Thief
Rogue Theologian
I was first....
you caught that.....right?
someone came asking proof.....knowing it can't happen....
and you think there is no denial in the op?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
you caught that.....right?
someone came asking proof.....knowing it can't happen....
and you think there is no denial in the op?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Where are you getting the idea that evolution claims that the development of different species was accidental? There were many controlling, natural factors.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I literally took the definition that Google gave me. Go right ahead and search for "creationism definition" on Google.
McBell
Unbound
I caught that you never give a straight forward answer to the question.
What is it you claim is being denied?
What is it about your claimed denial that scares you so bad you cannot answer?
I know about your fear of death.
Your fear of nothing beyond.
Could it be your fear of no after life is so great as to be behind it?
I eagerly await your non-answer reply.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I do not believe in creationism -if that is the definition.
The definition provided is not consistent with what is written in the bible.
Proof of the possibility of creation is mankind's ability to create.
We manipulate natural processes to rearrange matter into other things, etc.
We manipulate the elements and forces now available to manipulate, and also set in motion chain reactions of natural processes toward a predetermined end.
Both specific acts of creation and natural processes are known to exist -it is just a matter of which are responsible for what.
God is credited with creating the very natural processes by which we exist and which we manipulate. He would have done so by manipulating whatever existed before that (even if that is a rearrangement of what he is) -that which was nature prior to the present nature we know -which we know was produced by a process.
Being the creator of all things -the one by who all things consist -the one who framed the worlds -would mean that he set in motion the process which created the elements and forces, and all that was produced by them.
That would include evolution if evolution required no specific acts of creation after the initialization of those processes.
We, ourselves, are proof that natural processes can be manipulated to create life -as we have reverse-engineered it and created synthetic DNA, etc.
There is no creation -even divine -which does not involve manipulating natural processes, as everything that exists is "nature".
There would, however, be a difference in how God created as opposed to man, because man is limited to that which can be manipulated by the body, and any extensions (tools, etc.) man can create with the body.
God is described as able to create directly by will -by fiat -having a direct interface.
Whereas we think, then move our bodies to manipulate things -he is able to manipulate them directly -but they are still "natural".
When we synthesize DNA, it is both specific and natural.
God creating DNA would also be -but knowing which things happened by decision at which point would likely be impossible at this point. His decision to cause life to emerge could have predated the universe -even intentionally encoded in the "Big Bang", and could have been done by setting in motion the natural processes inevitably resulting in the emergence of life -or he could have also acted specifically afterward. It would be difficult to determine -just as our activities or identity could be a mystery to any life we might seed on another planet....
As for the specific acts spoken of in Genesis, they do not actually refer to the very beginnings of life on earth.
They are specific acts which even man is nearly able to do (though not by fiat).
It is not inconceivable that we could produce certain specific types of life on earth after surviving an extinction event -after their kind.
We are also nearing the ability to do other things described in the bible which have seemed ridiculous....
Causing a lion to eat straw like an ox -causing poisonous snakes to be non-poisonous and eat matter from the dust of the ground.
Natural processes -such as DNA self-replication -can be designed and set in motion (can be specific acts of creation) which do not need continuous specific acts of creation to change -though they can still be subject to specific acts afterward.
Short of meeting God, it is not likely we could prove exactly what did or did not happen in the past.
If the same things which might happen by "natural" things occurring in a specific order can also happen due to specific acts ordering things specifically, how could we know whether or not there was intent behind any specific occurrence?
We can only know that something was created by man by when it is not similar to that which occurs in what we call nature -but we do not have the same reference for that which might have been created by God -especially if God essentially is nature. We could not see the forest for the trees, as it were.
Perhaps the universe is dissimilar to that which occurred in the nature which preceded it -making the universe itself the proof of God's creative activity. We're just not there yet.
The definition provided is not consistent with what is written in the bible.
Proof of the possibility of creation is mankind's ability to create.
We manipulate natural processes to rearrange matter into other things, etc.
We manipulate the elements and forces now available to manipulate, and also set in motion chain reactions of natural processes toward a predetermined end.
Both specific acts of creation and natural processes are known to exist -it is just a matter of which are responsible for what.
God is credited with creating the very natural processes by which we exist and which we manipulate. He would have done so by manipulating whatever existed before that (even if that is a rearrangement of what he is) -that which was nature prior to the present nature we know -which we know was produced by a process.
