Creationist evidence...

[Landerage]

exactly, it requires faith. No alive person will ever see either of these two mythical places.




it wasnt a insult at all brother landerage

its just you are not one to dictate or tell others how to be or act or live because your particular religion says that may be the rigt way.





do you have any "real" proof of creation??

Here's your proof:
Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious within three to nine years. The affair is Allah's from beginning to end. On that day, the believers will rejoice. (Qur'an, 30:1-4)

The Dead Sea, one of the regions in which the Byzantines were defeated in 613-14, is the lowest region on Earth.
That's a miracle that could only have been done by someone who knows every inch of the Earth in the 600's, definitely God, proved recentely by the scientists and made one swedish scientist convert to Islam, in a science-religious conference in 1970 I think, and despite anything else that I know, was the only prove I needed
Book that contain a miracle only God could have done ==> What the book says is true ==> God exist ==> creatonism

 

[Landerage]

And that would include what? Telling people "I am an atheist and here's why"? Setting up a meeting of atheists? Talking to a Muslim about atheism?


And you see that as a good thing? "We'll help you out, but only if you pay"?


So what you're saying is, when evaluating a religion, we shouldn't consider how it makes its believers behave? You don't really believe that, do you?

I think your just attacking for the sake of attacking and not basing on anythign true I said, I didn't say "but only if you pay" the payement was a little fee, and only towards those who CAN pay which I made sure to say it so people like you dont say things like you said.
When someone have faith in religion, he does beleive it's from God who have the greatest wisdom, and trust must be put in his faith so whatever behaviour is required for one to do, it is the exact behaviour that one should do. if God told me to slap myself 5 times a day instead of praying 5 times a day, it's the exact thing I should do because he have greater wisdom then anyone and knows that it's the correct thing to do. One of the stories in the holy Qur'an was about a prophet who saw a dream that his son was sacrifying him, and cutting his throat,, he woke up and told his son to do that because he knew it was a God's message, when they were about to do this, God revealed to the prophet to sacrifice another animal. This story is to show how oneself is willing to give everything to please God because the faith is so high it's near certitude, and 1.5 bilion muslims on this Earth, and still growing isn't something u can ignore, or think of there faith as something highly theorical and have no basis... That's why a true muslim should never be afraid of fighting someone in the name of God, giving our own life for God is the greatest position one can reach (in Islam opinion) after the prophets.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say "but only if you pay" the payement was a little fee, and only towards those who CAN pay which I made sure to say it so people like you dont say things like you said.

You still don't get it. You're asking the people you're helping for payment. Why? You can't just do it out of the goodness of your heart?

When someone have faith in religion, he does beleive it's from God who have the greatest wisdom, and trust must be put in his faith so whatever behaviour is required for one to do, it is the exact behaviour that one should do. if God told me to slap myself 5 times a day instead of praying 5 times a day, it's the exact thing I should do because he have greater wisdom then anyone and knows that it's the correct thing to do.

So now you're saying we should consider the behavior of a religion's believers in evaluating that religion?

1.5 bilion muslims on this Earth, and still growing isn't something u can ignore,

Do you know that people who list "no religion" is one of the fastest growing categories in religious surveys?

And you didn't answer my question: What exactly gets an atheist killed in Islam? An atheist standing on a street corner and handing out pamphlets about atheism? An atheist talking to a Muslim about atheism? Atheists organizing as a group and getting together?

 

[Landerage]

You still don't get it. You're asking the people you're helping for payment. Why? You can't just do it out of the goodness of your heart?


So now you're saying we should consider the behavior of a religion's believers in evaluating that religion?


Do you know that people who list "no religion" is one of the fastest growing categories in religious surveys?

And you didn't answer my question: What exactly gets an atheist killed in Islam? An atheist standing on a street corner and handing out pamphlets about atheism? An atheist talking to a Muslim about atheism? Atheists organizing as a group and getting together?

