What would falsify creationism?

[Oncedeceived]

What evidence do you have that evolution is anything other than a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan? what could be guiding it? someone's imagination?
Other animals do not have Gods because they have no imaginations with which to imagine Gods.

Evidence that the majority of scientists call illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It can probably be taken for granted that there will one day be a viable theory about how life got started in the first place, but that definitely will not be any reason for concluding that God does not exist. That would only follow if your only reason for believing in him in the first place was to plug a gap in the scientific world view. Your god would have been a god of the gaps, in other words.

I guess you aren't aware that whois doesn't believe in God. Your creationist bias is showing again.

 

[SkyWriting]

It doesn't try to discredit evolution and your understanding of what it is all about is apparent. Most creationists accept evolution as defined but do not feel that evolution is a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan.

I don't feel those words are accurate. Under the premise that God is the Alpha and Omega
then what begins and ends are both known quantities. God doesn't need to engage in control,
guidance, or direction. The beginning, middle and end are all known quantities.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Evidence that the majority of scientists call illusion.

Illusion? are you happy with that? although if you have no evidence what choices are there? dismissal or a delusion.

 

[SkyWriting]

What evidence do you have that evolution is anything other than a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan? what could be guiding it? someone's imagination?
Other animals do not have Gods because they have no imaginations with which to imagine Gods.

Is that beneficial, or not?

 

[Jan Volkes]

I don't feel those words are accurate. Under the premise that God is the Alpha and Omega
then what begins and ends are both known quantities. God doesn't need to engage in control,
guidance, or direction. The beginning, middle and end are all known quantities.

That's right, what a God needs, does or can do is limited only by the imagination of the believer, after all none of the Gods exist in the dimensions of the believers so what else is a believer supposed to do other than use their imaginations.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Is that beneficial, or not?

Is what beneficial or not imagining gods? to a certain extent yes if it reduces anxiety.

 

[lesliedellow]

I guess you aren't aware that whois doesn't believe in God. Your creationist bias is showing again.

I guess you must have misread my post, because I am certainly not a creationist.

 

[whois]

Which makes my point, even if they could get life to form, it would be from intelligent design.

this is why it needs to be one continuous reaction, to remove all doubt about intelligent intervention.
the only way you could use the "intelligent" scenario is if you had many separate reactions and then mixing the reactants in the right proportion.
having one continuous reaction removes that possibility.

 

[whois]

I guess you must have misread my post, because I am certainly not a creationist.

try not to let it worry you, i get that constantly.
i'm not a creationist either, but i do have an open mind and i'm not shy about pointing out facts that intelligence seems to be involved.
DNA and its transcription system does indeed appear intelligently designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't feel those words are accurate. Under the premise that God is the Alpha and Omega
then what begins and ends are both known quantities. God doesn't need to engage in control,
guidance, or direction. The beginning, middle and end are all known quantities.

So how does that make what I said inaccurate?

 

[SkyWriting]

Is what beneficial or not imagining gods? to a certain extent yes if it reduces anxiety.

So that would be bad for the other animals? Why just us?

 

[Oncedeceived]

this is why it needs to be one continuous reaction, to remove all doubt about intelligent intervention.
the only way you could use the "intelligent" scenario is if you had many separate reactions and then mixing the reactants in the right proportion.
having one continuous reaction removes that possibility.

I am sorry whois, I am not getting you here. I don't see that as significant.

 

[SkyWriting]

So how does that make what I said inaccurate?

God doesn't need to engage in control,
guidance, or direction. Those words don't
apply unless God is stuck with linear time
like us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I guess you must have misread my post, because I am certainly not a creationist.

Your biased against creationists.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's right, what a God needs, does or can do is limited only by the imagination of the believer, after all none of the Gods exist in the dimensions of the believers so what else is a believer supposed to do other than use their imaginations.

Given the number of people who do believe our world exists, then likely it does.
The same goes for God.

I am often startled when my completely deaf dog starts barking from a sound sleep.
Evidently her imagination is working fine.

 

[whois]

I am sorry whois, I am not getting you here. I don't see that as significant.

okay, to take a very simple example.
sodium and chlorine.
you bring these two elements together and you get salt.
no intelligence involved.
OTOH, organometallic compounds require an intelligence to create, they are not naturally occurring compounds.
they do however exist inside life, two of the most common are hemoglobin and chlorophyll.
even this doesn't point to an intelligence because these compounds could have been made by various proteins, themselves created by DNA.

even if an intelligence is "proved", it by no means proves it to be "religious and holy".
there are other sources of intelligence other than a religious one.
a transdimensional entity could be this intelligence, existing neither here nor there, but existing nonetheless.
i honestly believe that we will find that the universe is infinite, at the very least FAR more complex than what we now can imagine.

 

[lesliedellow]

Your biased against creationists.

I am wholly biased against their nonsense. I freely admit it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

God doesn't need to engage in control,
guidance, or direction. Those words don't
apply unless God is stuck with linear time
like us.

I don't think He "needs" to do anything. He wants us to see His work in the universe and all living things. He says that HE did it that way so we would know He exists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

okay, to take a very simple example.
sodium and chlorine.
you bring these two elements together and you get salt.
no intelligence involved.
OTOH, organometallic compounds require an intelligence to create, they are not naturally occurring compounds.
they do however exist inside life, two of the most common are hemoglobin and chlorophyll.
even this doesn't point to an intelligence because these compounds could have been made by various proteins, themselves created by DNA.

even if an intelligence is "proved", it by no means proves it to be "religious and holy".
there are other sources of intelligence other than a religious one.
a transdimensional entity could be this intelligence, existing neither here nor there, but existing nonetheless.
i honestly believe that we will find that the universe is infinite, at the very least FAR more complex than what we now can imagine.

Speaking from experience with this intelligence...God He is far more complex than we can imagine and He claims to be the Christian God.