Creationists, what is your case for proving creationism?

Originally posted by solomons path
Now conviction is a synonym for opinion . . . so, to be lenient, I'll give you conviction. However, that is still not the "truth" because it is not true to all people. If you were born in India, you'd probably extol the virtues of Shiva. If you were a viking . . . Odin.

Yeah, and following that logic, those born in America would then be Christians so then the question becomes how come you're not a Christian?

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo

Originally posted by solomons path
Now conviction is a synonym for opinion . . . so, to be lenient, I'll give you conviction. However, that is still not the "truth" because it is not true to all people. If you were born in India, you'd probably extol the virtues of Shiva. If you were a viking . . . Odin.

Yeah, and following that logic, those born in America would then be Christians so then the question becomes how come you're not a Christian?

I was born into a christian family, so your point isn't as strong as you think. I could have followed the Jewish side of my family or the Christian side; however, being brought up in both I could easily see the absurdity of it all and the attitudes each had for the other group. I chose not to believe in fairy tales and superstitions. I then took a multitude of philosophy and theology classes in school . . . only to see the similiarities between all the sky god religions, right down to the calendar dates of events.

All that is really moot, because I said "probably" not definitely follow those religions . . . culture and upbringing have much more to do with the religion one follows than "truth" because they all claim the "truth".

EDIT - Moreover, if it weren't for the Crusades, Imperialism, and missionaries forcing christian views on the "pagans and natives" there would probably be far less christians. It only takes one generation of propaganda to change the moral views of a society.

[edit on 9/2/09 by solomons path]

Originally posted by Mike_A
In essence what I want is a “theory of creation”. Saying “I believe that there must have been a creator” or “its faith” isn’t good enough, what is your evidence, that’s what I’m asking for.

What evidence would you accept as valid when it comes to a faithful Christian view of the creation of the universe?

reply to post by kinglizard


He wouldnt accept any as valid that is quite clear

Originally posted by solomons path

I was born into a christian family, so your point isn't as strong as you think. I could have followed the Jewish side of my family or the Christian side; however, being brought up in both I could easily see the absurdity of it all and the attitudes each had for the other group. I chose not to believe in fairy tales and superstitions. I then took a multitude of philosophy and theology classes in school . . . only to see the similiarities between all the sky god religions, right down to the calendar dates of events.

All that is really moot, because I said "probably" not definitely follow those religions . . . culture and upbringing have much more to do with the religion one follows than "truth" because they all claim the "truth".

EDIT - Moreover, if it weren't for the Crusades, Imperialism, and missionaries forcing christian views on the "pagans and natives" there would probably be far less christians. It only takes one generation of propaganda to change the moral views of a society.

[edit on 9/2/09 by solomons path]

Eh, I never look at any of my points as "strong" really. The point being here though is you sought to argue that if one had been born in another country, say a Muslim one, they would most likely be Muslim, in Asia perhaps a Buddhist or Hindu, etc. Same then follows for those born in America since a large portion of the population claims to be Christian.

You though believe you are, probably, of a higher intelligence since you were able to look beyond the fairy tales, myths and fables. Yet it reads that people who hold to those faiths are not as intelligent. To you, perhaps, their faith is a crutch, their weak.

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo

Originally posted by solomons path

I was born into a christian family, so your point isn't as strong as you think. I could have followed the Jewish side of my family or the Christian side; however, being brought up in both I could easily see the absurdity of it all and the attitudes each had for the other group. I chose not to believe in fairy tales and superstitions. I then took a multitude of philosophy and theology classes in school . . . only to see the similiarities between all the sky god religions, right down to the calendar dates of events.

All that is really moot, because I said "probably" not definitely follow those religions . . . culture and upbringing have much more to do with the religion one follows than "truth" because they all claim the "truth".

EDIT - Moreover, if it weren't for the Crusades, Imperialism, and missionaries forcing christian views on the "pagans and natives" there would probably be far less christians. It only takes one generation of propaganda to change the moral views of a society.

