Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
27 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,942 Year: 21,978/19,786 Month: 541/1,834 Week: 41/500 Day: 41/96 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 136 of 176 (479033)
08-23-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object
08-23-2008 1:15 PM


You have to make clear how your creatio-ex-materia is not a science of good and evil. I don't see how you can avoid it, with your proof of God. The proof seems to inevitably lead to hard scientific knowledge of good and evil, which is forbidden knowledge.

There seems to be little point in objecting to (social) darwinism, replacing it with a theory which also posits a science of good and evil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-23-2008 1:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 4000 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 137 of 176 (481133)
09-09-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


Proof of Creation
The most clear proof for a creator is the creation. Since the world exists, it had to have been created. The difference between creationists and atheists is really whether the creator of the world was the world itself, or if there is another being responcible for the world's existence. Creationists would say that it is not possible for something physical to create itself. Atheists will say that since the concept of G-d is proven to be not comprehendable to humans, the world must have created itself. Also, even if an atheist will believe that the world is so great that it can actually create itself, and force itself into existence, he will not be able to agree that this world will have a will, and actually command people how to live their lives. This is my view of things as a creationist.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by rueh, posted 09-09-2008 4:17 PM Open MInd has not yet responded
 Message 139 by bluescat48, posted 09-09-2008 5:05 PM Open MInd has responded
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2008 7:17 PM Open MInd has responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1999 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 138 of 176 (481143)
09-09-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 3:35 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
I think Brian was asking for proof of creation, not the creator.
quote:
Since the world exists, it had to have been created.
is hardly a logical answer to this. Also, I don't see how you extrapulate,
quote:
this world will have a will, and actually command people how to live their lives
from the belief that gravity caused the formation of the earth. Why would one imply the other?

Edited by rueh, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 3:35 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 139 of 176 (481158)
09-09-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 3:35 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
Since the world exists, it had to have been created.

all the fact that the world exists is that it exists. There is no evidence that it was created. If it was created, the creator was an absolute idiot or a practical joker based on the physic laws.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 3:35 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 10:58 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 140 of 176 (481172)
09-09-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 3:35 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
Since the world exists, it had to have been created.

Since the creator exists he/she/it had to have been created. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 3:35 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 10:54 PM Straggler has responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 4000 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 141 of 176 (481195)
09-09-2008 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Straggler
09-09-2008 7:17 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
Not if this creator was absolutely simple.

Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2008 7:17 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2008 11:01 PM Open MInd has responded
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2008 6:58 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 4000 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 142 of 176 (481199)
09-09-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by bluescat48
09-09-2008 5:05 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
The evidence for the Big Bang is one bit of evidence that the universe was created. The only question is: What caused the Big Bang? The stuff itself (stuff = matter, energy, force, space, time or all of the above), or something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bluescat48, posted 09-09-2008 5:05 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3123
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 143 of 176 (481200)
09-09-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 10:54 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
Why should 'simple' or 'complex' matter? How can a 'creator' make something so much more complex than itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 10:54 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Open MInd, posted 09-10-2008 12:50 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 4000 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 144 of 176 (481222)
09-10-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by ramoss
09-09-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
How is not the question. The point is that it has happened. The universe was simple at one point in time, namely the very beginning of time. The idea of simple is that it does not have to be created. By definition it is the simplest thing in existence and it requires no creating.

Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 09-09-2008 11:01 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 8:21 PM Open MInd has not yet responded
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 09-10-2008 8:44 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 145 of 176 (481402)
09-10-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 10:54 PM


Re: Proof of Creation
Not if this creator was absolutely simple.

Simple?

Surely it is simpler to assume the creation of that which we know exists (i.e. the universe) without invoking extra pre-creation entities which are themselve unexplained and wholly unevidenced. Why explain that which we know exists in terms of that which we have no reason to believe exists.

That is simplicity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 10:54 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2454 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 146 of 176 (481422)
09-10-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Open MInd
09-10-2008 12:50 AM


Re: Proof of Creation
quote:
The idea of simple is that it does not have to be created.

That logic is complete nonsense.

Simplicity does not mean no creator. I bought a simple pencil. Does that mean it just appeared from nothing? H20 is a simple molecule. Does that mean it wasn't created from the joining of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms?

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Open MInd, posted 09-10-2008 12:50 AM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1289 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 147 of 176 (481428)
09-10-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Open MInd
09-10-2008 12:50 AM


Re: Proof of Creation
Open Mind writes:

The idea of simple is that it does not have to be created. By definition it is the simplest thing in existence and it requires no creating.

I don't think you get to evade it that easily. That may be your opinion on the matter but, it certainly isn't evidence for simple requiring no creator. If God created our universe, then he did so by creating those simple forces that were present at the moment of the BB, and therefore God would also be responsable for creating something simple.

If God is the creator, He created the most complex, AND the most simple, therefore even the most simplest of things that exist in our universe would require a creator. If God is, as you say simple, He too requires a creator that created the simple God.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Open MInd, posted 09-10-2008 12:50 AM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 148 of 176 (485777)
10-11-2008 5:08 PM


I think the best evidence for intelligent design or creationism is that it can be observed and has been observed for centuries.

We see creation all around us every day: intelligent agents arrange different objects for a specific purpose. People created the wheel, the motor, the computer. Even animals are observed creating nests and tunnel systems. So the theory that complex systems are the product of purposeful design by an intelligent agent is grounded in observable arguments.

Evolution, on the other hand has never been observed in a way that could account for life. Sure we see changing features within species but nobody has ever observed the evolution of random proteins into a living cell or the evolution of one species to another.

Therefore, if science is based on observable evidence, then creation is a better scientific theory than Darwinian evolution, no?

To frame my post I would like to add I am not religious. I do not believe in the bible, hell or heaven. But I am fascinated by the evolution vs creation debate

Edited by Kevin123, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2008 5:20 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded
 Message 150 by lyx2no, posted 10-11-2008 6:26 PM Kevin123 has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 149 of 176 (485780)
10-11-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 5:08 PM


More study required
Evolution, on the other hand has never been observed in a way that could account for life. Sure we see changing features within species but nobody has ever observed the evolution of random proteins into a living cell or the evolution of one species to another.

Therefore, if science is based on observable evidence, then creation is a better scientific theory than Darwinian evolution, no?

...I am fascinated by the evolution vs creation debate

You need to study the subject a bit more. You are making some common errors.

The theory of evolution deals with changes in the genome since life began, by whatever means. Origins is studied by the fledgling field of abiogenesis, which has several competing hypotheses, but no generally accepted theory yet.

Creation is not a scientific theory, but rather a religious belief developed from scripture and revelation, etc. The theory of evolution relies on evidence and the scientific method. Contrary to your assertion that the two are both scientific theories, they are in fact opposites.

Welcome, by the way. Stick around, read some of the older and ongoing threads and have some fun.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 5:08 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 150 of 176 (485786)
10-11-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 5:08 PM


Are
So the theory that complex systems are the product of purposeful design by an intelligent agent is grounded in observable arguments.

That complex systems can be the product of purposeful design by an intelligent agent is established fact. Snow flakes show that "are" is unachievable.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel … everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 5:08 PM Kevin123 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 7:34 PM lyx2no has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019