Are there any arguments for creation...

[Speedwell]

The usual place. You go on living in your self deception and I go on enjoying life to the fullest. I have yet to understand why atheists bother to have a position at all on anything. 70 years then oblivion? Do you not have better things to do than argue with people who are never going to agree with you? If you do win someone over, so what? It is meaningless.

I can't understand either. Creationists make Christianity look so delightful.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have a theory that all atheists are angry at God. I have not met every atheist, so I can't prove it.

Probably not too far off when it comes to those who come here. For those who don’t mind believers in God it’s less likely. They live and let live.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why would they be angry at a being they don't believe in?

And yet they are.

If they are angry, I can suggest a cause closer to Earth that sometimes evokes anger in Christians and other theists as well as athiests.

I seriously doubt atheists anger Christians anywhere close to the claim. Maybe evil ones like the communists but that’s cause their doing evil to others.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

When have I called you names? I don't even recall running across you in this forum before.

Not me. You call the argument names instead of refuting it. But I can see why. There is no answer.

I haven't seen a need to put an argument forward for "my position."

More likely you don’t have one. But love for others has compelled devoted believers to offer reasons.

But if you want one with respect to your misinformed ideas about "informaton" I offer A Mathematical Theory of Communication by C.E. Shannon.
http://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf

I asked for your arguments, not borrowed ones. Have you none yourself??

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why would they be angry at a being they don't believe in? If they are angry, I can suggest a cause closer to Earth that sometimes evokes anger in Christians and other theists as well as athiests.

Good question. I don't know the answer, but I've met or spoken to quite a few atheists. They all were mad at God. When I told my atheist dad that I was a Christian, he told me never to say "Jesus" in his house ever again. That was easy enough as I was in Australia and my family in New Zealand.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Probably not too far off when it comes to those who come here. For who don’t mind believers in God it’s less likely.

Have you ever gone on an atheist blog? I did by mistake. It was like being a cat at a dog show.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I can't understand either. Creationists make Christianity look so delightful.

It’s always amazing for me to read the posts of those who hate Christianity and cannot express what Christians believe. They hate what they are ignorant of. Christianity never pretended life following Jesus to be delightful. A rich life? Yes. Delightful? No.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Have you ever gone on an atheist blog? I did by mistake. It was like being a cat at a dog show.

I also did by mistake. It was arena all over again. Atheists live well in a Christian based culture. Christians are hounded in an atheist one.

 

[pitabread]

I’ve never heard any arguments that end in awe. I’ve only heard logical ones.

I hear arguments from awe all the time. They usually take the form of "just go look at nature, it's it so amazing? it's clearly the work of a creator!".

Books are written on this but essentially DNA is complex information code. Information is not a material substance and always comes from an intelligent source. Information never evolves naturally. Hence the information that is the source of living creatures must have come from an intelligence.

Okay, I'll buy this argument as not being an argument from incredulity or awe.

It still is problematic, since invariably arguments based on information and DNA always make use of equivocation regarding information.

Additional to that, from observation we know that life only comes from life. Life never springs from non-life in observation (science.) This against points to God, a living source.

This arugment doesn't work either for a couple reasons. 1) You're immediately resorting to special pleading by invoking a living God (otherwise if life can only come from life, where did God come from?). 2) There is nothing scientifically speaking that actually says that life can only come from life.

You may be thinking of Pasteur's work, however his was in the context of formation of modern living organisms (e.g. molds, fungi) and not specifically about the original origin of life.

 

[pitabread]

You’re aware of the problem for atheists that information code always comes from intelligence?

Depending on how information is quantified and measured, this isn't necessarily true.

This is why any time anyone tries to use this argument, I ask them to first define and quantify information with respect to DNA (as opposed to books, computers, or anything else that is not DNA).

The vast majority of the time people can't, and this exposes the argument as being based on equivocation over the the term "information".

 

[Larniavc]

Zeus has a form limited to space and time and he lives on MT Olympus. He can be empirically disproved. I don't know who Xenu is but I gather he is not much different.

Zeus can be invisible. He can be anywhere.

 

[Strathos]

I have yet to meet an evolutionist who would admit that anything a Christian says is valid.

So I and billions of others never believe that anything we ourselves say is valid?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I hear arguments from awe all the time. They usually take the form of "just go look at nature, it's it so amazing? it's clearly the work of a creator!".

Ok I admit there are those out there. I don’t consider that an argument. But they do.

Okay, I'll buy this argument as not being an argument from incredulity or awe.

Thanks

It still is problematic, since invariably arguments based on information and DNA always make use of equivocation regarding information.

So far I just got the response that DNA is not like a book as though only books have information. Never heard an intellectually sound answer.

