It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists, what is your case for proving creationism?

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Again, evidence is colored by the glasses one views their worldview through. In the universe the creationist sees purpose, design and a Creator. The evolutionist sees really no rhyme or reason for the universe other than a cosmic accident of time plus chance equals life.

It can easily be asked "What evidence would convince an evolutionist that the God of Scripture is real?" -OR- "What evidence would you expect to see if the supernatural existed?"

Again, how did the evolutionist come to know the word "evidence" based on an empirical world view that observation brings about knowledge? Whatever evidence a creationist brings to the table the evolutionist will find that it can be answered through empirical means and if there is not one now there will one day be one.

The evolutionist brings forth their evidence but the creationist sees God behind it, not natural selection or time plus chance equals life.




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



Oh, in the same place you explain how. It's in the unknown part. You gets yours, I get mine.


Eh?

“Where do you set out the evidence that points to there being an intelligence involved?”

“In the unknown part”

That doesn’t answer the question; it doesn’t really make any sense at all.

Your evidence is in the unknown part? You mean that if something’s unknown then that is evidence of god? What’s scientific about that?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Oh, I was thrown off by this...




There's no how in that



I thought you were asking me "how". I don't know "how". Probably along the same lines that science is moving towards.

Okay, to the question of where the intelligence is. Because there is intent required, that's one evidence. Because there are results that the physical can't answer, that's another evidence.

I have less unanswered gaps than you.

I can answer - why did the Big Bang occur? What caused it to occur?

You cannot.

I can answer - where did nonphysiological traits come from such as - sentience, compassion, conscience, agape love, belief, faith, and inquisitiveness for the sole sake of desiring knowledge versus filling a physiological need. You can't.

I can answer - where did gravity come from??? You can't.

I see intelligence and intent. You see chaos resulting in complex ordered systems.

I see intent for creation, physical laws and results based on order - you see the need for dark matter, fractals and gap-filled classification systems...all band-aids and crutches to a system that has utilized statistics to sell the wildest speculations as theories.

I really don't believe we were the roll of die. I believe there was intent. And I believe the universe presents more evidence toward that than it does toward to unexplainable and unprovable theories that are pitched to explain what amorphous "event" and "process" created our universe, and then us.

[edit on 8-31-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


I see what your getting at. The so called experts. Kind of like listening to the financial experts on Wall Street. Lol. Just because someone went to college doesn't make them smarter...John Hutchinson for instance. lol



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


I see what your getting at. The so called experts. Kind of like listening to the financial experts on Wall Street. Lol. Just because someone went to college doesn't make them smarter...John Hutchinson for instance. lol


Oh, my heavens. Would you let a major in history perform brain surgery on you? There is a difference, and it is one of specialization.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



Because there is intent required, that's one evidence. Because there are results that the physical can't answer, that's another evidence.


Intent required in what?

What results can’t the physical answer and from where do they derive?


I have less unanswered gaps than you.

I can answer - why did the Big Bang occur? What caused it to occur?


No you can’t. You can make something up, but saying god caused it is no better than saying chance caused it. You need to show the evidence that points to your conclusion and in the long term test the hypothesis.

If I said the flying spaghetti monster created everything I would have no gaps but that doesn’t make it true.


You bring up things like dark matter which is an interesting point in that it illustrates exactly what I’m looking for. Dark Matter is posited because it is needed to explain our observations, this proposed matter is finely defined and it is now in the process of being tested. This is the difference between science and what has been given for creationism (so far).



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A


What results can’t the physical answer and from where do they derive?


I already answered that.



No you can’t. You can make something up, but saying god caused it is no better than saying chance caused it. You need to show the evidence that points to your conclusion and in the long term test the hypothesis.


Yes, I can. Do not call my answer "made up". If I must produce the evidence for the Creator's actions, you must produce the evidence for the Big Bang and the creation of first life and it's connection to humankind. Do not point backward and say "it happened, trust me". Produce the evidence. This is not a one-way street. We are on equal ground.




If I said the flying spaghetti monster created everything I would have no gaps but that doesn’t make it true.


You may choose to use that answer. I would ask for some context other than a militant atheist's created sarcastic rendering of a ludicrous caricature constructed for the purpose of ridiculing an opposing viewpoint that you pulled your spaghetti monster from - but then if you chose to embrace it, I'd let you. And hand you a napkin to wipe the sauce from your face.



You bring up things like dark matter which is an interesting point in that it illustrates exactly what I’m looking for. Dark Matter is posited because it is needed to explain our observations, this proposed matter is finely defined and it is now in the process of being tested. This is the difference between science and what has been given for creationism (so far).


