Creationist evidence...

[outhouse]

The evidence for intelligent design is compelling, even overwhelming,

Is this a blatant lie???

there is zero evidence for ID and it was slapped down in a court of law, ID was outlawed from public schools because there is zero science to it at all. That means there is zero evidence.

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

WRONG

you confuse intelligence with EDUCATION, i think your doing it on purpose.

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

this is a classic example of extreme ignorance on the subject at hand.

ToE does not deny god at all.


Your also pitting the knowledge of ancient mans and his theology AGAINST modern science.


it is you who builds a war of theology VS science and then cry's wolf and claims science is going after theology.

You do not pit theology ever against science, you will always fail.

What about universities?

ToE is taught in every major university on the planet as higher learning.

creation is laughed upon by those who bring it up as a serious alternitive when they cannot prove one SHRED of evidence, exactly how this thread shows.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Scientists are doing a fine job trying to be creationists

How can we test without using tests???

I'd be fine if we put the whole (creationism hypothesis) on the back burner and deal with ID proponents. At least they're not so absolute when it comes to life on this planet. The burden of presenting evidence still falls squarely on their shoulders. Creationist hold that a creator god created life on this planet as written in their supposed holy text. ID proponents are the new age (creationist) but say the "designer" was intelligent. They leave it blank for one to insert whether that "intelligent designer" is "God", a god, gods or extraterrestrials.

We have no evidence of a designer. And if one does believe in such a thing why would they assume this supposed designer is "intelligent"? Surely simply saying (things are too complex to not have been designed)..is not enough to answer the question. So we come full circle needing these people to present their evidence....

 

[Gunfingers]

thats not proof of anything but dead luck

It's not even luck, just a basic understanding of geography. The battles in question happened before the Quran was written, all the authors had to know was that the region was well below sea level. There was no fulfilled prophecy, no magical insight, just an education.

Edit to add:

This is one of my favorite things creationists do, actually. Their standards of proof are so comically inconsistent. Evolutionary theory makes correct predictions, one after another? Doesn't matter, it's unproveable theory. Scripture got some basic fact right? Proof positive of the divine inspiration of you preferred deity!

 

[idav]

I'd be fine if we put the whole (creationism hypothesis) on the back burner and deal with ID proponents. At least they're not so absolute when it comes to life on this planet. The burden of presenting evidence still falls squarely on their shoulders. Creationist hold that a creator god created life on this planet as written in their supposed holy text. ID proponents are the new age (creationist) but say the "designer" was intelligent. They leave it blank for one to insert whether that "intelligent designer" is "God", a god, gods or extraterrestrials.

We have no evidence of a designer. And if one does believe in such a thing why would they assume this supposed designer is "intelligent"? Surely simply saying (things are too complex to not have been designed)..is not enough to answer the question. So we come full circle needing these people to present their evidence....

I was kinda being a smart alec in the sense that scientists are acting as creationists or intelligent designers in their attempts to recreate what happened when life came about. That is what testing amounts to. So real evidence for creationism or intelligent design would be very difficult to test while keeping our own intelligence out of the equation. It is a bit harder to differentiate for a creationists that just says abiogenesis is how god did it. However when we get to the finer details of biological functions, the argument for chance rather than design is very strong, so simply saying that is how god did it isn't very satisfactory.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I was kinda being a smart alec in the sense that scientists are acting as creationists or intelligent designers in their attempts to recreate what happened when life came about. That is what testing amounts to. So real evidence for creationism or intelligent design would be very difficult to test while keeping our own intelligence out of the equation. It is a bit harder to differentiate for a creationists that just says abiogenesis is how god did it. However when we get to the finer details of biological functions, the argument for chance rather than design is very strong, so simply saying that is how god did it isn't very satisfactory.

I see....


I think that if we can meet on common ground and for the sake of argument all parties agree that an IDer exist then I think the next important question is "how"..

At least with Evolution we can recognize some mechanisms but I don't get a sense that ID proponents have a mechanism or a well defined mechanism(s)...:sad:

 

[snl2240]

Again, another absurd assertion by one who does not wish to see the truth. YOU CANNOT FALSIFY A SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.
Why do you feel this facade is necessary if you cared for science more than your beliefs then you would not believe in creationism. It's that simple.

 

[Landerage]

thats not proof of anything but dead luck

nope I think u mean :" I have nothing to say against it because it is a miracle" but anyways it's something I wrote especially for you and I gave you something very convincing... On judgement day you have no excuse then. So if you have something concerning the logic I wrote and found somewhere it lacks authenticity then pls tell me so I can corct myself, but telling it's not proof or what the other person here said conventional idk what was those complicated words I quite don't get. If it's something other then that then I won't bother answering anymore. And this is the only miracle that is not even close to being lucky... :bow: oh lord glory is all yours

 

[Dan4reason]

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.


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



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...


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


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.

