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

[Shad]

No but there is a conspicuous lack of authenticated alien abductions.

The lack of alien abductions only shows that aliens are not abducting people as claimed. Your rejection is based on hidden suppositions.For all you know aliens could be happy on their world or have technology that beyond us to detect.


Aliens know about us
Aliens are actually interested in humans.
Aliens have the technology which enable them to get from their planet to Earth
Aliens consider abduction to be a valid method of pursuing said interest.

 

[Shad]

No life on other planets wouldn't prove there isn't a Creator who created it. But the lack of life on other planets seems to prove evolution false, since if life could pop up here, as it must have since it is here, if it's just a matter of nature and life can just pop up anywhere, there should be plenty of life on other planets. If a Creator is involved, he could create life or not at will.

We have never been to the trillions of planets outside our solar system. We have barely investigated the planets in proximity to us. Your point is moot in compassion to us lacking information for any sort of valid conclusion, let alone a sound one. Your religious supposition is the only reason for your belief not actually evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

If you thought that was funny try this one. As an immortal to be, One day I might have been around a few million years myself.

Essentially every subatomic particle of your body will last the duration of the universe. So will every other subatomic particle that exists as part of an atom. Note that the half life of a photon is estimated to be around at 1.29e34 years. I've seen estimates that the universe will last between 2.8e9 and 15e12 years so don't worry about immortality

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Anyone who will be intellectually honest will realize there are no answers to how life started on this planet.

We have an incomplete hypothesis, which is far from no answers.

Furthemore, not having a completed answer is irrelevant. The creationist is completely void: Goddidit. How is that a better answer than Norman did it?

Because they donot or will not infer God, they must come up with an answer and thats where for 160 years they have no answer.

There is no need for a god hypothesis. We've been making progress for centuries without it, progress that began when supernaturalism was excluded from the process.

The problems are the chemical mechamisms for life are not there. Neither are the components.

Those components are in every living thing. I'm guessing that you have lipids, proteins and carbohydrates in you somewhere.

Non-life creates life every time the nonliving enzymes in a cell and laws of chemistry create another cell out of nonliving ingredients.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is all purely speculation.

You're a faith based thinker. Why wouldn't that be enough for you?

The worst evolutionists can do is to be on the same level with creationism. We can throw out every piece of evidence for evolution and still have an idea that is as well supported as creationism.

Besides, why would we throw out an idea that has been useful for one that is useless? Evolution unifies a mountain range of observation,makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature that have never been contradicted empirically,and has applications in technology that have been fruitful.

Creationism offers none of those things, just an idle and unsupported speculation

 

[Polymath257]

If you thought that was funny try this one. As an immortal to be, One day I might have been around a few million years myself.

What's even more funny is that you seem to actually believe this.

 

[Polymath257]

No life on other planets wouldn't prove there isn't a Creator who created it. But the lack of life on other planets seems to prove evolution false, since if life could pop up here, as it must have since it is here, if it's just a matter of nature and life can just pop up anywhere, there should be plenty of life on other planets. If a Creator is involved, he could create life or not at will.

It would NOT show that evolution is false. It would only show that our ideas about abiogenesis are wrong.

 

[Segev Moran]

No life on other planets wouldn't prove there isn't a Creator who created it.

I would go wild and assume, NOTHING can prove god doesn't exist?

But the lack of life on other planets seems to prove evolution false

So wrong!

, since if life could pop up here, as it must have since it is here, if it's just a matter of nature and life can just pop up anywhere, there should be plenty of life on other planets.

How does that got to do with evolution? i think you mix it up with chemistry and physics.

If a Creator is involved, he could create life or not at will.

Or not?? maybe we are the first life form that emerged in a natural process?
maybe we are the last?
there can endless of possibilities. that is why science don't rely on possibilities, rather on probabilities.

 

[minorwork]

Its not possible for life to "Pop up on it's own" and we have no proof of life on other planets. Just this one.

It is not possible for life to pop up on its own? WHAT???? An absolute statement makes me wonder how you could validate it, or invalidate it for that matter, can you do either? I doubt it.

How about first we come to a working definition of life, eh? That in itself is a problem as evidenced by our Mars probes or any probe ever being equipped to look for life, but only for signs of it. But maybe you have some way to invalidate the idea that the universe itself is and always has had life in it continuously manifesting to consciousness in such varied ways that many humans are unable to look beyond their noses to see it.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You have made only an assertion, Rapture era, a conclusion with no supporting argument that should contain evidence supporting the included premises truth values.

 

[leibowde84]

Because he made a statement that is not true. Didnt I do what he asked? Of course I did. I'm only asking him to do the same. Maybe you can in his place being you are speaking for him.

The Bible does not describe how God's words created life (or anything else for that matter). So, isn't it unfair for you to demand that those supporting evolution describe the method by which it worked?

 

[Kemosloby]

Essentially every subatomic particle of your body will last the duration of the universe. So will every other subatomic particle that exists as part of an atom. Note that the half life of a photon is estimated to be around at 1.29e34 years. I've seen estimates that the universe will last between 2.8e9 and 15e12 years so don't worry about immortality

Haha, so I guess the best I can hope for is to die in a mudslide, to be part of the fossil record?

