Prove to me Creationism or Intelligent Design is true!

[Atheuz]

Okay - Time for Creationists to shine, I have yet to see a convincing argument on here that proves Creationism is a valid theory.

Here's a few rules

- You can't make this about Evolution.
- You can't assume God exists without proving he exists first.
- No circular reasoning.
- No invisible evidence that only you can see(Hi dad).

---

http://whygodexists.ytmnd.com/

There's an example of what I mean, he's very convincing, but there are still a lot of flaws in his arguments.

 

[Pesto]

Two words:

Crocoduck!

 

[bindaniel]

If I can`t assume God exists does the very fact we have a name for "God" disprove that assumption. How can something that does not exist have a name?

 

[Atheuz]

Okay let me rephrase it,

You can't assume an omnipotent deity exists without providing reasonable evidence for his existence. Note, you do not need to prove him entire - Just enough so you can use him in an argument.

 

[Pesto]

If I can`t assume God exists does the very fact we have a name for "God" disprove that assumption. How can something that does not exist have a name?

If I can`t assume Crocoduck exists does the very fact we have a name for "Crocoduck" disprove that assumption. How can something that does not exist have a name?

Or Harry Potter,
or Rumpelstiltskin,
or Thor,
or the Underpants Gnomes,
or...

 

[m9lc]

If I can`t assume God exists does the very fact we have a name for "God" disprove that assumption. How can something that does not exist have a name?

Well, if that's not a convincing argument, then I must be Santa Cla-- oh wait...

 

[pwnagepanda]

They are not valid sciences, and cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

If I can`t assume God exists does the very fact we have a name for "God" disprove that assumption. How can something that does not exist have a name?

FSMFTW!!!!!!(flying spaghetti monster, for the win.)

List of named things which have not be proven to exist but have names:

the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter
Zeus
Thor
Jehovah
Unicorn
Hercules
Mithra
Horus
....

By your logic everyone of these is 100% reality because they all have names. Also, I might add some were being chosen over Christianity.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

They are not valid sciences, and cannot be proven or disproven.

Nylonase can effectively do the latter by distroying their only 'prediction' they've ever made. Which is just one of those baseless assertions based on religious beliefs no science to it. The very fact that Nylonase was able to come into existance makes any disbelief in Evolution, blind faith. Any of the poorly devised counter points to what Nylonase really demonstrated are just blind faith based on presumptions unlike the Evolutionary example which is based on repeated demonstrations of proven Biological mechanisms.

 

[fromdownunder]

Two words:

Crocoduck!

You mean this guy?

Norm

 

[Dannager]

You mean this guy?

Norm

Truly, God's very own death machine made manifest.

 

[Ketsagirl]

why do all atheists bring up Thor and the flying spagetti monster?

 

[fromdownunder]

why do all atheists bring up Thor and the flying spagettie monster?

Perhaps because there is exactly the same amount of evidence for these entities as there is for any given god.

Norm

 

[Ketsagirl]

I also think its insane to compare Thor or underpants man to God. We live in a universe/world that everyone is trying to figure out how it got here. So one theory is it was made by someone or thing (named God). Now if you happen to find a little smurf world with smurfs and they are wondering how they got there then maybe you could compare smurfs and God.

 

[Ketsagirl]

also why do you waste your time debating us crazy people? You wont change our minds and im sure we wont change yours. Why do you care what we believe? We all live once and die, who cares if we want to believe in God.

 

[atomweaver]

also why do you waste your time debating us crazy people? You wont change our minds and im sure we wont change yours. Why do you care what we believe? We all live once and die, who cares if we want to believe in God.

This debate is actually not much about what anyone believes, but rather about what creationists want my children to be taught to believe. If belief in a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth were the start and end of creationism, then I'd have no particular problem with it, per se. Live and let live, etc. If creationists want to take advantage of the fruits of the Theory of Evolution, but reject it as a part of their daily lives despite those benefits, so be it.
But, here in the US there is also a persistent, organized, political movement which is motivated to pretend that a particular brand of creationism should be taught as valid science in biology class at public high schools (despite not having evidence, and not being science), using my tax dollars. This, despite their spectacular repeated failures against the Establishment Clause even with the most favorable of judges, and more importantly there is the fact that I am the person who will decide what theological ideas my children will or will not be exposed to, TYVM. Not my government, and not anybody else.

 

[Dannager]

This debate is actually not much about what anyone believes, but rather about what creationists want my children to be taught to believe. If belief in a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth were the start and end of creationism, then I'd have no particular problem with it, per se. Live and let live, etc. If creationists want to take advantage of the fruits of the Theory of Evolution, but reject it as a part of their daily lives despite those benefits, so be it.
But, here in the US there is also a persistent, organized, political movement which is motivated to pretend that a particular brand of creationism should be taught as valid science in biology class at public high schools (despite not having evidence, and not being science), using my tax dollars. This, despite their spectacular repeated failures against the Establishment Clause even with the most favorable of judges, and more importantly there is the fact that I am the person who will decide what theological ideas my children will or will not be exposed to, TYVM. Not my government, and not anybody else.

Truth.

 

[inHisgripkim]

This debate is actually not much about what anyone believes, but rather about what creationists want my children to be taught to believe. If belief in a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth were the start and end of creationism, then I'd have no particular problem with it, per se. Live and let live, etc. If creationists want to take advantage of the fruits of the Theory of Evolution, but reject it as a part of their daily lives despite those benefits, so be it.
But, here in the US there is also a persistent, organized, political movement which is motivated to pretend that a particular brand of creationism should be taught as valid science in biology class at public high schools (despite not having evidence, and not being science), using my tax dollars. This, despite their spectacular repeated failures against the Establishment Clause even with the most favorable of judges, and more importantly there is the fact that I am the person who will decide what theological ideas my children will or will not be exposed to, TYVM. Not my government, and not anybody else.

Our children are exposed to far more dangerous things at school than creationism. Drugs, guns, hate, etc. Perhaps if one takes issue with what their children are exposed to in school, the solution that one may opt for (many choose this option) is homeschooling. Children grow into adults and will decide for themselves what they want to believe. Drugs and guns may prevent them from growing into an adult.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

Okay - Time for Creationists to shine, I have yet to see a convincing argument on here that proves Creationism is a valid theory.

Here's a few rules

- You can't make this about Evolution.
- You can't assume God exists without proving he exists first.
- No circular reasoning.
- No invisible evidence that only you can see(Hi dad).

---

http://whygodexists.ytmnd.com/

There's an example of what I mean, he's very convincing, but there are still a lot of flaws in his arguments.

If you've been debating Creation/Evolution long enough, you should know any thread that asks for positive evidence for creationism/intelligent design is usually ignored by the very people who claim to know those beliefs are true.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

If I can`t assume God exists does the very fact we have a name for "God" disprove that assumption. How can something that does not exist have a name?

This is the third time I've seen this argument. I thought it was an isolated case each time, but now I'm worried. What the heck are the Churches teaching people? Does the logic not matter as long as the conclusion points to God?