Evolution Is False Therefore.......

[Kahalachan]

Santa Claus made the universe

The Flying Spaghetti Monster made the universe

God made the universe according to Genesis.


Is there anyway to give the last statement more credit than the previous suggestions? No, since they argue based on argument ad ignoratum. Yours is false therefore mine is true.

Evolution has unsolved problems and mysteries therefore......

Santa, FSM, God.

Also ad ignoratum.


Many other sciences contain unsolved problems and can't explain certain things. Logic suggests they should also be thrown out.


None of these arguments lend any support for Creationism.


Creationism has to explain everything that evolution has, without ad hoc arguments. Creationism must be observable.


To help you guys out I'll try, just so I can show you which direction you can take.

Matter and anti-matter can appear in a vaccuum. God shows that he can create out of nothing.

That's the best I can do for creationism. Sorry guys

 

[RealityCheck]

The structure of creationist arguments seems to always follow:

1) There are only two explanations for everything, evolution or creation.

2) (insert something here) is too complex/beautiful/well designed to come about by evolution.

3) Evolution therefore is false.

4) Since only two explanations are possible, and one is false, the other must be true. Creation therefore is true.

 

[Kahalachan]

If something has to be created, we can use any Creator we want.

I pick Santa Calus

 

[JohnR7]

Creationism must be observable.

Some people say that evolution IS the observation of Creationism. They say that evolution is the way God created. Actually, most people believe that. There are a few odd men out here and there that try to argue otherwise. But the vast majority of the peole accept religion and evolution to be true.

So just exactly what is your problem with religion? The problem people have with evolution is that there are evolutionists that try to claim that there is no God or that God is not a part of the creation. Yet they can offer nothing in the way of evidence for that belief.

How can you claim to know one way or the other if God is a part of creation or not? What is your arguement, there is no santa, there is no easter bunny, therefore there is no God? Is that your arguement?

 

[Kahalachan]

What is your arguement, there is no santa, there is no easter bunny, therefore there is no God? Is that your arguement?

My point is that ad hocs + ad ignoratums allow for anyone else to be right.

Creationism has to be proven, not suggested if evolution has issues.

 

[RealityCheck]

John -

Evolution theory itself says nothing about God, one way or another. Evolution is a natural theory about how life has developed on this planet, completely without reliance on a supernatural explanation for any part of it.

You can, of course, believe in both God and evolution, and can believe that evolution is God's mechanism for allowing life to develop on its own, just as you can believe that God set the laws of physics at the beginning of the universe.

The point is, you do not HAVE to believe that in order for the scientific theory to work. You can believe God exists, doesn't exist, that Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva are responsible, whatever. None of that affects the science and natural observations/explanations.

The problem that scientists have with creationists is when creationists assert that evolution is not science, is a religion requiring faith, is simply wrong, etc. This type of creationist will assert that the earth is only 6000 to 12000 years old, that humans are not related to animals (and that humans aren't animals), that the Biblical account is how things happened and evolution is not how things happened. These creationists will also use every possible willful misinterpretation and misunderstanding about evolution and science to set their brand of creationism as the answer. Kent Hovind is the single worst abuser of this, but he's not alone of course.

Creationism is a religious belief, and should remain so. It is not science, and should not be treated as such, any more than evolution should be treated as religion. When someone wants creationism taught in a science class, that's a violation of everything that science is and has become over the past 4 or 5 centuries.

 

[JohnR7]

The problem that scientists have with creationists is when creationists assert that evolution is not science, is a religion requiring faith, is simply wrong, etc. This type of creationist will assert that the earth is only 6000 to 12000 years old.

That is the YEC beliefs. But what about the small percent of the people who are GAP and who do know the truth about Creation? If everyone is deceived into thinking that Creationism is YEC, then we have a big job to show people the way of truth.

The Baptists are just that, they have the ministry of Baptism. But then you have to receive the Holy Spirit of God. That is the message of the Pentacostals.

I am not saying YEC are totally wrong. The earth as we know it is 6,000 to 12,000 years old. But there is plenty of evidence to show that there was a earth here before. That is why GAP stands in the GAP between YEC and OEC. Along with fundamentalism and dispensationalism, covenant theology and remnant theology.

