Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

reply to post by edmc^2

What's the point proving it to you since you don't accept logic as part of evidence? And what proof are you looking for? What if I say that by all accounts, scientific evidence as well as mathematical evidence and I might add LOGIC tells us that Kepler's Planetary Laws of Motion can't exist w/o someone putting it there. What will you say? Impossible- because we don't have evidence? Or you will say again prove it.

Yet just because we can't understand something doesn't mean that it's impossible to occur.

Scientific evidence doesn't support the claim of divine intervention...and please enlighten us as to how you believe mathematics prove god's existence. Since neither science nor math provides objective evidence that support your claims, it's kind of ironic you're talking about "logic"

Basically, you're using the using the old argument from ignorance by saying "just because it hasn't been proven wrong, it doesn't mean it's impossible to occur". Last I checked the mantra of this site it said "deny ignorance"...you're doing the exact opposite

But as far as laws are concern - whether man's especially nature's law - which is very precise, "fine tuned" as scientists puts they cannot exist w/o intelligence and outside force - a body acting upon it (lawmaker). Of course this is just logic to you so it's not considered as evidence.

Of course it's not evidence, you're stating an OPINION that isn't founded on facts. You're basically repeating your original claim "god must have done it" over and over and over and over again without providing any objective evidence. The laaaaarge majority of the universe is extremely deadly to us...so your "fine tuned" comment is nonsense if the goal was to create a perfect place for us

What you're doing is "stating a belief"...NOT logic

By admitting that "We don't know how life first started, that's why there's a few hypotheses." are u saying then that #2) Life can only come from life - is true and a factually accurate statement?

No, I'm saying WE DON'T KNOW! Why do creationists have such a hard time admitting they don't know when it's clear they don't??? We don't know what started life, or how it started, so claiming either of your two statements are true is complete and utter nonsense...

That's understandable because you don't view the Bible as factually accurate when it comes to scientific facts and don't accept it as the word of God.

Of course I don't, it's demonstrably wrong...especially when it comes to Genesis

Man’s relationship to the “dust from the ground,” as Genesis puts it, is indisputable. All the chemicals that make up the human body are found in the “dust from the ground.” In fact, man relies on this “dust” for his continued existence. He sustains and regenerates his body with food made of nutrients that are found in the “dust from the ground,” processed through the plants and animals that he eats. Are these facts? Scientific facts are well as logic facts? I say yes but I know you don't agree.

We're not made of "dust" That's dumbing it down to crazy levels.

And even worse, when you define dust as "the elements" you'd still be wrong as those are formed in stars...they don't come "from the ground" as the bible claims. But who cares about facts, right?

Dr. Alexis Carrel, the late famed biologist and Nobel Prize winner, stated

You do realize he died over 67 years ago, right? Not to diminish his accomplishments, but in this case he was stating an uninformed belief given what science knows today

Also these account for 96 percent of the body’s composition. They include oxygen, 65 percent; carbon, 18 percent; hydrogen, 10 percent; nitrogen, 3 percent. The fact that 75 percent of the body’s composition is oxygen and hydrogen would seem to show the need of daily drinking sufficient liquids.

I can provide more scientific evidence but none of these will matter to you because you don't accept them as facts.

How is you listing the composition of our bodies proof?? You completely fail at presenting evidence that hints at divine intervention

Proving again my point that any evidence presented in support of Creation are not accepted as facts because your faith in "organic evolution" has already closed your mind but then again who knows...

Look into the mirror. It's you who claims stuff without backing it up. You state some scientific facts (like that we're made out of carbon), and then take the huuuuuuge leap of faith and claim "god did it" without ever presenting a clear link between the two. Laughable

But can you see gravity? What's the other simple explanation for "invisible force" something you can't see? This is like teaching a 5th grader - sorry to say that but come on - where's your common sense - i mean logic. Oops i forgot you don't accept logic. Anyway a 5th grader will say "nothing".

Mhhhhh, do you know the story of Newton and the apple? He SAW gravity. But who cares about facts, right?

As for that silly global flood that never happened:

I guess you'll have to wait for my next thread.

