Prove to me creationism is real

[Boomer]

ok go

I dont want to. I know what I know, you know what you know. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. :shrug:

 

[debbie t]

first ,i am a christian but not a creationist,but i like this....

professor chandra wickramasinghe (a buddhist) says,

"the chances that life just occurred on earth are about as likely as a typhoon blowing thro a jumk yard and costructing a boeing 747"

stephrn hawking says,

"if the density of the universe one second after the big bang had been greater by one part in a 1000 billion,the universe would have recollapsed after ten years.on the other hand ,if the density of the universe at the time had been less by the same amount,the universe would have been essentially empty since it was about 10 years old.how was it that the initial density of the universe was chosen so carefully?maybe there is some reason why the universe should have precisely the critical density"

i like that

 

[All Else Failed]

Well, seeing as how this is a thread you wished to debate with.

Let's see your spin. What scientific eveidence do you have to dis-prove?

Well if you want a very simple one: Dinosaurs.

And for the record...

AEF, this was a terrible way to start a thread. How can you ever expect intelligent conversation and debate when you throw out a question with no though or consideration behind it?
If you truly want to get answers or you want to effectively debate the topic, then put some time and energy behind a thoughtful question....

Just my $.02

This was directed towards scott, since he said he had "lots and lots" of evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth, so to a simple claim, I posed a simple challenge. yes, its worded wrongly, so if you would like you can change the thread title to whatever you wish, Tim.

 

[skyblue]

many christians prefer to view genesis 1 as a literary device,a poetic form,which is not necessarily connected with chronological events in history.it is a prescientific and non scientific account of creation dealing with matters outside the scope of science.poetic language can be true without being literally true.when the psalmists wrote the world is established,it cannot be moved (psalm93:1)he was using poetic image,but galileos opponents took it literally and argued that the earth was stationary and that that the theories of the earth orbiting the sun were wrong.christians feel that in the same way the early chapters of genesis should not be taken literally.


creationists are a small minority ,some in cults such as the jehovahs witnesses and fundamentalists who are a misguided.

ok......what if god created everything?...space......the big bang......the dinosaurs.....everything

 

[ssl]

from one point of view:

god created everything. thus, he would have had to create himself. which, if you do not exist, how can you create yourself?

from another point of view:

if god always existed, he has had to have had a frame of reference to create anything, and if he created everything, his frame of reference for creating himself or the universe or anything afterwards is non-existent. to create something, the raw materials must be present. one cannot create or destroy matter, just the interactions between other matters and their forms.

from another point of view:

if god did not create everything, because is it just impossible to create ones' self, then who created god? now, god has a frame of reference. but then... his creator also has a frame of reference for his beginning, which goes on and on, so on and so forth, et cetera ad nausea. so therefore, god is not the alpha and omega.

but

if god is not the alpha and omega, then there is a hierarchy to which reverence must be given, but who?

and

if god is not the only superior being, there must be an endless hierarchy, to which infinity does have a value. except, infinity does not have a value.

so, if there is no ending to the hierarchy, who is to say any of it actually exists? because there is infinite frames of reference, there is no certainty.

as it is right now, i cannot think of some possible views to support intelligent design, but i know i have thought of them prior to this post, and it should not be difficult to think of them later on.

in essence, it would be literally impossible to prove or disprove an opinion.

 

[All Else Failed]

from one point of view:

god created everything. thus, he would have had to create himself. which, if you do not exist, how can you create yourself?

from another point of view:

if god always existed, he has had to have had a frame of reference to create anything, and if he created everything, his frame of reference for creating himself or the universe or anything afterwards is non-existent. to create something, the raw materials must be present. one cannot create or destroy matter, just the interactions between other matters and their forms.

from another point of view:

if god did not create everything, because is it just impossible to create ones' self, then who created god? now, god has a frame of reference. but then... his creator also has a frame of reference for his beginning, which goes on and on, so on and so forth, et cetera ad nausea. so therefore, god is not the alpha and omega.

but

if god is not the alpha and omega, then there is a hierarchy to which reverence must be given, but who?

and

if god is not the only superior being, there must be an endless hierarchy, to which infinity does have a value. except, infinity does not have a value.

so, if there is no ending to the hierarchy, who is to say any of it actually exists? because there is infinite frames of reference, there is no certainty.

as it is right now, i cannot think of some possible views to support intelligent design, but i know i have thought of them prior to this post, and it should not be difficult to think of them later on.

in essence, it would be literally impossible to prove or disprove an opinion.

