tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Bingo!!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists: Here's your chance
- Thread starter The_Evelyonian
- Start date
Bingo!!
simple for you maybe. your demonstration it's futher nothing, but only guessing ("too many to have happened by chance"). if you take in account that it took about hundreds of milions of years, then that complexity didn't need any intelligent creator. it looks like that because there was so much time at disposal
science don't need to make anybody to be a naturist. the wish of knowing about nature is strong enough at many people who decide to study the one or other branch of science and become scientists, while religion needs followers ( as many as possible)to exist. just an example: the polytheist religions of the old egyptians or romans were dead in the moment they didn't have enough followers, while Pytagoras didn't need any fans to write his theory which still has validity today
and believe me, those who use technical language doesn't adress to people like you. it's your choise if you inform yourself and read enough to understand them. the articles you read are written mostly by journalists (no scientists!), who try to present the issue so that the people buy the magazine he/she works for, therefore i meant i understand the political touch you see there. the governments will pay for science, no matter if the laymen support it or not. there are also other interests than informing the laymen...
to disprove some theories you have to do science, but religion isn't compatible for that.
Last edited:
RedOne77
Active Member
Jollybear,
There is a reason why scientists use technical terms, and it isn't to shoot up their ego. The natural world is complex and very specific terminology is needed to explain how things work. There are analogies and metaphors that scientists, and other sciency type people use in order to get basic concepts across, but with any metaphor about the natural world there are limitations. Eventually the metaphor becomes useless, like DNA is a language. A very useful analogy for people who don't have a good grasp on what is happening at the molecular level of transcription/translation. However, at the finer details, the metaphor breaks apart.
Some scientists do write books for laymen, and when they do they usually lighten up on the techno jargon. But when they write articles attended for scientifically literate audiences, particularly peers, they have to write and use terms that are on the level. That way their peers, other scientists, know exactly what they are talking about and they can have a real scientific discussion on said issue. I do however agree that they need to reach out to laymen, and this is done very well at the university level, and before that scientifically literate teachers at the K-12 level, and through certain books intended for laymen consumption.
There is a reason why scientists use technical terms, and it isn't to shoot up their ego. The natural world is complex and very specific terminology is needed to explain how things work. There are analogies and metaphors that scientists, and other sciency type people use in order to get basic concepts across, but with any metaphor about the natural world there are limitations. Eventually the metaphor becomes useless, like DNA is a language. A very useful analogy for people who don't have a good grasp on what is happening at the molecular level of transcription/translation. However, at the finer details, the metaphor breaks apart.
Some scientists do write books for laymen, and when they do they usually lighten up on the techno jargon. But when they write articles attended for scientifically literate audiences, particularly peers, they have to write and use terms that are on the level. That way their peers, other scientists, know exactly what they are talking about and they can have a real scientific discussion on said issue. I do however agree that they need to reach out to laymen, and this is done very well at the university level, and before that scientifically literate teachers at the K-12 level, and through certain books intended for laymen consumption.
Luminous
non-existential luminary
Bananas, you say....
i say: SNOW FLAKES!!!.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Yet you postulate a complex god.
Meaning that not ALL complexity is evidence for design, just the complexities you say are designed.
I believe your words were "All complexity except god is designed."
That's not evidence, that's special pleading.
"Complexity is evidence of design."
"And you believe that god is complex?"
"Yes."
"So you're saying he's designed too?"
"He doesn't count. All complexity except god is designed."
It's just a variation of the no true scotsman fallacy. Barking "first cause" doesn't make this go away. It just makes it look like your dodging so you can cling desperately to a point that's already been shattered.
To claim that complexity is evidence of design and to then postulate a complex god as your designer is self-refuting because you're postulating a non-designed complexity and thus proving your original statement (Complexity is evidence of design) false.
Last edited:
Webbster101
Member
You are very straight forward and that might end up being your down fall.