There's already an entire multi-page thread where people have tried to present objective evidence...they all failed. But feel free to post there giving me a chance to debunk whatever nonsense you'll post. My guess is, you use the bible as "proof", which it obviously isn't

Something illogical presented as evidence is thrown out as evidence in any court of law. But I guess to you it doesn't matter how illogical the evidence is as long as you can call it "evidence". For example, logic dictates that that a law cannot exist without a (body of) lawmaker yet you will question this logic.

Given that we have ZERO evidence of gravity, thermodynamics, or all the other natural laws being influenced by divine intervention...you completely fail to back up your claims, which makes them ILLOGICAL. It makes me giggle that you talk about logic and then use the argument of ignorance to "prove" your point

Also it's both scientific AND logically proven fact that "life can come only from life". Do you agree?

Again, we don't know how life started, so no one of us is qualified to make such a statement. Why are you trying to claim stuff that isn't proven, stuff where we don't even have the answer yet? Does not knowing scare you, and force you to believe in fairy tales?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Faith2011

 

Your preaching is getting kinda annoying. You add ZERO content to the discussion, you're like a bible quote machine that blindly repeats whatever's in there...no rational thought, no logic, no objective evidence. We don't live in the middle ages anymore

There you go again denying TRUTH! You are a living being... (CREATED) And you keep Saying you don't know where or how Life came to BE... "Be" honest with yourself... A child understands That only A Supreme Being
could have brought The Universe Into EXISTENCE!!! If you can't See The GREATNESS of LIFE!!! I feel sorry for you, Your mind is Closed!

reply to post by Faith2011


So...an argument from ignorance? You don't understand something therefore your position is true?

You know...kids are pretty stupid. I say that having once been a child myself. Incredible, I know. Kids don't get how airplanes stay in the air, does that mean their explanations hold a candle to science? Hell no.

Learn to science. Learn to reason.

Originally posted by edmc^2

But can you see gravity? What's the other simple explanation for "invisible force" something you can't see? This is like teaching a 5th grader - sorry to say that but come on - where's your common sense - i mean logic. Oops i forgot you don't accept logic. Anyway a 5th grader will say "nothing".

Anybody else not see the gorgeous irony here? A poster with the handle "edmc^2" claiming gravity to be an "invisible force?"

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Faith2011

 

So...an argument from ignorance? You don't understand something therefore your position is true?

You know...kids are pretty stupid. I say that having once been a child myself. Incredible, I know. Kids don't get how airplanes stay in the air, does that mean their explanations hold a candle to science? Hell no.

Learn to science. Learn to reason.

I was making the point, That children overall are more Honest about there perception of The Awesome Wonder of Creation... They See The Pure and Simple Truth... The Essence of The Reality of God, Being Reflected From
Creation Itself! "They See, And Speak Truth From Their Heart" Most Adults are Dead in spirit (The Natural Mind)
Unless They Are Connected To God, (In Spirit)

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by edmc^2

But can you see gravity? What's the other simple explanation for "invisible force" something you can't see? This is like teaching a 5th grader - sorry to say that but come on - where's your common sense - i mean logic. Oops i forgot you don't accept logic. Anyway a 5th grader will say "nothing".

Anybody else not see the gorgeous irony here? A poster with the handle "edmc^2" claiming gravity to be an "invisible force?"

I'm so glad you caught that one, you're genius - 'jest' so you know your lucky I didn't say - "invisible nothing" but I decided to go instead with "invisible force" in honor of daskakik:

I have also stated that I think you are stretching things to fit. This suspended on nothing is an example. If god had wanted to explain that earth was held in place by gravity he should have used the term "invisible force" instead of "nothing". Gravity isn't nothing. It is something.

next....

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2
Ok, I understand what you are saying now.

Gravity is an invisible force, not an invisible nothing. Just wanted to clarify.

reply to post by Faith2011

Originally posted by Faith2011
I was making the point, That children overall are more Honest about there perception of The Awesome Wonder of Creation...

Unless you can show me an example of a child who hadn't been previously indoctrinated with the idea of a god concept thinking that the universe was created...this point is feces.

They See The Pure and Simple Truth...

No, they see an ignorance that was perpetuated and forced upon them by their parents.

