The best evidence for Creationism

[SavedByChrist94]

No, it is only presupposition, which you yourself said does not count.

I've had no presupposition whatsoever, I have given evidence.

you are the one with presupposition. you cannot dismiss the evidence simply because you don't like it or because of your opinions on it. that doesn't take away the fact that the evidence I have provided proves that God exist.

if you object, provide evidence.

Now who is trying to put words in others' mouths? I guess its okay since you are doing it? Atheism is the neutral postion, and requires no evidential support.

No, "atheism" is not neutral, that is ridiculous. Theism is neutral. "atheism" is nonexistent.

when you know the evidence for God you cannot be an "atheist". this is another reason why "atheism" doesn't exist.

you either know about God's existence, or don't. you cannot "lack" belief. you are either lost or Saved.

evidence proves that God exist, you are without excuse.

Do you read what you cut and paste into this thread? Do you know what falsifiable means?

If you have a testable definition for this "God" concept, then just say so, in your own words. That wall of text missed the mark.

it doesn't matter who the information is from, as long as it gets the point across.

you wanted testable proof of God, and I gave it to you with the scientific method. the scientific method shows that God exist.

Now you are being silly. I would be just as silly saying "gods are impossible", despite your inability to demonstrate otherwise.

How am I being silly? using the scientific method, and using logic, "abiogenesis" is impossible, and God exist.

if anyone is being silly it is you, you make a claim without even backing it up, I backed up with evidence(the scientific method) that "abiogenesis"/"atheism" doesn't exist.

Really? What of all the gods you do not believe in? You are an atheist yourself.

Nope, "atheism" still doesn't exist. God exist. no one is an "atheist".

lets use zeus for example. zeus not existing has no effect on God's existence. since God exist. all it means is that zeus is not the True God.

Jesus Christ exist, and there is evidence that proves He Resurrected from the dead, thus Jesus Christ is The Lord. The True God is, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

-------------------

Despite all of your protestations, the burden of evidence rests firmly with you.

And the burden of evidence is on you as well.

I have provided substantial evidence that proves, God exist. you and every other so called "lack" of believers on the other hand have not provided even 1 piece of evidence for "atheism" because there is no evidence for "atheism", "atheism" doesn't exist.

Intersting converstaion between Wiccan Child & Saved by Christ94, but there are a couple of points I would like SBC94 to clarify if you don't mind.

Firstly, what exactly were you saved from?

Would like to keep it personal, but I'll mention a few. Jesus Christ has saved me from my old ways, the darkness of sin, and eternal separate from God.

God has given me hope, dreams, life, new life, eternal life, love, knowledge and forgiveness. God has given me everything, when I deserve nothing, and I love God for that.

I don't collect stamps.
Would you like me to provide evidence for this?

Nope. because that has no relationship with what we are talking about.

A better example is, say you claim to lack belief that the sky is blue, you'd have to provide evidence why the sky wouldn't be blue. contrary to the fact that the sky is blue.

if someone believes the sky is blue, they can back that up with evidence.

whether it be a positive or negative, you need evidence for it. there is no evidence for "atheism".

Possible, yes.

1, there is no evidence for "atheism" so that alone proves you aren't an "atheist"

2, By admitting that God is possible, "atheism" becomes a contradiction, it becomes null and void. add that with #1, and you are not an "atheist"

"atheism" doesn't exist.

If you trust the gospels because of their historical accuracy, what do you think of the historical innacuracies?

Unlikely.
Unnecessary.

2. The four gospels are of questionable authorship, there is a strong suggestion that three of the four are deviations from a single text, and only John is an original account (but your bible copy is not the same as the oldest manuscripts - it has been altered over time).

your proof?, because your word of mouth is not evidence.

You do fo course realise that winning a debate is not always about evidence, or discussion points, or even what is said.
It is possible to win a debate by being a rather good public speaker.

