Creationists, what is your case for proving creationism?

Originally posted by peaceonearth
Dawkins?? Richard Dawkins??
Proof he cannot back up his theories.

Yes the beauty of Google and Youtube
[edit on 30-8-2009 by peaceonearth]

[edit on 30-8-2009 by peaceonearth]

The beauty or grotestness of your post astounds even me!

I simply want to ridicule, and do other things, to so how wrong you are.

The video is a hoax, shamble, bull#.

Research. Please.

reply to post by projectvxn

Just remember that God gave us Reason not religion.

Indeed.

Some various Thomas Paine quotes on god, reason, and religion you might find inspiring.

The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.

There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found inany other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.

Only by using reason can man discover God. Take away his reason, and man could not understand anything.

The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of His existence and the immutability of His power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries.

Science is the true theology.

God exists, and there it lies.

reply to post by peaceonearth


I stopped watching when he talked about virus adapting to their environment. That's exactly what evolution is. Mutation or not, it's still evolving to survive the changes taking place. And if a mutation is harmful to a species and it dies out . . . that's still evolution. Evolution isn't linear, like the creationist like to make it out.

That video still didn't help me . . . I keep hearing evolution explained as creationism or evolution critiqued to prove creationism/ID.

How does creationism account for the questions I've posed? How is any of it evidence of a creator or intelligent agent?

reply to post by Mike_A

You say that everything is proof of creation, I say it’s just chance (for example). Why is your point of view better than mine? What is the evidence for it?

what are the chances of everything happening by chance?
no chance.

reply to post by Republican08


It is a hoax ?
He sitts there totally baffled and tells the team to turn of the camera and makes an huge post-responce ?

This is just what I am talking about, these folks can get away with any thing just because they are on the right side of the Evo/Id debatte..

reply to post by solomons path

I stopped watching when he talked about virus adapting to their environment. That's exactly what evolution is. Mutation or not, it's still evolving to survive the changes taking place. And if a mutation is harmful to a species and it dies out . . . that's still evolution. Evolution isn't linear, like the creationist like to make it out.

i thought the video explained it well enough.i guess i 'll have to
say it my way. God encoded adaptation in our DNA. there's no proof of evolution to this day. plenty of proof for adaptation though.
great video btw.

reply to post by ChemBreather

He sitts there totally baffled and tells the team to turn of the camera and makes an huge post-responce ?

looking up and to the right, looks as if he is thinking about lying.
then decides he can't. he looks way caught off guard to me.
but some people will deny the existence of God, even after he smites them.

Geoge Carlins last concert.he was dead w/in 24 hrs.
RIP George

[edit on 30-8-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by ChemBreather


Yes. there is an uncut version of that interview out there too. Looks a whole lot different. I suggest using your favourite search engine.

Originally posted by make.changes
the qurran stated there was seven layers in the atmosphere several thousand years ago which science just discovered, just take the knowledge from the bible and the qurran we know its accurate no need to check it. ehhh

The 'qurran' is only about 1200 years old, not several thousand.

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by Republican08

 

It is a hoax ?
He sitts there totally baffled and tells the team to turn of the camera and makes an huge post-responce ?

This is just what I am talking about, these folks can get away with any thing just because they are on the right side of the Evo/Id debatte..

It is not a hoax, but it is the only answer they can give. I once got an aswer from a guy (and he was serious). This is what he told me "Dawkins needed time to think of which of the many examples he could give that the lay person could easily understand." Maybe the people who call it a hoax can show us where Dawkins answers the question???
Everyone needs to see the film "Expelled, no intelligence allowed"
link to film homepage here www.expelledthemovie.com... I know that the film is on youtube but i cannot access it from my country due to copyright restrictions.

Originally posted by peaceonearth

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by Republican08

 

It is a hoax ?
He sitts there totally baffled and tells the team to turn of the camera and makes an huge post-responce ?

This is just what I am talking about, these folks can get away with any thing just because they are on the right side of the Evo/Id debatte..

It is not a hoax, but it is the only answer they can give. I once got an aswer from a guy (and he was serious). This is what he told me "Dawkins needed time to think of which of the many examples he could give that the lay person could easily understand." Maybe the people who call it a hoax can show us where Dawkins answers the question???
Everyone needs to see the film "Expelled, no intelligence allowed"
link to film homepage here www.expelledthemovie.com... I know that the film is on youtube but i cannot access it from my country due to copyright restrictions.