Omg.. the payement was meant to go for charity I think >.< not quite sure about the details but what I was telling is about how peaceful it was back then despite the strong disagreeingin beleives...
I dont see what's your point with those question, and seeing that atheism is growing fastest doesn't decrease my faith by a particule, God always said there will be much more non beleivers then beleivers and some 99 non beleiver to 1 beleiver per 100 person, numbers aren't significant for me nor they prove anything... But when God says that, then makes my faith stronger Lolz
Killing an atheist in Islam isn't applied anymore as far as I know, but in the time were religion was taken seriousely by muslims killing an atheist was if that atheist killed another person for no reason (muslim or not) , or if he took actions to spread corruption in muslims community to divide them apart (not by debating) by saying lies about religion, falsifying facts, setting traps that would lead muslims to their doom and things that mostly lead to fatal situations for muslims.
Debating, conversations, conferences is asked by God from muslims, to present the authentic image of Islam to others.

 

[Jose Fly]

Omg.. the payement was meant to go for charity I think >.< not quite sure about the details but what I was telling is about how peaceful it was back then despite the strong disagreeingin beleives...

I guess we're just different then. When I help out anyone in need, I don't ask for anything in return...ever.

I dont see what's your point with those question, and seeing that atheism is growing fastest doesn't decrease my faith by a particule, God always said there will be much more non beleivers then beleivers and some 99 non beleiver to 1 beleiver per 100 person, numbers aren't significant for me nor they prove anything... But when God says that, then makes my faith stronger Lolz

Yeah, that is pretty funny. First you tell me I can't ignore that Islam has billions of followers and is growing, but when it's pointed out that "no religion" is also a very fast growing category, suddenly "numbers aren't significant" to you. Very amusing indeed.

Killing an atheist in Islam isn't applied anymore as far as I know, but in the time were religion was taken seriousely by muslims killing an atheist was if that atheist killed another person for no reason (muslim or not) , or if he took actions to spread corruption in muslims community to divide them apart (not by debating) by saying lies about religion, falsifying facts, setting traps that would lead muslims to their doom and things that mostly lead to fatal situations for muslims.
Debating, conversations, conferences is asked by God from muslims, to present the authentic image of Islam to others.

You still haven't told me what "spreading corruption" or "dividing them apart" means and why atheists need to be specified for such treatment. If a Muslim were found to be "spreading corruption" or "dividing Muslims", wouldn't they get the same punishment as an atheist? If so, why bring up atheists at all?

 

[Dan4reason]

still that doesn't disprove anything (u said "I beleive" )

Some of my beliefs do have evidence. As I said before, we have evidence that humans plagarized their genomes from animals just like you plagarized your genome from your parents. This evidence is convincing enough for me to believe.

I think, and many philosophers agree, that beauty is universal. So a painting of picasso is beautiful in quite the work, the technic, the message and all nobody can say it's not beautiful... So let's say someone is looking at one of the great paintings of nudes, and this guy had a sexual feeling looking at it, this person is not in status of judging the beauty of that piece, but it should be personal-emotion-free when concerned to judging and many philosophers agree with that. Now do I like a diet coke or a regular one that's not beauty it's like or dislike. but I really can't see the relation to the thread topic... Nobody who fully understood how the human body works would find it ugly.. in those matters i dont find it very subjective (again if judged without having personal emotions), the beauty of the sunrise and sunset etc...

They are just speculating and they should try to pick up a science book more often. Lets take something you see as beautiful. To conclude that means that it is universally beautiful not only has no evidence whatsoever, but is just as silly as saying that because you think black jellybeans taste bad, therefore they universally tasts bad.

Your notion of beauty is very emotional just like mine, and we know that emotion is subjective and a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Further, if you lost all your emotions, there would be no beauty, just combinations of matter. Another problem is that people disagree about what is beautiful. So much for universality.