No that's just an excuse, when you debate Shock, the one with the logic and most evidence wins and the "atheist" never have any evidence or logic.

There is substantial evidence for God and no evidence for "atheism". the "atheist" will not win a debate against Shock, if they could, they would have already, but none have and never will because God exist.

1. You only know that it happened because it was written down, not the other way around.

Of course, who's denying that?

what I wrote about, where you replied, is about the Early Christians, not The Apostles. basically The Early Christians didn't need to write anything, doesn't change the fact that it happened. the written Gospels and Christian Martyrs are the evidence that can be backed up.

What are these extra-biblical sources you speak of?

And finally the really interesting one.

The Turin Shroud.

Without appealing to evidence, read your bible and tell me how many pieces of cloth Jesus was supposedly wrapped in.
Then tell me how many pieces of cloth are deemed holy in the shroud.

Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence of Jesus

In Defense of the Christian Faith: Shroud Investigation: Part 4

One of them is wrong, completely wrong.

Of course, anyone can debunk the shroud - just ask someone to lay down on an old curtain and draw an outline of their head and body; marking carefully their features on the face.
You will see immediatly that the shroud is not someone laying down; the proportions (especially on the face) are all wrong.
It is made to look like someone has layed in it.
It is a work of art.

where's your proof?, check my previous posts(page 61 and on), I posted a Huffington Post article that refutes what you say. it is not a painting and has no evidence of forgery.

How dare you imply that our fellow poster is stupid enough to copy/paste entire walls of text and act as though they prove something?!

From your insult, I sense you are threatened by the walls of evidence that I posted, it shows you are insecure about your "atheism". if it didn't bother you, you would not insult and would instead try to counter.

it doesn't matter if I copy and paste or use my own words. it doesn't matter if I wrote long walls of text to provide the evidence. if you say the proven evidence I have provided doesn't prove anything, then prove why, don't insult. you're showing me insecurity.

There is substantial evidence that proves, God exist.

there is no evidence for "atheism", "atheism" doesn't exist.

Therefore, God exist.

Dear Mr. Copy Pasta,

What's the problem with copying and pasting? it doesn't matter if it's my words or not. when you complain about it, what I see is you're insecure about your "atheism" and have nothing but excuses.

you could copy and paste and I'll still refute, no excuses from me.

The Bible is full of errors, fabrications, contradictions and flat out lies.

Sorry.

Sorry, but where is your proof?

your opinions and word of mouth isn't evidence, your word of mouth has no authenticity whatsoever. there hasn't been any evidence of error, fabrications, or contradictions, because there is none.

the only lie is "atheism", there is no evidence for it.

So have we observed supernatural deities magically poofing DNA into existence, or manipulating DNA to produce new species? No. Isn't that a problem for creationism? In absence of this evidence, can we just simply state that abiogenesis must therefore be true?

If you want to play the false dichotomy, be aware that it cuts both ways.

Like others have stated, what we do know strongly evidences common ancestry. For example, we know how DNA accumulates mutations and recombines. We know how retroviruses insert into host genomes. From that knowledge we can determine if humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Specifically, we can look to see if the same retroviral insertions are found at the same positions in both the human genome and the genomes of other apes. Guess what? That is exactly what we find. The evidence for common ancestry is clear and unavoidable. The origin of DNA may be a mystery, but common ancestry is not.

If you will, we can take a different angle on this discussion. What scientific theory do you accept? Germ theory perhaps? Perhaps we can discuss a theory you do accept and see if it stands up to your criticisms.

That we don't know how it could, isn't the same as knowing that it couldn't. The former is a mystery to be solved, the latter is hard evidence against. The sheer abundance of evidence for a common ancestor doesn't suddenly vanish, after all - even if we can't, at present, explain how DNA evolved, we still have sufficient evidence to conclude a common ancestor.

But that's all moot, as it's incorrect to suppose that we don't know how DNA evolved. Very roughly speaking, simple chemicals became amino acids became monomers became polymers became RNA became DNA. Read this paper for an overview.