The Essence of The Reality of God, Being Reflected From Creation Itself!

...except that they only do so if previously indoctrinated...so they're just parroting that which was taught to them.

"They See, And Speak Truth From Their Heart" Most Adults are Dead in spirit (The Natural Mind)
Unless They Are Connected To God, (In Spirit)

...or the science of it actually makes sense. I know that you are personally ignorant of science as a whole, but don't make that out to be that you are somehow better off and somehow connected to a higher authority through your personal ignorance.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Faith2011

 

Originally posted by Faith2011
I was making the point, That children overall are more Honest about there perception of The Awesome Wonder of Creation...

Unless you can show me an example of a child who hadn't been previously indoctrinated with the idea of a god concept thinking that the universe was created...this point is feces.

Exactly. Did ancient Egyptian children start off believing in the Judo-Christian god and creation myth before their parents taught them about the multitude of Egyptian gods along with the ancient Egyptian creation myth?

Originally posted by Faith2011

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Faith2011

 

Your preaching is getting kinda annoying. You add ZERO content to the discussion, you're like a bible quote machine that blindly repeats whatever's in there...no rational thought, no logic, no objective evidence. We don't live in the middle ages anymore

There you go again denying TRUTH! You are a living being... (CREATED) And you keep Saying you don't know where or how Life came to BE... "Be" honest with yourself... A child understands That only A Supreme Being
could have brought The Universe Into EXISTENCE!!! If you can't See The GREATNESS of LIFE!!! I feel sorry for you, Your mind is Closed!

A child would also believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny

And no, we don't know how life started in the first place...the objective evidence isn't conclusive. And in the creationism, there's simply no objective evidence at all.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Your mind is Void of Perceiving The Truth of The Creator!

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)

21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

Romans

reply to post by john_bmth


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(As I Said...Children When Left On There Own, Tend To Believe In A CREATOR! They Perceive The Wonder of All Area's of LIFE! (Most adults tend to become more Negative as They Grow Older...)

• Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty.

• Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.

• Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one.

• Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections.

• Recent research by Paul Bloom, Jesse Bering, and Emma Cohen suggests that children may also be predisposed to believe in a soul that persists beyond death.

That belief comes so naturally to children may sound like an attack on religious belief (belief in gods is just leftover childishness) or a promotion of religious belief (God has implanted a seed for belief in children). What both sides should agree upon is the scientific evidence: certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Faith2011

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Faith2011

 

Your preaching is getting kinda annoying. You add ZERO content to the discussion, you're like a bible quote machine that blindly repeats whatever's in there...no rational thought, no logic, no objective evidence. We don't live in the middle ages anymore

There you go again denying TRUTH! You are a living being... (CREATED) And you keep Saying you don't know where or how Life came to BE... "Be" honest with yourself... A child understands That only A Supreme Being
could have brought The Universe Into EXISTENCE!!! If you can't See The GREATNESS of LIFE!!! I feel sorry for you, Your mind is Closed!

A child would also believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny

And no, we don't know how life started in the first place...the objective evidence isn't conclusive. And in the creationism, there's simply no objective evidence at all.

Again! You choose to Be willfully Blind To Creation...

If you Can't See This...? Psalm 19 " The Heavens Declare The Glory of God"

You might as well get as much as you can, In the things of this world...Time is Running Out!

reply to post by Faith2011

Originally posted by Faith2011
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Your mind is Void of Perceiving The Truth of The Creator!

So your argument boils down to repeating the same points over and over until I bloody my fingers to the bone responding?

I'm sorry, but can you prove that your so called 'creator' exists?

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)

21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

Romans

I'm sorry, but why should I accept this writing as anything but the ramblings of a homophobic, sexist, ignorant savage who was less informed about the world in his adulthood than I was at the age of 7?

reply to post by Faith2011


How about you post some real objective evidence instead of copy/pasting random bible quotes? The bible is only proof of what people believed 2,000 years ago, and NOT that the claims in the bible are correct...hell, in many cases they're demonstrably wrong

reply to post by Faith2011


Of course children have wild fantasies...they don't have the knowledge to know better. You on the other hand do, because you could research the facts online. But instead, you chose to be ignorant and blatantly ignore the facts if they go against your belief. You never even bother posting proof or objective evidence, you only post meaningless bible quotes that most certainly aren't objective evidence proving anything

reply to post by edmc^2


I like in your thread title you say "believe" rather than know, always an interesting semantical difference. My take on the whole philosophical concept of creation is that at some point in the way distant past something happened to cause us to exist. Now what that cause was is surely unknowable as we clearly lack the knowledge to know what that was. To ascribe that initial cause to "god" is quite usefull in that it answers the question for those willing to accept that as the answer but to me that merely raises many more question.