Well we don't know everything about the brain but we do know a lot. We know that diferent parts of the brain determine different parts of your psychology. The amygdala is responsible for emotional reactions. Illegal drugs can manipulate our emotions by increasing dopamine levels. Hormones such as estrogen often affect emotions. You can decrease depression by getting a deep-brain pacemaker. It sends electrical impuses in the brain at targeted areas.

The reason we have oil is because over billions of years plants have been buried, and crushed. The reason we have iron is because of stellar nucleosynthesis (stars fusing lighter elements to make heavier ones).

You are asked a lot of tough question. Now I have a tough question for you. Why would God make a salamander ( the Olm) in pitch black caves with eyes which won't be put to any use? Moreover why would he then put a layer of skin over these eyes so they will never have a chance to see? Why not just not make the eyes in the first place?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Again, another absurd assertion by one who does not wish to see the truth. YOU CANNOT FALSIFY A SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.
Why do you feel this facade is necessary if you cared for science more than your beliefs then you would not believe in creationism. It's that simple.

Was your comment for me or someone else?

 

[snl2240]

Was your comment for me or someone else?

No it wasn't for anyone in particular, just anyone who thinks they can prove a supernatural claim, which creationism is.

 

[Landerage]

The reason we have oil is because over billions of years plants have been
buried, and crushed. The reason we have iron is because of stellar nucleosynthesis (stars fusing lighter elements to make heavier ones).

You are asked a lot of tough question. Now I have a tough question for you. Why would God make a salamander ( the Olm) in pitch black caves with eyes which won't be put to any use? Moreover why would he then put a layer of skin over these eyes so they will never have a chance to see? Why not just not make the eyes in the first place?

yes I understand but oil did wonders for man which is the result of evolution as some believe, but oil isn't the result of evolution as ur saying it's chemical. So I find it kinda impressive to see the outcome of evolution, matching what's found resulted from chemical facts, other due to mechanical processes etc... I still don't have a good example yet to make you see my point but I hope you kinda have an idea about what I'm implying to.
Very good question that I struggled with but found a good reasoning from the religious side that made sense for me. Well God does say in the Qur'an that he creates whatever he wants, and a great variety of everything from fruits to animals to human shapes and skin colors, and one of the main reasons is to show his greatness. And as such he created dinosaurs to show his power even though they are extinct. As for this animals, the wisdom might be to show that even without eyes this animal is able to survive, and even a greater wisdom that God always talked about in the Qur'an is comparing the non believers to those who don't see, and don't hear and don't talk. So many humans even with working eyes God compares them to blind people because they use the eyes to look at what don't please God instead of seeing his wonders and getting closer to him. I know it might be little awkward to see how I linked that animal to this wisdom but God urge believers in the Qur'an to look at nature and find his wisdom through it, and I'm trying to be as most accurat as possible in translating the Qur'an because I don't remember where each verse is located at. Nature is well talked about in the Qur'an and contains great wisdoms for people to learn from such as water which everything alive is made from, how water descends as rain form and to make the dead earth to grow plants again, then form rivers and gets stored in mountains. And another form of a miracle that I read about here on the forum, but the thread got deleted unfortunately, was a garden in Italy that had plants shaped on form of the word Allah whic is God for Muslims, and since the opening of that garden many visitors converted to Islam, but the garden was closed shortly after due to the fast increase in people converting to Islam.

 

[Quagmire]

:bow:

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.

Yes. Problem is that you were suggesting that your opinion qualified as evidence.

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 ..."

Completely beside the point. My point was: suggesting that a literal belief in the creation story, in and of itself, would somehow provide the believer with a sense of purpose or meaning in life doesn't make sense, since the story suggests no meaning.

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

Then how does it make any sense to offer it in the course of explaining why you believe what you believe

it's a personal opinion, I thought debating is about giving own opinion?

Debating is about explaining/defending the basis for your opinions.

iWhy dont you give me your opinion about this so we can debate and not critise each other?

I'm not criticizing you, I'm challenging your opinions. That's what debate is for. And "stop criticizing me" isn't valid defense of an opinion (it's usually just a plea for mercy by someone once they begin to realize they have no valid defense for their opinions)

Correct, knowledge is an endless ocean

So you agree that many theologies make more sense than Creationism?

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

And how does that fit into this conversation?

Your point was that, without a literal belief in the Creation myth, life has no meaning. You've yet to explain the connection.

A belief in god is a separate issue.

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

Cool.