1, The scientific method disproves "abiogenesis", and proves that God exist.

2, Since God exist with His own evidence, that automatically makes "abiogenesis" and "atheism" null and void.

"atheism" and "abiogenesis" is nonexistent.

Since DNA is intelligence, there is an intelligent designer. if you object then provide proof and evidence for an intelligent irreducibly complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly and from nothing. you will not find any.

What if the man told her he would kill her is she screamed? What then?

When it says scream or not scream, it means consenting or not consenting.

please don't reply or make assumptions until you read my previous posts, starting with post #610 where I proved that God never condones rape, and that God condemns rape.

wiccan_child purposefully slandered The Bible, slandered God. which should have gotten w_child banned from the website for committing blasphemy and slander.

God never condones rape, God condemns rape.



No one has been able to refute the evidence I have provided. it seems that the "atheist" here are closing their eyes and covering their ears, refer back to my previous posts, go to page 61 and read on, you have no excuse.

what "atheist" need to realize is that their insults, slander, jokes, assumptions, and presuppostion isn't evidence for anything. they seem to think that those things are somehow evidence for "atheism"

no one has provided evidence for "atheism", because there isn't any evidence whatsoever for "atheism"

I have provided evidence for God that no one has provided evidence against, because there is no evidence against it. the evidence I provided is irrefutable because it is the truth.

wiccan_child has yet to reply to my post #606-#616 - w_child doesn't have to reply, however if he doesn't reply, that means he loses the debate, and that would just prove that he isn't an "atheist".

 

[Non sequitur]

The universe had a beginning, there is a first uncaused cause, thus God exist.

And the first uncaused cause caused this god, which began the universe.

Prove that wrong.

 

[Davian]

<snip>

I am not wading through that dog's breakfast of a post to sort your responses to me from the others.

And I don't know where you picked up the 'evidence needed for atheism' schtick but until you drop this, we are done. After a stint over in the philosophy forum, I'm done with pigeons for a while.

However I will point out where the article you linked to contradicts your claim:

Vilenkin&#8217;s verdict: &#8220;All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.&#8221; | Uncommon Descent

Not an opinion, but a fact. <snip>
The universe had a beginning, there is a first uncaused cause, thus God exist.

Not a fact. The author of the article conflates the "beginning of the universe" with the "beginning of the cosmos". I will leave it to you to figure out the difference.

I would ask: how old are you?
ETA: n/m - I see it in your profile now. That explains why your posts are like watching my kids learn how to ride a bicycle.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

And the first uncaused cause caused this god, which began the universe.

Prove that wrong.

God is the first uncaused cause. the first uncaused cause has always existed, thus the first uncaused cause is eternal and will always exist, doesn't need a cause.

the first uncaused is changeless, timeless, and immaterial, thus the first uncaused cause is either a mind or an abstract object such as numbers. and abstract objects do not cause events to happen.

the first uncaused cause is God.

 

[Non sequitur]

God is the first uncaused cause. the first uncaused cause has always existed, thus the first uncaused cause is eternal and will always exist, doesn't need a cause.

the first uncaused is changeless, timeless, and immaterial, thus the first uncaused cause is either a mind or an abstract object such as numbers. and abstract objects do not cause events to happen.

the first uncaused cause is God.

You just say that your god was the first. Why can something have not caused him/her/it?

You have not gotten around the first uncaused cause causing God.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

You just say that your god was the first. Why can something have not caused him/her/it?

You have not gotten around the first uncaused cause causing God.

The first uncaused cause has and always will exist. The first uncaused cause is, uncaused.

God is the first uncaused cause. God has and always will exist. God doesn't have a cause, He is uncaused.

Also, since you admit there is a first uncaused cause, you inadvertently admit, God exist.

 

[Non sequitur]

The first uncaused cause has and always will exist. The first uncaused cause is, uncaused.

