Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

[eternity]

'Creation' can not occur without a 'creator' therefore there must be some sort of superior being ie. God, involved in the whole process. There is not explaination or proof of creation without proof of a creator.

 

[Khale]

'Creation' can not occur without a 'creator' therefore there must be some sort of superior being ie. God, involved in the whole process. There is not explaination or proof of creation without proof of a creator.

What if the object just 'was'. What if all the ingredients to make everything have always existed even before time. Would the object still need a creator?

 

[HelpMe]

welcome to the boards eternity.

as a matter of fact, theoretically, a creator could very well choose to hide themself from their creation with or without reason.so your statement is false.


-shawn

 

[painted wolf]

yes, and theoretically (as you seem to be using it) there could be Leprecauns who simply choose to hide themselves from us. OR Invisible Pink Unicorns

But that is the difference between scientific theories and philisopical ones. Scientific theories can be tested. Philisophical ones are a different thing entirely.
Since this is a thread about evidence, please use the Scientific definaiton of a theory, and use evidence as backing, not just supposition.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

the characteristics of the IDer are irrelevent.awake

Inductive reasoning relies on Uniformity of Nature. This, in a nutshell, is the assumption that if something happens enough in the past (The pencil drops when I let go of it), it will continue to do the same thing in the future. So, how do you prove Uniformity of Nature?

Therefore, whenever a cause is proven to produce an effect in the past, it will continue to produce that effect in the future

You guessed it--that is inductive reasoning. But inductive reasoning relies on the Uniformity of Nature, which relies on inductive reasoning. Thus, the very concept of inductive reasoning is circular logic.

This makes a hopeless problem—we use inductive reasoning for almost everything. If you let that logical fallacy not use inductive reasoning, you might stop assuming that the ground will support your weight, or that not jumping in front of moving trucks is a good way to stay alive. You couldn't trust any of your senses, because just because they were right before doesn't mean they will be right now.

The conclusion is that we simply cannot require a one hundred percent assurance to make a judgment.

not that i don't like that you require me to meet your standards...

 

[Hirohito18200]

who ever said that their religion could satisfy science's standards?

why is that.. that it can't be explained rationally? Is it because it is irrational?

not that the 'bible' is or ever was claimed to be a science book.

is this only an attempt to get out of being critically examined?

I can easily set up a test of God's existence. In fact, it is easily explained: die.This also makes the theory falsifiable; it only suffers from it not being reportable.

about as useful as *cough* organized religion in general *cough*

what point exactly does saying it's been laughed out of the scientific community(of course you aren't referring to the scientists that believe in it)?this is as applicable as my saying evolution has been laughed out of the respectable christian community.

the point is that the scientific community has a habbit of being a little more... scientific then the respectable christian community.

hope no one has already said this stuff haven't read past that page yet

 

[Hirohito18200]

What if the object just 'was'. What if all the ingredients to make everything have always existed even before time. Would the object still need a creator?

Many scientists think that the universe goes in cycles from existing as a singularity (a body of no volume and infinite density where space and time are one, ie. the pre-bang mass) to exploding, expanding, then contracting back again. This could happen a theoretically infinite amount of times, which explains the improbabilities of evolution (i heard that the odds of an amino acid developing under lab conditions the way they did is 1 in a number with something like one million, eight hundred and fiftey thousand zeros.) However, with an infinity as the divident, it becomes entirely probable.

btw sry for posting 2x in a row

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Many scientists think that the universe goes in cycles from existing as a singularity (a body of no volume and infinite density where space and time are one, ie. the pre-bang mass) to exploding, expanding, then contracting back again.

Actually Hirohito it is believed that that is not the case. Observations over the past decade or so indicate that the rate of the expansion of the universe is increasing....the universe will never contract back again.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Hirohito - don't sweat the double post. As for the scenario of a universe that you described, it is known as the "oscillating egg". As Spinkles has said, the data collected over the last decade or so shows the universe will probably not ever contract again - but that is not to say that, until now, it was in fact, an oscillating egg until this particular expansion.

