Creationists, I can easily prove you wrong (even though you don't even have a theory)

Those of you out there that believe in creationism/ID/or whatever you're calling it since the Dover case ruled it to be pure religion, I will now put forth the biggest problem of your ideas.

1: You believe that the creator/intelligent designer is free from infinite regress
This one is simple. You often put forth that we are too complex to have arisen from natural causes, therefore a being must have designed us. But that brings up an entirely new question: What created the creator, as that being is infinitely more complex than us and couldn't have possibly arisen from natural causes if we couldn't have.

2: It is untestable
There is no way to test creationism/ID, it's something that must be taken on faith. I've yet to see a prediction made by either hypothesis nor have I seen proper academic work done on it.

3: You keep attacking different branches of science
Evolution is the theory which explains how the diversity of life arose, yet creationists/IDists often ask questions such as: "where did the universe come from?" or "how did life begin?"
That is equivalent to asking a computer scientist about the specific compositions and technical aspects of plastic manufacturing. They may know about it in passing, but it's not really their field.
Evolutionary theory is simply concerned with what happens after life begins, not with anything before that.

4: You keep using Straw Man arguments
You often set up situations in which you argue against something that evolutionary theory either doesn't state or states in an entirely different way. The most simplistic example is the classic: if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Well, evolution states that we didn't evolve from them, but that we have a common ancestor with them. However, there could still be monkeys if we evolved from them, just like there are still Europeans even though many Australians and North Americans are descended from Europeans.

Alright? Got all that. Good

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You are absolutely right, there is no way to prove what some BELIEVE to be true. That is the thing about beliefs, they are personally held and unprovable. I don't see why anyone believes that the earth is only x-amount of years old. Genesis never actually told us all that bunkum. Now that it has been revealed that the bible has been proven to have been mistranslated, you have to be very careful of what you take to be the truth.

If you are interested, there is a new translation of Genesis (not it's real name) and a few other things. You should check it out, if only for curiosities sake!

www.thechronicleproject.org...

Let me know what you think, wouldja?

You seem to have a lot of FAITH and a strong BELIEF in athiesm OP, just like me and others have a lot of FAITH and a strong BELIEF in an intelligent design. Notice the connection? NO ONE reeeallly knows, we are all just running around finding our own truths.. Why can't we just get a long instead of throwing stones at each other like monkies.

Originally posted by Nventual
You seem to have a lot of FAITH and a strong BELIEF in athiesm OP, just like me and others have a lot of FAITH and a strong BELIEF in an intelligent design.

Atheism is a negative position, I don't have any faith in it. It is a null position.

Is there a deity? No
Why?
Because there is no proof of the proposed entity.

You see? I'm in an opposite position to you. You have faith in a deity, I lack faith in your deity so I do not accept it. However, I'm sure we both do not have faith in Krishna or Amaterasu, so we share a lack of faith in both.

However, atheism and evolution are mutually exclusive, which will bring me to my next point (yep, I was expecting this)

5: Evolution isn't something for atheists, it's something for everyone.

A belief in the divine and a belief in evolution are not irreconcilable, a great example of this would be Kenneth Miller, the witness for the evolution side in the Kitzmiller v Dover Board of Education case. He believes in a deity but is a biology professor who is also a Roman Catholic.

Here's a video from him.


As I said before, evolution is only concerned with what happened the second life arose. It doesn't matter how it arose or whether or not there is a spiritual being involved, it simply deals with how that life progressed into the myriad of forms now found in the world, and there is a lot of hard evidence to support it.

Notice the connection?

Not at all. You have faith versus evolution's hard science.

NO ONE reeeallly knows, we are all just running around finding our own truths..

That's not true at all. We have established science that went through the same rigorous process that the science behind the computer you are using right now went through to support evolution, we lack it for ID.

Evolution is science
ID is a particular religion
That is a difference.

Why can't we just get a long instead of throwing stones at each other like monkies.

Well, it might be because the ID movement is trying to demolish science standards all across America for the sake of promoting a singular religious world view...but that might just be me.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



So, for clarity's sake, you are one who says "I'll have no god"? Just asking.

reply to post by jennybee35


I'd simply say: "I don't see a reason to believe in a god, but if you have some evidence I'll gladly look it over"
I don't reject the concept entirely, but I have yet to see even the slightest bit of evidence that points me towards it being true.

But it doesn't matter, we're talking about a scientific precept, not a belief. I don't think atheism has anything to say about the validity of heliocentrism either, it just happens to be scientifically valid.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


What do you mean, of course belief is exactly what we are talking about. You can't just state "I can PROVE your belief wrong" and then say it's not about that. That is like saying "I know you love your child, but I can prove it's not really love, just chemical reaction." Do you really think that that is what matters to the parent?

If you are waiting for proof of God, you'll be waiting forever. Just sayin'.

Wow...

You think you just dropped proof that there is no creator?

Lol...

Wow...

All that with no controlled experiments, years of research or even a laboratory...

I guess the scientific process is dead...RIP.

Sorry, you proved nothing and your title is a direct lie...you can't prove anything...nor have you even made a good case.

