Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism

[Dinos]

There are many creationist stories other than the ones based on Yahweh. Why do Jews and Christians think their version is better than the Native American or Aboriginal ones? Why are there two stories for the creation of humans in the Torah and Holy Bible? God said, "Let us make man in Our image...male and female He made them (Gen 1:26-27). Then there is the other story where He put Adam to sleep so He could remove one of His ribs to create Eve. Did He forget how He formed Adam from the dust and needed his DNA to create Eve?

If a Being we call God brought all matter, the space-time continuum and life into existence, it's more likely that He used science to do it. There is no mention of hominids or neanderthals in the Torah or Bible, but we do have the Paleontological evidence of their existence. If anything reveals the presence and nature of God, it is science and not the Bible. It would be ironical if science eventually proved that there is a Being worthy to be called God.

Peace to all,

Dinos

 

[Skwim]

There are many creationist stories other than the ones based on Yahweh. Why do Jews and Christians think their version is better than the Native American or Aboriginal ones?

Why does anyone think their religion or opinion is better than those of others?

Why are there two stories for the creation of humans in the Torah and Holy Bible? God said, "Let us make man in Our image...male and female He made them (Gen 1:26-27). Then there is the other story where He put Adam to sleep so He could remove one of His ribs to create Eve. Did He forget how He formed Adam from the dust and needed his DNA to create Eve?

You're not supposed to notice these things.

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....no actual arguments for creationism?

You have it -- it's been discovered -- but y'all keep on ignoring it. It's called the "Cambrian Explosion." It is certainly nothing evolution would predict, but only creation: the sudden appearance of many diverse organisms from major phyla that still exist today. Google "Burgess Lägerstatten" & "Chengjiang Maotianshan Shale."

Oh, and then there's the argument about how can the usually static genetic code increase its own written information beneficially, without observing an extreme rise in detrimental mutations, since they are far more common? Especially considering the anatomical diversification of organisms that have ever lived, apoptosis and miscarriages should be all over the place!

Of course, this will be ignored, too.....or some "evolution of the gaps" will be extolled as a mechanism. There's no end to supposed scenarios. And when one is proposed by a particular scientist, three other scientists will decry it. Love the unity! Lol.

 

[Darkstorn]

the sudden appearance of many diverse organisms from major phyla that still exist today. Google "Burgess Lägerstatten" & "Chengjiang Maotianshan Shale."

Sudden? Hehehehehe.

"I do not understand science, and I do not want to understand science and I am unwilling to do any of the work needed to understand science, so if you cannot explain all the science there is, including the stuff that hasn't been discovered yet, in a way that I can (and wish to, and will) understand, my faith belief -- no matter which one it is -- must be the only possible default truth."

Quote courtesy of Evangelicalhumanist.

Thanks, this quote will be very useful for me!

 

[Altfish]

Most people don't understand the genesis of evolution. If they did, you would see that it makes no sense at all. Let me submit this to you. I'm going to send you a link of a thesis that will answer and educate anyone willing to seek truth in these matters. If you are willing, please read this and let me know what your best argument is for anything here that can be proven to be false. I realize that this may take a little time but it will be well worth your time. http://www.daylightorigins.com/wp-c...ort-history-of-evolution-and-its-problems.pdf

Well, I finally got round to reading this.
It really is drivel, the 'paper' spends most of its time setting up straw men and knocking them down.
It goes on and on about "The problem of the origin of life" - but as has been stated many times; Darwin's book was on evolution, not Abiogenesis. His book talked about the diversity of life, not how it started.
It then rambles about 'transitional fossils'
When will creationists realise that every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Then we have 'complex organs' and goes on with an argument from incredulity; even having the audacity to cite the eye, that has been explained time and again.

I could go on but if is the best creationists have to offer, it is a bad show. It really is poor and I have the feeling that I have wasted an hour or two of my life reading it.

 

[Darkstorn]

I could go on but if is the best creationists have to offer, it is a bad show. It really is poor and I have the feeling that I have wasted an hour or two of my life reading it.

You found it at least as funny as i did, yes? Not a complete waste, now we at least know what side he's arguing from: That of ignorance.

In hindsight he basically did try to ruin the entire thread with his aversions, diversions and distractions. He adamantly refused to stay within the guidelines of the topic, eventually abandoning it in favor of pushing his own agenda and his pitiful "thesis."

 

[Polymath257]

Neither of us can use the scientific method. You MUST assume things because the scientific method will not work for evidence in the past, right?

Completely wrong. We can use the laws of nature that we find today and use them to determine what happened in the past.