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

posting 2(or more) times in row or more is completely fine if they're not identicle posts.

why is that.. that it can't be explained rationally? Is it because it is irrational?

i'm sorry if everyone's standards are not yours, a small handful of people might disagree with you.

is this only an attempt to get out of being critically examined?

that was only a statement of the facts, unless you have a reasonable reason to believe the 'bible' is a science book, it remains.

about as useful as *cough* organized religion in general *cough*

no need to be underhanded.organized religion has done a teaspoon of good i might say.the misuse of any religion does not nullify it's facts.if the religion were not around, currupt men would still spoil the earth many times.deny?

the point is that the scientific community has a habbit of being a little more... scientific then the respectable christian community.

my cousin, isaac newton, and a few others might disagree.

Many scientists think that the universe goes in cycles from existing as a singularity (a body of no volume and infinite density where space and time are one, ie. the pre-bang mass) to exploding, expanding, then contracting back again.

many don't.

and thanks spinkles for speaking up.

This could happen a theoretically infinite amount of times, which explains the improbabilities of evolution...However, with an infinity as the divident, it becomes entirely probable.

conveniently using infinity to rationalize the irrational?nothing new.


-shawn

 

[Ceridwen018]

no need to be underhanded.organized religion has done a teaspoon of good i might say.the misuse of any religion does not nullify it's facts.if the religion were not around, currupt men would still spoil the earth many times.deny?

Yes. The majority of the corrupt men throughout history were led to their state by way of religious beliefs, but that is beside the point of this thread.

my cousin, isaac newton, and a few others might disagree.

Newton lived before Darwin's time. This is not an applicable example.

 

[HelpMe]

Newton lived before Darwin's time. This is not an applicable example.

the issue was not darwin's theory, it was the rationality of religious thinking.and darwin was not the originator of evolution, so it is applicable imo.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i'm sorry if everyone's standards are not yours, a small handful of people might disagree with you.

The standards held by any individual are immaterial in this instance - a position (or statement) is rational based on it's own merits - not someone's standards.

no need to be underhanded.organized religion has done a teaspoon of good i might say.the misuse of any religion does not nullify it's facts.if the religion were not around, currupt men would still spoil the earth many times.deny?

I'll deny it. The fact that religion has been the justification for so much war, pain, suffering and evil done in this world is not negated by the fact that many have also done good - also in the name of religion. You can't have it both ways - either actions performed in the name of religion count, or they don't - you can't just cherry pick the good and deny the bad. Well, at least, you can't if your being honest.

my cousin, isaac newton, and a few others might disagree. many don't.

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I'm certain that far more scientists can be named that hold as Hirohito does - but that is immaterial to the argument - for him as well as you.
Just curious - exactly what is the lineage from Newton to you?

conveniently using infinity to rationalize the irrational?nothing new.

You are wrong. He is using the idea of an infinite number of possibilities to demonstrate that something that is improbable becomes more likely the more often it is given the opportunity to occur. If you cannot grasp this idea, no problem - but try not to confuse a basic mathematical concept with your twisted version of logic and bastardized rationality - those two worlds will NEVER collide.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

The standards held by any individual are immaterial in this instance - a position (or statement) is rational based on it's own merits - not someone's standards.

i think that's what i was saying.so thanks kinda sorta i guess.

The fact that religion has been the justification for so much war, pain, suffering and evil done in this world is not negated by the fact that many have also done good - also in the name of religion.

i would hold the person's behind the acts responsible.

i would like to know if you think all those bad things would not exist without religion.

Well, at least, you can't if your being honest.

i'll just point to the first quote in this post.

You can't have it both ways - either actions performed in the name of religion count, or they don't - you can't just cherry pick the good and deny the bad.

actually i didn't bring up 'the good' religion does(nor do i believe i've ever said i hold it as evidence of anything), so i think you're aiming at the wrong target.

but that is immaterial to the argument - for him as well as you.

very well said.

