Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 16 of 176 (477077)
07-30-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jamison
07-30-2008 12:07 AM


Creation. Self-evident.
Welcome to the fray, jamison.
Unfortunately that's a very poor start, even for a three-word post.
That the Universe was created is not self-evident; you simply assume it to be so. And unfortunately, personal credulity proves absolutely nothing.
How would you differentiate between a Created Unvierse and a non-Created Universe? What would be the properties that distinguish one from the other, and why?
If you cannot answer that question and a Created Unvierse is identical in every way to a non-Created Universe, you have nothing more than a base assumption.
(and to pre-empt the question of why it's okay to "assume" a non-Created Unvierse but not a Created one, well...we have evidence that the universe exists. We're part of it. We do not have evidence of the existence of a Creator)
To propose an analogy, let's take an image:
Is this art, the work of an intelligent designer? Or is this simply spilled paint, random chance and chaos? The probability of the paint landing in exactly the pattern seen is astronomically small...but then, it had to land in some configuration, didn't it?
How would you distinguish simple spilled paint from an abstract masterpiece?
How would one distinguish a Created Universe from a non-Created one?
We have an advantage with art - we have multiple examples of both accidents and actual art, while we have only one Universe to study, with no other Universes to compare it to and contrast their properties. We also have artists who are more than willing to take credit for their work, while any deities seem fairly silent - the only claims of their existence come from their followers, who both can never objectively substantiate their claims and are so disparate that it seems every culture has their own proposed Creator, each with a completely different methodology and personality, and sometimes not even just one. Sure, we have ancient texts like the Bible, but we also have thousands of other texts from ancient religions around the world. Given the same objective amount of evidence, you embrace one but would scoff at, say, the Egyptian religion, or the Norse gods.
So clearly, the mere existence of the Universe is not self-evident support for a Creator, any more than paint necessarily provides evidence for a painter - particularly with no additional examples to compare with.
Your claim that a Creator exists leaves a lot to be desired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jamison, posted 07-30-2008 12:07 AM jamison has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-30-2008 1:06 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 176 (477078)
07-30-2008 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rahvin
07-30-2008 12:54 AM


Rahvin writes:
How would you differentiate between a Created Unvierse and a non-Created Universe? What would be the properties that distinguish one from the other, and why?
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.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 12:54 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 1:44 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2008 5:58 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 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

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 176 (477080)
07-30-2008 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by bluegenes
07-30-2008 1:44 AM


Sounds like a good argument for the non-existence of a non-created creator. Look around.....
~(~(Creator)) = Creator!
Thanks bluegenes finally you agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 1:44 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 2:20 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 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 2476 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.

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 22 of 176 (477084)
07-30-2008 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


When I do read a evo/creo thread, or discuss the topic with 'street-preachers', what they consider to be their best argument is that 'evolution is only a theory', or they might mention 'missing links'. However, this is not the kind of 'evidence' I am looking for, I would like to see evidence FOR creation, and not just evidence against evolution because IF evolution is incorrect this doesn't mean that creation is true.
Thank you for saying that, Brian. It's a very good point.
I think Answers made good comments in Message 9.
Everything can be seen as consistent with belief in creationism. It's mostly unfalsifiable, and thus scientifically useless. Doesn't mean there isn't a Creator, just that there's no means for scientifically proving one way or the other.
I really think faith has to be invoked for one to fully embrace any specific theistic religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 9:02 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 10:41 AM Deftil has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 176 (477085)
07-30-2008 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by bluegenes
07-30-2008 2:20 AM


Re: Created creators
bluegenes writes:
As soon as you imply that the existence of something requires a creator, you automatically imply that the existent creator requires a creator,
No: Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requires
existence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator.
You can't argue that a Creator exists, you can only try and argue that
he doesn't.
Existence is an axiom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 2:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 7:05 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 24 of 176 (477086)
07-30-2008 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by LucyTheApe
07-30-2008 1:06 AM


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.
How does that follow? Aren't you just assuming your answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-30-2008 1:06 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 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

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 26 of 176 (477088)
07-30-2008 7:27 AM


Why do threads with an OP like this one always do this?
I strongly suspect that I know that answer, but just for giggles, Comrade Evilutionists, let's all stand back a bit and see if one our creationist friends will rise to the challenge.

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 27 of 176 (477103)
07-30-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jamison
07-30-2008 12:07 AM


Hi,
If it was self evident I wouldn't have asked the question.
If it is self evident to you then fine.
Is the identity of the creator also self evident?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jamison, posted 07-30-2008 12:07 AM jamison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jamison, posted 07-31-2008 9:00 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 28 of 176 (477107)
07-30-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Deftil
07-30-2008 4:21 AM


I really think faith has to be invoked for one to fully embrace any specific theistic religion.
That's an excellent point and I firmly believe that creationists who present 'evidence' for creation have a WEAK faith.
I think the people who look for things such as Noah's Ark, and other biblical artefacts, have a very weak faith.
Religions require that adherents have faith that what that religion promotes and teaches is true. Looking for evidence to support what a religion claims suggests that the person who takes this approach doesn't have that much faith in their religion.
Remember the hullabaloo over the Ossuary of James the Brother of Jesus? Although ultimately it was a fake, I really don't see what difference it should make to someone's faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour if it was somehow confirmed that the contents did contain the remains of Jesus' bro.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Deftil, posted 07-30-2008 4:21 AM Deftil has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 176 (477117)
07-30-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


Well, freedom is established to be real, by various studies, most notably Dubois' strong anticipation theory. But the best evidence for creation is not that much in science or religion, the best evidence is still in common sense, and common knowledge.
Basicly common knowledge, strong anticipation theory, and "common" religion posit 3 general creationist principles:
- that decisions occur throughout the universe
- that creation comes from nothing, creatio ex nihilo
- that what creates lays in the spiritual domain
So for best evidence I refer to common sense, or otherwise Dubois' strong anticpation theory.
On the meaning of the last principle; the spiritual domain is simply the category of knowledge that we know by decision. So for instance the knowledge about who loves who, is already knowledge about the spiritual domain. This knowledge is not based on objective fact, or so to say passing on information we find in the universe, this information is created by ourselves. So we know who loves who by a decision in our heart.
Since we can trace back history far in time with only a few universal laws, to the beginning of the universe almost, it's therefore true that big decisions at the beginning of the universe created much of what we see now. For if on the other hand we couldn't trace back to the beginning of the universe, then there would als not be big decisions at the beginning of the universe, but then there would only be small decisions and we wouldn't be able to come close to the beginning.
Or so to say, you can't for instance trace back history with only a few principles, if very many unique decisions were made in that history. Then you would have to find all those unique decisions, to trace back the history.
So you see just by using common sense, you can get the best evidence for creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 9:02 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 11:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 176 (477120)
07-30-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Syamsu
07-30-2008 11:18 AM


So you would say that the best evidence for creation is a philosophical argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2008 11:18 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2008 1:09 PM Brian has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024