It's posited because it's required to make the theory work. I'm not hoping against your "testing". I'm just saying that the more unproven band-aids a scientific hypothesis requires in order to completely ignore the data that contradicts it, the more outside the scientific method the ignorance falls. It's a desperate act for some odd, and unshared, but apparently tremendously important reason.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


lol. I wouldn't let anyone perform brain surgery on me. But that is another topic. My whole thought process is that people are capable of learning on their own. Just because someone had more degrees than Einstein doesn't mean they knew more.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


LMAO. Very nice replies.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



I already answered that


Can you point me to the post or repost what you said?


If I must produce the evidence for the Creator's actions, you must produce the evidence for the Big Bang and the creation of first life and it's connection to humankind.


The whole point of this thread is for creationists to provide a scientific argument, that must necessarily include evidence.

This thread isn’t for about debating the big bang however this particular theory is supported by evidence. Here’s a lazy wiki link with some information on the observational evidence for the big bang theory;

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, this thread is for creationists to present scientific of their theory so I do not want to, nor will I debate the big bang theory. To draw me into that argument is a strawman.


You may choose to use that answer. I would ask for some context


You can use Zeus, Odin, Shiva or Allah and their associated creation stories if you want something that has or has had earnest belief behind it. The point is there is nothing to differentiate your answer from these.


It's posited because it's required to make the theory work. I'm not hoping against your "testing". I'm just saying that the more unproven band-aids a scientific hypothesis requires in order to completely ignore the data that contradicts it, the more outside the scientific method the ignorance falls.


What do you mean outside the scientific method it IS the scientific method. You can’t know something before you test it; using your logic everything is a band aid.

But these are not best thought of as band aids because they don’t exist arbitrarily, they exist because the hypothesis predicts them. If the hypothesis is correct then the prediction will be validated, that is how we know something is correct or not. For example for the idea that animals adapt over time (from the other thread I take it we agree on this) then genes had to exists; you would have said this was a band aid but it has since been shown that they do exist.

This is the opposite of creationism where god is a band aid. God is not predicted by any observation as dark matter is; god just exists.

Where are the observations that predict an intelligent creator and what are the tests that would prove this hypothesis?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



You do realize that you said use science to prove creationism...right?

LOL. That is like saying use Creationism to prove evolution.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


You said, "God is not predicted by any observation as dark matter is; god just exists. "

That is it. The best evidence i can give you to prove to yourself is try it.

After all men didn't know they could drink water till they try it.

I mean you seem very intelligent in science. Put as much effort into it as Einstein put into relativity and you WILL find your proof.

Here is how you start. Pray first. Because even Thomas questioned Jesus.

Pray with an open heart. Pray for wisdom. Pray for understanding in Christ's name.

Then read the bible like you would read a math book. And pray a lot. See if anything changes for you. If it does not. Well then at least you have your answer.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



You do realize that you said use science to prove creationism...right?


Oh if you’re saying that science and religious creationism are incompatible then I agree; I don’t actually expect a scientific argument for creationism. But as I’ve said many times there are those creationists who don’t agree with that and I am never above giving someone the opportunity to change my mind.

With regards to your second post, it’s just not scientific and that is the focus of this thread. There’s a discussion to be had there but I’d rather it not be here.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


That's a good story...
But there's no substance to it.
I could just as easily replace "God" and "Christ" with "Zeus" and "Hercules", and use the exact same description as my reasoning to support Greek mythology.
In my opinion, that's the main flaw of such reasoning.
You begin with a belief and then seek an explanation to support it.
You're almost guaranteed to find an explanation, whether true or false.
Aside from that, there's just too many gaps in that sort of theory.
The gaps are filled with assumptions, but that doesn't make it anymore complete.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Valhall
 



I already answered that


Can you point me to the post or repost what you said?


Part of that confusion is because I dropped your quote. I apologize. You asked...


What results can’t the physical answer and from where do they derive?


My response that I had already answered alluded to:


I can answer - where did nonphysiological traits come from such as - sentience, compassion, conscience, agape love, belief, faith, and inquisitiveness for the sole sake of desiring knowledge versus filling a physiological need. You can't.

I can answer - where did gravity come from??? You can't.


You state...




The whole point of this thread is for creationists to provide a scientific argument, that must necessarily include evidence.


I think I might understand more than you what the point of this thread is, but that's beside the point. I have not presented anything here that is more unproven than you have. I say that life originated from the intent of a Creator. You say it originated from abiogenesis. My presentation is on belief, so is yours. There is no evidence of yours. I argue there is of mine (see above).



This thread isn’t for about debating the big bang however this particular theory is supported by evidence. Here’s a lazy wiki link with some information on the observational evidence for the big bang theory;


Again, this thread is for creationists to present scientific of their theory so I do not want to, nor will I debate the big bang theory. To draw me into that argument is a strawman.