Could a god(s) or intelligent force create everything? Sure, but nothing points to that that we know in science. If tomorrow, hard evidence comes about of an intelligent designer, I'll accept it with open arms if it is proven to be real. But, until then, nope.

 

[debbie t]

ok......what if god created everything?...space......the big bang......the dinosaurs.....everything

isnt that what stephen hawking and wickramasinghe were basically saying?

what theyre saying and what the poetry of genesis describes is what i believe.

i also call god ki by the way ian

 

[All Else Failed]

For clarification, Hawking doesn't believe in the "Christian concept" of god. He's more along the lines of what Einstien thought about what "god" was, which was basically the universe. Its a more Panentheistic/deistic view.

 

[dt3]

Well if you want a very simple one: Dinosaurs.

Saying the word dinosaurs doesn't disprove creationism.

 

[All Else Failed]

Saying the word dinosaurs doesn't disprove creationism.

Seeing as how to BE a creationist you have to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, yes, dinosaurs which have been dated back millions of years alone disprove that creationist belief, which is the corner stone of their belief system when it comes to the Earth and it's age.

 

[dt3]

Seeing as how to BE a creationist you have to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, yes, dinosaurs which have been dated back millions of years alone disprove that creationist belief, which is the corner stone of their belief system when it comes to the Earth and it's age.

You're assuming the only creationist belief involves the young earth theory. I don't believe that's true.

 

[All Else Failed]

You're assuming the only creationist belief involves the young earth theory. I don't believe that's true.

By definition it is.

ID is a little different.

 

[dt3]

By definition it is.

ID is a little different.

What about Old Earth Creationism?

 

[All Else Failed]

What about Old Earth Creationism?

Old earth is a little different, I overlooked that one, but all in all they reject all evidences for evolution and usually take a literal stance on genesis, which has largely been disproven (the flood) by science.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Well, here is one that will blow your dress up AEF.

Super String, and Intruder should back me up on this, as I have said repeatedly to the extent where I am finally exhausted explaining it.

Super String or M-Theory discovered a very minute gap...On that has some of the most creative an imaginative theoretical physicists on the planet saying....

"Perhaps some sort of.....Intelligent Being started this reaction"

When you think about the way our system developed, how perfect it is to sustain life, it is hard to claim that it was "an accident".

Here is what I'll tell you AEF, and I can say it because I am a scientist....NOTHING happens by accident in science.

There may be things that cannot be explained yet, but it doesn't mean it never happened, or that it will never be explained.

I think what is going to make me laugh until I finally choke on my algorithms, is when they finally say.

Jeesh...perhaps we can all have our cake and eat it too. BUT here is the problem.

A: There are folks who simply will not lend themselves to a concept of a creative intelligence....No matter what the proof is.

B: The folks that do believe in a creative intelligence or "God" simply are not willing to open up there minds enough to accept that just maybe.......Not everything in the Bible is accurate.

To me, if they still cannot explain some of this stuff right now with all the technology we have, you will not convince me some guy in a tunic, in the dark could hit the nail on the head.

 

[All Else Failed]

Well, here is one that will blow your dress up AEF.

Super String, and Intruder should back me up on this, as I have said repeatedly to the extent where I am finally exhausted explaining it.

Super String or M-Theory discovered a very minute gap...On that has some of the most creative an imaginative theoretical physicists on the planet saying....

"Perhaps some sort of.....Intelligent Being started this reaction"

When you think about the way our system developed, how perfect it is to sustain life, it is hard to claim that it was "an accident".

Here is what I'll tell you AEF, and I can say it because I am a scientist....NOTHING happens by accident in science.

There may be things that cannot be explained yet, but it doesn't mean it never happened, or that it will never be explained.

I think what is going to make me laugh until I finally choke on my algorithms, is when they finally say.

Jeesh...perhaps we can all have our cake and eat it too. BUT here is the problem.

A: There are folks who simply will not lend themselves to a concept of a creative intelligence....No matter what the proof is.

B: The folks that do believe in a creative intelligence or "God" simply are not willing to open up there minds enough to accept that just maybe.......Not everything in the Bible is accurate.

To me, if they still cannot explain some of this stuff right now with all the technology we have, you will not convince me some guy in a tunic, in the dark could hit the nail on the head.

"We don't understand it, so it must be god!" What kind of logic is that???? Thats the god of the gaps argument in it's purest form, which is a logical fallacy. The 450 or so "scientists" that prescribe to ID or creationism are in the VAST minority, and usually have agendas.

