Creationism cannot be true

Well it seems you have attempted to lead us toward an unanswerable question. There is NO way to prove the biblical account of creation. At the same time there is NO way to prove evolution. To asked a Christian a question as the one posed, you put them on the spot. I know that you don't understand but Christians do NOT need to prove anything to anyone. We have faith in the things not seen, and there can be NO faith wandering down this rabbit hole.

Evolution is man making a monkey out of himself. For someone to rather believe they are descended from monkeys rather than a loving creator God is mind boggling to me.

There is abundant evidence of the bible story after the flood for those that need to see it to believe. Of this there can be No doubt. Discoveries like Noahs Ark, and the finding of the Arc of the Covenant both by Ron Wyatt are there for those who will go verify them.

Now, when it comes to the very creation story one would have to submit evidence before the great flood. Among the scrolls found in the Dead Sea was found the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was not included into the Holy Bible, but it has been dated to an antideluvian time. This book speaks of the creation of mankind.

Until evolutionist can find their so-called missing link, the bible accounts have more backing than any evoluntionist theory.

I would like to take a moment and state that I believe that evolution is basically correct in theory with the possibility we have missed some basic nuances...

I would like to say that if one reads the account of genesis with an open mind what one will see is a general description of modern cosmological theory.
One will also see that with the description of the appearance of life on earth, it exactly matches the sequence as described by modern evolutionary theory. Is not man the apex of evolution? Or, rather, do we not believe that man is? Last created was man....

The basic problem is interpreting what is written verbatim rather than taking it as a story describing the creation of the cosmos and life on earth. I find it rather interesting how much genesis gets right, rather than getting hung up on "6 days".

If God is the creator, and if his hand remains active on the earth, no doubt one could say that his creation was to establish the laws of nature and physics which lead to the creation of the cosmos resulting in the creation of life, and the processes which lead up to the evolution of Man.

It has been stated many times that our universe would appear to have the exact laws, the exact composition that would favor life. Minor adjustments to basic constants would result in a universe that could not support life.

To me, the greater discussion would be: If there is a Creator, where/what are his/her origins?

One could say there are 2 options here: 1) the universe was created by God and one will either go to Hell or Heaven depending on one's faith. 2) the universe just came to be from some singularity and just happens to favor the creation of life and it matters not what one's beliefs are.

roundpyramid
To me personal evolution is a fact. Considered that thousands of scientists all over the world have proofed facts that can proof the theory of evolution, I can imagine that some very crazy religious person can't and doesn't want to now about it and wants to do something about it and goes screaming and yelling that evolution is a joke and a lie. But the facts still remain. And well sorry for these religious persons that are so extremely religious that they cannot live with the fact that evolution is a fact. But at least evolution has facts that can proof the story, and that is something we cannot say about most religions.

So you think popular opinion makes things true? That isn't science. Real science facts and mathematical facts fit into a eternal creator outside of if the creation itself, along with obvious design in everything living.


Sorry but the idea that the universe created itself from nothing and by nothing for no reason is pure madness.

It should not be so difficult to tone down this ubiquitous battle on creationism versus evolutionism and viceversa. To do that, I think the first step is to understand that this battle is only a battle of concepts, not a battle of facts.
I mean, all human beings have a similar perception of all-that-there-is, at least considering its physical side; The problem begins when we see that the concepts we construct from that perception are not the same for every person. Basically, I see these two concept families:
1) The family of concepts that look for an Up-Above-Lord who can give sense to all-that-there-is.
2) The family of concepts that hope human reason can give sense to all-that-there-is.
But if we consider that we ourselves belong to all-that-there-is, we will see that pretending that we can have any kind of "Full Access" to the sense of that same all-that-there-is, only can be an illusion. So, Accepting this obvious fact will turn both families easily to:
a) Those who project the best they can feel inside themselves to the sense of all-that-there-is.
b) Those who want to know how far can they go understanding the sense of all-that-there-is.
And I'm sure that if they walk those endless ways honestly, they will respect and appreciate each other much, much more.

Stashman

Well it seems you have attempted to lead us toward an unanswerable question. There is NO way to prove the biblical account of creation. At the same time there is NO way to prove evolution. To asked a Christian a question as the one posed, you put them on the spot. I know that you don't understand but Christians do NOT need to prove anything to anyone. We have faith in the things not seen, and there can be NO faith wandering down this rabbit hole.