This arugment doesn't work either for a couple reasons. 1) You're immediately resorting to special pleading by invoking a living God (otherwise if life can only come from life, where did God come from?).

No, I’m speaking from observed science.

2) There is nothing scientifically speaking that actually says that life can only come from life.

Except scientists have tried to observe it and failed. So scientifically life comes from life. We don’t think fleas come from dirty rags.

You may be thinking of Pasteur's work, however his was in the context of formation of modern living organisms (e.g. molds, fungi) and not specifically about the original origin of life.

He tried to demonstrate it can happen. But let me ask what life comes from non-life?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Depending on how information is quantified and measured, this isn't necessarily true.

Why? Please provide information however quantified that has no intelligent source.

This is why any time anyone tries to use this argument, I ask them to first define and quantify information with respect to DNA (as opposed to books, computers, or anything else that is not DNA).

I ask for any quantified info that has no intelligent source.
Hint, quantity plays no role.

The vast majority of the time people can't, and this exposes the argument as being based on equivocation over the the term "information".

Only when atheists refuse to admit DNA contains information because of the obvious problem.

But you can quit if you want.

 

[Ophiolite]

Quite a few atheists on these sites are mad at the God they say doesn’t exist. It’s very common.

And yet they are.I seriously doubt atheists anger Christians anywhere close to the claim. Maybe evil ones like the communists but that’s cause their doing evil to others.

I have little doubt that you sincerely believe you are correct. I would just ask you to reflect for a moment on an alternative.

To the extent that I have discussed such matters with atheists, in the real world and online, I have yet to meet any who harboured an anger against the God they do not think exists. This is true regardless of their route to atheism. They cover the spectrum from those who never believed, never even thought about the concept much, if at all, all the way through to the militant, aggressive promoter of atheism. And, be sure, in the course of seven decades I have met many, across that spectrum.

Perhaps, you may suggest, they were all lying to me and to themselves. Perhaps, but I have benefited in my life from a competence, part natural, part acquired, in ferreting out liars. I imagine there are some atheists who think as you suspect, but they are few and far between.

From this side of the fence your suspicions in this regard look ludicrous. The one saving grace is that most atheists will just laugh at the notion and dismiss your posts with a smile. If they took you seriously they would be simultaneously offended, disgusted and enraged. Let's just hope they are all still laughing.

 

[Larniavc]

Thank you. The inspiration, though not the precise imagery, or specific theme, came from Ray Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes. I read it first when I was fourteen or fifteen, then again half a century later. You are most welcome to use the image, but only on condition you seek out the book and read it.
It is a small gem.

That’s exactly what I was thinking of when I read your post! (I’ve not read the book though).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So I and billions of others never believe that anything we ourselves say is valid?

I doubt you are billions, for one. But how those who want the approval of the world and Christ live I cannot imagine. I suppose it depends upon who you’re with at the time as to what you say.

 

[DamianWarS]

Zeus can be invisible. He can be anywhere.

Zeus is based in our universe and so can be empirically proven or disproved and this is the same with the flying spaghetti monster. God is not based in our universe so he cannot be empirically proven or disproved.

 

[Strathos]

I doubt you are billions, for one. But how those who want the approval of the world and Christ live I cannot imagine. I suppose it depends upon who you’re with at the time as to what you say.

The Catholic church is one of the many denominations that accept ToE. It's also the largest Christian denomination, with over 1.2 billion members. Worldwide, young earth creationists are a minority, and weren't even a major movement until around 100 years ago.

 

[pitabread]

So far I just got the response that DNA is not like a book as though only books have information. Never heard an intellectually sound answer.

If you're looking for a definition of information as used with respect to DNA, it depends.

Most of the time even in scientific papers, the term information is used in a somewhat colloquial fashion. Often it just refers to the base pair sequences themselves. The measure of information would just be the number of base pairs. The formation of any novel sequences (via mutations for example) would be an example of the formation of new information.

Now there are other cases where information is used in the context of information theory and how that has been applied to DNA. (See here for example: Application of information theory to DNA sequence analysis: A review - ScienceDirect). In those contexts the definitions and quantification of information are mathematical in nature.

However even in the latter cases, there is nothing strictly prohibiting the formation of new, measurable information in DNA via observed mechanisms that alter DNA sequences over time.

There is nothing to suggest that the only way information in DNA sequences can arise is from deliberate, intelligent editing of DNA sequences.

No, I’m speaking from observed science. Except scientists have tried to observe it and failed. So scientifically life comes from life. We don’t think fleas come from dirty rags.

That's not how science works. The conclusions that Pasteur made were in relation to modern life forms not spontaneously arising.

Such conclusions are provisional, not a blanket statement forever prohibiting life arising from non-life.

But let me ask what life comes from non-life?

The original life on Earth would have had to arisen from non-life. Such a process would involve organic chemistry.