11 Seconds Does Not a Genius Debunk

Peace,
Daniel

Originally posted by peaceonearth
Some humour: God and an atheist scientist were talking, the atheist said to God "I can create life too" God said "prove it" The atheist scientist bent down and scooped up some earth, God said "hang on a second, you need to create your own earth first."

LoL i love these. Its humor that makes sense

I have one to.

God is having a discussion with a scientist.

The scientist tels God that he can create life to.

Then God said: WoW i got to see this.

The scientist went into his lab and started to create life. And walla the scientist creates life.

See i created life said the scientist to God.

Then God said: Yeah but you used my resources.

The truth behind this is that we cant create anything from nothing. We cant even create a solid from pure free energy. We can only produce energy from a solid, or just different forms of energy by using energy.

The big lie is that science have told us that they have observed stars and planets been created naturally.

Dawkins posted a reply to this video in The Skeptic and it was filled with lies.

www.answersingenesis.org...
Dr Dawkins makes a number of incorrect statements [marked with RD – Editor] as cited by Mr Williams to which my replies are interspersed and marked with GB.

RD: ‘On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house …’

GB: I was accompanied by a former geologist, Philip Hohnen, not Geoffrey Smith.

RD: ‘… I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask …’

GB: That question actually came at the end of the interview. At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked several general questions on the origin of new information. These questions are recorded on tape and may be viewed, either on tape or transcripted, by anyone interested in the exact nature of the questions. Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped the recording. He claimed that questions on the origin of new information were invalid, and that nobody ever asked him such questions. I responded that the question of information was perfectly valid, and very important to the evolution-creation debate.

RD: ‘The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house.’

GB: At no time did Dr Dawkins ask us to leave his house. A second camera (newly purchased, which we were testing) was inadvertently not switched off until later, so it recorded most of the ensuing conversation. This remains on record to clarify supposed ‘lapses of memory’.

RD: ‘As it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has an entire chapter (“The Genetic Book of the Dead”) devoted to a much more interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up information from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the time of the interview, the book was almost finished (it is to be published in November, 1998). That chapter would have been in the forefront of my mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest that I would have evaded the question by talking about fish and amphibians.’

GB: After he asked for the camera to be switched off, Dawkins asked that his answers to the first few questions would not be used (and they have not been used). He then agreed to make a statement, but refused to take more questions from Philip.

We resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did.

After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question. Because my question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape), it could not be used in the finished production. That is why the presenter was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it.

Your concern is that the pause was fabricated. No, the pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact question, a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred not to even discuss. ‘Ludicrous’ perhaps, but the question was indeed evaded. If you would care to view the unedited tape you will be able to confirm my account.

RD: ‘If I’d wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I had to do was talk about ‘The Genetic Book of the Dead’. It is a chapter I am particularly pleased with. I’d have welcomed the opportunity to expound it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I have kept totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about something quite different while struggling to keep my temper?’

GB: Whatever he may have been thinking about I don’t know, but it is clear that he did not answer the question.

[From here, Gillian responds to Barry Williams’ article in The Skeptic2 (his comments are marked by BW) – Ed.]

BW: ‘If it had been left at that, it might merely have been evidence of professional incompetence on the part of the producer and editor of the tape …’

GB: Before making charges of ‘incompetence’, the original tape should be viewed … The question, asked by myself (not Geoffrey Smith) was off camera, and that’s why the question was re-recorded by the narrator, the pause and the answer which follows is exactly the response from Prof. Dawkins.

The actual pause was in fact shortened from 19 seconds to 11 seconds, and Dawkins’ request to switch off the camera so that he could think was also cut out. So, there was no malicious intent whatsoever, what is seen is Dawkins’ exact response, with a shortened pause, and the (merciful not malicious) removal of his request for time to think.

BW: ‘Certainly this is by no means the first occasion on which the creation “science” movement has sought to misrepresent the words of eminent scientists to bolster their own inept grasp of scientific matters, and to mislead their own unfortunate followers.’

GB: This accusation is beneath contempt now that your willingness to make accusations without doing your homework has surfaced. Another skeptic of creation, Glenn Morton, made similar charges on the internet. He asked Richard Dawkins about it and Dawkins denied recollection of the interview. Finally, after listening to an audio tape of the interview, Dr Morton posted the following apology:

‘… I had originally questioned whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because of certain technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator were not the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room appeared to be different. I wrote Dawkins and asked him about this. He denied having any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet job. After Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my suspicions were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as Dawkins. Gillian admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question but contended that she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins was shown exactly as he performed at the filming [a practice that Williams stated was acceptable – Ed.]. Gillian sent a copy of the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine. He sent the tape to me.