Just curious - exactly what is the lineage from Newton to you?

none.

did i word that improperly?should i of listed family last as if it were myself?

there was 3 subjects in that sentence, my cousin is a biologist in california.

You are wrong.

but but but...

He is using the idea of an infinite number of possibilities to demonstrate that something that is improbable becomes more likely the more often it is given the opportunity to occur.

just as i said.

If you cannot grasp this idea, no problem

i have grasped it, and judged it.sorry that this doesn't sit well with you, well kinda sorry. feel free to put my on ignore if you're going to keep giving me opinionated insulting remarks me like this

...basic mathematical concept with your twisted version of logic and bastardized rationality - those two worlds will NEVER collide

if i get PMs and frubals for posts like that which you address from athiests as well as christians, then i can only suppose i am more in the right than you are willing to recognize.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i think that's what i was saying.so thanks kinda sorta i guess.

Well, if that is what you were trying to say, then your welcome, kinda sorta, I guess.

i would hold the person's behind the acts responsible.

Fine - then you can hold the person's behind the acts of goodness responsible, and not attribute those kind acts to (a) religion. For example, the entire lifetime spent by Mother Teresa should be credited solely to her, and not to Catholicism or Christianity. Conversely, if you wish to share the credit for her acts (or those like her), then religion must also take the blame for the atrocities commited in its name as well.

i would like to know if you think all those bad things would not exist without religion.

I am sure that some would, and some wouldn't. At the very least, those committing the hienous acts would have to come up with another justification for them.

actually i didn't bring up 'the good' religion does(nor do i believe i've ever said i hold it as evidence of anything), so i think you're aiming at the wrong target.

You did not bring it up specifically, but you implied it when you wrote "organized religion has done a teaspoon of good i might say.the misuse of any religion does not nullify it's facts". Then again, that is pretty specific.

very well said.

Thank you.

did i word that improperly?should i of listed family last as if it were myself? there was 3 subjects in that sentence, my cousin is a biologist in california.

LOL - my question was sincere - I thought that you were saying that you were descended from Sir Isaac Newton. I know you hate it when I say this, and you take it personally, but when you do not use punctuation, capitalization and the rules of grammar, misunderstandings such as this are going to occur. It is probably a small miracle that they do not occur more often when people respond to your posts. I do not say this to belittle you, rather to try to encourage you to take an extra 20 seconds to "dress up" your posts.

i have grasped it, and judged it.sorry that this doesn't sit well with you, well kinda sorry. feel free to put my on ignore if you're going to keep giving me opinionated insulting remarks me like this

I will not put you on my "ignore" list. My responses to you are no more or less opinionated than yours. What is getting under your skin is the fact that your lack of understanding of logic and rational thought are hampering your ability to make a point and defend it. I will not "dumb down" my end of the debate simply to make you feel better about holding an indefensible position.

if i get PMs and frubals for posts like that which you address from athiests as well as christians, then i can only suppose i am more in the right than you are willing to recognize.

I honestly couldn't care less about who frubals you, how often, or why. I have frubaled you myself, on occasion. This usually occurs when I think your posts have shown insight into a debate, or when you show some progress toward a logical approach to what is before you on the board.
As for your being "right", best of luck (athough many of these threads do not have a "right" or "wrong" position). As for my recognizing it, I'll let you know when that occurs, just as I have always done in the past.

Thanks,
TVOR

PS - The fact that Pah has more frubals than me, or that I have more than you, is not an indicator of being "right". Rather, it is an indicator that someone appreciates your statement or position on a given thread - two wholly separate issues.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*MOD Reminder*

The topic is "Evidence FOR the Creation theory". Please stick to the topic folks. This is just a friendly reminder. Thanks.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

LOL - topic? There was a topic?

TVOR

PS - sorry for getting sidetracked.

