who have questioned evolution in the halls of science. These are not Christians. I fear anything that doesn’t cheer on evolutionary biology will be jeered at. This too is very revealing.

No, I don't think you have any reliable evidence for a God.

You are wrong. I have more reliable evidence for God than I have that you know science.

You probably do not understand the concept of evidence. I have yet to meet a creationist that does.

I have yet to meet an evolutionist who would admit that anything a Christian says is valid. The concept of honorable debate seems to not be clearly understood. Ridicule is more their tool in trade.

Anything reliable would be a good start.

If you won’t admit DNA is information code, which is easy to see, how will you understand more difficult concepts? You didn’t see that a woman can have real evidence of the truth of her husbands love.

What "holes"? Creationists always claim holes but they never seem to be able to find any. And the number of scientists that oppose evolution is minuscule. They are an extremely small minority. Of those that study it it is a fraction of one percent. In other words the percentage of scientists that oppose the theory of evolution is smaller than the percentage of people that have a serious mental illness. Food for thought.

So a truth is up for popular vote argument? Many advancements in science started with the minority view.

And you have yet to name one "deep problem with the theory". Can you find any? Can you do so by using science based sources and not ones that openly reject science?

Will it do any good? The emporer will still be seen as wearing very fine duds, only stupid creationists cannot see the fine weave of his cloak, will be the response.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Acting as if God does not exist is often the more moral route to take.

History teaches that this road resulted in pretty amoral choices though.

Many Christians think that they only have to apologize to God to atone for doing wrong things to others. Atheists realize that they are responsible themselves for their wrong doing and must act positively to correct those actions.

In evolution there is no wrong doing, just survival. History shows much evil can be done without guilt or apologies on that faith.

But just in case you did not know most atheists simply lack a belief in a God due to lack of evidence.

With eyes closed and ears stopped lest they see and hear evidence.

That is not the same as believing that God does not exist. You will constantly here atheists asking for evidence. Not believing until sufficient evidence is presented is the rational approach to any belief.

They demand evidence for God such they will never have to confront their unbelief in any meaningful way. You wrote above of “wrong behavior.” On what basis do you know what is wrong? Your philosophy is survival of the fittest so on that basis what is wrong?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've inferred it and if I'm wrong I apologize, but it doesn't matter, reject the notion that we can empirically prove or disprove God. In the end its a stale mate but we choose if we live our lives based on choices impacted by if there is a God or not. I choose to live as though God exists but you can't choice to live as though God may or may not exist, your actions will show what you ultimately value.

We could ask the atheists if their choice of partners, job, vacation, clothes and more importantly how they treat others are all based on the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have already established science has no capacity to measure God so why continue to use science to find something it can't see and is out of reach? This is also not an established scientific discussion so we are not bound by it here and I may use pure logic or philosophical arguments without it agreeing with science.

This thread is about "creation". What has been shown is that no one one the creation side has been able to come up with any reason to believe in a creation. The null hypothesis is a lack of belief.

 

[DamianWarS]

Acting as if God does not exist is often the more moral route to take. Many Christians think that they only have to apologize to God to atone for doing wrong things to others. Atheists realize that they are responsible themselves for their wrong doing and must act positively to correct those actions.

But just in case you did not know most atheists simply lack a belief in a God due to lack of evidence. That is not the same as believing that God does not exist. You will constantly here atheists asking for evidence. Not believing until sufficient evidence is presented is the rational approach to any belief.

Because God is outside of the contiuam empirical evidence will always fail because it can only measure inside the vacuum not outside. So the "evidence" question will never be answered. We then take actions as though we accept one position or another. Living a though God exists will have an impact on the motivations of my actions and influence them centered toward the desires of God over self. Living a though God doesn't exist may have a greater impact on my personal responsibility involved in my actions and may be centered towards greater positive impact, but ultimately regardless how agnostic one claims to be we do choose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

History teaches that this road resulted in pretty amoral choices though.

There are plenty of amoral Christians in history. Of course that only results in a No True Scotsman fallacy by Christians.

In evolution there is no wrong doing, just survival. History shows much evil can be done without guilt or apologies on that faith.
With eyes closed and ears stopped lest they see and hear evidence.

Why should there be any? The theory is not about right or wrong, just as gravity is not about right or wrong. Why do you not hold gravity to the same standards? Atheists do not base their morality upon evolution any more than they base their morality on gravity. The moral argument is a losing argument.

They demand evidence for God such they will never have to confront their unbelief in any meaningful way. You wrote above of “wrong behavior.” On what basis do you know what is wrong? Your philosophy is survival of the fittest so on that basis what is wrong?

"Wrong behavior" is simple behavior that goes against a persons own desires most of the time. If you want a rational basis for right or wrong one can be given. The rules that allow maximum freedom and minimal harm lead to rational morality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We could ask the atheists if their choice of partners, job, vacation, clothes and more importantly how they treat others are all based on the scientific method.

There are times to use the scientific method and times not to use it. Creationists often accuse others of "scientism". It appears that they may be projecting.

