Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Milton Platt]

Looking for evidence?

Romans 1:20 basically says that it is so obvious that God created that those who think otherwise are without excuse if they do not believe it. Proof in the scientific sense is unnecessary since it cannot be proved God did not create.

It is not necessary to prove a god does not exist. If you say a god exists then you must substantiate your claim. Bible quotes do not stand as proof of anything. Further more if you wish to insist that everything exists until science says it does not, then you must by default be a polytheist as science has not disproved any of the gods. Nore has science disproved faeries, ogres, witches, Santa Clause, or the Great Pumpkin.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Unfortunately, despite this claim, when we examine the natural world, the evidence leads the other way.


Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Again, quotes from scripture are of no value without establishing the existence of your god first. Not to mention carefully defining him. Every Christian seems to have his own version when pressed for details.

 

[First Baseman]

So, you're using the Bible, which is the source of the claim of creationism, as proof for creationism...
So you're fine with having a claim act as it's own proof.
In that case, what do you have to show the Bible is a valid source?

Why do you assume the Bible is invalid?

 

[First Baseman]

Again, quotes from scripture are of no value without establishing the existence of your god first. Not to mention carefully defining him. Every Christian seems to have his own version when pressed for details.

God presents Himself based on His word, the Bible. If you are looking for empirical proof for or against creation you aren't going to find it. You must view the evidence for and against and decide for yourself. Or of course you may just choose not to do so.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Why do you assume the Bible is invalid?

Why would I assume ANYthing; Bible, Theory, Fact, statement.. is valid before its been shown to me to be valid?
What made you think the bible is valid?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

God presents Himself based on His word, the Bible. If you are looking for empirical proof for or against creation you aren't going to find it. You must view the evidence for and against and decide for yourself. Or of course you may just choose not to do so.

And again, you're showing the claim is the bible, and talking about evidence.
What evidence are you talking about?

 

[outhouse]

Looking for evidence?

Your faith is not credible evidence.

 

[First Baseman]

Why would I assume ANYthing; Bible, Theory, Fact, statement.. is valid before its been shown to me to be valid?
What made you think the bible is valid?

How can someone show you whether or not there was a creation? No one can. You must examine all of the evidence and decide for yourself based on whomsoever you choose to believe.

The Holy Spirit has convinced me the Bible is God's word. The Holy Spirit indwells all Christians.

 

[First Baseman]

And again, you're showing the claim is the bible, and talking about evidence.
What evidence are you talking about?

Testimony and examination, of course. How else?

 

[First Baseman]

Your faith is not credible evidence.

It is to me.

In whom have you elected to put your own faith? Since you weren't there to see for yourself you must choose in whom you will believe.

 

[Milton Platt]

Testimony and examination, of course. How else?

By testimony I assume you mean just taking your word for something(or someone else's word)? That is evidence of nothing. There is no possible way to verify your testimony or the testimonies from all the other religions, either.

Examination of what? Tou have provided nothing for anyone to examine.

 

[First Baseman]

By testimony I assume you mean just taking your word for something(or someone else's word)? That is evidence of nothing. There is no possible way to verify your testimony or the testimonies from all the other religions, either.

Examination of what? Tou have provided nothing for anyone to examine.

The Bible is testimony. Historical references in the Bible have been checked and many have been confirmed. There are 66 books to examine and compare with historical references and archaeological finds.

Of course if you have been taught bias against the Bible you would not know any of these things. The Bible is not some ridiculously thrown together piece of fiction as many have taught that it is based on their bias alone.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How else?

Logically defensible inferences or deductions given data. These need not involve testimony.

 

[rusra02]

They grew from the seeds that came from the tree's before it. This is a cycle that goes back to the development of the trees themselves. All life had a single ancestor long long ago. And most likely abiogensis out of the chemical processes of this planet created the first life. This process can be taken back all the way to the big bang. Before that we don't know what happened. But from that point to now there is no need for a god to explain what we have. And if it is an unknown there is no need to have god explain that either.

You must know there is no evidence to support the view that life arose spontaneously. All evidence demonstrates that life on earth only comes from existing life. No one has proven otherwise, and to say something must have happened that we have no evidence for is not science but wishful thinking. Nor does the evidence exist to support the theory life descended from a single entity. This quote from "the origin of Life- Five Questions Worth Askng" addresses this issue:

"DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

 

[rusra02]

Is this the evidence you have? What's you single BEST evidence for creationism, is it this, or do ou have an actual piece of evidence?