So, for example, the nuclear reactions we can measure here on Earth in the lab can be used to understand how a star functions and thereby how stars change over time.

The properties of gravity that we can discover and test here on Earth can be used to understand how clouds of gas and dust collapse to form new stars and planets. We can also use similar clouds of dust and gas that we see today to test our ideas of how this happens.

We can use the properties of rain, wind, and water to determine how they can affect the landscape over long periods of time. The basic laws are testable and we can apply them to situations that are longer than the time of human civilization.

We can use the laws of genetics that we find in the labs today along with mathematical simulations based on that knowledge to understand how species can change over time periods much, much longer than a human lifetime. We can compare the results of such simulations to the evience that we get from fossils.

So, we make the basic assumption that the physical laws that we discover today in the lab held in the past. Even this assumption is often testable in some detail given evidence we find today.

Now, what would it take to deny this assumption? That the laws of physics changed significantly in the past without any remaining evidence for such? Truthfully, this ijust a version of last Thursdayism:you might as well assume the universe was created last Thursday with all our memories.

 

[alex garcia]

Don't we have a thread on this? And didn't it end up like all the other similar ones I've seen where it ends up being pages and pages of creationists regurgitating tired old arguments against evolution, but no actual arguments for creationism?

Shalom my response is a simple one all that is is a miracle. It is the only explanation that is not in some way natural and therefore it can not be argued against. All natural answers are arguable but a miracle cannot be because all things are possible even if they do not make any sense. On the other hand evolution has so many problems that it is stupid. In fact anyone that has studied the theory of Darwin can read his own statements showing that he himself states that he is wrong and he is also a very bid racist but no one tells that part that Darwin felt that it was the white peoples obligation to kill all the black people off the planet. Why don't you evolutionists teach that ? Hitler taught that about the Hebrews but that is not taught either

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How about you educate us in your arguments FOR creationism. This thread isn't about evolution, you attacking evolution doesn't bring out arguments for creationism etc. This is starting to feel like an exercise in futility.

Make your own thread for your silly thesis. It's not an argument that answers the questions posed by the OP.

With that kind of understanding i'm astounded you even managed to get the idea into your head that you must write a "thesis" attacking evolution with baseless claims. You couldn't even defend your own views, how do you expect to be able to properly attack the opposition? :/

I read parts of your thesis. If you want arguments against it, make a thread about it. It's entirely unrelated to this thread. I'll just say this: I suggest everyone read it. It was pretty damn unconvincing but i found a bunch of funny quotes to steal whenever i want to act like a clueless simpleton.

I think the matter of making one's best argument for creation not based on scripture has been exhausted. Nobody has made a sound argument because nobody can. I'm only on page four of ten in this thread, but I already know as does every other reader here that no arguments for creation fitting the OP's requirements lie ahead. Isn't that the point of a thread like this - to demonstrate that there is no positive evidence for creationism?

The only poster who tried made the argument that he has private evidence of a god, which falls short of the requirement to provide evidence for creationism since it falls short of evidence for a god.

Even if life and the remainder of reality were due to an act of divine creation, what positive evidence could there possibly be to demonstrate that short of unmistakable public evidence of a god? Even the demonstration of an act of creation is not enough, since it is possible that the act was due to an advanced alien species that itself arose naturalistically.

All arguments for creation are perforce arguments against evolution, and we can allow attacks on evolution to serve as evidence for creationism if we explicitly make the creationists implied argument:

P1: Either life exists in the universe because an act of divine creation or because of the naturalistic processes called abiogenesis and biological evolution.

P2: Abiogenesis and evolution didn't occur.

C: Therefore, life was divinely created.

Isn't this the best hope for demonstrating that creationism is the correct hypothesis - the hope that evolution can be overturned and abiogenesis never be demonstrated? It's not much since evolution isn't going anywhere and we need not ever confirm the abiogenesis hypothesis for it to remain a viable alternative to creationism.

I scanned the linked article to see if it contained anything I hadn't already seen. Same old same old: Creationists telling scientists that their theory is in crisis, the usual misstatements of what evolution claims ("According to the theory of evolution, living things came into existence by means of pure chance"), etc..

 

[Darkstorn]

Isn't that the point of a thread like this - to demonstrate that there is no positive evidence for creationism?

Good point.

I did feel it was my duty to warn him that he was doing said demonstrating for us, letting himself get trapped.

At least i tried.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sonofason said: ↑ In the Bible Jesus promises the Holy Spirit to those who love and obey Him. I put this to the test and received the Holy Spirit...my proof of God's existence. There could be no better evidence of God, than knowing and experiencing Him.