 

[HelpMe]

Fine - then you can hold the person's behind the acts of goodness responsible, and not attribute those kind acts to (a) religion. For example, the entire lifetime spent by Mother Teresa should be credited solely to her, and not to Catholicism or Christianity. Conversely, if you wish to share the credit for her acts (or those like her), then religion must also take the blame for the atrocities commited in its name as well.

until you cite me attributing religion to someone's actions, you're going to be asked to explain why you've prolonged this discuccion.

mankind is responsible for his own actions, period.god or no god.stop ranting in my direction please.

At the very least, those committing the hienous acts would have to come up with another justification for them.

which leads to the obvious question, how can you account a religion for a person's actions?

You did not bring it up specifically, but you implied it when you wrote...Then again, that is pretty specific.

so your conclusion is?

LOL - my question was sincere...

then how should i of worded it.

I know you hate it when I say this, and you take it personally, but when you do not use punctuation, capitalization and the rules of grammar, misunderstandings such as this are going to occur.

i don't take it personally.perspective and preference are relative.

It is probably a small miracle that they do not occur more often when people respond to your posts.

well then that proves it, the ipu exists.

I do not say this to belittle you, rather to try to encourage you to take an extra 20 seconds to "dress up" your posts.

not worth it imo, a small study on comprehension would not hurt you.what shall you do if english is not a person's first language?

My responses to you are no more or less opinionated than yours.

if they weren't an amount more insulting, they wouldn't of been deleted in the other thread.

What is getting under your skin is the fact that your lack of understanding of logic and rational thought are hampering your ability to make a point and defend it.

it's not under my skin at all to tell you the truth.your consistent commenting on my 'understanding of logic and rational thought' lets me know what really concerns you. this would be how the letter is written, now which letter it is.if i ever recieved these same complaints from people that agree with me, or even recieved them from a majority of people that oppose me in a debate, i might take it seriously.

I will not "dumb down" my end of the debate simply to make you feel better about holding an indefensible position.

never said you needed to dumb anything down.you're actling like some wannabe psuedo intellectual 14yr old emo brat who cries in corners.if my position were indefensible i wouldn't hold it, or have people that agree with me.stop downtalking me. if you were really a mature grown senior citizen as you claimed before you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks, ever.

I honestly couldn't care less about who frubals you, how often, or why.

you've missed the point.completely.

As for your being "right", best of luck (athough many of these threads do not have a "right" or "wrong" position).

but you just said......

**** it.

The fact that Pah has more frubals than me, or that I have more than you, is not an indicator of being "right". Rather, it is an indicator that someone appreciates your statement or position on a given thread - two wholly separate issues.

never said frubals(or PMs) were a sign of who's smarter or more right.just a sign of someone having people that agree with them.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

To get back on topic, I'll begin by saying that there is no EVIDENCE for the creation theory.

Now - in reply to that last post...

Well, I said I wouldn't put you on "ignore", and I won't.
In all honesty, if I met someone that did not use English as a first language, I would exercise as much patience as possible, just as I am with you. But then, you should already know that, because in this instance, I am going to great lengths in an attempt to determine exactly what your first language is - it certainly isn't the English Language that the rest of us were taught in school.

"if my position were indefensible i wouldn't hold it"

Too late to make that argument. All you can do now is appreciate the irony of this ludicrous statement.


Other than that, I'll just let your entire last post slide. It is worthless gibberish, and does not have one meaningful, salient point in it.

Next?

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

a creation theory by definition leaves no physical proof.if i haven't said it already in this thread, because i know i've said it somewhere, the question is absurd.

if my position were indefensible i wouldn't hold it

Too late to make that argument. All you can do now is appreciate the irony of this ludicrous statement.

mine or the one it was referring to?

i'll just refer to post 174.

Stay with me, HelpMe - cause it's going to get real tough to follow this:
Mankind is the most evolved of all animals, not because God chose to make him so, but because mankind developed bipedalism, which led to opposable thumbs, and a greater cranial capacity (among other things).

were we the only to develop bipedalism? or the first?