What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[mathetes123]

If God had something for one of His secretaries to write ... believe me ... he would live until he wrote it.

As I understand it, John was put in a vat of boiling oil ... and survived.

Daniel was thrown in a lion's den ... and survived.

Jonah in a whale's belly.

If you want evidence, consider all the atheists who come to this Christian forum to debate something they believe does not even exist. To what end?

 

[Dieselman]

Yo, I've been reading this thread on and off but as anyone posted why creationism is a valid scientific alternative? Yet to see it!

I, for one, never called Creationism scientific. God spoke the universe into existence. Natural law was a consequence of the creation, not a factor in its origination. If you are seeking a purely natural cause for the creation of the universe, you will never find it. If you are seeking the truth, then Creationism holds the only answer.

Science is the study of the natural world around us. Religion is the worship of the Creator of the natural world around us. God is real. Your concept of reality is the illusion. Man has known of God and has interacted with Him for the entirety of man's existence. Now you say that you don't believe any of it because you personally have not seen God nor has He been proven to you. You demand physical proof of a supernatural entity, a concept most would call stupid. That's like demanding that you drive me to Australia. Science can't get you to God, nor can science explain either the nature of God or the miracles of God.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." That's because the fool demands that God be demonstrated on his terms. He doesn't seek out God on God's terms. The simple fact is that one day each of us will stand in the presence of God; some for the first time, and some for the last. What's the scientific alternative to that?

 

[mathetes123]

I, for one, never called Creationism scientific. God spoke the universe into existence. Natural law was a consequence of the creation, not a factor in its origination. If you are seeking a purely natural cause for the creation of the universe, you will never find it. If you are seeking the truth, then Creationism holds the only answer.

Science is the study of the natural world around us. Religion is the worship of the Creator of the natural world around us. God is real. Your concept of reality is the illusion. Man has known of God and has interacted with Him for the entirety of man's existence. Now you say that you don't believe any of it because you personally have not seen God nor has He been proven to you. You demand physical proof of a supernatural entity, a concept most would call stupid. That's like demanding that you drive me to Australia. Science can't get you to God, nor can science explain either the nature of God or the miracles of God.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." That's because the fool demands that God be demonstrated on his terms. He doesn't seek out God on God's terms. The simple fact is that one day each of us will stand in the presence of God; some for the first time, and some for the last. What's the scientific alternative to that?

Amen!

Anyone who sincerely seeks after God will find him.

 

[46AND2]

I, for one, never called Creationism scientific. God spoke the universe into existence. Natural law was a consequence of the creation, not a factor in its origination. If you are seeking a purely natural cause for the creation of the universe, you will never find it. If you are seeking the truth, then Creationism holds the only answer.

Science is the study of the natural world around us. Religion is the worship of the Creator of the natural world around us. God is real. Your concept of reality is the illusion. Man has known of God and has interacted with Him for the entirety of man's existence. Now you say that you don't believe any of it because you personally have not seen God nor has He been proven to you. You demand physical proof of a supernatural entity, a concept most would call stupid. That's like demanding that you drive me to Australia. Science can't get you to God, nor can science explain either the nature of God or the miracles of God.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." That's because the fool demands that God be demonstrated on his terms. He doesn't seek out God on God's terms. The simple fact is that one day each of us will stand in the presence of God; some for the first time, and some for the last. What's the scientific alternative to that?

That's all fine and dandy, but if you assert (correctly) that the supernatural cannot be proven to you, how can you possibly determine the right god from the wrong one?

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

--Steven Roberts

 

[46AND2]

If you want evidence, consider all the atheists who come to this Christian forum to debate something they believe does not even exist. To what end?

Who says there has to be an end game?

I enjoy discussing it. It leads me on tangents of research that I otherwise would not have thought to look into.

 

[46AND2]

Anyone who sincerely seeks after God will find him.

Hmm. I begged for a decade for God to strengthen my weakening faith.

See yours is the un-falsifiable claim.

You'll retort with, "well, you just didn't have enough patience to wait for God's time," or "well, perhaps you weren't as sincere as you claimed to have been." Or one of several other possible, but equally contrived phrases.

By giving these rationalizations, you don't have to ponder whether you might be wrong about your statement.

 

[Jro]

I, for one, never called Creationism scientific.

I wrote a really long reply, but it boils down to me going on tangents, when the thread is pretty simply answered with this. Suffice it to say that I don't see anything wrong with relying on evidence and disbelieving in any unsupported entities. If you think I should take your religion seriously, I'd love to know how it's different from any of the multitude of claims made by other religious individuals. In the meantime, I don't have any other theoretical system to investigate the natural world besides evolution, and that's what I'm interested in. You can argue that I should be more concerned with my salvation, but I'd rather think about fish.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want evidence, consider all the atheists who come to this Christian forum to debate something they believe does not even exist. To what end?

I've done that before. I've made the point that atheists themselves are evidence of the convicting power of God. For seemingly not believing anything we say, they sure ask a lot of questions and spend a lot of their time with us, eh?

Argue for the existence of Santa Claus and they might ask a couple of questions, then quit.

Buddha? Mohammad? Ahura Mazda? ... meh ... maybe a question now and then.

But mention Jesus Christ and it's like ringing the bell for the Inquisition.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's all fine and dandy, but if you assert (correctly) that the supernatural cannot be proven to you, how can you possibly determine the right god from the wrong one?

Taste.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Ever heard of 'the joy of thy salvation'?

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think I should take your religion seriously, I'd love to know how it's different from any of the multitude of claims made by other religious individuals.

You can't keep their prophecies from being fulfilled.

 

[46AND2]

Taste.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Ever heard of 'the joy of thy salvation'?

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

How is your joy different than that of a Muslim? Hindu? Mormon?

How do you know you are right and they are wrong, instead of the other way around?

 

[Jro]

You can't keep their prophecies from being fulfilled.

I want to talk about fish. How does creationism help me learn things about fish.

 

[Jamin4422]

How is your joy different than that of a Muslim? Hindu? Mormon?

Science does not try to compare different religions. As far as they are concerned the benefit IE JOY is the same. As compared with people that are not a part of an organized religion.

 

[Jamin4422]

I want to talk about fish. How does creationism help me learn things about fish.

Creationism teaches you that when you go fishing to make sure your net is in good repair because you will be catching more fish then you will know what to do with.

 

[46AND2]

Science does not try to compare different religions. As far as they are concerned the benefit IE JOY is the same. As compared with people that are not a part of an organized religion.

Correct. So how does one know that he/she is worshiping the right god?

 

[Jro]

Creationism teaches you that when you go fishing to make sure your net is in good repair because you will be catching more fish then you will know what to do with.

Not true! I've been fishing many times with a good net and have caught no fish, one prediction falsified.

 

[AV1611VET]

I want to talk about fish.

Good ... you can start with this one:

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct. So how does one know that he/she is worshiping the right god?

There is only one God.

 

[Jro]

Good ... you can start with this one:

That is a very boring fish here is a more interesting one:

Please tell me how creationism will help me study it.

 

[46AND2]

There is only one God.

So says you. How do you know?

How do you know the one god is not Krishna?