Interesting opinion but I really dont know what that got to do with creationism vs evolution ;S but got some things to say: well human do have pretty faces that each is very different then the other and that is needed for a good social life I dont know if that can be called coincidence too for some, relating that to creatonism I dont know why an apple fits perfectely in a human's hand like if someone crafted it to match but maybe evolution can explain I dont know much about this

It has almost nothing to do with the evolution debate.

Women have pretty faces so that men are more likely to mate with them. This is an example of sexual selection which is a part of the theory of evolution.

Good reasoning, but in fact speaking from a religious point of view, God did tell us he created things we see and things we dont see, and ultraviolet and infrared colors might be those things to confirm what he said. And adding more to it, that it is said that our bodies gets replaced in the afterlife in order to see things more beautifuly and feel things better, and a secret to hide those colors could be to make us wonder about this.

Whoever wrote that about God's opinion probably wasn't talking about the electromagetic spectrum. People back then had no idea about something like that. Maybe he was talking about things in our field of vision, and things that are far outside our field of vision. Where is the verse?

I asked that question on another thread, about why an apple taste so good to humans, aswell as the other fruits but the guy there didn't give me an answer, im still looking for information but haven't found anything useful or answering the question. What I had in mind is that how can evolution know what taste good for humans and based on that create an apple that taste good for human's ? Dont that need two seperate time frame, one to create a human and see wat taste good and bad, and another to create an apple and match the taste together? I wish if you have any knowledge or where to go about this matter to enlighten me.

The reason apples taste good is because they contain a lot of nutrition, so humans who have taste bugs that "liked" apples (you experiment with taste bugs by playing around with DNA that codes for them), tend to be healthier, and so were more likely to pass on their genes. I am not an expert but it seems like it was humans who adapted to apples, not the other way around. I do not see how apples could benefit from being eaten so I don't see why they would adapt to be eaten by humans.

 

[Dan4reason]

I can't argue on that, I know it's true, still doesn't disprove that God exists though. Well I know that a human being genetical information and a kind of apes differs by 1% and evolution might have evolved the comon ancestor of a human and this kind of apes and the result was a new specie of conscious human and as such tdisprove that human was created directely by God as I know and descended to Earth, but still not a prove for me because religion says otherwise, although this is quite convincing but still what I found in religion was more convincing.

I am not trying to disprove God, I simply don't believe in him. I don't see how religion is convincing. Religion consists of a bunch of contradicting wild claims and no evidence whatsoever. The Hebrew God isn't any more convincing than Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Baal, etc.
Here is a list of religion:
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a list of Gods:
List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a list of creation myths:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What we have learned from cargo cults is that people are good at just making crazy stuff up. Christianity and Islam are just two of those things.
Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quagmire]

The most important aspect of supporting creationism, is the fact there is an afterlife and life is only to fufill the requirements for accessing a good destiny in the afterlife (personal opinion of course)

What you're describing isn't Creationism, it's Christianity in general. It isn't necessary to be a Creationist in order to be a Christian.

In any case, how does the belief in an afterlife "support" Creationism? Even if the idea of an afterlife were specifically Creationist dogma, it would only serve to make it more attractive to some people, not validate it.

but if life didn't mean anything for me, why would I go to school, or work or do all those things if being alive or dead is same thing for oneself? Personlay I find no happiness in that.

You're still not looking at what I said: the creation myth claims that God created life, not why.

I understand some people suicide, but those are a well small minority who endured most of the time great issues, however a majority supporting evolution, still continue to live, and personaly I think they are waiting for someone to tell them that the evolution theory is not true.

Are you saying that part of what you're basing your beliefs on is a wild speculation about what may be going on in the minds of a lot of people who you don't know who just happen to believe in a theory that you don't understand? Can you see how weak this is?

because nobody likes to beleive it however science facts does support it so far.

How would you have any idea at all what people do or don't "like" to believe? again: if this is part of the foundation for your own views/beliefs, you're on pretty shaky ground.