The problem with other groups that say creationism is false is that they do not have any points that don't get proved right. Now I am a creationist and I do have a bias but if evolution is "true" then how come they can be proved wrong by ID, if general atheists are right then why keep living because you have nothing to live for besides becoming dirt (this can lead to a whole debate on there actually being a God or not). So far creation has stood most of the attack and still is throwing punches, I want to ask all the non-creationists to look at all the evidence before they try to knock down anty one elses beliefs.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Well that's what this thread is for. Show us the evidence.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
First, there is no evidence to support Creationism.
Second, Atheism has nothing to do with the overwhelming evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution.
Third, at no time has the Theory of Evolution been "proved wrong by ID".
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Evolution has never been proved wrong by ID.
I know of no atheists who live in the manner you described.
Well, how about showing us the evidence.
Webbster101
Member
First: Where do you find no evidence for creationism
Second: I did not say they had any thing to do with evolution but some try to follow some of their thoughts on creation
Third: How do you explain the flagelum that is on bacteria? How can the bacteria even survive without the whole flagelum, it would not have all the parts?
I'm sorry if I offended you but there is proof.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
The purpose of this thread is to provide evidence for creation. Give us some evidence. None has been presented so far.
What does atheism have to do with evolution? Most "evolutionists" are religious.
Very few species of bacteria have flagellums. They all have survived for billions of years. Bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. And Muller has already discovered in 1918 that the flagellum on the species that have flagellums is not irreducibly complex.
No, you didn't provide proof for anything. You just tried to assess that evolution is wrong.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
That makes absolutely no sense. Where does one find a no evidence? How does one find that which does not exist?
Hey, you brought Atheism into the debate.
Ah, the tired 'irreducible complexity argument. (Micheal Behe)
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. (Source)
No offense taken. I am still waiting for that proof however.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/88277-prove-creationism-id-here.html
McBell
Unbound
Where?
You have as yet to present anything that even resembles evidence, let alone proof.
If this proof does in fact exist, why not simply present it?
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Hundreds of Proofs of Gods Existence
Here's a whole list
I think that #38 is the one that's been used the most on this thread.
And the worst part is that they are really convinced that it proves evolution wrong.:yes:
Personally, I think the Bible basically matches up to the Theory of Evolution. The order of things being created is identical in Genesis; with space, planets, etc. being created first. It then goes on to describe the establishment of an atmosphere and the creation of land and water. Even the creation of animals goes in order, starting out with small sea animals then large sea animals and then birds and then land mammals, etc. Everything was created before the development of mankind.
I heard an interesting argument on this the other day; I wish I would have wrote down the specific versus that they were talking about. I’ll give you a basic summary of what was said, and see if I can find the exact discussion later. The guy who was talking also spoke of how the Bible goes along with the events in the Theory of Evolution (other then the fact that people are the result of evolution, of course). He stated that the earth was created long before the story of creation found in Genesis; he talked about how the earth was originally the home to these creatures that were human-like but not human (i.e. that they were not made in God’s form so they could not communicate with him). Lucifer, before he was banished from Heaven, lived on earth with the people as a sort of pathway of communication between these “people” and God. As an argument for this theory, he quoted passages in the Bible that talked about civilizations being present on earth but no people.
And later (I think after Lucifer goes bad and is exiled) it talks about how God flipped the earth around and shut out the lights and destroyed all life on it (none of which is talked about during the story of Noah) he used this as proof that the earth was destroyed once before. And the fact that it talks about the earth being frozen in seconds matches up with the dinosaurs quick extinction. Plus, it also describes why human like skeletons have been discovered on earth.
Then he talks about the word usage in Genesis. How the word “let” has never once in any other form been used as a word for creation anywhere in the Bible, so it suggest that light and such was already present and was just shut off temporarily. So, the story of Genesis is a story of recreation and not the original creation.
I think a lot of his passages were from the book of Leviticus, but I’m not entirely sure. Anyways I thought he had some interesting arguments (although, I think they sounded better coming from him). Though, I don't know the exact context of his scripture quotes because I never looked them up myself.