I'm not sure why everyone has to run around and try and prove each other wrong. If you don't believe... don't. If you do... do. Why do you HAVE to press your issue onto others? Science can measure where in an individuals brain a person is receiving signals that they are in pain, but only the person can experience the sensation. Science cannot prove the existence of love only that there is a strong pheromonal attraction to a mate and a need to breed. The person can tell you of butterflies in their stomach and an intense feeling and longing. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that science can only tell us so much about the world around us and that what some people just need to feel a connection with something greater than themselves and science will never be able to measure that no matter how mean or nasty you try to be to prove them wrong...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Actually atheism does not say anything about evolution either.

Atheism is not a believe, it simply is a label for those who do not think any deity exists.
The reason a lot of scientists are also atheist is because scientists are people who are educated and think for them selves.

@ Evolution deniers.

Evolution is a fact. It explains what we have learned, discovered and observed in real life.
Creation isn't even the opposite, as it has nothing to do with evolution.

Comparing one with the other is useless a waste of time and ignorant.

I admire your attempt to educate the ignorant among us, but should we not start at the beginning...
Creation and evolution do not eliminate the other, they can exist at the same time.

What does effect creation is the time needed for evolution to take place. When you believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Well evolution is hard to grasp.

Please do not come up with the question what created God. You already said they were unrelated Why apply the same logic to defend your side.?

I read this a few days ago:

I'm not the one challenging the whole of science. The burden is on you to prove the whole of science wrong and show me how a century of data on the sun's spectrum and of the temperature of the earth is wrong.

This says exactly same as is said to believers. But aren't you the one to proof they are wrong ?

I know twisted example I just found it funny.

A lack of proof does not mean something does not exist. It means that you don't know. Just saying

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul But it doesn't matter, we're talking about a scientific precept, not a belief. I don't think atheism has anything to say about the validity of heliocentrism either, it just happens to be scientifically valid.

Are you trying to show link between atheism and science, as tho both are scientifically valid? I hope not. I don't think scientists particularly care what atheism says about science.

What a waste of a thread, ever scientist now takes all their facts with a grain of salt because every single day how many thousands of pieces of information and data get proves obsolete and are "proven: wrong, only for those facts to be "proven" wrong again, to say that anything in this world is for sure is laughable, the only difference is for us creationists we don't NEED proof because we know in our hearts. That is why I feel sorry for you.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Even the best of science is still just a theory my friend. Remember we are only working things out with our BEST GUESS, based on the level of technology we are able to use to come up with these conclusions.

As for ID/Creationism vs Atheism, it's really pointless to attempt to prove one or another wrong, the fact that you THINK you can is evidence that you know nothing at all.

Now that's not an insult. None of us know ANYTHING about what is "god" or the "afterlife" or what we are, how we got here etc.

We have opinions, some supported by faith, some by science. As science is JUST a guess however, in the end they are the same thing.

So no, you haven't disproved anybody's faith or ability to state that we were created, or we came out of the premordial soup.

You're just as confused and misinformed as the rest of us on the subject.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

What does effect creation is the time needed for evolution to take place. When you believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Well evolution is hard to grasp.

man was created on the 6th day...if you look at gods time line that makes the creation of man 6000 years old....the earth is much older. where do people get the idea that the bible says the earth is 6000 years old? it was created long before man...according to the bible.

reply to post by Funkydung


They get that because they have either never read it for themselves, or dismissed it out of hand.

reply to post by Funkydung


Who cares anyway. The two are unrelated.

I find it funny how relentlessly the OP is attacked with his title, when there are hundreds of these made by people who are falsely accusing evolution being faulty in the very same manner, yet those threads usually garner hundreds of stars and flags.

Great discussion! We're already tied up in knots so here's my sheep's shank:
I think a big problem is a confusion in terminology. Take the word atheist. One type of atheist is simply someone who does not believe in God (or a god). My cat is an atheist (I think). So this atheist has no belief in the Divine based on faith.
The second type of atheist would be one who has a dogmatic conviction that there is no God, or that there can be no God. To complicate matters, an agnostic would be someone who does not know the nature or existence of God.
These ideas are my interpretation of meanings and are not necessarily in the dictionary (It's ironic since I call myself Diderot, isn't it?)
Anyway, one more distinction: science is based on reason and religion is based on faith (oil and water).
Evolution is a system of scientific beliefs and Creationism is a system of beliefs built upon a foundation of unwavering, inerrant faith; science is rational and religion is non-rational (as opposed to irrational).
Peas (and carrots) -Diderot

reply to post by Diderot


Atheism has a very clear definition only one even.

Evolution theory is based on what we see and know. + a little of what we belief we know.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Dear Sinter, Your're right about the definition on atheism. Let me suggest a new term- How about anti-theist?
To me that would be someone who has a positive belief in the non-existence of God. Of course this term may not appear in your dictionary, but maybe you can pencil it in (if you agree). Also, about the word belief: I believe that
1 + 1 = 2 based upon a rational analysis of mathematics. Someone else may believe that Adam was the first man.
To me, belief is a broad acceptance of an idea as fact based on either reason, or faith. Furthermore, religion is a type of philosophy that is built upon a foundation of faith, whereas many other philosophies do not violate the confines of reason. Is that reasonable?

-Diderot