I would love to ask if in each one's personal opinion, do you prefer to have a creator who judges things right, or to like evolution and act as if life is normal and all is good? (im asking about what do each of you feel, not scientific facts or anything) because personaly If I wasn't a beleiver in creationism, I would really feel very sad that this world going to a certain end of death, and I would love if creationism was true. I know this is out of topic but I just wana know what each feel about it.

Feel free to create a thread about it. You can include a poll if you like.

It's true there are other theological reasonings, such that after death oneself might be living someone else's life etc... but it goes back to the same point that ownself consciousness gets deleted after death and for my humble opinion remove the value of oneself which I find depressing. Not sure about other ideologies.

If you're not sure about other ideologies that believe in an afterlife, you should take some time and look into them, because, to be honest, a lot of them make more sense than one that requires belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

For me, creationism explains an afterlife,

The Creation story says absolutely nothing about an afterlife.

so beleiving in any sort of after death experience other then this life, I would also consider it a support for creationism because if life ends then another thing starts that mean there is a linker to all those events in a person's life, which might be a supernatural force that set this up for each being, and It kinda confirm creationism too. So evolution says after death it's all over,

The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing for or against an afterlife either.

what would oneself experience in life mean then for oneself? I understand some great scientists, artists... might still have helped mankind even after death but for oneself doesn't it all end after death said by evolution?

See my last comment.

I dont know if your implying to the Gospel, Thorat and Qur'an for the books, but I did find the answer I needed from the Qur'an that doesn't fully reject evolution but supports creationism aswell, and made perfect sense in my mind.

Personaly I think evolution doesn't disprove creationism, I mean if there was a creator, would you think that he creates the same way as humans do?

Exactly: a belief in one doesn't negate or exclude the belief in the other. Quite a few religious people, including some Christians, believe in the theory of evolution and consider it the process by which God created everything.

 

[outhouse]

Here's your proof:
Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious within three to nine years. The affair is Allah's from beginning to end. On that day, the believers will rejoice. (Qur'an, 30:1-4)

The Dead Sea, one of the regions in which the Byzantines were defeated in 613-14, is the lowest region on Earth.
That's a miracle that could only have been done by someone who knows every inch of the Earth in the 600's, definitely God, proved recentely by the scientists and made one swedish scientist convert to Islam, in a science-religious conference in 1970 I think, and despite anything else that I know, was the only prove I needed
Book that contain a miracle only God could have done ==> What the book says is true ==> God exist ==> creatonism

do you think attributing a won battle to a deity is a bit barbaric and primitive????


none of which is any sort of evidence for creation at all.

 

[Landerage]

do you think attributing a won battle to a deity is a bit barbaric and primitive????


none of which is any sort of evidence for creation at all.

I don't find anything wrong with the logic I wrote it's perfectly correct, so what do you have to reply to that proof? Yes it is a proof

 

[Landerage]

I guess we're just different then. When I help out anyone in need, I don't ask for anything in return...ever.


Yeah, that is pretty funny. First you tell me I can't ignore that Islam has billions of followers and is growing, but when it's pointed out that "no religion" is also a very fast growing category, suddenly "numbers aren't significant" to you. Very amusing indeed.


You still haven't told me what "spreading corruption" or "dividing them apart" means and why atheists need to be specified for such treatment. If a Muslim were found to be "spreading corruption" or "dividing Muslims", wouldn't they get the same punishment as an atheist? If so, why bring up atheists at all?

Like I said you only replying just to find a little gap to critice, instead of going to the core of what I say you turn to the little details and forget the core.
Yes a muslim gets the same punishement if an atheist did that, idk sorry if I offended you by using the term atheist.

 

[Landerage]

Some of my beliefs do have evidence. As I said before, we have evidence that humans plagarized their genomes from animals just like you plagarized your genome from your parents. This evidence is convincing enough for me to believe.

Still proving that isn't 100% accurate, due to big laps of time that is needed for the genome to evolve, and the extinction of some creatures required that would have support this fact even more.