1./ if god made everything then who made god?

2./ If god did make the universe we can assume that he's imperfect as he's made a universe where suffering and pain is a part of existance.

(this is commonly answered by the notion that we don't know the will of god and thus there must be a reason for all this pain and general nastyness)

I think it's fine to believe whatever you like as long as you don't expect others to believe it as well. For all we know we could be a hyperdimensional beings equivalent to a screensaver or maybe some guy in the future cocks up his science experiment and wipes out the universe and in doing so opens a wormhole right back to the begining of time taking the combined energy of the universe back with it - i like that one, kind of circular

Why is it not possible to consider the possibility of a creator without buying into the concept fully ?

reply to post by MrXYZ


You know mrXYZ it is becoming apparent to me that majority of your comments are just opinions, lacking substance and any useful information – in short to use your often overly used expression - nonsense. But so as not embarrass you further or put you on a spot I elected to answer just a few of your post. But if you still insist that I address the rest I will gladly do so. But 'jest' so you know...

In any case here's what mean:

I'll just take one or two glaring examples.

U said:

Basically, you're using the using the old argument from ignorance by saying "just because it hasn't been proven wrong, it doesn't mean it's impossible to occur". Last I checked the mantra of this site it said "deny ignorance"...you're doing the exact opposite

But if you're paying attention to what I said then you'll prolly have a more correct response.

Now here's what I said - (I'll bold it k?):


”Yet just because we can't understand something doesn't mean that it's impossible to occur.”

Not like what you said:

“just because it hasn't been proven wrong, it doesn't mean it's impossible to occur"

Can you see the difference?

Let me explain one more time – basically what I said is that there are things that we have no understanding yet but it does not mean that it's impossible to occur.

Note again Dr. Michio Kaku:

"the God of Miracles is, in some sense, beyond what we know as science. This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science."

Is this clear enuff? Or do I need to explain it more? Your call.

But if you still can't figure this one at this point then I'm sorry – I can't help you. You'll have to ask a 5th grader to explain it.

Btw - this reminds of the incident in the Garden of Eden:

Here's what God told Adam and Eve:

“. . .And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it. 16 And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”” (Genesis 2:15-17)

But Satan said:


“. . .So it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3 But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.”” (Genesis 3:1-5)


See the twist? Interesting indeed. I know you don't believe in the Bible but I'm just pointing the similarities of tactics.

Here's another:

you said:

Mhhhhh, do you know the story of Newton and the apple? He SAW gravity. But who cares about facts, right?

Actually to be scientifically precise – 'He OBSERVED Gravity' - is the correct scientific explanation. It's like the wind although invisible to the naked eye we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like magnetic force – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like radio waves – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Need I go more or is it enuff?

You can also use MEASURED, SENSE or DETECT. But may I suggest to use these terminologies when talking to 5th graders or they might think that you can actually SEE gravity and start laughing and giggling.

You know for an atheist like you who worship at the alter of science, you should know this simple fact but why is it that u MISSED it I don't know.

Now back up, to support, to prove, to document, to lay out the facts and finally to prove my point.

Notice:

The nature of the gravitational force has been studied by scientists for many years and is still being investigated by theoretical physicists. For an object the size of a rocket, the explanation given three hundred years ago by Sir Isaac Newton is sufficient to describe the motion of the object. Newton developed his theory of gravitation when he was only 23 years old and published the theories with his laws of motion some years later. As Newton observed, the gravitational force between two objects depends on the mass of the objects and the inverse of the the square of the distance between the objects. More massive objects create greater forces and the farther apart the objects are the weaker the attraction. Newton was able to express the relationship in a single weight equation. The gravitational force, F, between two particles equals a universal constant, G, times the product of the mass of the particles, m1 and m2, divided by the square of the distance, d, between the particles.