I explained why cosmogony is important to answering this as a Creationist (in my viewpoint). Take it or leave it, but don't cast aspersions to divert my argument.



You can use Zeus, Odin, Shiva or Allah and their associated creation stories if you want something that has or has had earnest belief behind it. The point is there is nothing to differentiate your answer from these.


Actually, from the spaghetti monster standpoint - there is. From the other names given the Creator in this paragraph, there may be less. At one point all men new the Creator - He made himself manifest to all men.




What do you mean outside the scientific method it IS the scientific method. You can’t know something before you test it; using your logic everything is a band aid.

But these are not best thought of as band aids because they don’t exist arbitrarily, they exist because the hypothesis predicts them. If the hypothesis is correct then the prediction will be validated, that is how we know something is correct or not. For example for the idea that animals adapt over time (from the other thread I take it we agree on this) then genes had to exists; you would have said this was a band aid but it has since been shown that they do exist.


Oh but I must argue. The hypothesis does NOT predict them. The hypothesis fails and the correction is the addition of them. That's entirely different. And might I add...a strawman! The hypothesis failed, and the dark matter was added, purely on speculation as a desperate attempt to salvage a hypothesis. Good luck in your hunt.

Why would I have said genes didn't exist? The evidence of evolution of intraspecies is all around us. I don't understand? Am I to take your comment as some how referring to Crick's obsession with trying to prove that the conscience was provable as a physiological function in the Evolutionary theory? Or that the soul doesn't exist and that such claim can be proven through genetics? Might I point out to you that he failed miserably at both attempts?



This is the opposite of creationism where god is a band aid. God is not predicted by any observation as dark matter is; god just exists.

Where are the observations that predict an intelligent creator and what are the tests that would prove this hypothesis?



God is not a bandaid. He is the answer.

Dark matter has not been observed in the amount that is required to salvage the Big Bang theory. It has been speculated to exist in enough quantities to "fix" the Big Bang theory. And then has been detected in localized, miniscule amounts through interpretations of measurements that have not been proven to be accurate. While I do not argue that there may very well be dark matter in the universe - the band aid needed has not been acquired, and on that we can all agree. Random and far-placed localized cold bodies does not a Big Bang make. By the way - I thought we weren't discussing that???



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 



My response that I had already answered alluded to:
I can answer - where did nonphysiological traits come from such as - sentience, compassion, conscience, agape love, belief, faith, and inquisitiveness for the sole sake of desiring knowledge versus filling a physiological need. You can't.


Oh ok, but as I said in reply to that. You can’t actually answer these, you can make a claim but you can demonstrate that that claim is true.

Your answer is no more valid that Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Allah or the flying spaghetti monster.


You say it originated from abiogenesis.


I’ll stop you there. I never said that.

I haven’t got a clue how life started, as far as I know there is no scientific consensus on exactly how life started. I did not say that; I would be surprised if you could find a quote from me anywhere on this site where I say that life started through a process of abiogensis.


I explained why cosmogony is important to answering this as a Creationist (in my viewpoint). Take it or leave it, but don't cast aspersions to divert my argument.


Saying the big bang has no evidence (even though it does) therefore creationism needs no evidence is not using cosmology to prove creationism in a scientific way.

You can use cosmological observations to show the evidence of an intelligent creator but that is not what you did.


Actually, from the spaghetti monster standpoint - there is. From the other names given the Creator in this paragraph, there may be less. At one point all men new the Creator - He made himself manifest to all men.


That doesn’t address the point. See above.


Oh but I must argue. The hypothesis does NOT predict them. The hypothesis fails and the correction is the addition of them. That's entirely different. And might I add...a strawman! The hypothesis failed, and the dark matter was added, purely on speculation as a desperate attempt to salvage a hypothesis. Good luck in your hunt.


It does predict dark matter but that’s beside the point, the fact remains that it can be tested and shown to be true or false. If false then the explanation that requires this must be thrown out or modifies.

Creationism has no such rigours; it has it’s explanation and it refuses to test it or explain how it works.


Why would I have said genes didn't exist? The evidence of evolution of intraspecies is all around us. I don't understand?


This is an illustration of why your band aid thinking is incorrect.

Genes were not known at the time the theory was produced but they were nevertheless required for it to work. Therefore using the logic you have used in relation to dark matter we would have called genes a band aid and said that the need to make them up was evidence that the basal idea was wrong.

But that way of thinking would have been shown to be erroneous.

If all observations point to conclusion X but this conclusion only works if mechanism Y exists then it is far more prudent to test for mechanism Y than to give up and say we must be wrong. If Y is shown to exist then you can safely say that your theory is correct, if not then you must rethink it. The process repeats until we end up with a refined theory that fits all observations and whose predictions are all correct.