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned with the beliefs or faith of other people, it should be a personal matter. The line gets drawn though when someone decides to push their issues onto me, my children or in this instance when they wander too far away from factual reality. Where you cut off your nose to spite your face starts with you're 2nd sentence, 1st paragraph where you state that there is NO way to prove biblical creation and then proceed to do a 180 and completely contradict yourself in paragraph 3 by offering up evidence of the bibles accuracy. So while we're at it, how is posing such a question to a Christian "putting them on the spot"? The only instance I can see this being the case is if the Christian knows very little or nothing about their faith or doesn't actually have any faith to begin with. If they are true believers, they should have nothing to fear from a simple question.

Evolution is man making a monkey out of himself. For someone to rather believe they are descended from monkeys rather than a loving creator God is mind boggling to me.

As someone with an Anthropology degree, I completely agree that anyone who thinks we have descended from monkeys is a complete and utter imbecile. However, that isn't what evolutionary theory states and repeating an untruth without knowing what you're actually arguing against makes you look rather silly. I'll give you the readers digest version though, Humans and the other members of the Ape family(gorillas, chimpanzee, bonobo, Orangutan gibbon) all share a COMMON ANCESTOR. that means 12-16 MYA there was a primate that splintered off into Gibbon's, then Orangutan, then Gorillas, and on and on. Just to clarify, monkeys have tails, apes do not.

There is abundant evidence of the bible story after the flood for those that need to see it to believe. Of this there can be No doubt. Discoveries like Noahs Ark, and the finding of the Arc of the Covenant both by Ron Wyatt are there for those who will go verify them.

And here we are back to cutting off our nose to spite our face... Ron Wyatt is a name I haven't seen brought up in a long time. A big reason for this is not just mainstream scientists but other creationists, biblical scholars and even the leaders of his own 7th day Adventist church lauded him as bonkos. He had NOTHING, found NOTHING. Ron Wyatt had neither the know how nor the ability to carry out a professional dig nor was he ever issued permits for any such digs. His claims were as real as the sites he claimed to have found. If he discovered half of the sites he claimed to have found the world would be turned on its head. Where are the artifacts? Where is the evidence? Additionally there is zero evidence for a worldwide global flood as described in either the bible or earlier flood myths such as the Sumerian flood mythos. There is plenty of archaeological evidence of multiple and somewhat substantial LOCAL flood events. When you're entire worldview encompasses a couple 1000 square miles of course your whole world is destroyed in a massive flood. That however is not the same as god giving Noah some blue prints and having him take 2 of every "kind" and fill a boat with them so that once the waters receded his family could incestuously repopulate the world. Simple genetics disproves that notion entirely.

Now, when it comes to the very creation story one would have to submit evidence before the great flood. Among the scrolls found in the Dead Sea was found the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was not included into the Holy Bible, but it has been dated to an antideluvian time. This book speaks of the creation of mankind.

how do you attribute Enoch to an antideluvian time when the oldest parts were only written approx. 300 BPE and the most recent approx. 100 BPE. The main reason it is non canonical in both Judaism and most of Christianity( it is canonical in Ethiopian Orthodoxy) is that Enoch was derived from other texts included in the Tanakh, mostly Deuteronomy. And just for posterities sake, there were no scrolls found IN the Dead Sea, they were found in caves near Qmran and only limited fragments of Enoch were found. The full extant script exists only in Ge'ez, an Ethiopian and Eritrean dialect. Whileit deals heavily with fallen angels and nephilum with a smattering of cosmology thrown into "The Astronomical Book" there is no depiction of creation that I can recall. Feel free to link or quote the appropriate text if you feel I'm incorrect. Finally, the only "evidence" of anything antideluvian comes from the Ethiopian Coptic Church from a text not found at all in the Q'mran scrolls or any other source prior to the Christian era which indicates the text was added in at a much later date.

Until evolutionist can find their so-called missing link, the bible accounts have more backing than any evoluntionist theory.

Did I take a time machine back to 1978? there is no "missing link". it was a concept postulated at the dawn of the 20th century when evolutionary biology was in its infancy. The concept is long outdated and anachronistic. The genetic data alone shows us this even without the fossil record. this is far more than the bible, which you initially claimed needed no evidential verification, has been able to produce in two millennia. when you say missing link just what does that mean to YOU?

There is a very logical stop to the direction of this conversation if you are educated on the topic. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, I can redirect it quickly using one simple fact. Evolution does not include anywhere in it's theory the creation of the earth or the universe, it never has. Evolution deals with an earth and universe that were "Already" there. It's definition is as follows: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. So in essence both sides of this argument can somewhat be right or wrong. Although theories like the "Big Bang Theory" is often associated with evolution, it actually is not part of the theory of evolution at all! (Simply read Darwin, or for those with little time Wikipedia) Evolution could be proven true and has to a point, Things can evolve whether "God" or the "Big Bang Theory", or any other theory you go with, made the earth and universe (so your argument makes no sense, other then being somewhat slanderous and uniformed).

