Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 176 (477017)
07-29-2008 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


Adam's footprint
Brian writes:
So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?
I think this fossil that I've linked to in another thread is the best evidence I've seen for creation. The claim is that this is best explained as Adam's footprint when he was out walking his pet dinosaur before the fall. Beat that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 9:02 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by rueh, posted 07-29-2008 12:49 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2008 9:59 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 18 of 176 (477079)
07-30-2008 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by LucyTheApe
07-30-2008 1:06 AM


LucyThePhilosophicalApe writes:
One exists and one doesn't.
Look around.. if you see anything that resembles a universe then
the chances are it was created. The non-created one doesn't exist because it hasn't been created.
Sounds like a good argument for the non-existence of a non-created creator. Look around.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-30-2008 1:06 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-30-2008 2:03 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 20 of 176 (477081)
07-30-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by LucyTheApe
07-30-2008 2:03 AM


Created creators
LucyTheApe writes:
Thanks bluegenes finally you agree.
Your formula doesn't fit my words. A non-created creator not existing does not mean that a creator exists. There's no double negative there.
As soon as you imply that the existence of something requires a creator, you automatically imply that the existent creator requires a creator, and you hit the road towards infinite regression (while blaspheming your God). Careful, Lucy. Remember the eternal fires of your cruel and sadistic deity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-30-2008 2:03 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-30-2008 5:34 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 21 of 176 (477083)
07-30-2008 3:58 AM


More fossil evidence
I introduced another fossil a while back which is seen by evolutionists as a transitional from lizard to snake, but could surely be presented by creationists as evidence as well.
Thread here.
BBC article here.
This is a fossilized snake with two legs, which could surely be Serpentus Erectus, the species before the unfortunate fruit eating incident and the fall. It is a fossil that illustrates Genesis directly:
quote:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
It's not yet clear if the fossil shows evidence of vocal chords.
Combined with Adam's foot print mentioned further up the thread, I'd say that the creationist case is looking pretty strong.
What young earth paleontologists are looking for now (in their oxymoronic way) is evidence of the third famous inhabitant of the Garden. A discreet (post-fall) fig leaf with the Hebrew letter "E" embroidered on it would be a great find, for example.

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 25 of 176 (477087)
07-30-2008 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by LucyTheApe
07-30-2008 5:34 AM


Ape philosophy?
LucyTheRatherConfusedApe writes:
No: Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requires
existence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator.
It means that a creator requires a creator in order to exist, and so the infinite regression, which itself (the regression) requires a creator etc.
LucyTheApeBrain writes:
You can't argue that a Creator exists, you can only try and argue that he doesn't.
You can try and argue anything you want.
LucyTheLawmaker writes:
Existence is an axiom.
No it isn't. Existence is the default position for things we can observe either directly or indirectly. It is a possibility for things we can hypothesise the existence of with some evidence, and an improbability for speculative suggestions for which we have no evidence.
Which category does your creator God fit into is sort of the topic of the thread. Have you any evidence for creationism?
So far, bluegenes is the only one to attempt a presentation of hard evidence from the fossil record. Simian level philosophy is not evidence, LucyTheSimian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-30-2008 5:34 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 1:23 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 176 (477138)
07-30-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
07-30-2008 1:23 PM