F = G * m1 * m2 / d^2

microgravity.grc.nasa.gov...

And another:

LISA is an astronomical observatory of unprecedented versatility and range. Its all-sky field of view ensures that it can observe every source of gravitational waves, without having to compromise between observations. Its coherent mode of observing allows it to resolve and distinguish overlapping signals and locate them on the sky. Its unparallelled sensitivity allows it to study sources within the Galaxy and out to the edge of the Universe. Finally, LISA’s wide frequency band (more than three decades in frequency) allows it to study similar sources of widely different masses and cosmological redshifts. Because gravitational waves penetrate all regions of time and space with almost no attenuation, LISA can sense waves from the densest regions of matter, the earliest stages of the Big Bang, and the most extreme warpings of spacetime near black holes.

www.rssd.esa.int...
So let's see if you're really a reasonable and knowledgeable person or close minded person who just like to post nonsense opinions.

Based on the evidence presented so far which terminology do you think IS SCIENTICALLY accurate?

As for that silly global flood that never happened:

There's already an entire multi-page thread where people have tried to present objective evidence...they all failed. But feel free to post there giving me a chance to debunk whatever nonsense you'll post. My guess is, you use the bible as "proof", which it obviously isn't

The arrogance is blinding on this one.

I'll stop here.

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

”Yet just because we can't understand something doesn't mean that it's impossible to occur.”

Not like what you said:

“just because it hasn't been proven wrong, it doesn't mean it's impossible to occur"

Can you see the difference?

The way you use it leads to exactly the same result

You haven't provided any objective evidence for creationism, but argue that it's truth because it "could" be possible...

Let me explain one more time – basically what I said is that there are things that we have no understanding yet but it does not mean that it's impossible to occur.

If that's all you said, we wouldn't have an issue. Sadly you take a huge leap of faith and link it to creationism...hell, just look at the title of this thread

Note again Dr. Michio Kaku:

And another fallacious argument...the argument from authority. And that's not just me saying that, it's a fact

But if you still can't figure this one at this point then I'm sorry – I can't help you. You'll have to ask a 5th grader to explain it.

Nice ad hominem attack...yet another fallacious argument

Thanks for listing so many fallacious arguments, hopefully people will learn from your mistakes

But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it...

In other words...ignorance is bliss

Straight from you fictional god's mouth...

And your comeback when being asked to provide objective evidence for the flood:

The arrogance is blinding on this one.

Great answer, you really showed me there

Don't bother with an answer, I know you aren't able to give us a rational one. Here's why the global flood myth is complete and utter nonsense.

As for the whole saw vs observed...he saw the effects of gravity. If you jump of the empire state building, you FEEL the effects of gravity. If your best arguments consist of semantics, you might wanna reconsider your stance of creationism

reply to post by MrXYZ


Oh no – you're not getting away with it this time. You accused me of ignoring questions of which I didn't do and yet you keep ignoring my questions when your credibility is on the line.

So here's your chance to preserve your credibility – why not answer the simple question that I posted?

That is:

To be scientifically precise – 'He OBSERVED Gravity' - is the correct scientific explanation. It's like the wind although invisible to the naked eye we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like magnetic force – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like radio waves – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects.

You can also use MEASURED, SENSE or DETECT.

Which one is 'SCIENTIFICALLY' speaking the correct explanation and terminology / expression?

"He OBSERVED Gravity' or your words: “ He SAW gravity”?

Am I correct?

What about these: MEASURED, SENSE or DETECT Gravity? Are they also correct? Based on scientific facts?

Since you're the one who accused me of not “caring about facts” then please prove me wrong. Prove that my explanation and understanding of how Newton OBSERVED Gravity is incorrect and not scientifically and FACTUALLY ACCURATE.

And while your at it – please prove that what you said “He SAW gravity” is scientifically accurate.

I await your well thought of reply.

Ty,
edmc2

P.S

ATS members I'm not ignoring your posts/qs - I would an will reply to them as soon as mrXYZ answers the questions above.