 

[Polymath257]

Haha, so I guess the best I can hope for is to die in a mudslide, to be part of the fossil record?

Why the desire to be immortal? I would think anything over about 100,000 years would get excruciatingly boring.

 

[Kemosloby]

Why the desire to be immortal? I would think anything over about 100,000 years would get excruciatingly boring.

Could always pop popcorn and watch the Souls in Hell on TV.

 

[Esaurus]

And let's keep it to your single best argument. Don't want to be all over the map.

​

So, what ya got? Although be aware, non-creationists may take exception, but this should be expected. Shouldn't it?


EDITED TO NOTE: Because this is in the "EVOLUTION Vs CREATIONISM" forum and one may wish to base an argument for creationism on a perceived shortcoming of evolution, please keep in mind that abiogenesis (the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter) is NOT a part of evolution. Evolutionists don't care how life first came into being, be it through abiogenesis or the hand of god.

.

Hello Skwim,
The best answer I can give outside the Bible is that I know creation true by common sense. As long as I know that your computer cannot exist unless created by intelligence, then how can I expect the universe around us come into being without a superior intelligence?

May I ask if there's a reason to be suspicious of the fact that we were told that we were created? Why should there be an argument against it? I know that I was born on a certain day simply because I was told. No scientific research was needed. Do I need to doubt? For what if the answer is yes?

May I also ask the reason why there's an argument whether we were created or evolved? I only know that as long as I'm created, I know there's authority above all of us as a child knows Mom and Dad as authority. But if we are here by mere chance, what known purpose is there for all of our being here? For what reason should I not steal from you? Shouldn't I safely assume that you do not want to live without a purpose?

Earl

 

[ChristineM]

Haha, so I guess the best I can hope for is to die in a mudslide, to be part of the fossil record?

Fossil record, mere moments in time, the best you can hope for is to become part of a new star

 

[Daisies4me]

There are many other alternatives. The possibilities are endless.

(quote)

Hi leibowde

Aside from the Bible, which people at one time had no access to, looking around at the things that grow , reproduce, and exist in specific conditions, are a living testimony to the fact that there had to be a creator, as nothing happens miraculously without a basis.
Trees don't just grow in certain areas and not in others, for no good reason. Animals don't just procreate with all other forms of life, but with their own 'kind'. When you plant watermelons, you don't get peas.
The solar system would not work in the order that it does now without the specific applied rules of the universe.
There is an amazing amount of order in the things that exist on the earth. It did not just happen by chance.
God is not a God of disorder, but is a God of peace.

Like it or not, it all comes back to a Creator.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am not interested in debating. Those interested in IC can find abundant material online on the subject. I find IC in everything from protein folding to bacterial flagellum. IC is but one argument against the theory of macro evolution, but one sufficient to convince me and many others evolution theory is wrong.

So you find IC to be "convincing", but you can't even say what it is? Do you see how that's a bit.......odd?

 

[leibowde84]

(quote)

Hi leibowde

Aside from the Bible, which people at one time had no access to, looking around at the things that grow , reproduce, and exist in specific conditions, are a living testimony to the fact that there had to be a creator, as nothing happens miraculously without a basis.
Trees don't just grow in certain areas and not in others, for no good reason. Animals don't just procreate with all other forms of life, but with their own 'kind'. When you plant watermelons, you don't get peas.
The solar system would not work in the order that it does now without the specific applied rules of the universe.
There is an amazing amount of order in the things that exist on the earth. It did not just happen by chance.
God is not a God of disorder, but is a God of peace.

Like it or not, it all comes back to a Creator.

These "rules" were not "created", though. It would actually not make much sense if they were. Natural laws are merely a human created way of describing how aspects of the cosmos interact with each other. For example, there are scientific reasons for why different species of animals can only procreate within their own species. It isn't a mystery. It has to do with dna and fertilization. Trees grow in certain areas and not others due to sunlight, water, and other nutrients (among other things). The solar system works as it does because of the way that celestial bodies interact with each other. They don't follow laws. They adhere to the workings of matter itself. It wasn't "designed". Matter interacts with different matter in certain ways due to various conditions, not a design.

But, I think it would be good to get a bit more specific. Is there an example of a celestial body, species, or law of physics that you think would only work by design? If so, can you explain why? Again, let's get specific so we can arrive at an answer.

 

[Polymath257]

Could always pop popcorn and watch the Souls in Hell on TV.

I don't like watching torture. Too immoral.

 

[idav]

And let's keep it to your single best argument. Don't want to be all over the map.

​

So, what ya got? Although be aware, non-creationists may take exception, but this should be expected. Shouldn't it?


EDITED TO NOTE: Because this is in the "EVOLUTION Vs CREATIONISM" forum and one may wish to base an argument for creationism on a perceived shortcoming of evolution, please keep in mind that abiogenesis (the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter) is NOT a part of evolution. Evolutionists don't care how life first came into being, be it through abiogenesis or the hand of god.

.

Law of conservation of energy is the best argument for a universe that exists without the need for a creation event since "creation" is against the laws of physics. Physics requires power to come from outside the system or it is simply self sustaining.