Being the creator of all things -the one by who all things consist -the one who framed the worlds -would mean that he set in motion the process which created the elements and forces, and all that was produced by them.
That would include evolution if evolution required no specific acts of creation after the initialization of those processes.
We, ourselves, are proof that natural processes can be manipulated to create life -as we have reverse-engineered it and created synthetic DNA, etc.
There is no creation -even divine -which does not involve manipulating natural processes, as everything that exists is "nature".
There would, however, be a difference in how God created as opposed to man, because man is limited to that which can be manipulated by the body, and any extensions (tools, etc.) man can create with the body.
God is described as able to create directly by will -by fiat -having a direct interface.
Whereas we think, then move our bodies to manipulate things -he is able to manipulate them directly -but they are still "natural".
When we synthesize DNA, it is both specific and natural.
God creating DNA would also be -but knowing which things happened by decision at which point would likely be impossible at this point. His decision to cause life to emerge could have predated the universe -even intentionally encoded in the "Big Bang", and could have been done by setting in motion the natural processes inevitably resulting in the emergence of life -or he could have also acted specifically afterward. It would be difficult to determine -just as our activities or identity could be a mystery to any life we might seed on another planet....
As for the specific acts spoken of in Genesis, they do not actually refer to the very beginnings of life on earth.
They are specific acts which even man is nearly able to do (though not by fiat).
It is not inconceivable that we could produce certain specific types of life on earth after surviving an extinction event -after their kind.
We are also nearing the ability to do other things described in the bible which have seemed ridiculous....
Causing a lion to eat straw like an ox -causing poisonous snakes to be non-poisonous and eat matter from the dust of the ground.
Natural processes -such as DNA self-replication -can be designed and set in motion (can be specific acts of creation) which do not need continuous specific acts of creation to change -though they can still be subject to specific acts afterward.
Short of meeting God, it is not likely we could prove exactly what did or did not happen in the past.
If the same things which might happen by "natural" things occurring in a specific order can also happen due to specific acts ordering things specifically, how could we know whether or not there was intent behind any specific occurrence?
We can only know that something was created by man by when it is not similar to that which occurs in what we call nature -but we do not have the same reference for that which might have been created by God -especially if God essentially is nature. We could not see the forest for the trees, as it were.
Perhaps the universe is dissimilar to that which occurred in the nature which preceded it -making the universe itself the proof of God's creative activity. We're just not there yet.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Intelligent Design allows for evoluton, but creationism does not
Skwim
Veteran Member
Intelligent design can allow for evolution; however, taken to refer to the intelligent design (ID) movement it does not.
"In promoting “intelligent design theory”—a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator—as a purported scientific alternative to evolutionary theory, the ID movement continues the decades-long attempt by creationists either to minimize the teaching of evolution or to gain equal time for yet another form of creationism in American public schools.
"Intelligent design theory” is the newest variant of the traditional creationism that has plagued American public schools for decades. Most ID proponents are “old-earth” creationists(OEC). ID is a direct outgrowth of the “progressive” creationism of the 1980s, a form of OEC based on the belief that nature operates according to both natural laws and periodic acts of special creation by God to create progressively more complex life forms. "
source
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Thief
Rogue Theologian
sure it does.....
there was just a simple tweak.....see Chapter Two....Genesis
Thief
Rogue Theologian
the garden event....I think ID is a sort of half-way house.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Creation is the evidence.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Wonderful, a start!
So, ignoring the bias you've already shown, what information can you begin to conclude from that evidence, without having an end goal in mind?
Or, if you could show an unbiased view, where would the the evidence of "everything that exists" lead to next?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Please explain how the story of Adam and Eve doesn't completely contradict every piece of evidence we have found. I'm sorry, but did you provide the incorrect chapter number? Because, that was a seemingly foolish comment.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Where's your evidence?
My position is the default/ ie creationism
leibowde84
Veteran Member
He's asking you how you get from "everything existing" to God created everything as is? He is asking about your thought process.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It's a logical step. Created things==creator. if we had an idea that this is not created, then there wouldn't be a need to consider a creator.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Not even going to quote myself calling out your bias early.. Wonderful job ignoring my question.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
it's a brief read.....start at the 'beginning'
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Your just labeling an argument as 'biased'; theres no real reason, it's just that you disagree with the argument. Well, your position is biased.
McBell
Unbound
And yet you started with the conclusion and used said bias to guide you.
The two things you were asked to try and not do.