There is not going to be some special key that reveals the truth in any case. But considering the date the Bible was written and how so many things match up with what is in the Bible and what is outlined in Evolutionary Theory, I think that creationism is at least in the running. I don’t think creationism could ever be proven, though, because all we have to go off of is “stories” and how those match up with the widely excepted facts.
I heard an interesting argument on this the other day; I wish I would have wrote down the specific versus that they were talking about. I’ll give you a basic summary of what was said, and see if I can find the exact discussion later. The guy who was talking also spoke of how the Bible goes along with the events in the Theory of Evolution (other then the fact that people are the result of evolution, of course). He stated that the earth was created long before the story of creation found in Genesis; he talked about how the earth was originally the home to these creatures that were human-like but not human (i.e. that they were not made in God’s form so they could not communicate with him). Lucifer, before he was banished from Heaven, lived on earth with the people as a sort of pathway of communication between these “people” and God. As an argument for this theory, he quoted passages in the Bible that talked about civilizations being present on earth but no people.
And later (I think after Lucifer goes bad and is exiled) it talks about how God flipped the earth around and shut out the lights and destroyed all life on it (none of which is talked about during the story of Noah) he used this as proof that the earth was destroyed once before. And the fact that it talks about the earth being frozen in seconds matches up with the dinosaurs quick extinction. Plus, it also describes why human like skeletons have been discovered on earth.
Then he talks about the word usage in Genesis. How the word “let” has never once in any other form been used as a word for creation anywhere in the Bible, so it suggest that light and such was already present and was just shut off temporarily. So, the story of Genesis is a story of recreation and not the original creation.
I think a lot of his passages were from the book of Leviticus, but I’m not entirely sure. Anyways I thought he had some interesting arguments (although, I think they sounded better coming from him). Though, I don't know the exact context of his scripture quotes because I never looked them up myself.
There is not going to be some special key that reveals the truth in any case. But considering the date the Bible was written and how so many things match up with what is in the Bible and what is outlined in Evolutionary Theory, I think that creationism is at least in the running. I don’t think creationism could ever be proven, though, because all we have to go off of is “stories” and how those match up with the widely excepted facts.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Actually, it says in Genesis that God created the heaven and the earth before the sun - this is not correct. It also says he simultaneously created all the "beasts" of the sea and all of the birds on one day, then all the creatures that crawl upon the land the next day. Land animals came before birds, so this makes no sense.
Sounds to me like they were just reading a lot into the Bible that isn't necessarily there.
But it doesn't explain why no human-like fossils have ever been found at the same geological strata or dated to the same age as dinosaur fossils. That kind of puts the oil in the ointment of that hypothesis.
Again, I think this is reading too much into it.
You really need to check your facts on evolution.
RedOne77
Active Member
How about formation of proteins within cells. No one knows how (the 'rules' to protein formation) a protein folds from the time it is made as a polypeptide(s) to the time in conforms into its 3-dimensional shape. The best scientists can do is say a particular region will most likely conform to this secondary structure, but that isn't even close to understanding how the tertiary or quaternary structure form inside chaperonins.
There, it's easy to prove creation with up to date, modern science.
RedOne77
Active Member
A fun fact according to modern cosmology, the universe was literally opaque for the first 700 million years because the universe wasn't yet ionized enough! So there were stars before there was light! Well, all according to cosmologists that is.
Never mind that plants existed before the Sun according to Genesis. And according to stellar astronomers when a proto-star becomes a main-sequence star (a 'normal' star), there is something called a hydrogen flash that happens (a huge release of energy from the Sun as it begins to undergo nuclear fusion in its core of hydrogen into helium), if anything was alive on the Earth when that thing supposedly went off all life would have perished.
This sounds all extra-biblical to me. A plain reading of the text will tell you that the universe was around for only 5 days before mankind was divinely created.