I'm really sorry if this came out rude way or in a way other then to educate. It just hard to watch people be so mean, especially when they have no clue what they are taking about! Do slanderous put downs really every make sense anyway? Does anyone ever change the other sides mind on this argument or just come out frustrated?

All arguments start best with 1 thing, "Research"

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I'm really sorry i angered you and or hurt your feeling. I want you to be happy whether you think i'm crazy or not. I really would like to share my view without hurting you so dearly. I'm really really Sorry. I did understand that you are only talking about Christian creation, and your point still in no way disproves Christian creation with evolution, by the definition of evolution it could actually work with Christian Creation (not that i believe in creation at all). I may not have made that clear.

All points asside, I hope your night goes better! Laugh out loud, laugh at me, just feel better. I'm sorry

reply to post by Krazysh0t


There is no need to debunk evolution because it debunks itself. My Great^1000 Grandfather was not a rock fungus.

OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

There is no need to debunk evolution because it debunks itself. My Great^1000 Grandfather was not a rock fungus.

No, your great^1000 grandfather was a human just like us. A thousand human generations isn't that long a time, like maybe 30-40,000 years. Also, fungi and animals are sister lineages so you don't have any direct fungal ancestors. Maybe you should learn evolution and its implications before you dismiss it? What you're doing is rather ignorant..

reply to post by Krazysh0t


OP gone AWOL?

Sup?

reply to post by billy311


That reminds me you relate the big-bang, evolution, a higher heavenly dominance over matter and divine design together you can put together a pretty rational picture of how humans got where they've gotten.

reply to post by Woodcarver


I asked you to prove your point regarding word for word copies and you couldn't. I've done my homework and find you to either be wrong or not have researched the same as me.

Feel what you may as I really don't care what you believe. We all have an opinion. Mine is simple. Creation in the bible makes sense TO ME. Evolution also makes sense TO ME.

Hi, This is my first time at writing something here.

There is something i think about creationism that sure scientists and any one without a a bit of imagination will probably not get. What if it was about The Souls and not the phisical body. Religion is all about the souls anyway...... If souls appeared at some point in evolution this mean there was nothing before as no one could see it... it is just millions of years that were prepared by that something we don't know called god and who knows what kind of times concepts or the method he used to create our envelope and realm... his 7 days is maybe billions years of devloping process. And boom suddenly we are here and we were not before..

Being or not there is the question.

Sorry english is not my native language but i guess you can get my point.

reply to post by Greemy


If personality resides in a nonphysical "soul," then brain damage and chemistry cannot possibly affect personality. Yet we know from consistent, repeated observation that brain damage and alterations in brain chemistry via psychiatric medication do affect personality.

If personality and consciousness actually resided in a "soul" rather than in the brain, altering the chemistry or structure of the brain would have no effect on personality. Alcohol might give you double vision and screw up your balance, but it wouldn't make you more sociable or less inhibited. We observe that it does, and therefore the "soul" hypothesis is disproven. It is inconsistent with observations in reality.

reply to post by edmc^2


Yes. Really. I would bet you if I could somehow travel back in time, and switch out the bible with a book that I WROTE. And people BELIEVED IN, You'd be talking about that book and not the bible. People believe what they wanna believe in, and there is nothing wrong with that. But to think that an omnipotent being is somewhere in the universe, and has total control of everything we do, and will do. Is completely arogant.
And out of the entire universe, out of all the other life forms that could be out there, this "God" created us out of his image? What's so special about the human race? Last time I checked, I felt ashamed for our species.

I'm not trying to turn this into a heated argument, no. You have your opinions and I respect that. However, please do the same, and respect mine.

reply to post by ItzShadyT


WIND

Do you believe in wind? Most people do, but why?

Can you see it? NO. Can you smell or taste it? NO

Can you feel it? Yes. Can you see its affects on plants, animals and people? Yes

God is the same, I am unable to see him but I see his affects on people and things.

reply to post by Another_Nut

once we create a life form evolution will be proven false.

infinite regression (creator of the creator) falls apart if we create life.

if our creation has a creator then its creator must have a creator.

Your post really makes very little sense.

Evolution cannot be proven either false or true according to whether a supernatural (or alien) creator existed. Evolution is about 'change over time'; it discusses how life has changed since creation occured. It makes no comment what-so-ever on how creation happened. What ever the sequence of events that happened to produce life on this planet, once it was created it started changing - it is the changes that evolution seeks to understand, not the creation.

Understanding the creation is another branch of biology altogether; it is called 'abiogenesis'.