They are just speculating and they should try to pick up a science book more often. Lets take something you see as beautiful. To conclude that means that it is universally beautiful not only has no evidence whatsoever, but is just as silly as saying that because you think black jellybeans taste bad, therefore they universally tasts bad.

Your notion of beauty is very emotional just like mine, and we know that emotion is subjective and a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Further, if you lost all your emotions, there would be no beauty, just combinations of matter. Another problem is that people disagree about what is beautiful. So much for universality.

I wont agree or disagree, but I know emotion comes from the soul and not the body.. even though it's a chemical process I understand but for me have a bigger value then just that in the physical world it means chemical process but elsewhere in a world that humans probably didn't discover yet, it's something higher and that makes us different then animals, which have needs and not desires

It has almost nothing to do with the evolution debate.

Women have pretty faces so that men are more likely to mate with them. This is an example of sexual selection which is a part of the theory of evolution.

not all women are pretty, so it's kinda not fair for all. but religion sets that it is fair and God works in mysterious ways to make it fair for all even not many sees it...

Whoever wrote that about God's opinion probably wasn't talking about the electromagetic spectrum. People back then had no idea about something like that. Maybe he was talking about things in our field of vision, and things that are far outside our field of vision. Where is the verse?

it's a verse in the Qur'an which clearly stated as I have in mind that God creates what we can see, and what we can't see. Tried looking up a bit but couldn't find it yet ill PM it when I do

The reason apples taste good is because they contain a lot of nutrition, so humans who have taste bugs that "liked" apples (you experiment with taste bugs by playing around with DNA that codes for them), tend to be healthier, and so were more likely to pass on their genes. I am not an expert but it seems like it was humans who adapted to apples, not the other way around. I do not see how apples could benefit from being eaten so I don't see why they would adapt to be eaten by humans.

Well still this idea I always have keeps amazing me.. and sometimes instead of thinking of what did happen and what is beautiful, I think of what could have happened instead of what happened, and how evolution fits with the other things of this world. I mean many deseases and illness, we find cure for them in nature I dont know how evolution can explain that, having different seasons that would help the plants grow, and the milions of possibilities that evolution could have done and ended itself by itself, but kept growing in a more complex way. Oil, iron and other materials that were there not related to evolution but greately helped humans for a better life, aswell of many things that aren't related to evolution but are fundamental for evolution to grow.

 

[Landerage]

I am not trying to disprove God, I simply don't believe in him. I don't see how religion is convincing. Religion consists of a bunch of contradicting wild claims and no evidence whatsoever. The Hebrew God isn't any more convincing than Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Baal, etc.
Here is a list of religion:
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a list of Gods:
List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a list of creation myths:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What we have learned from cargo cults is that people are good at just making crazy stuff up. Christianity and Islam are just two of those things.
Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes religion can be contradictory and confusing, but I folow Islam religion, and found no contradictions what so ever, and I do know Qur'an cannot been have written but by God, due to scientifical miracles, litterature and writing methods, and above that linking numbering to words, something a man just couldn't do even if whole humanity gathered to do it. Which is quite different then greek religion saying there are many God's and things that didn't make sense...

 

[Landerage]

What you're describing isn't Creationism, it's Christianity in general. It isn't necessary to be a Creationist in order to be a Christian.

:bow:

In any case, how does the belief in an afterlife "support" Creationism? Even if the idea of an afterlife were specifically Creationist dogma, it would only serve to make it more attractive to some people, not validate it.

In my personal opinion, if an afterlife exist it means there's someone who would link this life to the after life, and that "someone" linked this life with the life before until the first one which he created it, it's not a prove just an opinion.

You're still not looking at what I said: the creation myth claims that God created life, not why.

But God knows what each human being does, so when I go to school it would be to get credit from it to benefit other people in the future which earns me more good deeds, everything can then be related to God and answer "why I do that, why I do this ..."