I just wonder why when there is so much to learn, people know so little about it. To many churchs are run with pastors with a two year degree. They need to get themselves a pastor with more education than that.

 

[JohnR7]

Creationism has to be proven, not suggested if evolution has issues.

Just what is it about Creationism that has to be proven?

Science shows us how God created the world we live in. You can say "God did it", or you can say "God did not do it". But that is not going to change anything. Science is still science and if it shows creation in the Bible to be true, then it is creation science.

Science does not falsify the Bible in anyway. There is no conflict between science and the Bible. There are a lot of men who are Scientiests who are dedicated to their Church and to being a Christian.

Francis Collins in his book "The Language of God" says (it is) possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshiping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

Francis Collins in his book "The Language of God" says on pg 207: "the Bible texts themselves seem to suggest that there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, where did Cain's wife, mentioned only after he left Eden to live in the land of Nod (Genesis 1:16-17) come from?"

 

[RealityCheck]

I just wonder why when there is so much to learn, people know so little about it. To many churchs are run with pastors with a two year degree. They need to get themselves a pastor with more education than that.

That's because when you get pastors with more education than that, those pastors have learned that Biblical scriptures were written by humans, not by God, that all versions of the Bible are human compilations, not divinely chosen, and so on. Churches that want to preserve their fundamental beliefs reject such education, so they aren't ever going to get a pastor with such advanced education.

 

[Kahalachan]

Just what is it about Creationism that has to be proven?

Science shows us how God created the world we live in. You can say "God did it", or you can say "God did not do it". But that is not going to change anything. Science is still science and if it shows creation in the Bible to be true, then it is creation science.

Science does not falsify the Bible in anyway. There is no conflict between science and the Bible. There are a lot of men who are Scientiests who are dedicated to their Church and to being a Christian.

How does science do this?

In order for us to determine intelligence, we have strict standards and even then it's not a fair test of intelligence.

We can't look at objects, and say therefore the cause of this must be of God-like intelligence. What measurement of intelligence do we use? How is this connection observed between objects and intelligence, without having a reference point?

 

[Phred]

Some people say that evolution IS the observation of Creationism. They say that evolution is the way God created. Actually, most people believe that.

They say that and believe that without verifiable evidence. That's the problem with believing that... and it doesn't matter how many people believe in it... truth doesn't come about by majority rule. After all, the vast majority of people used to believe the sun orbited the earth. Some still do. Doesn't make it real.

There are a few odd men out here and there that try to argue otherwise. But the vast majority of the peole accept religion and evolution to be true.

Hardly. When one asks about the Theory of Evolution one gets the same answer because there is only one ToE. There is not a unified religion among all men. So now the percentages start to change. Which religion is the real one? By their own definition they can't all be true. So how exactly are you going to apologize this up so that religion looks like as reasonable as science?

So just exactly what is your problem with religion?

There is no verifiable evidence to suggest any religion is true... much less that a deity of any sort exists. My problem is that people, like yourself, refuse to admit this and keep trying to force their faith into equal standing with evidenced facts.

The problem people have with evolution is that there are evolutionists that try to claim that there is no God or that God is not a part of the creation. Yet they can offer nothing in the way of evidence for that belief.

You're wrong. All anyone like me has ever said is that there is no verifiable evidence to support your belief. I can't help it that you believe something that can't be supported like the ToE. Yet, you squirm and wriggle and spin until you portray your lack of evidence as my problem. I don't have to offer any evidence that your deity exists and until you do I have nothing to try to verify. But... of course, as I've been saying for years now... this isn't about science. It's about how you insist the rest of the world must recognize your deity. Thanks for proving that here.

How can you claim to know one way or the other if God is a part of creation or not?

I don't care if your God is part of creation or not. I only care about what I can show. There is no evidence to suggest a god or gods even exists much less created the universe.

How can you claim to know that your God created anything at all? How can you claim to know it exists? The burden lies where it always has, on you... the believer. Yet, you manage to turn it around at every opportunity into a game of majority rule. That's irrelevant to the truth.

.
​