Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Tiberius]

consider the words....in the beginning

Someone had to be first

Argument from ignorance AND argument from incredulity.

Why not say the Big Bang was first if we are going to have things that were uncaused?

 

[jeager106]

by definition....God is an alien
see garden event....Genesis

ABSOLUTELY THE GOD DOGMA IS PROOF THAT "GOD" IS AN ALIEN.
I have no problem with that assertion.
Centuries ago mankind had no notion of "alien" life thus they may have referred
to then unexplained events as being caused by mysterious spirit creatures then
gave these entities names.
Perhaps "gods", or "angels" or the "holy spirit" etc.
Was Ezekiel's "wheel" a space craft?
Food for the human imagination what?
Please. To use that believe in "God" I mean no disrespect to anyone's notion
of a "power greater than man".
I too deeply believe in "God" but am open minded as to what "God" is.
A mighty and powerful spirit creature just might be an alien life form we do not yet
understand.
No disrespect meant at all.
However I remain forever inquisitive.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND this God.
I believe "God" wants us to understand whatever God is.
If indeed this God created us then why would this God object to our understanding and
becoming closer connected?

 

[Rival]

-MOD POST-
Please stay on topic and don't make this personal.
Thanks​

 

[Laika]

Voted "Yes". The major issue is not necessarily the evidence itself, but how it is interpet it to support causal relationships based on physical or non-physical causes.

 

[rusra02]

This amounts to begging the question.

FYI: Begging the Question is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn't already assumed to be true.

Evolutionists seem to enjoy calling questions they cannot answer logical fallacies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolutionists seem to enjoy calling questions they cannot answer logical fallacies.

What question? He was explaining why the argument from design is nothing but a logical fallacy - which it is.

 

[rusra02]

Thank you. Exactly right. He is literally saying "because everything that is complex has a creator, everything complex has a creator". Circular to say the least.

Not exactly what I'm saying. The obvious existence of living things and the natural cycles necessary to support these living things gives evidence of an intelligent designer of immense power and intellect. Would you claim that someone who points to a complex computer program as evidence for an intelligent designer guilty of some supposed "logical fallacy?" Perhaps you would if you simply don't want to accept the truth. As the Bible states: "For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not exactly what I'm saying. The obvious existence of living things and the natural cycles necessary to support these living things gives evidence of an intelligent designer of immense power and intellect. Would you claim that someone who points to a complex computer program as evidence for an intelligent designer guilty of some supposed "logical fallacy?"

No, but that's only because we have a comprehensive understanding of where computer programs come from, their design process, and we currently know of no natural phenomenon that can produce computers or computer programs.

You are saying "Because this thing that is man-made is complex, therefore anything that is complex has a designer". Do you not see why that is fallacious reasoning?

To understand the flaws in your logic, please answer the following question:
If I presented to you two objects that you have never seen before and have no idea what, if any, purpose they had, and I told you that one was designed and the other wasn't, what could you do to figure out which is designed and which isn't? What about the objects would you identify as signs of "design" without prior knowledge?

Perhaps you would if you simply don't want to accept the truth.

leibowde is a theist, so you can hardly accuse them of not wanting to accept the existence of a designer. Their issue is clearly not with the suggestion of theism, but with the poor logic you are employing that you think demonstrates it.

As the Bible states: "For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

Once again, leibowde is a theist. They never said they denied the existence of God. Once again, your ignorance has lead you to make unfounded assumptions about people rather than actually understanding or responding to their arguments.

 

[rusra02]

What question? He was explaining why the argument from design is nothing but a logical fallacy - which it is.

The question that is the reason for this thread. Is there verifiable evidence for a Creator?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The question that is the reason for this thread. Is there verifiable evidence for a Creator?

They weren't responding to that question - they were responding to your argument and explaining how it was engaging in a logical fallacy. They were correct, and it was.

 

[rusra02]

No, but that's only because we have a comprehensive understanding of where computer programs come from, their design process, and we currently know of no natural phenomenon that can produce computers or computer programs.

You are saying "Because this thing that is man-made is complex, therefore anything that is complex has a designer". Do you not see why that is fallacious reasoning?

To understand the flaws in your logic, please answer the following question:
If I presented to you two objects that you have never seen before and have no idea what, if any, purpose they had, and I told you that one was designed and the other wasn't, what could you do to figure out which is designed and which isn't? What about the objects would you identify as signs of "design" without prior knowledge?



leibowde is a theist, so you can hardly accuse them of not wanting to accept the existence of a designer. Their issue is clearly not with the suggestion of theism, but with the poor logic you are employing that you think demonstrates it.


