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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

First question: how do you know it is not possible for life to pop up on its own? Do you have THE definitive definition of what constitutes "life," of what it actually is, that allows you to make that claim? Can you point to the absolute delimiter between what is alive and what is not, in every case?

Second question: how many other planets have you been to? Just how many planets do you think are in this one (Milky Way) galaxy alone, among its 100 billion stars -- not to mention how many billions of galaxies there are. And since we cannot reach even a miniscule percentage of all of those planets in all of the known universe, how safe do you feel in supposing there's probably no life anywhere but here?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right. The problem with evolution is that scientits cant get past first cause. Life can only beget life. So where did life come from? The more we know about science, the more evolution (Darwinian Evolution that is) becomes bankrupt as an alternative to creation.

Did you conscientiously avoid reading the opening post, which makes the explicit statement that this is not about where life came from -- because neither evolution nor intelligent design make any reference whatever to that subject?

Is this your way of trying to initiate an immediate derailment of a thread that you don't think you're going to like?

 

[Skwim]

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?

Let me back you up a moment. The issues isn't one of creation but creationism; the Christian belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by the natural processes of evolution.

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?

Obviously evolutionists, such as myself, believe humans were created, but not in the manner specified by creationists.

May I also ask the reason why there's an argument whether we were created or evolved?

As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, creationists actively oppose evolution because it often causes Christians reject the Biblical story of creation, and more importantly, question the veracity of the Bible, as they see it. They detest the fact that science has come up with a rational explanation for the diversity of life that goes against the word of the Bible, which is why we see various organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Biblical Creation Society, Creation Ministries International, and the Institute for Creation Research, all having been established to denounce evolution. Unlike evolutionists, who seldom care what creationists believe or say, creationists are extremely concerned with what evolutionists do and say." So the argument is one creationists making. They fear the influence of evolution.

.

 

[rusra02]

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?

An honest reading of my post should clear up what you inaccurately state here.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

re Era, post: 5188411, member: 47424"]Yes I know it doesnt speak of the origins of life, only speciation. But think about this for a moment. How can speciation exist without understanding what preceeded it? Eventually, you will have to address this critical problem. Anyone who will be intellectually honest will realize there are no answers to how life started on this planet. 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. The problems are the chemical mechamisms for life are not there. Neither are the components. This is why scientists still have no answers.

Another 100% spurious argument, having nothing to do with the topic -- so I assume this is an attempted derailment.

"For 160 years they have no answer," from which you infer (though you do not say so) that "there is no answer except God."

Well, here's news: for 100,000 years of human history, right up until 1962, there was no known mechanism by which traits were passed from parent to child. Then Crick and Watson discovered DNA, and suddenly, lo and behold, there was a mechanism.

It is pretty depressing to watch you (and other creationists) do this. It implies the most ludicrous thing of all as a defense for their argument -- that science, today, already knows everything it can ever know.

That, I hate to say it, is a pretty stupid implication. And it wins no arguments except by making people tired of engaging with you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem with evolution is that scientits cant get past first cause.

The origin of life is not a problem for evolutionary scientists. And for the scientists studying abiogenesis, it is only a problem in the good sense - somethin fun, interesting,and potentially useful to solve.

Life can only beget life. So where did life come from?

Life probably evolved from nonlife. I say that because we have elucidated dozens of the links in the chain of chemical evolution, but still don't have a scintilla of evidence for a god or creation. Notice even now in a thread where you are asked to give your best argument for creation, it's once again only an argument against naturalistic hypotheses. You have no argument for creationism better than that you can't fathom how life could have organized itself and begum evolving to what we find on earth today, which is a fallacious argument - an incredulity fallacy.

The more we know about science, the more evolution (Darwinian Evolution that is) becomes bankrupt as an alternative to creation.

It is exactly the opposite. Right or wrong, evolution has been a useful idea which has been used to improve the human condition.

Creationism, by contrast, is a sterile idea that has led to no insights, no predictions, no mechanisms, and no technology.

How much more bankrupt can an idea get than that?

 

[Skwim]

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.

Interestingly, I watched a documentary on TV just last night on M theory, wherein it was proposed that the creation of the universe resulted from two membranes ("an object which can have any number of allowed dimensions.") colliding.

.

 

[Daisies4me]

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.

(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...

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

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The method? No I cannot. A Supernatural Being such as the biblical God can do whatever He pleases and doesn't need for me to fully understand His method.

