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

[Kemosloby]

Have you been to other planets to confirm or deny? If so, did you look everywhere?

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

 

[Polymath257]

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

Which mostly means there are not intelligent life forms out there who care about studying us in detail. I have some reasons to think there are not intelligent beings in, say, our galaxy, at the present time. That doesn't mean there is no life elsewhere in our galaxy. It just means intelligent life is rather rare.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Yes I know it doesn't 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.

When you say "anyone ..." you are introducing a common fallacy. Intellectual honesty, it seems to me, would be not inferring a particular conception of "before" when you don't know what came before and don't have a means at hand to apprehend what did. Obviously speciation exists whether or not there is "understanding" of what preceded it, just as the universe exists without understanding of what preceded it as well, or even how it came about for that matter.

I'll add that the philosopher of science, Alfred North Whitehead inferred God, but one which does not preconceive the universe and rather takes the form of the potentiality in each moment and transaction of its development. Whitehead called that the "primordial" existence of God. Whitehead's God, furthermore, doesn't make the universe an extension of its subjectivity, but receives its subjectivity from it. All that fits very well with what was known from science, though it can't be proven by it, which is the point.

One might note that even the Bible doesn't specify whether God, in creating the world, also determined what it should be. One might deduce that that God of the Bible really had no idea what would come out of it given that he/she saw it necessary to say it was "good," meaning that she/he thought it could have been bad as well. Given that good and bad only have meaning in comparison with something else, one could say such perspective might imply, perhaps, that there had been previous attempts that had not worked out so well.

 

[suncowiam]

Let me put it this way. If we looked at, say, a million planets with water in the Goldilocks zones of their stars and none of them had any sign of life, even bacterial, that would throw a monkey wrench into a our current understanding of how life arose. Hey, even a few hundred such would cause some significant re-thinking.

Well, yes, it would. That's empirical evidence. I would not argue against this. Does that prove there is a creator? No, it does not still. Proving something false doesn't necessarily suggest another case is true.

However, let's keep this in the right perspective. 1,000,000 is still a small percentage of all the observable planets in the universe.

 

[Kemosloby]

Which mostly means there are not intelligent life forms out there who care about studying us in detail. I have some reasons to think there are not intelligent beings in, say, our galaxy, at the present time. That doesn't mean there is no life elsewhere in our galaxy. It just means intelligent life is rather rare.

Yeah, just the descendants of Adam who was created separately from the animals.

 

[suncowiam]

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

Why would aliens really want to kidnap us secretly if they exists?

That's just another conspiracy theory that makes good television shows like the X-Files which I actually do love.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, yes, it would. That's empirical evidence. I would not argue against this. Does that prove there is a creator? No, it does not still. Proving something false doesn't necessarily suggest another case is true.

However, let's keep this in the right perspective. 1,000,000 is still a small percentage of all the observable planets in the universe.

Agreed. But under our current understanding bacterial life, at least, should be common.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, just the descendants of Adam who was created separately from the animals.

LOL. Please tell another joke. That was a good one!

 

[rusra02]

I'd like to see you start by explaining, in your own words, what you understand IC to be.

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.

 

[jonathan180iq]

And this is oh-so much thee paramount tactic of creationists. Lacking any argument other than, The Bible Tells Me So, they typically attack evolution under the noxious rational that if evolution can be proven false then by default creationism must be right. A self-serving logic to be sure, but they have nothing else to offer.

.

I had no idea my original post had no many typos... I've fixed them now. So thanks for that.

Also, Yes.
That's the cognitive disconnect that the pious remain unaware of. Their faith makes them falsely assume that if Evolutionary Theory never existed, their chosen mythology would somehow be true... That's just not how it works. We could just as easily live in a world created by an omnipotent invisible deity as we could all exist in a Unicorn's dream, or be part of a Universe that is suspended within the inner workings of a Titan's snot globule. The evidence for each of those things is exactly the same... zero.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

You know, I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

 

[dianaiad]

Creationists, who are invariably Bible believing Christians, deny the scientific findings that support evolution and reject the evolution of species. So I'm curious to see if they have any argument for creationism that doesn't rely on the Bible.

Actually, I know very few religions/belief systems that don't have their own creation myths. Abrahamic religions just have their own take on it, and THEY differ one from another. My own system, unusually, doesn't clash with scientific discovery a whole lot, though there ARE strict 24/7 biblical creationists in it. I'm not one of 'em, and y'know something? Doesn't seem to matter to the powers that be, OR to the Powers that Be.