‘I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question.’

It's threads such as this that really get to me. Creationism is based on a Creator, whichevr Creator you believe in. Per the religious texts that creatonism is based off, all that is required is faith.

Mention faith in regards to the scientific theory, I dare you. It won't go over well. Faith is not proof, does not require proof, and will always be polar opposite to proof. To have proof is to KNOW, to have faith is to BELIEVE.

We as humans are always trying to credit/discredit creationism. Why can't we simply accept it as a belief system. You believe the universe just "happened", (perhaps in a cataclysmic event involving matter and antimatter). I believe that there was a Creator for this wondrous place.

It's like this, I find evidence in my own LIFE to believe in Creationism. It is not SCIENTIFIC evidence, however, it is FAITH-based evidence.

Creationism vrs Evolution...pfft more like Faith vrs Science.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
It's threads such as this that really get to me. Creationism is based on a Creator, whichevr Creator you believe in. Per the religious texts that creatonism is based off, all that is required is faith.

Mention faith in regards to the scientific theory, I dare you. It won't go over well. Faith is not proof, does not require proof, and will always be polar opposite to proof. To have proof is to KNOW, to have faith is to BELIEVE.

We as humans are always trying to credit/discredit creationism. Why can't we simply accept it as a belief system. You believe the universe just "happened", (perhaps in a cataclysmic event involving matter and antimatter). I believe that there was a Creator for this wondrous place.

It's like this, I find evidence in my own LIFE to believe in Creationism. It is not SCIENTIFIC evidence, however, it is FAITH-based evidence.

Creationism vrs Evolution...pfft more like Faith vrs Science.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Actually, there is as much faith required in "the Theory of Evolution" as there is in Creationism. They just don't admit it. The entire argument is silliness. And both sides have guilt in the existence of the argument. When it gets down to a fair playing field, neither can be proven - thus they are both faith-based explanations. And with the entrenched requirements to accept the unexplainable system "the theory of evolution" requires us to accept and operate within - they both meet the definition of dogma. And because both do, in fact, meet that definition, both should be presented.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
It's threads such as this that really get to me. Creationism is based on a Creator, whichevr Creator you believe in. Per the religious texts that creatonism is based off, all that is required is faith.

Mention faith in regards to the scientific theory, I dare you. It won't go over well. Faith is not proof, does not require proof, and will always be polar opposite to proof. To have proof is to KNOW, to have faith is to BELIEVE.

We as humans are always trying to credit/discredit creationism. Why can't we simply accept it as a belief system. You believe the universe just "happened", (perhaps in a cataclysmic event involving matter and antimatter). I believe that there was a Creator for this wondrous place.

It's like this, I find evidence in my own LIFE to believe in Creationism. It is not SCIENTIFIC evidence, however, it is FAITH-based evidence.

Creationism vrs Evolution...pfft more like Faith vrs Science.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Actually, there is as much faith required in "the Theory of Evolution" as there is in Creationism. They just don't admit it. The entire argument is silliness. And both sides have guilt in the existence of the argument. When it gets down to a fair playing field, neither can be proven - thus they are both faith-based explanations. And with the entrenched requirements to accept the unexplainable system "the theory of evolution" requires us to accept and operate within - they both meet the definition of dogma. And because both do, in fact, meet that definition, both should be presented.

I couldn't agree more.

We cant prove creation. But if we cant prove it no one can disprove it either.

Evolution cant happen unless there is a existence of energy or matter.

How did energy evolve where did it come from?

It cant be explained. That's why we have to assume that energy always existed. But we cant prove that energy always existed or that it will always exist.
On this level everything becomes a assumption.

Both creationism and evolution require faith, that is a fact.

Originally posted by peaceonearth
Both creationism and evolution require faith, that is a fact.

True. But that's not all. They both get paid to keep the wheels turning and our minds spinning.

I'm a computer programmer.

All I need to do is type a comma instead of a period and my code won't compile.

The chances of DNA self-forming from nothing , and then by mutation becoming more and more complex seem impossible.

Not only is DNA seemingly impossible, so is the entire operation inside cells.

reply to post by VinceP1974


There's an amazing fact in that video that I want to highlight.

In EVERY cell in your body, there is SIX FEET of DNA