 

[Dan4reason]

yes I understand but oil did wonders for man which is the result of evolution as some believe, but oil isn't the result of evolution as ur saying it's chemical. So I find it kinda impressive to see the outcome of evolution, matching what's found resulted from chemical facts, other due to mechanical processes etc... I still don't have a good example yet to make you see my point but I hope you kinda have an idea about what I'm implying to.
Very good question that I struggled with but found a good reasoning from the religious side that made sense for me. Well God does say in the Qur'an that he creates whatever he wants, and a great variety of everything from fruits to animals to human shapes and skin colors, and one of the main reasons is to show his greatness. And as such he created dinosaurs to show his power even though they are extinct. As for this animals, the wisdom might be to show that even without eyes this animal is able to survive, and even a greater wisdom that God always talked about in the Qur'an is comparing the non believers to those who don't see, and don't hear and don't talk. So many humans even with working eyes God compares them to blind people because they use the eyes to look at what don't please God instead of seeing his wonders and getting closer to him. I know it might be little awkward to see how I linked that animal to this wisdom but God urge believers in the Qur'an to look at nature and find his wisdom through it, and I'm trying to be as most accurat as possible in translating the Qur'an because I don't remember where each verse is located at. Nature is well talked about in the Qur'an and contains great wisdoms for people to learn from such as water which everything alive is made from, how water descends as rain form and to make the dead earth to grow plants again, then form rivers and gets stored in mountains. And another form of a miracle that I read about here on the forum, but the thread got deleted unfortunately, was a garden in Italy that had plants shaped on form of the word Allah whic is God for Muslims, and since the opening of that garden many visitors converted to Islam, but the garden was closed shortly after due to the fast increase in people converting to Islam.

I know what you are getting at. There are a lot of things in nature that seems to be built just for us (oxygen to breathe, moderate temperature, meat to eat) and it seems as if the universe was made just for us. However I will throw out another possibility. What if we were made for the universe? What if evolution adapted us to take advantage of the good things in nature?

You did not directly answer why God would give some cave salamanders eyes when they would never see light, and their eyes were made non-functional by permenantly covering them up. Evolution explain this perfectly. Once there was a salamander that had eyes. It was pushed into the cave ecological niche. And this is why it is in a cave and it has eyes.

The human genome is constantly being hit with mutations most of which are bad. Since most mutations reduce gene function, those with these mutations are weeded out by natural selection so those without the very bad mutations more likely survive and the mutation slowly gets weeded out of the population. If a gene becomes useless mutations will strike it and disable it, but since the gene is not being used, having these bad mutations will not harm the animal. These mutations will collect until they spread through the population.

Mutations happened so to the salamander that his eyes got covered by skin. Usually if this happened in animals that lived in daylight, those with these mutations would not be able to see and would get weeded out by natural selection. But since these salamanders live in dark caves, these mutations were allowed to take over the population.

 

[McBell]

prove that it's not a proof

It is not on me to prove your claim.

 

[McBell]

... your comparing the evidence for creation to astrology, etc. is both unfounded and unfair.

I have to disagree.
It is most accurate and who said life was fair?
Now if creationists did not continuously engage in blatant dishonesty, you might have an argument on the "unfair" bit.

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

Oh, you mean just like you are here?

The evidence for intelligent design is compelling, even overwhelming, a fact ToE apologists want to hide.

And yet here we are in yet another thread where all this evidence for intelligent design has been severely lacking.

So an atmosphere of disdain and antagonism toward open discussion of the facts exists amongst many evolutionists.

And here we see a blatant example of the dishonesty I mentioned...

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."

:sleep:

Wake me up when the sermon is over.

 

[McBell]

... On judgement day you have no excuse then.

your empty threats smell of desperation.

So if you have something concerning the logic I wrote and found somewhere it lacks authenticity then pls tell me so I can corct myself, but telling it's not proof or what the other person here said conventional idk what was those complicated words I quite don't get. If it's something other then that then I won't bother answering anymore. And this is the only miracle that is not even close to being lucky... :bow: oh lord glory is all yours

Still waiting for you to present some logic.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The evidence for intelligent design is compelling, even overwhelming...

Present this compelling and overwhelming empirical evidence for ID.

 

[tumbleweed41]

prove that it's not a proof

You really have no idea what constitutes truly objective empirical evidence, do you?

 

[Dan4reason]

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."

The most compelling thing I have ever heard from ID is irreducable complexity and that idea has been refuted by giving an example of a mechanism that resembles a bacterial flagellum but with several parts removed, which works in nature.

The rest of ID stems from misunderstands of evolution and science in general. It stems form the idea that scientific theories must explain everything and its explanations must be 100% proven. No matter how much evidence evolution collects, and no matter how much it explains, ID proponents can always point to some obscure mechanism in nature that evolution has not explained yet, and argue that since they have no idea how it could have evolved, it must have been designed.

The evolution for evolution is far more convincing. One piece of evidence is the whale.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Mutations happened so to the salamander that his eyes got covered by skin. Usually if this happened in animals that lived in daylight, those with these mutations would not be able to see and would get weeded out by natural selection. But since these salamanders live in dark caves, these mutations were allowed to take over the population.

I have a question for you.

What evolutionary advantage does this skin over the eyes serve?

As my understanding of evolutionary theory states that an evolved trait will only permeate a species if it gives an advantage?

-Q