Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So far nobody has provided any tangible proof of creation (other than the fact that we are here). So as an evolutionist, I shall provide some proof of creation.
What many people today never hear and realize is the fact that so-called evolutionary theory is not based on known scientific laws or the preponderance of scientific evidence. Rather, scientific creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, is perfectly consistent with all known laws and evidence—and such evidence is overwhelming. The reality is, evolutionary doctrine is built on false assumptions and poor science. It is the greatest deception in modern history.
If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will!
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians, all have the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
See, we all have the same facts but we evolutionists apparently interpret it all wrong.
Scientific Evidence of Creation
Science is both a fabulous body of knowledge and a fantastic method of investigation. Most people just assume evolution can be studied scientifically—but not creation. According to a slogan popular these days, “Evolution is science, and creation is religion.” Is it really possible to talk honestly and fairly about scientific evidence of creation?
Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:
"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."
That's why everyone needs my "do all" perception of God! I should start an infomercial!!
It definitely exists, and it is necessarily the Source of everything...because it is Everything.
With my ideology, you dont need any other answers, except to satisfy curiosity headtrips.
See that? It works out just peachy. By comparison, every other view is lacking...especially illogical stuff like Religious Deities and Atheism.
But wait...There's more! Subscribe to my ideology...and YOU TOO are God! Wow!
As I have said before, your ideas have failed right out of the gate.
If God=everything, then it by definition cannot be the source of everything, because what was causally prior to everything? That's right, nothing! There can be nothing that exists prior to everything that exists, because if there was something prior to "everything", then everything would not be everything.
It is a logically impossible argument, as you have phrased it.
We hope you have enjoyed your introduction to logic, Buh-Bye!
As I have said before, your ideas have failed right out of the gate.
If God=everything, then it by definition cannot be the source of everything, because what was causally prior to everything? That's right, nothing! There can be nothing that exists prior to everything that exists, because if there was something prior to "everything", then everything would not be everything.
It is a logically impossible argument, as you have phrased it.
We hope you have enjoyed your introduction to logic, Buh-Bye!
-NoCapo
Existence trumps ANY cognitive construct employed in logic. Existence "just IS." and it is responsible for everything without requiring that we know its cause. We hope you have enjoyed your introduction to the pragmatics that trump your logic. Buh-Bye!
As I have said before, your ideas have failed right out of the gate.
If God=everything, then it by definition cannot be the source of everything, because what was causally prior to everything? That's right, nothing! There can be nothing that exists prior to everything that exists, because if there was something prior to "everything", then everything would not be everything.
It is a logically impossible argument, as you have phrased it.
We hope you have enjoyed your introduction to logic, Buh-Bye!
-NoCapo
The logic is fine...if you can understand the concept.
"Everything" includes Everything that was, is, and will be.
I also explained... there was never "nothing", and never will be.
I perceive God as "All the Matter/Energy That Exists and Has Existed"...I've put that forth many, many times. Thus...Everything is Sourced through God...and IS God.
It's Atheism and Religion that are not logical. Though the concept of Religions and Atheism in the minds of people is God as well. You are God too NoCapo.
It's the "All God Show", all the time, everywhere.
Existence trumps ANY cognitive construct employed in logic. Existence "just IS." and it is responsible for everything without requiring that we know its cause. We hope you have enjoyed your introduction to the pragmatics that trump your logic. Buh-Bye!
Yes … So knowledge derived from "experience" is preferred, i.e., "empirical" knowledge …
The real questions here are not "metaphysics" or "logic," but "epistemology" ...
As I have said before, your ideas have failed right out of the gate.
If God=everything, then it by definition cannot be the source of everything, because what was causally prior to everything? That's right, nothing! There can be nothing that exists prior to everything that exists, because if there was something prior to "everything", then everything would not be everything.
It is a logically impossible argument, as you have phrased it.
We hope you have enjoyed your introduction to logic, Buh-Bye!