[edit on 9/2/09 by solomons path]

Eh, I never look at any of my points as "strong" really. The point being here though is you sought to argue that if one had been born in another country, say a Muslim one, they would most likely be Muslim, in Asia perhaps a Buddhist or Hindu, etc. Same then follows for those born in America since a large portion of the population claims to be Christian.

You though believe you are, probably, of a higher intelligence since you were able to look beyond the fairy tales, myths and fables. Yet it reads that people who hold to those faiths are not as intelligent. To you, perhaps, their faith is a crutch, their weak.

I'll try to answer your point and bring this back on topic.

I don't feel I'm of higher intelligence to anyone. Great thing about human DNA is that it encodes, roughly, the same info in all of us. While there may be certain environmental and biochemical conditions that will limit a person's intelligence . . . all healthy human brains have the same capacity. Some of us can tap into more than others, but no one can utilize all of it's abilities. I do believe, as we are a product of our thoughts, that people can be programmed or indoctrinated to believe things that go against reason and rational thought.

I'm okay with people believing whatever they choose. What I have a problem with are those that wish to force their beliefs onto others or push their philosophical agenda into areas where it doesn't belong. I'm fine with someone teaching creationism in philosophy or comparative mythology because that is what it is on par with. However, if creationism/ID wants to be viewed as an alternative to evolution, it needs to be demonstrated how creationism accounts for known and verified concepts of Evolutionary Biology. They have to take it beyond creation. Evolution doesn't deal with creation. So, if it's an alternative . . . how does the creation model account for the driving forces behind adaptation and speciation. What are the mechanisms that drive life forward?

Unfortunately, it can't be "the creator did it". Not if it is to be taken as an alternative to a scientific theory that has held up for 200 years and been supported by every other field of science since. There is mounds of evidence to back evolution and only the bible and faith to back creationism. Creationism needs to devop a testable hypothesis . . . when the happens . . . when someone can answer the OP . . . then it's backers can petition for "equal time".

Science cannot explain how life started..why should I

I love posts like these just want to create an argument. Why don't you tell me how life started on this planet.

Big Bang THEORY...not proven no way to prove it unless you say there is a God. Where did the 2 particles that collided come from
Theory of Evolution..a 150 year old IDEA that no one has elaborted or tried to add to in all 150 years. This is before microbiology and before it was discoverd that the cell is more than just a cell.

No doubt in my mind that there is enough evidence to say Intelligent Design.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Balone]

Originally posted by kinglizard
What evidence would you accept as valid when it comes to a faithful Christian view of the creation of the universe?

If it's faith based, then it's a belief without evidence.
I think the OP is specifically addressing the creationists who think their beliefs are based on evidence rather than faith. The people who believe ID should be taught in science classes.
The obvious difference (to anyone without bias) is that you can teach the process of evolution, but you can't teach the process of a supposed miracle.

Originally posted by Balone
Science cannot explain how life started..why should I

I love posts like these just want to create an argument. Why don't you tell me how life started on this planet.

Big Bang THEORY...not proven no way to prove it unless you say there is a God. Where did the 2 particles that collided come from
Theory of Evolution..a 150 year old IDEA that no one has elaborted or tried to add to in all 150 years. This is before microbiology and before it was discoverd that the cell is more than just a cell.

No doubt in my mind that there is enough evidence to say Intelligent Design.

I think you missed the point of the OP.
Whether the big bang theory and theory of evolution are true or false is irrelevant. They are scientific explanations.
But there is no scientific explanation for the 'theory' of "God did it".
I should think it would be difficult to explain, in natural terms, a supernatural event or miracle.
Which is why it's absurd for creationists to argue that "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science class. Whether it's true or false, there's nothing scientific about "God did it".

reply to post by Mike_A


Finally i believe i have your answer. Maybe.