Once again, leibowde is a theist. They never said they denied the existence of God. Once again, your ignorance has lead you to make unfounded assumptions about people rather than actually understanding or responding to their arguments.

I did not single out anyone when I quoted what the Bible says about those who suppress the truth. You did. But, such redirection and personal attacking is sadly common amongst some in this forum.

 

[rusra02]

They weren't responding to that question - they were responding to your argument and explaining how it was engaging in a logical fallacy. They were correct, and it was.

That is your view and you are entitled to it, as I am to my view.

 

[Altfish]

As the Bible states: "For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

Quoting a 2000-year old book, written before all modern science and its discoveries doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Surely Stephen Hawkin's books are more relevant.

 

[rusra02]

Quoting a 2000-year old book, written before all modern science and its discoveries doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Surely Stephen Hawkin's books are more relevant.

I understand your feelings. But suppose that book was God's communication to all mankind? That it accurately foretells the future and gives answers to questions that are found nowhere else, including modern science? That gives it's adherents the best way of life possible today? I think it is at least worth an honest investigation from each of us.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did not single out anyone when I quoted what the Bible says about those who suppress the truth. You did. But, such redirection and personal attacking is sadly common amongst some in this forum.

You said to leibowde:

"... Perhaps you would if you simply don't want to accept the truth."

You then quoted a Bible passage that was explicitly about people who do not accept the existence of God. You made the personal attack against leibowde that was formed of a complete lack of understanding of the position they actually held with regards to the existence of God.

Not one iota of this, however, explains or excuses your obvious use of logical fallacies which clearly demonstrate your position is not a reasonable one. I also find it very telling that you criticize others for "not answering questions" while my question that I made very explicit in this quote remains completely unanswered by you. Here it is again:

To understand the flaws in your logic, please answer the following question:
If I presented to you two objects that you have never seen before and have no idea what, if any, purpose they had, and I told you that one was designed and the other wasn't, what could you do to figure out which is designed and which isn't? What about the objects would you identify as signs of "design" without prior knowledge?

That is your view and you are entitled to it, as I am to my view.

Why is it that whenever you are backed into a position where you can no longer argue, you resort to this? Are you incapable of actually admitting any kind of fault?

 

[Altfish]

I understand your feelings. But suppose that book was God's communication to all mankind? That it accurately foretells the future and gives answers to questions that are found nowhere else, including modern science? That gives it's adherents the best way of life possible today? I think it is at least worth an honest investigation from each of us.

But is there any evidence of god's hand in its writing? If there is god isn't a very good writer.
I have had the pleasure of reading large swathes of it and studying at school one of the gospels. I'm sorry, it is NOT even a good book, it is boring, contradictory and repetitive.
You say, it mentions modern science, WHERE? It foretell the future, WHERE? I would say it is predominantly scientifically inept, e.g. the Firmament???
Now if you want some good reading recommendations, try, John Le Carre, I've just started re reading The Night Manager, a really good read that doesn't need interpretation.

 

[Thief]

Argument from ignorance AND argument from incredulity.

Why not say the Big Bang was first if we are going to have things that were uncaused?

substance has no volition of it's own.
it would need a jump start

I believe it's was the pinch and snap of God's fingers......so to speak

 

[Thief]

ABSOLUTELY THE GOD DOGMA IS PROOF THAT "GOD" IS AN ALIEN.
I have no problem with that assertion.
Centuries ago mankind had no notion of "alien" life thus they may have referred
to then unexplained events as being caused by mysterious spirit creatures then
gave these entities names.
Perhaps "gods", or "angels" or the "holy spirit" etc.
Was Ezekiel's "wheel" a space craft?
Food for the human imagination what?
Please. To use that believe in "God" I mean no disrespect to anyone's notion
of a "power greater than man".
I too deeply believe in "God" but am open minded as to what "God" is.
A mighty and powerful spirit creature just might be an alien life form we do not yet
understand.
No disrespect meant at all.
However I remain forever inquisitive.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND this God.
I believe "God" wants us to understand whatever God is.
If indeed this God created us then why would this God object to our understanding and
becoming closer connected?

a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

just look around you

 

[Thief]

Do you?
I mean, all you said was to watch some science documentaries.
Seeing as I agree with the statement that the ones I have seen say the exact opposite of what you claim the say....

Perhaps you would be so kind as to present one of the science documentaries you claim supports your claim?
I suspect you will not present any because you do not want it to be seen that you are cherry picking what you want to hear instead of understanding what is actually being said.

you must be watching a different channel.

good luck keeping up

 

[McBell]

you must be watching a different channel.

good luck keeping up

as predicted.

Cue more denial