God is the first uncaused cause. God has and always will exist. God doesn't have a cause, He is uncaused.

Also, since you admit there is a first uncaused cause, you inadvertently admit, God exist.

Yes, the first uncaused cause (which is uncaused) caused your god, who created everything (else).

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Yes, the first uncaused cause (which is uncaused) caused your god, who created everything (else).

God is the first uncaused cause.

Since you're basically admitting that there is a first uncaused cause, you just admitted that you don't "lack" belief. you admit that God exist, because He is the first uncaused cause.

 

[Non sequitur]

God is the first uncaused cause.

Since you're basically admitting that there is a first uncaused cause, you just admitted that you don't "lack" belief. you admit that God exist, because He is the first uncaused cause.

How can you prove (books don't count) that something else was not the first cause and caused your god?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

How can you prove (books don't count) that something else was not the first cause and caused your god?

1, You basically admitted God exist by admitting there is a first uncaused cause, and that first uncaused cause is a mind, thus the first uncause cause is God. now you want to know who the True God is.

2, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Approximately 40 different witnesses of God who wrote down their accounts with no contradiction or error(The Bible), The Early Christian Martyrs, extra Biblical sources, proves that the True God is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Christianity is the truth.

 

[Non sequitur]

1, You basically admitted God exist by admitting their is a first uncaused cause, and that first uncaused cause is a mind, thus the first uncause cause is God. now you want to know who the True God is.

2, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Approximately 40 different witnesses of God who wrote down their accounts with no contradiction or error(The Bible), The Early Christian Martyrs, extra Biblical sources, proves that the True God is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Christianity is the truth.

None of that wouldn't allow for the true first cause to have caused your god. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Btw, there are plenty of contradictions and errors. Others have (recently) posted some.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

None of that wouldn't allow for the true first cause to have caused your god. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Where's your evidence? your word of mouth has no authenticity, your word of mouth/opinion is not evidence.

As I proved, the first uncaused cause is a being, is a mind, that proves without a doubt that the first uncaused cause is God. by admitting there is a first uncaused cause, you admit God exist.

now what you have to do is find out who the True God is, and the True God as proven is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Btw, there are plenty of contradictions and errors. Others have (recently) posted some.

Your proof? because again your word of mouth has no authenticity, your word of mouth isn't evidence.

 

[Non sequitur]

Where's your evidence? your word of mouth has no authenticity, your word of mouth/opinion is not evidence.

As I proved, the first uncaused cause is a being, is a mind, that proves without a doubt that the first uncaused cause is God. by admitting there is a first uncaused cause, you admit God exist.

now what you have to do is find out who the True God is, and the True God as proven is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Your proof? because again your word of mouth has no authenticity, your word of mouth isn't evidence.

First, you didn't "prove" anything. Your evidence can't be shown or evidenced (Jesus's empty tomb), same as mine, and your other claims are unproven assertions (first uncaused cause is a mind).

Second, I was told from the source. I cannot help if you are not open to it and/or cannot hear it.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

First, you didn't "prove" anything. Your evidence can't be shown or evidenced (Jesus's empty tomb), same as mine, and your other claims are unproven assertions (first uncaused cause is a mind).

1, Yes I have proven that God exist with the evidence. The first uncaused cause is evidence enough that God exist, add it up with the other evidence.

The first uncaused cause is eternal, immaterial, timeless,

now that can either be 1 of 2 things, a mind or an abstract object.

abstract objects do not cause anything, thus the first uncaused cause is a mind.

since the first uncaused cause is a mind, the first uncaused cause is a being, thus God is the first uncaused cause. God exist.

if you object provide evidence.

2. As proven with the evidence, A.L.I.V.E., the video below, Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead.

† Proof Jesus Christ is A.L.I.V.E. (Free gift included) † - YouTube

if you object, provide evidence.

Second, I was told from the source. I cannot help if you are not open to it and/or cannot hear it.

it doesn't matter who your sources are, where is your proof of this claim?