God of the Gaps
Lucy writes:
Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requires
existence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator.
ICANT writes:
Why does it mean a creator requires a creator?
In careful English: The statement "existence requires a creator" means that a creator cannot exist without a creator, because his existence would require a creator.
ICANTspeakEnglish writes:
bluegenes you keep asking, who created God?
No, I do not. What I do is, when any of your fellow theists come out with statements like "existence requires a creator" is point out that their statements have inbuilt contradictions.
Of course existence cannot require a creator, otherwise the creator couldn't exist to create, so nothing could exist.
If you now understand this, please help me in pointing out to the rest of the God squad how nonsensical that kind of statement is.
In fact, the opposite must be true. Existence does not require a creator (whether there is one or not).
The definition of God is I AM. That is everything that exists.
There are many definitions of the word God. If your preferred one is "everything" that's fine, but there's already a word for that, which is "everything".
ICANT writes:
Now I have a question I have been trying to get an answer too for well over a year now. Maybe you can supply one for me.
Who/What created/formed the speck/smear/point or whatever you want to call it that expanded into our present universe?
I don't know, and so far as I know, no-one knows.
That is the best answers Science can put forth for the existence of our universe.
Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator.
"Everything" created the universe, you mean? Or has your God changed character from being "everything" to being a being who created this universe in the space of a few short sentences? That's just a version of "God of the Gaps", the God who is traditionally stuck in the gaps of human knowledge, and counts more as a joke these days, certainly not evidence.
Personally, I think that the thing we need to learn to do when we don't know something is to do the honest thing, and to say we don't know. One thing's for sure, though. If we start to think of things that could have created the universe, we would be able to come up with a virtually infinite number of ideas. The chances of any individual one of them being true would therefore be infinitesimally small.
So think of the ICANT god of the gaps in that context.
God Bless,
"Gaps in knowledge" bless you too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 1:23 PM ICANT has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 53 of 176 (477174)
07-30-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
07-30-2008 5:21 PM


No requirement for faith
ICANTphilosophisetosavemyass! writes:
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
Any answer except the honest one, which doesn't begin with "I believe", and doesn't require faith, does it ICANT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 5:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 11:58 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 56 of 176 (477193)
07-31-2008 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
07-30-2008 11:58 PM


Try honesty
From your other post:
ICANTbehonest writes:
The question then becomes what was that some thing.
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
No one that I know of has ever given any evidence for anything that took place at creation. Thus my statement any answer would have to begin with I believe.
Now if you got something better I am all ears and would love to hear it.
The honest answer, one you seem incapable of, is "I don't know".
Sticking things like goddesses or elves or wizards or anything else magical in the gaps in your knowledge is dishonest. It is self-deception, and you are certainly old enough to stop telling yourself comfort lies, aren't you?
I'm sure you're probably a nice guy in many ways, but you don't have the courage to be honest with yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 11:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 12:44 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 62 of 176 (477204)
07-31-2008 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ICANT
07-31-2008 12:44 AM


Re: Try honesty
ICANTreadEnglish writes:
But "I don't know" does not begin to answer the question of the OP.
But I didn't give you the answer "I don't know" to that question, did I. The honest answer to that is that you don't know of any evidence for creation, but you believe in the creation of this universe by the ICANT God because of your faith.
Gods have to be believed in through faith, because there isn't any evidence for any of them. Complete lack of evidence does not automatically mean non-existence, so who knows, you might be lucky, but I'd guess that the probability of you being right is about the same as winning your state lottery ten times in a row, because of all the other possible causes of the universe, if it was caused!
Good luck, anyway, because nice guys usually have nice Gods.
Edited by bluegenes, : correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 12:44 AM ICANT has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 75 of 176 (477343)
08-01-2008 10:23 AM


No evidence so far.
To summarise, there's no real evidence for creationism been given at all. Some pseudo philosophical ramblings and a couple of jokes about fossils, and that's it. All those decades of "creation science" for nothing?

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 3:09 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 117 of 176 (477537)
08-04-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
08-04-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Existence
ICANT writes:
Since there is existence now...
And there was nonexistence 14 billion years ago as you say.
There had to be a creation of existence 14 billion years ago as it did not exist.
So, existence was created 14 billion years ago by a non-existent creator, was it?
How fascinating!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 12:34 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 128 of 176 (477583)
08-05-2008 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
08-04-2008 12:34 PM


127 posts, no evidence!
ICANT writes:
Existence has no beginning and no end.
Only the things that exist in existence has a beginning and end.
What you need to understand is that existence cannot require a creator, obviously, because if so, nothing could exist. Therefore, the existence of the universe or anything else cannot in itself be evidence for creationism, as things can provably exist without creators.
What this means is that the only evidence presented in this thread for creationism (apart from my fossil jokes) is not actually evidence for creationism at all. It seems that there is none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 12:34 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024