Are you saying that part of what you're basing your beliefs on is a wild speculation about what may be going on in the minds of a lot of people who you don't know who just happen to believe in a theory that you don't understand? Can you see how weak this is?

it's a personal opinion and it's not a basis for my beleifs by itself

How would you have any idea at all what people do or don't "like" to believe? again: if this is part of the foundation for your own views/beliefs, you're on pretty shaky ground.

it's a personal opinion, I thought debating is about giving own opinion? Why dont you give me your opinion about this so we can debate and not critise each other?

If you're not sure about other ideologies that believe in an afterlife, you should take some time and look into them, because, to be honest, a lot of them make more sense than one that requires belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Correct, knowledge is an endless ocean

The Creation story says absolutely nothing about an afterlife.

yea I meant from a personal corner, having a creator explains the afterlife existence seeing wat religion said

The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing for or against an afterlife either.

Yes evolution doesn't explain the soul, or what the biological death of the body have an effect on the soul, it ends to the death point but doens't cross to the spiritual side ok I see that now

 

[McBell]

I don't find anything wrong with the logic I wrote it's perfectly correct, so what do you have to reply to that proof? Yes it is a proof

What you presented is not proof.
It is merely the use of the Forer Effect to justify conformational bias.

Now if you want to push this "proof" thought you have presented it is at best flimsy evidence and at worst wishful thinking.

 

[rusra02]

Creationists are welcome to openly discuss their evidence in any scientific publication, in any scientific conference and in any other means that scientific evidence is discussed.

High school is not one of those.... High school is for information that is already shown to be credible. This is why we don't discuss Holocaust denial, Astrology, Flat Earth, or Alchemy in High School.

Creationism doesn't get to short-cut it's way to being scientific by forcing itself onto children education.... if you want it in there, then you have to do the hard work of actually doing science.
If you don't want to do science... keep it in the churches.

wa:do

Do you really believe what is taught in high schools is only what has been found to be credible?
High school? What about universities? And your comparing the evidence for creation to astrology, etc. is both unfounded and unfair. Rather, ToE proponents can be compared to the astrologers and flat-earth advocates who bristle at any who dare question their convictions.
The evidence for intelligent design is compelling, even overwhelming, a fact ToE apologists want to hide. So an atmosphere of disdain and antagonism toward open discussion of the facts exists amongst many evolutionists. Their typical reponse to such questions is "All intelligent people believe in the ToE. Therefore, if you do not believe, you are not intelligent."
Speaking of those who deny God, Romans 1:21,22 states "although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish."

​

​

 

[Landerage]

What you presented is not proof.
It is merely the use of the Forer Effect to justify conformational bias.

Now if you want to push this "proof" thought you have presented it is at best flimsy evidence and at worst wishful thinking.

prove that it's not a proof

 

[Dirty Penguin]

ToE proponents can be compared to the astrologers and flat-earth advocates who bristle at any who dare question their convictions.

No, I question your ability to actually present testable evidence of "intelligent design" or that a creator god did it. The whole (god is in the details) argument is weak and answers nothing.

The evidence for intelligent design is compelling, even overwhelming

Which is what exactly?

Their typical reponse to such questions is "All intelligent people believe in the ToE. Therefore, if you do not believe, you are not intelligent."

Who said that?

Speaking of those who deny God.....

No one is denying "God"...per se. What we challenge is your (creationist and ID proponents) ability to produce testable evidence that meets the standards of the scientific method.

 

[idav]

No one is denying "God"...per se. What we challenge is your (creationist and ID proponents) ability to produce testable evidence that meets the standards of the scientific method.

Scientists are doing a fine job trying to be creationists but abiogenesis doesn't need test tubes. How can we test without using tests???

 

[outhouse]

I don't find anything wrong with the logic I wrote it's perfectly correct, so what do you have to reply to that proof? Yes it is a proof

thats not proof of anything but dead luck