Name calling is all they really have. Look what they're trying to do to Trump, just name calling and lies. That's what they do to theists as well. I can only absorb so much. While it is true that sticks and stones break bones and names can never hurt you, sometimes it feels good to knock down the name caller with a firm right hook. I guess that's where I am right now.

So tell us more about the benefits of receiving the Holy Spirit. I'm told that it results in a peace that passeth all understanding.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1. God created the universe and life in six days as explained in Genesis and rested on the Sabbath. Creation is the Theory of Everything that the atheist scientists are looking for today. For some reason, the atheist scientists do not give credit to creation scientists, but they do not hesitate to steal their theories. The Bible has other history, and it explains how a perfect Adam and Eve started out human life by the glory of God. The rest of the plants and animals were created in their adult states. Adam and Eve had a perfect life of heaven on earth in the Garden of Eden. After some other huge events such as the Adam and Eve's sin of disobeying God, Tower of Babel and Noah's Flood, Jesus died for our sins and gave us a second chance so we could live a second life. You Only Live Twice. This is the best news of all as Judgment Day happens and all the spirits are sent to their eternal living space following Armageddon. The second best news is that it's the title of one of JB's top movies starring Sean Connery.
2. It's either that or a tiny invisible theoretical black hole expanded beyond anything the universe has ever seen, traveled faster than the speed of light, and kept going until all the solar systems fell into place and our Milky Way was incredibly lucky winning a one-in-trillions-trillions lotto to be placed the right distance from the sun and moon to give it just the right rotation so day and night are balanced and we get four seasons and all the water we need to sustain life for billions of years. The odds of one-in-trillions-trillions happening is such a long shot for our universe to stay together and life to form that there were other black holes that started other universes and other dimensions. The theory is there are ten other dimensions and a eleventh one of spacetime. There are even more black holes that started parallel universes, so that we can go back and forward in time and change history and create even more universes. The multiverse is so plentiful to overcome the trillions and trillions of odds so that it is just right for life. We started out as amoeba and no one knows how it came to be, but somehow another stroke of luck happened. It's related to primordial soup and lightning struck it or maybe an asteroid fell and into the soup and caused some kind of lucky chemical reaction to have amoeba life start it off. Once that happened, then plants and animals and all life as we know it evolved. There was tremendous amounts of rain such that the earth became covered mostly with water. This cause sea creatures to evolve first. Humans evolved from fish because they started to crawl on earth as tetrapods. Later, the tetrapods went back into the ocean and became whales. Other tetrapods became apes while birds evolved from dinosaurs. The apes were stupid until something happened to make them smart and use tools and walk on two legs even though they traveled faster and farther on fours and climbing and swinging through the trees. It was survival of the fittest and dogs started to eat other dogs. Later, racists and haters took this evolution theory and said it gave them right to kill millions of Jews and blacks for no good reason. They said white people were at the top of the food chain. I'm not sure what's going to happen next, but humans are not evolving properly for some reason and people are dying at an earlier age. Also, atheists will turn into Comminists and declare the world should be under one rule. This and other disagreements turn into a colossal World War III because of one reason or another. Both the Communists and Capitalists kill millions of each other off, and whoever is left take off for Mars in order to start a new world. They are never heard from again.

Yikes!

Where's your positive argument for creationism not based in faith in scripture in this wall of words? You don't have one, do you? Your argument is a negative one targeting what you don't like about the naturalistic alternative.

I thought that mentioning atheists turning into Communists resulting of the colonization of Mars via a millions of Communists and capitalists killing each other off argument was a nice touch.

 

[Polymath257]

(quote)

Hi again, leib...

I disagree with your statement that the laws of the universe that keep things in their places and functions were not 'created'. I submit to you that all things were created. Prior to the creation, there was nothing where the milky way galaxy and everything in it stands today. now that we have gotten that out of the way...

So, you no only misunderstand what the science says, you make an unsubstantiated claim to back up your viewpoint?

Life always comes from preexisting life.
Despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules.

ALL life is made from 'nonliving molecules'. None of the molecules in your body right now are alive. Yet, the *collection* of them, because of their interactions, *is* alive.

There is no evidence that supports the hypothesis of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific
knowledge leads in that direction. So, then, this is my question to you, "How did life begin"?

peace

And this is another dismissal of the mountains of evidence that do exist. Scientists are hard at work and have figured out how to 'assemble' a living cell from its 'nonliving' constituents. So far, those constituents have come from other cells (which they killed in the process), but they are also learning how to make them outside of cells.