The 'infinite regression' problem is not solved when (if) we create life. Whether or not we create life (from previously non-living materials) has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not we had a supernatural (or alien) creator, any more than the fact that we can create a watch or a robot has any bearing on it. All it would do is demonstrate that it is possible, however remote, that we evolved from some life form that was created by aliens 3.5 billion years ago or so. It does not prove that is the case - it only shows that it is not impossible for life to produce life. And it does not demonstrate who created the Alien, or perhaps the Alien's creator, or... - the regression problem remains 'unsolved'. And since the entire universe is only what? 14 billion years old?, there are only 4 generations or so of Alien creators before you run smack dab into the big bang.

Furthermore, if it was the case that we evolved from a life form created 3.5 billion years ago, we are so separated from that originator that it might as well be considered a 'God', assuming that there are descendants of the originator that can actually still in 'existence'.

reply to post by CallYourBluff

Sure, evolution is self evident, but it can't explain how the universe started. I'm not religious, but I don't dismiss the idea the universe could have been created. The creator doesn't have to come from the Bible.

Correct. Evolution makes no statement about creation what-so-ever.

How life came to be is a different branch of biology called 'Abiogenesis'.

How the universe came to be is 'Cosmology' which is in a different scientific discipline called 'astronomy'.

WesternIowaParanormal
reply to post by ItzShadyT

 

WIND

Do you believe in wind? Most people do, but why?

Can you see it? NO. Can you smell or taste it? NO

Can you feel it? Yes. Can you see its affects on plants, animals and people? Yes

God is the same, I am unable to see him but I see his affects on people and things.

Really? I don't believe in god, so I shouldn't believe in wind? Wind is a concurrent thing. We have proof of wind. I can physically FEEL wind if I open my window.

Wind Turbines

^ You know what those are? Machines that are powered BY WIND. Something that exist indefinitely. I'm actually curious of the affects that god has on on these things you said something about?

EDIT: Just seen Iowa in your username. It's people like you that give us Iowans a bad name..

Prezbo369

UxoriousMagnus
ok....I can't "prove" that there is a God or that the earth was made by Him or that it was made by Him in a certain amount of time. I also can't "prove" that I love my wife and kids but I do.

Proving you love someone is probably one of the easiest things to prove, im sure your family know you love them right?

You can no more prove love or hate or sorrow or joy or any emotion than you can... say.....prove Darwin's theory on evolution. They are feelings and cannot be proven. In fact when science tries to... by reading physical manifestations of these feelings....they all look pretty much the same. But since you brought it up....yes...my family does "know" that I love them just like I "know" that God loves you and me.

I can't "prove" that Hitler hated Jews....but he did.

What?? now this was just plain silly.

Not silly....we can look at what he did, said and wrote and draw a conclusion but we can't prove the actual emotion of hate.

I can't "prove" that you hate Christians and just got out of your first science class in college and are all excited about what your idiot professor told you but.....you probably did.

An ad hominem attack? idiot professor? did the OP hit a nerve?

Ok....yes a bit of an ad hominem attack but no...did not hit a nerve....just have had my share of liberal humanist professors and know what they teach.

Science is science, calculating tensile strength of metals and boiling points of this and melting points of that. Science has no more "proof" of how we got here than the Bible has "proof". But.....if scientists were unafraid to look at our beginnings and the earths with the point of view that creationism is a valid thing to look at.....then we might have more proof.

Creationism has contributed nothing to science, has no evidence and has been and is pushed by dishonest proponents at every turn. Maybe you could change this?

Creationism did not set out to "contribute" to science that I know of.....dishonest proponents? Who?

Science is not protected by the constitution.....religion is. There is a reason for this. Religion does not set out to attack science but in the theory of evolution....science does set out to attack religion.

Set out to attack religion? scientists had a meeting and made up a entire scientific theory in order to attack religion? specifically your religion? If you feel threatened by evolution, maybe your faith wasn't that strong to begin with no?

Umm....what? Now who is attacking? My faith is fine I assure you and would be glad to talk to you about yours....it is never too late.....well....I guess there is a point it is too late but you know what I mean.

My physics professor at Boston Architectural (many years ago) was a brain researcher for the Mars project at MIT. He stated that most physicists "knew" there had to be a creator but were in fear of their jobs and status and would never admit it. As a side note....he also told us that our jump from non-stealth technology to stealth technology was impossible.

I know this is ATS, but this is just plain silly. You seem to be implying that within the scientific community there's some kind of conspiracy that's enforced somehow in-order to discredit religion?

Not sure if you are just playing here or not but you should check into this one....fun little research project for you.

And of-course, aliens....

never said anything about aliens.....he was actually talking more about how we, the public, only get to see advancements in chunks at a later date when the tech is already obsolete. That we don't get to see the process that leads up to......never mind