The scientific method is used for scientific questions. My point from the start has been the fact that the correct answer to many questions is "We do not know yet". When someone claims "evidence" they take on the burden of proof.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, this is merely an equivocation fallacy. Atheists refuse to use the term because creationists abuse it. This is why you lose the debate.

I didn’t invent the term DNA code. You need to present your case to those who did although they are several notches above you in the scientific line up. You lose.

When a term is properly defined one can tell what belongs in that category and what does not. And no, I am not accusing you of not using a dictionary. If you could define your terms properly they would be accepted. Please don't make false accusations.

I used it as it used by scientists. I know you atheists don’t like that DNA is code. The responses are not science but semantics. Calling it code or information IS using it properly. Just be honest and say you have no answer to that one.

Please don't accuse others of your sins. You need to be ready to define your terms properly.

I used the term as it was used by men higher up than you. Please read about information and how DNA is such.

You claimed to have arguments that atheists were not aware of. So far all you have posted are PRATT's. Now that you have failed you are trying to blame me. If this discussion won't be fruitful then at least try to define your terms and it would be wise to take me up on my offer to discuss the concept of evidence. Yes, knowledge is dangerous to creationist beliefs. But as the saying goes, the truth shall set you free.

I know the truth and don’t deny DNA is coded information. But this shows again how atheists claim they are such for lack of evidence. But the truth is evidence is denied lest they turn and believe. DNA cannot be called coded information because that means an intelligence is behind it which means there might be a God. Oops! Gotta deny the code is code and call those who call it code not using the term properly. (without defining what “properly” means) You’re not the one who thought up that strategy.

 

[DamianWarS]

This thread is about "creation".

Exactly, it's about creation not science. Science may be included but it's not a condition of the OP. I'm not rejecting science, I'm just saying it has no capacity to measure God.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There are times to use the scientific method and times not to use it. Creationists often accuse others of "scientism". It appears that they may be projecting.

No, there is such a thing. They might be seeing it in some people whose visceral responses speak more of a faith than science. “What science cannot tell us mankind cannot know”is an example of scientism.

The scientific method is used for scientific questions. My point from the start has been the fact that the correct answer to many questions is "We do not know yet". When someone claims "evidence" they take on the burden of proof.

A court of law rarely uses scientific evidence for motive as science cannot tell us motive although it’s more important than ballistics or DNA analysis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t invent the term DNA code. You need to present your case to those who did although they are several notches above you in the scientific line up. You lose.

No, you merely abuse it. And why would I have to make my case to those that agree with me?

I used it as it used by scientists. I know you atheists don’t like that DNA is code. The responses are not science but semantics. Calling it code or information IS using it properly. Just be honest and say you have no answer to that one.

Wrong again so you lose again. You need to be able to define your terms. You cannot do so. All you have are failed arguments. If you cannot define your terms you lose the argument before you even start. The argument is "semantics" because you have been abusing terminology.

I used the term as it was used by men higher up than you. Please read about information and how DNA is such.

I know the truth and don’t deny DNA is coded information. But this shows again how atheists claim they are such for lack of evidence. But the truth is evidence is denied lest they turn and believe. DNA cannot be called coded information because that means an intelligence is behind it which means there might be a God. Oops! Gotta deny the code is code and call those who call it code not using the term properly. (without defining what “properly” means) You’re not the one who thought up that strategy.

Please, you are not fooling anyone. If you knew you could support your claims. I keep asking you to do so and you keep dodging and ducking. It is not "coded information" in the same sense that a book is. It is more akin to a recipe than anything else.

Once again I offer to go over the concept of evidence. Once you have that down we can move on to more complex concepts.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There are plenty of amoral Christians in history. Of course that only results in a No True Scotsman fallacy by Christians.

You claimed the moral high ground, not me.

Why should there be any? The theory is not about right or wrong, just as gravity is not about right or wrong. Why do you not hold gravity to the same standards?

Will you drop the absurd gravity? That has nothing to do with our discussion? Shall I start bringing in points of character to prove evolution is wrong getting you to admit to my point or risk saying there is no such thing as honor or kindness?

Atheists do not base their morality upon evolution any more than they base their morality on gravity. The moral argument is a losing argument.

You don’t understand the argument it seems. On what do you see your morality?

"Wrong behavior" is simple behavior that goes against a persons own desires most of the time.

So those who fulfill their desires are behaving rightly, correct? If a man desires to rob a bank or rape a girl, “wrong” is going against that desire and right is fulfilling that desires? I am testing your theory in real life, the scientific method.

If you want a rational basis for right or wrong one can be given. The rules that allow maximum freedom and minimal harm lead to rational morality.

Judged by whom? The majority? Is it right for the strong majority to pursue their maximum freedom if only a minority, maybe a handful, experience harm?

My point is that you will not be able to come up with a moral standard starting from man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly, it's about creation not science. Science may be included but it's not a condition of the OP. I'm not rejecting science, I'm just saying it has no capacity to measure God.

And we are back to the fact that the word "creation" puts a burden of proof upon the person using that term. It demands evidence and none has been given. My point is still the only one that is rational. It is that we simply do not know. A claim of "creation" is not justified as of yet.