Just to clear up one minor issue here. Although the forum here is titled Evolution vs Creationism, it isn't the scientists of biological evolution that oppose creationism so much as it's creationists who oppose evolution. So a more appropriate title would be Creationism Vs Evolution. That said, evolutionists really don't care what creationists believe; unless, that is, creationists try to get their beliefs installed in public school science classes, which they have. Then they will vigorously engage creationists. On the other hand, creationists, who are almost always Christians, actively oppose evolution because it can cause Christians to 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 Bible. This is why we see various organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Biblical Creation Society, Creation Ministries International, and the Institute for Creation Research, which have 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.

You haven't been sitting in the middle and listening to both sides much then, have you? Believe me, when they think you are on 'the other side,' EVERYBODY cares. A lot. (sigh)

As a necessary facet of evolution, they don't give a damn, although I suspect that any scientist looking into abiogenesis would believe in evolution.

.

One would have to, wouldn't one? I mean, if the very beginning of life was an accident without any extra 'push' there, then 'evolution' would be the only option. However, that doesn't mean that if that beginning DID have a bit of extraneous oomph, the process of evolution didn't kick in...OR wasn't 'guided,' whether strictly or a mild kick in the DNA once in awhile. Scientists SHOULDN'T care about the philosophical whys or wherefores, anyway. Science is about describing the process, physical cause and effect. The problem with some of them...and with theists who believe literally in their own creation mythology...is that they forget that science and religion are not related. AT ALL, unless one can step back and say, with real wonder and awe, 'so THAT'S how God did it!'

Which is the view I take, actually.

In other words, I don't see the problem here.

 

[Kemosloby]

LOL. Please tell another joke. That was a good one!

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.

 

[Skwim]

You haven't been sitting in the middle and listening to both sides much then, have you? Believe me, when they think you are on 'the other side,' EVERYBODY cares. A lot. (sigh)

Interesting. Care to give us examples of scientists who support evolution caring about creationism---outside of the creationist attempts to get creationism into public schools---as much as creationists care about evolution? I just haven't seen evolutionists caring much at all about creationism.

I mean, if the very beginning of life was an accident without any extra 'push' there, then 'evolution' would be the only option. However, that doesn't mean that if that beginning DID have a bit of extraneous oomph, the process of evolution didn't kick in...OR wasn't 'guided,' whether strictly or a mild kick in the DNA once in awhile. Scientists SHOULDN'T care about the philosophical whys or wherefores, anyway. Science is about describing the process, physical cause and effect. The problem with some of them...and with theists who believe literally in their own creation mythology...is that they forget that science and religion are not related. AT ALL, unless one can step back and say, with real wonder and awe, 'so THAT'S how God did it!'

Which is the view I take, actually.

In other words, I don't see the problem here.

I don't either, at least not with this issue; however, there is a "problem" among creationists with evolution. As I said:

"That said, evolutionists really don't care what creationists believe; unless, that is, creationists try to get their beliefs installed in public school science classes, which they have. Then they will vigorously engage creationists. On the other hand, creationists, who are almost always Christians, actively oppose evolution because it can cause Christians to 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 Bible. This is why we see various organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Biblical Creation Society, Creation Ministries International, and the Institute for Creation Research, which have 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."​

.

 

[james bond]

the definition of idiom
the definition of figure of speech

I'm surprised you do not know about hell. I'm sure you know how painful being burned is. It's not something where the pain goes away quickly and serious burns need emergency care. The prophecy is the earth will be set on fire for the second coming. I think the earth will be reborn after the fire and hell will be a place located underneath. We even have places that fit the description of Hades. We also have Paradise Lost which is a 17th century work of fiction, but it has detailed illustrations of Satan and angels and their wings in addition to hell. It seems to be anatomically correct if a human-like creature is to have wings to fly. Even the illustrations of hell matched the shape of one on earth with fire that has not gone out. I suspect the real hell will look like this when all is said and done.

hell paradise lost - Bing images

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Luckily your approval of abiogenesis is not required.

We also have no proof that life hasn't appeared on every planet we have not investigated

 

[ChristineM]

But which ones make more sense? Give some examples.

Some example's

10 Exoplanets That Could Host Alien Life

This solar system of seven Earth-sized planets may be the best place to look for alien life

Nasa discovers new solar system TRAPPIST-1 - where life may have evolved on three planets

 

[Segev Moran]

If life could just pop up on its own and adapt to environment I think you should see some on other planets.

So if life will be observed in other places other than earth, you'll become an atheist?
And life didn't just pop up, we simply don't know yet how it happened, but we have several good ideas.
It is only a matter of short(relative to our history) time until the process will be demonstrated.

 

[Kemosloby]

So if life will be observed in other places other than earth, you'll become an atheist?
And life didn't just pop up, we simply don't know yet how it happened, but we have several good ideas.
It is only a matter of short(relative to our history) time until the process will be demonstrated.

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 Aint Necessarily So]

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.

The more we know about science, the more Christians are calling their Bibles allegorical.