Who ever said it was an accident? Evolution doesn't have any accidental things in it. Its a carefully measured, slow and methodical natural process. No accidents there.

Can I ask for your scientific credentials and degrees, please? I'm just curious. I didn't know you were a scientist.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

"We don't understand it, so it must be god!" What kind of logic is that???? Thats the god of the gaps argument in it's purest form, which is a logical fallacy. The 450 or so "scientists" that prescribe to ID or creationism are in the VAST minority, and usually have agendas.

Who ever said it was an accident? Evolution doesn't have any accidental things in it. Its a carefully measured, slow and methodical natural process. No accidents there.

Can I ask for your scientific credentials and degrees, please? I'm just curious. I didn't know you were a scientist.

Why...you hiring?

My credentials don't matter. You either respect my opinion or you do not.

Let us just say I have gone so far as a Master's.

My point was, AEF, was that IF you can get around the obstacle in your brain that simply will not allow the though of a creative intelligence, you will see that it really is perhaps the only thing that can explain how the universe developed.

I am not an astrophysicist. I am a Chemical Engineer, so I am no expert in the creation of the universe. But, I am not jaded enough to totally discount the research of some of the brightest physicists to have ever walked earth simply because it makes me squeamish to think that there might be something bigger than me.

Your reason for believeing what you believe is no more rediculous than my reason for believeing mine.

The only issue is this, we could debate this until our fingers fell off, in the end.....It still has never been totally explained....By anyone in the scientific community.

 

[debbie t]

oh boys i do love you all

 

[All Else Failed]

Why...you hiring?

My credentials don't matter. You either respect my opinion or you do not.

Let us just say I have gone so far as a Master's.

My point was, AEF, was that IF you can get around the obstacle in your brain that simply will not allow the though of a creative intelligence, you will see that it really is perhaps the only thing that can explain how the universe developed.

I am not an astrophysicist. I am a Chemical Engineer, so I am no expert in the creation of the universe. But, I am not jaded enough to totally discount the research of some of the brightest physicists to have ever walked earth simply because it makes me squeamish to think that there might be something bigger than me.

Your reason for believeing what you believe is no more rediculous than my reason for believeing mine.

The only issue is this, we could debate this until our fingers fell off, in the end.....It still has never been totally explained....By anyone in the scientific community.

On the contrary, I USED to be an advocate of ID about 3 or so years ago! Until I actually saw that it was pure faulty logic, and unscientific. I CAN understand why people want to believe in it, though.


If you are who you say you are, then you MUST see that ID conflicts with the basis of all science: The scientific method.


What ID's usually base their judgments off of is "woah, thats really beautiful and complex! THERE MUST be a creator!" is NOT a scientific state of mind. Thats the same in saying that "woah, that is really beautiful, there must be a council of powerful wizards somewhere in space that are responsible for this!" See how that can't be science? Making such concrete statements with no evidence is not, and cannot be considered anything scientific. I mean no offense, I applaud your efforts in the sciences, but I just think ID is a load of hogwash when I look at the evidence we have.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

On the contrary, I USED to be an advocate of ID about 3 or so years ago! Until I actually saw that it was pure faulty logic, and unscientific. I CAN understand why people want to believe in it, though.


If you are who you say you are, then you MUST see that ID conflicts with the basis of all science: The scientific method.


What ID's usually base their judgments off of is "woah, thats really beautiful and complex! THERE MUST be a creator!" is NOT a scientific state of mind. Thats the same in saying that "woah, that is really beautiful, there must be a council of powerful wizards somewhere in space that are responsible for this!" See how that can't be science? Making such concrete statements with no evidence is not, and cannot be considered anything scientific. I mean no offense, I applaud your efforts in the sciences, but I just think ID is a load of hogwash when I look at the evidence we have.

Do me a huge favor, and please do not patronize me. I treat you with a profound amount of respect, considering you basically diagree with everyone.

I am actually open minded. Why don't you go and actually read up on everything I mentioned before you attempt to insult me

Up to this point I have been very patient, I have suffered through page upon page upon page of you trying to tear down practically everyones belief system.

Well, you are not getting out of this fight that easy. You threw down the gauntlet, I am here. And you are going to have to say something better than "My theory is bigger than yours" to back me down.

I am with Tim, you posed the challenge, come at me with something more than "God is a big stupid pants" and I'll respond.

I still love ya, an all your enthusiasm, don't get me wrong, I totally admire your tenacity as I have said over and over again. But, you have walked into a hornets nest with this one.

It's time to hump, fight or hold the light