Are there any arguments for creation...

[d taylor]

... that don't ultimately boil down to an argument from incredulity and/or awe?

edited to add for clarification:

By "creation" I'm referring to the typical supernatural creation stories about the creation of the universe, stars, the planets, life, etc.

The creation is seen just as it is described in the Bible, the sun is a light, the moon is a light, stars are lights. I see the sun moving over the earth most everyday, and i see the sun giving light on the earth. etc....

 

[Subduction Zone]

The secular worldview has a bias toward creation science, we know this. Christians are always confronted with the secular side of things, it is the opposite that rarely ever occurs, because we are always shut down as superstitious and pseudoscience. Why not examine if some of the claims of Islam is true? I've heard scientific claims to support their argument, and you know it possibly has some ground to stand upon. Oh, but because it believes in a theistic worldview, everything else it says must be disregarded. "If we gave credibility to them, we would have to go back on everything we stated and accept that God is real." It is a phobia from their side that prevents us from being taken serious in the scientific community, and because we aren't taken serious, there is none to represent us in the scientific community globally. When we do provide substantial claims with compelling arguments in the field of archaeology, geology, etc, we have only certain mediums to express these views, and those are disregarded because they aren't from "legit" scientific research papers. If we had a voice to begin with in the scientific community as an alternative view, maybe we would be able to share our views through more official means. We got well-studied men in our field that are hardly ever noticed because they believe in a god.

No, there is no "bias". The fact is that there is no such thing as "creation science". Let's leave religious issues out of it. You might need to learn the basics of science. We should go over the scientific method and the concept of evidence. I am ignoring most of your post since it only looks as if you object to trying to learn about what you do not understand.

 

[Jonaitis]

No, there is no "bias". The fact is that there is no such thing as "creation science". Let's leave religious issues out of it. You might need to learn the basics of science. We should go over the scientific method and the concept of evidence. I am ignoring most of your post since it only looks as if you object to trying to learn about what you do not understand.

What you just said here is exactly what you ignored in my post. Stay closed minded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The creation is seen just as it is described in the Bible, the sun is a light, the moon is a light, stars are lights. I see the sun moving over the earth most everyday, and i see the sun giving light on the earth. etc....

That does you no good since the same observations support Hinduism and any other religion that you care to mention.

It really is not all that hard to understand that scientific method and the concept of evidence.

I have seen the word "secular" used incorrectly. Secular views are true regardless of religion. It is not a synonym for atheism. Gravity is a "secular".

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you just said here is exactly what you ignored in my post. Stay closed minded.

Now now, no false accusations. I am not the close minded one. I simply recognize flawed reasoning when it is used. You on the other hand appear to be unwilling to learn the basics of science. If you understood the scientific method you would understand why there is no such thing as "creation science".

Here is a simple question that "proves" the point:

What reasonable test, based upon the merits of creationism and not on anything else, could possible refute creationism?

If you cannot think of one then at least for you creationism is not scientific.

 

[Jonaitis]

Now now, no false accusations. I am not the close minded one. I simply recognize flawed reasoning when it is used. You on the other hand appear to be unwilling to learn the basics of science. If you understood the scientific method you would understand why there is no such thing as "creation science".

Here is a simple question that "proves" the point:

What reasonable test, based upon the merits of creationism and not on anything else, could possible refute creationism?

If you cannot think of one then at least for you creationism is not scientific.

I read the first two sentences and ignored, because that's how you treat people.

 

[d taylor]

That does you no good since the same observations support Hinduism and any other religion that you care to mention.

It really is not all that hard to understand that scientific method and the concept of evidence.

I have seen the word "secular" used incorrectly. Secular views are true regardless of religion. It is not a synonym for atheism. Gravity is a "secular".

Oh it does me plenty good, keeps me from, falling for science lies.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have. Throw an empty jar into the ocean.

Exactly! A jar can't fill itself.

 

[SkyWriting]

Study quantum physics, things "just happen" quite often.

Outside of quantum states, nothing does just happen. I appreciate that the answer is "Virtually nothing".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the first two sentences and ignored, because that's how you treat people.

No, if you are willing to learn instead of spewing nonsense I will be glad to listen to you. Trust me, you posted nothing of merit. Excuses are not an arugment.

Outside of quantum states, nothing does just happen. I appreciate that the answer is "Virtually nothing".

The problem is that when a claim can be so easily negated it is not a wise one to make. Not understanding how life arose on its own does not mean that it "just happened". Life appears to have arose due to the laws of physics and chemistry. That is not "just happening".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh it does me plenty good, keeps me from, falling for science lies.

Science does not lie. It cannot since it is a problem solving method. It has no volition. The fact that you are an ape is just that, a fact, and nothing more.

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem is that when a claim can be so easily negated it is not a wise one to make. Not understanding how life arose on its own does not mean that it "just happened". Life appears to have arose due to the laws of physics and chemistry. That is not "just happening".

I said "WHY" it arose, not how.

Mud gets warm because of the sun shining on it causing it to heat.

Life arises naturally because _______? What is the reason life would arise?
You could say life arises because matter is breaking down. Which would sound possible...except that's not it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly! A jar can't fill itself.

Yes, the laws of physics and chemistry have to get involved. Okay, so life can arise without an outside influence since we have the laws of physics and chemistry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said "WHY" it arose, not how.

Mud gets warm because of the sun shining on it causing it to heat.

Life arises naturally because _______? What is the reason life would arise?

"Why" is a bit of a biased question. Why is because there are laws of physics and chemistry. It points neither towards or away from the existence of a God. The accusation of "trying to disprove God" usually comes from Christians that make the mistake of reading Genesis too literally. If one wants a "why" involving God one has to look elsewhere.

 

[SkyWriting]

Life appears to have arose due to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Those laws to not favor life. Got any that do?

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, the laws of physics and chemistry have to get involved. Okay, so life can arise without an outside influence since we have the laws of physics and chemistry.

Chemicals and physics laws tend toward lower energy states.
All matter trend toward lower organization and less energy states.
Nothing organizes itself into a system. Nothing suggests life.

But intelligent people can organize and can accumulate energy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those laws to not favor life. Got any that do?

Why do you say that? One second a Christian is using a flawed "fine tuning" argument, now you are appearing to be doing the opposite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Chemicals and physics laws tend toward lower energy states.

Oh! You do get it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh! You do get it.

They trend toward disorganization and lower energy. Naturally.

Only people can make people. Nothing in chemistry says people would turn up.
All of our experiences show that the creator must be a God. Chemicals are just too stupid.

 

[d taylor]

Science does not lie. It cannot since it is a problem solving method. It has no volition. The fact that you are an ape is just that, a fact, and nothing more.

You get that from your god, i am a ape ( i can live with that because i know that is a lie).
And i get this from my God, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”