To me it has to do with love. Love is a feeling. You cannot measure it using science, but we all have experienced it. It exists because you feel it. You cant use science to prove it. Just like spirituality. There is your answer.

reply to post by TruthParadox


Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

reply to post by Conclusion


I wasn’t going to reply anymore because I won’t be able to post for a week or so and didn’t want to get into a another discussion but I’ll make an exception for this point.

The feeling we define as love can indeed be measured in a way. Or rather it’s origin as a physical process can be determined and its source located. Studies using fMRI show that love is primarily related to areas of the brain associated with reward and motivation. Emotional responses are there but they appear to be secondary to this.

Further evidence that love is rooted in a physical process in the brain is found in people who suffer lesions in specific areas of the brain and those who have certain types of autism; both of whom often find they lack some of these attachments with other people.

However even if this wasn’t the case it would not logically lead to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent creator. It may be the case that we just don’t know yet, a few hundred years ago and even now in certain parts of the world disease would be attributed to demons and spirits; not knowing the cause did not make this explanation correct. Also even if the process was somehow outside the brain and was ethereal, it could still be attributed to non intelligent processes.


With that I’ll bow out of this thread as I won’t be here for about a week. Sorry if I haven’t been able to reply to everyone.

reply to post by Mike_A


So what you are saying is that love which cannot be weighed or measured is real. Because its in your brain. Ok. Then there is your answer for spirituality also. It is something I feel, just as i feel love.

Originally posted by Balone
Big Bang THEORY...not proven no way to prove it unless you say there is a God. Where did the 2 particles that collided come from
Theory of Evolution..a 150 year old IDEA that no one has elaborted or tried to add to in all 150 years. This is before microbiology and before it was discoverd that the cell is more than just a cell.
[edit on 3-9-2009 by Balone]

No way to prove the Big Bang Theory unless there is a God? Where did the 2 particles come from? I'm afraid you are highly confused. The Big Bang Theory is based off of the evidence collected from the stars, radiation, etc. It marks a starting point of our observable universe. A lot of people seem to have the misconception the the Big Bang was the beginning of everything ever, but that makes no sense as what came before the Big Bang? We have no clue because there is no evidence prior to the Big Bang, thus the Big Bang is the start of the OBSERVABLE universe. Also the Big Bang came from a singularity, not two particles.

Originally posted by Balone

No doubt in my mind that there is enough evidence to say Intelligent Design.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Balone]

This thread is all about evidence for Intelligent Design, yet no one has provided anything; it appears you have some evidence but you are holding out on us. What is it?

reply to post by Conclusion


But I’m not talking about spirituality; I’m talking about the potential existence of an intelligent creator, the mechanism by which it may act on the universe and whether or not there is scientific evidence for these.

reply to post by Mike_A


If there is scientific evidence of love, then that is the evidence.

Well i guess if you want to get right into the meat of the evidence. Its us.
Its everything. Even scientists say that our dna is blueprint. How can we not be considered evidence. The human body is an amazingly engineered structure. We cannot produce nothing like it.

This might be interesting and maybe help you find whatever answer you want to accept.

newdawnbooks.info...'___'_The_Spirit_Molecule.html

Why is that evidence of an intelligent creator?

You have to do more than just say “we are evidence”, why are we evidence? How have you come to that conclusion etc?

Originally posted by Conclusion
Well i guess if you want to get right into the meat of the evidence. Its us.
Its everything. Even scientists say that our dna is blueprint. How can we not be considered evidence. The human body is an amazingly engineered structure. We cannot produce nothing like it.

"Everything" is not evidence. DNA is not evidence. DNA is very complex, and we don't yet fully understand it. Just because we don't understand DNA, we cannot logically come to the conclusion that a higher power did it. This is the type of thinking that got poor girls killed at the Salem witch trials. Yes, our human bodies are amazingly engineered; however we are FAR from perfect. Just look at the "eye" example posted pages ago. There are lots of other problems with the human body, from cancer to auto-immune problems, the list goes on. We are far from perfect and our imperfections lend more credit to evolution then creation.