Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

And the absence of a physical God does not support the claim that luck does it.

The verifiable evidence supports it, not the absence of God.

 

[leibowde84]

That depends on what he is arguing about. He does not speak with evidence when he preaches, does he? And he frequently bends the truth in those arguments - until he is found out however.

Can you provide an example of this?

 

[leibowde84]

So what is the point of the book? Oh I get it, he just wanted to tell everyone his OPINION.

What's wrong with that? If people are free to express their belief, people should be welcome to express their disbelief.

 

[Parsimony]

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


Example #1

We can't figure out how life on Earth could possibly spontaneously spring into existence by complete fluke. Therefore we can assume it most likely did

Example #2

We can't possibly even begin to investigate the existence of a multiverse, therefore it probably exists

Example #3

'It's as if they were just planted there with no evolutionary history' Dawkins. Therefore it's an undeniable fact that they had an evolutionary history

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a strawmanning of the argument from ignorance before.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Based on the rantings of a man with no evidence is what I got out of it.

You're persecuting poor Saint Dawkins again!

 

[McBell]

This "natural process" you speak of - why can that not be God?

Why call nature god when nature already works?

 

[McBell]

And of course, likewise for luck, which you forgot to print but were going to, right?

Luck is your false dichotomy, not mine.

 

[McBell]

You don't know! Hold the press. I thought the way you were talking that you knew something when all along, you hadn't got a flaming clue!

Your need to be dishonest has already been established.
No need to make an *** of yourself with it.

 

[McBell]

So what are you back to? Turning the lights off and sticking your thumb in your mouth. Or is the fence you look for to sit on. Take a cushion, eh.

I notice you offer nothing useful or meaningful.
Perhaps you could present a useful and or meaningful definition of the word spirit?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would call it dissipating thoughts.

Pardon?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what is the point of the book? Oh I get it, he just wanted to tell everyone his OPINION.

Like all of us are doing. Right now. On this forum. Including You.

Yeah, he's a terrible man.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That depends on what he is arguing about. He does not speak with evidence when he preaches, does he? And he frequently bends the truth in those arguments - until he is found out however.

I'm not sure I've seen him preach or lie. Got some examples?

 

[Thief]

Again:
Define "spirit" in a useful and or meaningful way.

Back to faith needs no proving, right?

you will respond to this post.
you are not a robot.....(hard to tell from your retorts)
you are a living entity...(I hope)
and it is the spirit you are that will type the pending retort

 

[Thief]

But you throw it out the window the second it gets you where you want to be..."GodDidIt".

God is the Cause.....
He did it

you can retain your shallow denial all you want

 

[Thief]

I never said it couldnt. But we shouldn't jump the gun and assume God, as it will make us stop searching for a natural explanation. I don't want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable.

God created all that is natural
God is the truth.

I have faith

 

[McBell]

God is the Cause.....
He did it

you can retain your shallow denial all you want

And yet, all you have to offer is your wishful thinking that god even exists....

 

[leibowde84]

God created all that is natural
God is the truth.

I have faith

So, then it has caused you to stop looking? What is gained by that? What is lost? What is the harm in keeping an open mind. I believe in God. My relationship with God helps me. But I am still open to any possibilities. Do you think that's wrong?

 

[Shad]

The truly sad part is how they think it helps their "argument"....

The key factor in it is the comparison. A tornado is not a spiritual entity but a physical event of weather. In the end the comparison, on both sides, reduces God to a physical being. In the end neither side is arguing against the common form of God, Abrahamic version, thus talking passed each other.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

.......................Perhaps God does exist, and it's just a simple answer that people like to put in... I doubt anything is so simplistic

That is part of the argument here. Even if god does exist there isn't any evidence that suggests he does. If people were right it would have been a lucky guess and I doubt it is anything like what the believers imagined.

Unless it is something that takes the convenient title of "natural" (whatever that means) I think functional things need lots of processes to come together to make them "functional". So yes, I think we can say it needs intelligence behind it.

Do you think that it is impossible to have function without intellectual design? You are taking the position that it is IMPOSSIBLE for things to develop without a guiding hand? At all. We aren't talking about if it is likely or not. Probability has nothing to do with the question I ask. Is it "possible"?

 

[Thief]

And yet, all you have to offer is your wishful thinking that god even exists....

you know the drill....
Cause and effect