I already presented evidence in a previous post. I was asking a question here.

 

[Milton Platt]

The Bible is testimony. Historical references in the Bible have been checked and many have been confirmed. There are 66 books to examine and compare with historical references and archaeological finds.

Of course if you have been taught bias against the Bible you would not know any of these things. The Bible is not some ridiculously thrown together piece of fiction as many have taught that it is based on their bias alone.

The fact that the bible may contain a few historical facts is not even relevant. It was written by real people who wrote down stories that were passed along orally before that (at least in the O.T.). Of course it would mention towns and geological features they were familiar with. What is lacking is evidence of the miracles and claims of deity. no one is disputing that the persons who wrote the particular stories that were later selected to be compiled into the bible knew the names of towns and people in their time.

Many works of fiction written even today contain references to real places and people. does that prove that claims made in those books should be accepted as true? No.........

People are not asking you to provide evidence that the biblical authors knew local geography. They are asking you to show that your claims of a supernatural god are valid.

 

[Iti oj]

Why do you assume the Bible is invalid?

it is historically and scientifically inaccurate. It is also full of contradictions. Nothing suggest the bible is valid. Finally the bible is filled with absolutely horrible things.

 

[outhouse]

I already presented evidence in a previous post. I was asking a question here.

We want credible evidence. Not pseudoscientific imaginative claims by people whop refuse academia.

 

[Shad]

You must know there is no evidence to support the view that life arose spontaneously. All evidence demonstrates that life on earth only comes from existing life. No one has proven otherwise, and to say something must have happened that we have no evidence for is not science but wishful thinking. Nor does the evidence exist to support the theory life descended from a single entity. This quote from "the origin of Life- Five Questions Worth Askng" addresses this issue:

"DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

To bad abiogensis is not evolution. You chopped down a strawman constructed by your ignorance of both fields.

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

Darwin's model is not the current mode. Strawman.

Which scientists? Names, degrees, credentials, studies. I can prop up the same inane babble.

"Scientists have conclude JW know nothing about evolution"

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Which is abiogensis not evolution. Strawman based on quote-mining.

Refutation of Gordon's quote

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/malcolm-gordon-1

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

It does not contradict the current model. Strawman based on using an outdated 150 year old model rather than the modern one

Also your whole comment is from a nobody. JW are not an authority on evolution, only their cult's inane babble.

 

[Milton Platt]

Just reading what was written, I would say this guy is just cutting and pasting from a creationist article and is not interested in reading the scientific literature to see what the current consensus actually is.

 

[Skwim]

You must know there is no evidence to support the view that life arose spontaneously.
All evidence demonstrates that life on earth only comes from existing life. No one has proven otherwise, and to say something must have happened that we have no evidence for is not science but wishful thinking.

Your continued insistence in demonstrating your ignorance is interesting. Or, is it your continued insistence in purposely presenting arguments you know are fallacious?

Nor does the evidence exist to support the theory life descended from a single entity.

Nor has this straw horse ever been asserted by science. Truthfully rusra02, your ongoing tactics are becoming so threadbare they virtually scream "I'm at my wit's end to make a case for creationism."

This quote from "the origin of Life- Five Questions Worth Askng" addresses this issue:

"DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

So what? Eric Bapteste's remark is stupid and certainly doesn't represent current evolutionary thinking.

"Next, let's take a look at the two news articles. The Telegraph took its story from the NS article, and both contain the same fairly outrageous quotes and claims (Graham Lawton is the source unless otherwise indicated):​

1. Dr. Eric Bapteste: 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

1. False. The Tree of Life project is stronger and more accurate than ever.

the really insanely stupid comment by Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris that "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" is so far from the mark that it makes no sense unless you suppose in his mind the evolution of genes and the evolution of species are supposed to be identical. But the distinction between gene trees and taxonomic trees is as old as genetics, although the terminology is recent. So, all in all, either you have really bad journalism here"
source​

The cherry picking the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY does is shameful. A religion the purposely misleads its followers is hardly admirable. Of course, why should it care as long as such duplicitous ploys serve its goals.