Yet you demand this of scientists - a detailed mechanism that you can understand and accept.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What was the logical single source and how did it evolve to everything we see today? Please submit the details and method.

Bingo. See the post immediately prior to this one.

 

[Daisies4me]

Yet you demand this of scientists - a detailed mechanism that you can understand and accept.

(quote)
Hey there IANS

I smiled at reading your post. It is a bit whimsical to think of comparing human 'scientists' with the Creator or all things.... <smile>

Scientists put their pants on one leg at a time, just like we do. Of course one would expect a human to be able to explain his theories....OTOH, God speaks to mankind through the pages of the Inspired Writings, the Bible. So, what God says on the matter can easily be traced out by anyone who is sincerely putting forth effort with the right reasoning for so doing.
It is there for any and all to see. (regardless of the ones who attempt to keep people from being able to read the Bible record for themselves, with ulterior motives for so doing...)

peace

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

The evidence is in the present. It speaks about the past.

If I go to a funeral and witness a dead body, that is evidence now of things that must very likely occurred in the past, such as a birth and a death in that order, with many other things occurring in between such as growth, development, taking nutrition, and breathing. I will never see that person breathe, but I know for a fact that he or she did. Wouldn't you?

If your faith causes you to be unable to make these kinds of simple deductions, then it has been an impediment to you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

(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...

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

Here is my "Universal Translator" for faith-speak on matters scientific -- it can be used in every such response, regardless of the words that are used:

"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."

Friends who come from the other (reason-based) side of these debates, feel free to read the above into every applicable post, and save yourself an immense amount of wasted time.

 

[Daisies4me]

The evidence is in the present. It speaks about the past.

If I go to a funeral and witness a dead body, that is evidence now of things that must very likely occurred in the past, such as a birth and a death in that order, with many other things occurring in between such as growth, development, taking nutrition, and breathing. I will never see that person breathe, but I know for a fact that he or she did. Wouldn't you

If your faith causes you to be unable to make these kinds of simple deductions, then it has been an impediment to you.

(quote)
HI again

I think your point is reversed-- what was given us in the past, is how we understand the present and the hope of the future. Don't people learn from past history?

peace

 

[Kemosloby]

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

Oh like Jesus, yeah. Could end that way.

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't like watching torture. Too immoral.

I can stand to watch from time to time. But I've only watched Hostel once. Lets hope Terantino never runs hell.

 

[neologist]

Before Darwin articulated the theory of evolution, most had only to look at the wonders of nature to conclude there must be a creator. Did the word "creationism" even exist before then? At any rate, it's no surprise that arguments against the validity of Darwinian conclusions would be arguments in favor of creation.

So, please don't be offended if I turn the tables. I'm not a creationist. I don't believe in a young earth. The Bible allows for an indefinite time period of creative days. (Note the seventh day has yet to be recorded as having ended.) My argument for creation is simply this:

Irreducible complexity.

It certainly has as much merit as the erudition in this post:

. . . . Scientists are getting closer and closer to realizing how life came about from non-life. It happened in the ocean around thermal vents, most likely. So, no problem there. They will figure it out.

Emphasis mine.

Thank you for your definitive proof.

 

[leibowde84]

Irreducible complexity.

Why do you think there that the complexity of life is irreducible. That is a pretty enormous claim, so what evidence do you have to support it?

Thank you for your definitive proof.

It wasn't meant to be definitive proof. Where did you get that from?

 

[Skwim]

Before Darwin articulated the theory of evolution, most had only to look at the wonders of nature to conclude there must be a creator. Did the word "creationism" even exist before then?

"Creationism" is known to have been in use since 1847. Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The evidence is in the present. It speaks about the past.

If I go to a funeral and witness a dead body, that is evidence now of things that must very likely occurred in the past, such as a birth and a death in that order, with many other things occurring in between such as growth, development, taking nutrition, and breathing. I will never see that person breathe, but I know for a fact that he or she did. Wouldn't you?

If your faith causes you to be unable to make these kinds of simple deductions, then it has been an impediment to you.

It's an amazing thing, evidence, isn't it? Suppose you heard, in some historical context, that "the Duchess lived and died a virgin," but then you discover in the household accounts (who reads those?), "for the daughter born to Her Grace on Lamas tide at night, 2 shillings for lace for christening," ---- why then you have some actual reason disbelieve the "received truth."

Decent historians do this sort of thing constantly.

In science, the only difference is that the account books weren't written by people, but by the stuff of nature itself. Yet, it comes to the same thing.