 

[1000Flames]

This thread delivered. Great entertainment value. Keep it up guys!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

wiccan_child has yet to reply to my post #606-#616 - w_child doesn't have to reply, however if he doesn't reply, that means he loses the debate, and that would just prove that he isn't an "atheist".

I didn't reply to those ten full posts because a) you were simply copy-and-pasting from websites, and I repeatedly told you I wouldn't debate you if you continued to do that; b) the parts you wrote yourself demonstrated you didn't, in fact, read my own posts - you just picked a soundbite and went off on hysterical tangents; and c) your offensive, patronising, and stubborn attitude made the discourse an exercise in bashing my head against a brick wall - why on Earth would I want to continue talking to such a horrible person?

Those three facts meant that the debate was nothing more than going through entire essays of other people's work, that my only replies were simply ignored, and that the whole thing was no longer an enjoyable. Why on Earth would I want to continue?

By all means, crow victory. You, me, and anyone who reads your posts, no that that isn't the case.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those three facts meant that the debate was nothing more than going through entire essays of other people's work,

Isn't that what scifientists do?

Don't they call that 'peer review', or something?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Isn't that what scifientists do?

Don't they call that 'peer review', or something?

Sure, but I'm not here to peer review Creationist websites. I'm here to talk to people. Unless you're willing to fund my efforts

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Isn't that what scifientists do?

Don't they call that 'peer review', or something?

True physicist/scientist would be well mannered, have professional conduct, analyze every piece of evidence, and accept proven evidence(such as the proven evidence that God exist).

all W_child did was ignore some of my arguments, slander, gave us presupposition, assumptions, could not and cannot refute the evidence I have provided that proves God exist and gave me excuses.

I didn't reply to those ten full posts because a) you were simply copy-and-pasting from websites, and I repeatedly told you I wouldn't debate you if you continued to do that;

Again, doesn't matter, information and evidence is, information and evidence no matter where it comes from.

b) the parts you wrote yourself demonstrated you didn't, in fact, read my own posts - you just picked a soundbite and went off on hysterical tangents;

Yes I did, I replied to every argument you have given, you skip alot of great points and questions I have made.

such as, what proof/evidence or an example is there of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer, created itself accidentally, randomly and from nothing?

and who is the commander of morality that is above all humanity and has authority over all humanity?

and c) your offensive, patronising, and stubborn attitude made the discourse an exercise in bashing my head against a brick wall - why on Earth would I want to continue talking to such a horrible person?

When did I offend anyone? you were the one offending when you slandered The Word of God, and I didn't stop debating you, I could have because what you did was very low, but no, you got no excuses from me.

you can insult, slander, offend all you want, and I will still refute your arguments in good conduct. I have been the one who is getting insults, stubborn attitudes, and patronized, and yet no complains from me. I still provide the evidence and prove my arguments correct.

Those three facts meant that the debate was nothing more than going through entire essays of other people's work, that my only replies were simply ignored, and that the whole thing was no longer an enjoyable. Why on Earth would I want to continue?

1, I did not ignore any of your arguments, whereas you ignored several of mine.

2,Does not matter if it was other peoples work or mine, if it was getting boring or not. you want to debate, and I gave you a debate. you can copy and paste as well and I will still reply, no excuses from me.

By all means, crow victory. You, me, and anyone who reads your posts, no that that isn't the case.

You're the one who's giving up. by giving you up lose and show that you cannot defend your "atheism", add that with the fact that no one including you has given evidence against my evidence that God exist.

you provided no proof and evidence for "atheism", could not refute my evidence, ignored some of my arguments, pathetically slandered, and gave up, thus you lose the debate and inadvertently you admit "atheism" doesn't exist. God exist.

May God Bless you, and hopefully you will one day open your eyes and accept the evidence that is already there.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The first uncaused cause is eternal, immaterial, timeless,

So you admit there can be first uncaused causes?