Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 8:51 AM
20 online now:
Percy (Admin), RAZD (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,804 Year: 8,840/19,786 Month: 1,262/2,119 Week: 22/576 Day: 22/50 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 121 of 176 (477550)
08-04-2008 12:36 PM


The idea behind the OP was for creationsist to present their best evidence for creation, and whatever they think is the best evidence is fine.

One thing that has developed out of this is just how poor the evidence is when wishing to use it to convince others that creation is true.

Maybe creationists should take a step back and realise just how poor their position is scientifically.

So far all we have had are philosophical arguments, most of which are badly flawed.

Is there really a battle between evolution and creation because I can only see one side providing any evidence of any scientific value?


Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by obvious Child, posted 08-05-2008 1:04 AM Brian has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2879 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 122 of 176 (477569)
08-04-2008 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ICANT
08-04-2008 11:14 AM


I Concede
If you say that is what you think is the best evidence for creationism I can only disagree by calling you a fibber.

Brian, I think the best evidence for creationism is the scar I have over my right eye caused by a badly preformed trampoline stunt back in 1972. But then again, you didn't ask me because I'm not daft enough to be a creationist. But it's as good as anything I've read so far.

Edited by lyx2no, : Mistype.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

One hot lesbian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 11:14 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 11:01 PM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2008 11:42 PM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 129 by Brian, posted 08-05-2008 3:37 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 123 of 176 (477570)
08-04-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by lyx2no
08-04-2008 10:27 PM


Re: I Concede
lyx2no writes:

f you say that is what you think is the best evidence for creationism I can only disagree by calling you a fibber.

Which post did I say: 'the best evidence for creationism' in.

I have continually said:

If it did not exist as Hawking says and has a beginning as Hawking and Peebles say, it had to be brought into existence by some means.

"If the universe had a beginning/origin, It had to be created. (brought into being/existence)

That is the best evidence for creation."


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2008 10:27 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2008 11:12 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 131 by Admin, posted 08-05-2008 8:11 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 124 of 176 (477571)
08-04-2008 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
08-04-2008 11:01 PM


Re: I Concede
"If the universe had a beginning/origin, It had to be created. (brought into being/existence)

That is the best evidence for creation."

"If an earthquake had a beginning/origin, it had to be created (brought into being/existence)

That is the best evidence for creation."

Not all things need to be created, ICANT. You havent in any way shown that they do. All you've done is repeat the same failure to comprehend the concept of time as it applies to the universe, and make a bare assertion with no evidence at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 11:01 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 125 of 176 (477573)
08-04-2008 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by lyx2no
08-04-2008 10:27 PM


Re: I Concede
Brian, I think the best evidence for creationism is the scar I have over my right eye caused by a badly preformed trampoline stunt back in 1972.

Wow: I have a scar over my right eye caused by a screen door swinging open in ~1950-1955 ... :eek: ... (faint)

(cue apocalypse music)

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2008 10:27 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2278 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 126 of 176 (477576)
08-05-2008 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Brian
08-04-2008 12:36 PM


quote:
Maybe creationists should take a step back and realise just how poor their position is scientifically.

Well if they did that, they wouldn't be creationists.

There is no empirical evidence for creation. In fact, YEC has problems that extend well into the philosophical, namely that God must be a giant liar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Brian, posted 08-04-2008 12:36 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Brian, posted 08-05-2008 3:29 AM obvious Child has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 127 of 176 (477582)
08-05-2008 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by obvious Child
08-05-2008 1:04 AM


There is no empirical evidence for creation.

Any idea what the 'creation museum' use for exhibits?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by obvious Child, posted 08-05-2008 1:04 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by obvious Child, posted 08-06-2008 2:30 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 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 yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 129 of 176 (477584)
08-05-2008 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by lyx2no
08-04-2008 10:27 PM


Re: I Concede
Brian, I think the best evidence for creationism is the scar I have over my right eye caused by a badly preformed trampoline stunt back in 1972.

Talking about scars, here's an argument against creation.

In 2000 I had the anterior cruciate ligament in me left knee reconstructed by using a length of tendon taken from the middle of the patellar tendon of my left knee, the surgeon said that the new 'ligament' is far stronger than a normal cruciate ligament. So why did God not use the same stuff that patellar tendons are made of to make our cruciates?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2008 10:27 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1806 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 130 of 176 (477585)
08-05-2008 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
08-04-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Existence
And there was nonexistence 14 billion years ago as you say.

I certainly did not say this, as it is nonsense.

The Universe possibly has a 'beginning' 14 billion years ago, i.e. there is a minimum value to the time dimension. To then say that therefore there was nonexistence 14.00001 billion years ago is complete lunacy. You are trying to claim that the earth does not exist north of the north pole. The beginning is not a point of creation, in the same way the north pole is not an edge of the world. And here we are back to very first concepts we tried to explain to you last year, and we do not seem to have progressed any further.

I think this tediously repetitive digression has taken up enough of Brian's thread, so I shall bow out now.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 131 of 176 (477590)
08-05-2008 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
08-04-2008 11:01 PM


Re: I Concede
You lost your posting permissions in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum for arguing just as you are here. Please cease participation in this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 11:01 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2278 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 132 of 176 (477662)
08-06-2008 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Brian
08-05-2008 3:29 AM


You don't know?

Money-fool-separators.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Brian, posted 08-05-2008 3:29 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 133 of 176 (479021)
08-23-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by cavediver
07-31-2008 4:32 AM


http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/abstracts05.htm
2. Anticipation is Nowhere and its Logic is Nothing
(Michael A. Heather & B. Nick Rossiter)
"However anticipation seems to assume a more fundamental form of nothing. Before both mathematics and physics lies logic. There is the logic of nothing."

So there's a few things you need to understand for creationism, which are not understood in regular science.

- freedom
- the future, the present
- decision
- real time as distinguished from relative time
- nothing
- the spiritual realm

Now obviously the main objection of atheists is with the spiritual realm, but that is a logical neccesity following from freedom. The spiritual realm is simply a name for what does the deciding. It is a logical construct that works. We can only know this spiritual realm by decision, so it is neccesarily subjective what is in there. Is it love, or hate, is it the devil or God? The question can only be answered with a decision.

Creationism is the right way to do science, because otherwise you will end up with an "objective" pseudoscience of good and evil.

So when you say you object to faith in God because of lack of evidence, you are equally saying good and evil are matters of scientific fact, not of faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:32 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1210 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 134 of 176 (479028)
08-23-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?

Genesis biological cosmogony advocates that living things, past and present, owe their existence in reality to special creation, that is, Divine power intruding into reality causing their existence or creation ex materia.

The best evidence of these claims is observation: the biological world looks specially created; followed by the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism and in nature as a whole. The latter phenomena says Divine power is operating in reality, corroborating special creation.

Ray


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 135 by Coyote, posted 08-23-2008 1:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 136 by Syamsu, posted 08-23-2008 2:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 135 of 176 (479032)
08-23-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object
08-23-2008 1:15 PM


Best evidence?
The best evidence of these claims is observation: the biological world looks specially created; followed by the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism and in nature as a whole.

The biological world only looks created to those who a priori already believe in creationism.

To those who actually look at the evidence and follow the scientific method, descent with modification explains everything we see quite well. There is no need to invent various gods and demons to explain natural phenomena when the very observation you advocate leads to perfectly adequate explanations.

Edited by Coyote, : coding error

Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.


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

  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019