-NoCapo
Sigh... Nothing cannot be causally prior to anything. There are no materials with which to create anything. It is like creating a chair without wood, tools, or anything solid.
As Monk would say, Here's What Happened.
In the beginning, there were always these particles floating around, in a tight cluster. I'm gonna call this big mass God, but it is not necessary. There was nothing (i.e. space) all around God through infinity. God "moved upon the face of the waters" the waters being the description of this mass of space. The one thing you can do with nothing, is move through it. In other words, the particles spread out into space, decompressing like... well, like a compressed computer file sorting itself out into pictures and music and other stuff. This is not complicated to understand. There is not dramatic creation of elements (matter cannot be created or destroyed), just simple diffusion. What is God? Everything. When did God exist, prior to everything? Prior to everything. The universe is God's body. No matter how near or far you roam, you can either choose not to see it in the farthest reaches (your right) or see it on the particles of your computer (my choice). Everything is still everything, because everything, including time (once unpacked) is God, and God is everything.
You can kid yourself all you want in your own company. But don't call other people illogical when they seem to have a firmer grasp on things than you do.
Quote:
You are God too NoCapo. It's the "All God Show", all the time, everywhere.
Don't tell him that (even though it's true). NoCapo is the part of God that wants not to be part of God, and it'll just make him upset.
Being God means you can change the rules. If you want to live in a universe where no God exists, sure, fine. Just don't mess with mine, I like my universe. Most of the time.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 12-01-2015 at 01:23 AM..
It's interesting to compare the two threads on objections to evolution and evidence for creation.
The first was a lot of material provided by Creationists and it turned out to be misinformed and ignorant. Total fail.
This one is also a total fail except in the very big question of how it all got started. That is a question not an answer and the attempts to force 'an act of intended ans planned creation are futile, because they are an appeal to what seems to make sense to usual human thought, which is 'common sense' passed off as 'logic - which it isn't. It is imperfect and limited human thinking - as the theists always like to call it when it is science coming up with stuff they don't like.
In fact this is like the creationism debate, nothing new. It is the valid question about how everything got started and whether there is some evidence of planning, as in the universal constant or an act of will like 'who said "Go"? No denial of that. The research and theories come up with possibilities for a plan and possibilities fior something from nothing. Attempt to dismiss that as impossible betray their need to leave ony one possible conclusion. They telegraph their bias.
So that question is wide open as is the less contentious question of a divine hand in abiogenensis, if not evolution. There is no need for one. As we saw on the various creation debates. There is enough of a natural mechanism to make a goddunnit unneccessary.
That isn't the case with cosmic Origins. There is no plausible explanations that I know of. I am admitting it as any rational person ought to do. That is NOT however evidence one way or the other, no matter how the theists tinker with semantics and commonsense prejudices to try to force Goddunnit through.
It's interesting to compare the two threads on objections to evolution and evidence for creation.
The first was a lot of material provided by Creationists and it turned out to be misinformed and ignorant. Total fail.
According to you but not according to the facts.
Quote:
This one is also a total fail except in the very big question of how it all got started. That is a question not an answer and the attempts to force 'an act of intended ans planned creation are futile, because they are an appeal to what seems to make sense to usual human thought, which is 'common sense' passed off as 'logic - which it isn't. It is imperfect and limited human thinking - as the theists always like to call it when it is science coming up with stuff they don't like.
Yes, your liars for evolution tell us all life began with the single cell. I thought evolution was supposed to be a science, not wild speculation based on the religion of Naturalism. Yet they cannot provide us proof. They are like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. But when we pull back the curtain we see they aren't so all powerful after all.
Quote:
In fact this is like the creationism debate, nothing new. It is the valid question about how everything got started and whether there is some evidence of planning, as in the universal constant or an act of will like 'who said "Go"? No denial of that. The research and theories come up with possibilities for a plan and possibilities fior something from nothing. Attempt to dismiss that as impossible betray their need to leave ony one possible conclusion. They telegraph their bias.