So, I would strongly suggest you look up the most recent work towards abiosynthesis. You might well be surprised what we can do already.

One of the big problems is finding a reasonable definition of what it means to be 'alive'. We already have human-made 'cells' that can reproduce, maintain internal state, and have a basic metabolism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You have it -- it's been discovered -- but y'all keep on ignoring it. It's called the "Cambrian Explosion." It is certainly nothing evolution would predict, but only creation: the sudden appearance of many diverse organisms from major phyla that still exist today. Google "Burgess Lägerstatten" & "Chengjiang Maotianshan Shale."

I would look more closely into whether or not "evolution would predict," if I were you. Things move very slowly at first, but once sexual reproduction (which is one of the powerhouses behind evolutionary processes) gets underway, one should actually expect a speeding up. Furthermore, that speeding up itself ought to increase for no other reason than the way numbers work (1 bifurcation produces 2 branches, next bifurcation produces 4, the third 8, the fourth 16 and so on -- vastly oversimplified, but that the essence). Then, as more and more biological niches become filled up -- and as more competition heats up -- one would expect a slowdown in that process.

Oh, and then there's the argument about how can the usually static genetic code increase its own written information beneficially, without observing an extreme rise in detrimental mutations, since they are far more common? Especially considering the anatomical diversification of organisms that have ever lived, apoptosis and miscarriages should be all over the place!

Of course, this will be ignored, too.....or some "evolution of the gaps" will be extolled as a mechanism. There's no end to supposed scenarios. And when one is proposed by a particular scientist, three other scientists will decry it. Love the unity! Lol.

Now, here is where you need to look at science a little -- or even just a little common sense! There is a very fundamentally different thing that happens to detrimental mutations and beneficial ones. The detrimental ones die quickly and don't reproduce, while the beneficial one reproduce better than the non-mutated original.

So it is not ignored -- it is perfectly explicable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The aliens passing past earth and messing with a monkey's DNA is a more believeable story than a God making the universe

I believe that you are literally correct. Although a creation event on earth is exceedingly unlikely, the idea of extraterrestrials that themselves arose naturalistically via abiogenesis followed by biological evolution who engineered life on earth is more consistent with what we know about nature than a god hypothesis.

I rate it as the third likeliest of the following:

Life arose naturalistically on earth and then evolved.
Life arose naturalistically elsewhere and came to earth on an asteroid where it began evolving into complex life (panspermia).
Life arose naturalistically elsewhere, evolved elsewhere, and came to earth and created life here.
A god created life supernaturalistically.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh like Jesus, yeah. Could end that way.

Yes atoms of the anarchist you know as jesus could also help form a stars. Actually a little of your own body could very well be composed of jesus remnants. Interesting that we are made, in part, of dead people eh?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

truth. I would hope it is what we all strive for whether we like where it leads or not.

Agreed, but faith cannot be a path to truth. By faith, one can believe both an idea or its polar opposite. I believe the scientists based on evidence, but I could also believe them on faith without ever looking at their evidence. Or, I could believe the supernaturalists. They can't both be right.

Truth can only be determined by applying reason to the available evidence. Even if one guesses correctly and holds a true belief by faith, he can't know that it is correct until it is subjected to that process. It doesn't become knowledge until it passes that test.

Without this understanding of how life began from an evolutionary standpoint, the theory continues to be just that, a theory.

And it will always be a scientific theory. Creationism will probably never be one.

For me, as I look around at all the diversity and complexity of life, I believe what we are seeing is the evidence of supernatural creation

Arguments from complexity are fallacious. You don't believe that a cell can self-assemble under any circumstances, so you posit something infinitely more complex and infinitely less likely to exist uncreated and undesigned to account for that. Do I need to tell you what the flaw is there?

So God has made it plain to everyone of His existence through creation of all we see.

So what do you propose we do with our naturalistic theory? Throw it out? Stop using it and replace it with creationism. Evolutionary theory has been a very useful idea right or wrong, whereas creationism has given us no useful ideas.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes atoms of the anarchist you know as jesus could also help form a stars. Actually a little of your own body could very well be composed of jesus remnants. Interesting that we are made, in part, of dead people eh?

Yes, enough to write a song about.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, enough to write a song about.

Ha, ha, i once has an argument with as guy who claimed YouTube is proof of god

And ha, ha again, in their infinite wisdom YouTube does not make that video available in Europe with the message "This video is not available"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think Behe's argument of irreducible complexity is strong evidence against evolution.

Even after every such claim has been debunked? Wouldn't that be evidence against Behe's claim?