If you say all observations point towards an intelligent creator you must say why this is the case and then test to see if it holds true. That would be scientific.

So far you have given nothing that can be debated, you have just said “god is”. There’s no scientific why you think it exists or explanation of the mechanism by which it acts on the universe or life.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Valhall
 



My response that I had already answered alluded to:
I can answer - where did nonphysiological traits come from such as - sentience, compassion, conscience, agape love, belief, faith, and inquisitiveness for the sole sake of desiring knowledge versus filling a physiological need. You can't.


Oh ok, but as I said in reply to that. You can’t actually answer these, you can make a claim but you can demonstrate that that claim is true.

Your answer is no more valid that Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Allah or the flying spaghetti monster.


I believe I stated that myself, with the exception of your ludicrous spaghetti. Again, you show your bias and lack of ability to read. This has been addressed firmly.





You say it originated from abiogenesis.


I’ll stop you there. I never said that.

I haven’t got a clue how life started,



We're on even ground for evidence. So you can drop this argument with me. And I mean completely. You have no ground to demand more from me than you can produce. I have not produced a theory on "how" life started.




Saying the big bang has no evidence (even though it does)


No it doesn't, you modern-day misguided poor student. The tactics are working! Heil What-ever-ler!



You can use cosmological observations to show the evidence of an intelligent creator but that is not what you did.


Actually, yes I did. You seem to be following some rote pattern that doesn't allow you to think for yourself, or actually pay attention to the some one who is discussing these topics with you because your responses don't even match what has been said to you. If you'll review this thread I have addressed the order of the universe, the expansion (and slowing expansion) of the universe, and the nuances of sentient life that point to intent behind the creation. Your Big-bang theory (which we're now not supposed to be discussing) does not reference this order adequately, nor does the abiogenesis theory that you are now trying to avoid.




It does predict dark matter but that’s beside the point, the fact remains that it can be tested and shown to be true or false. If false then the explanation that requires this must be thrown out or modifies.


It did not always predict dark matter. You need to speak to some one younger if you'd like to pull that argument off. I'm waiting for them to throw the "dark matter band-aid" out because it still hasn't fixed the original theory. I guess we'll see. No, wait, we won't. The next batch of snot-nosed brats that got fed bullcrap will crop up and say the theory was "fill in the blank" - which will equate to several iterations of patching the original non-working theory. Okay. I'll be here.



Creationism has no such rigours; it has it’s explanation and it refuses to test it or explain how it works.


Science has no such rigors either these days. See above.

This is an illustration of why your band aid thinking is incorrect.



Genes were not known at the time the theory was produced but they were nevertheless required for it to work. Therefore using the logic you have used in relation to dark matter we would have called genes a band aid and said that the need to make them up was evidence that the basal idea was wrong.


Excuse me? Why would I have said genes didn't exist? The evidence of evolution of intraspecies is all around us. I don't understand? Are you saying that the entire scientific community embraced a theory that couldn't work and was dependent on something that couldn't be found? And then when that thing was found it still wasn't proven? Because it still hasn't been proven, you know? Is that what you are saying? Actually, I think you need to take some of that back. I don't think you thought through what you said.

Do you realize that genetics have not proven a single thing about speciation? And that's what you are referring to. We all know that evolution takes place on an intraspecies level. We all know about adaptation, hybridization, cross-pollination and cross-breeding. Genetics have not proven a damned thing in the origin of life or the evolution from a muck to human. LET ALONE THE ORIGIN OF LIFE! So what is your point? You really don't have a cognizant one, do you?

The rest of your post is bullcrap and not worth responding to. It's typical diversion and disparage to try to make some one who does not agree with you look like crap.

It won't work.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
lol now you’re just descending into childish name calling?

I asked for a scientific hypothesis explaining the reasons why an intelligent designer must exist and explaining the mechanisms by which this designer acts upon the universe.

You gave you best shot at that in post 18 on page nine in which you explicitly said “So, this is how I believe God to have created the Universe - and ultimately human life:”

Your explanation amounted to “there was a singularity and that was god, things were set in motion and that was god, things are governed by laws of nature and that was god too”.

As a scientific idea (which is what I took it as an attempt at, if it wasn’t it was off topic) it was roundly pulled to pieces and now you’re sulking calling me names like “modern-day misguided poor student”.

I think I hit a nerve.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Oh for crying out loud you little creepy Avatar man... Here is a web site called Creation Science. Maybe it will put you at rest.

emporium.turnpike.net...



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
“Put me to rest”? Is that the opinion that religion and spirituality breeds towards debate? It’s not a thing to expand the mind and increase ones understanding; it’s a thing to be “put to rest”.

Speaks volumes.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join