The knife cuts both ways bud. I find it interesting that if you walked into a factory filled with people communicating this and that and machines doing this and that based on computer codes that you wouldn't say this factory is the result of an accident, that no intelligent designer made this factory. And yet the single cell is much more complex than a factory. And yet you just can't pull yourself to admit it had to be intelligently designed.
Quote:
So that question is wide open as is the less contentious question of a divine hand in abiogenensis, if not evolution. There is no need for one. As we saw on the various creation debates. There is enough of a natural mechanism to make a goddunnit unneccessary.
According to your say so "there is no need for [a divine hand]." Sorry to break this to you but non life cannot create a cell that is so complex with all its replicating coding and coding to repair itself and coding for communitation across the cell. Unless you have a prime example of an accident creating something akin to a factory, you have no leg to stand on.
Quote:
That isn't the case with cosmic Origins. There is no plausible explanations that I know of. I am admitting it as any rational person ought to do. That is NOT however evidence one way or the other, no matter how the theists tinker with semantics and commonsense prejudices to try to force Goddunnit through.
We respect you for your honesty. You take things by faith just as we theists do.
Quote:
And that is all they got. There is a huge leap from a possible Creator to any one of the personal gods or their religions.
In the not too distant future, we will know once and for all that it was the God of the Bible that created everything and even formed you in the womb to be as handsome as you are.
Quote:
In short - Creation has almost nothing, except a very dubious chapter 1 of a very dubious book.
I find it interesting that if you walked into a factory filled with people communicating this and that and machines doing this and that based on computer codes that you wouldn't say this factory is the result of an accident, that no intelligent designer made this factory. And yet the single cell is much more complex than a factory. And yet you just can't pull yourself to admit it had to be intelligently designed. .
Your analogy would only make sense if you could show a factory which was born from factory parents.
If you can not do it, then you are compering apples and oranges, your thinking is wrong and you come to a wrong conclusion.
Either you are not capable to see it, or you are just too stubborn to admit it.
I'm almost positive, you are too stubborn.
It is simply natural for people to vigorously defend what is theirs. It is in our genes. We all descends of those who would rather die then give up their fire, spear, cave.
You problem is, that you are defending not what you can not live without. You are defending wrong opinion. Why do you do it? Why do you refuse to see a difference between being dead and being wrong?
Behavioral psychology has an answer - if you'll stop defending, then cognitive dissonance will make you feel miserable. You don't want to deal with temporary cognitive dissonance. You'd rather be perpetually wrong.
Quote:
In the not too distant future, we will know once and for all that it was the God of the Bible that created everything and even formed you in the womb to be as handsome as you are.
In the not too distant future, we will know once and for all that organic chemistry does not need any "help"
from magical "creator" and can turn into biology on its own, just by laws of Nature.
Your analogy would only make sense if you could show a factory which was born from factory parents.
If you can not do it, then you are compering apples and oranges, your thinking is wrong and you come to a wrong conclusion.
Either you are not capable to see it, or you are just too stubborn to admit it.
I'm almost positive, you are too stubborn.
It is simply natural for people to vigorously defend what is theirs. It is in our genes. We all descends of those who would rather die then give up their fire, spear, cave.
You problem is, that you are defending not what you can not live without. You are defending wrong opinion. Why do you do it? Why do you refuse to see a difference between being dead and being wrong?
Behavioral psychology has an answer - if you'll stop defending, then cognitive dissonance will make you feel miserable. You don't want to deal with temporary cognitive dissonance. You'd rather be perpetually wrong.
In the not too distant future, we will know once and for all that organic chemistry does not need any "help"
from magical "creator" and can turn into biology on its own, just by laws of Nature.
Well you are certainly allowed to voice your opinion. No one can fault you for that.
Actually I am correct. The point is that since a factory is intelligently designed due to its intricacies, thus also the single cell must be intelligently designed due to its intricacies.
The very first cell was not born from cell parents so it had to be made. Since a couple chemicals could not have fathered it, it therefore could not have come about as an accident any more than a factory could.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
