Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[johnhanks]

But suppose that book was God's communication to all mankind?

Then god was pretty damned inefficient, cobbling the book together in Europe in the 4th century AD when a large percentage of "all mankind" had already lived and died, and the populations of Africa, China and America wouldn't see it for many centuries more. Some communicator.

That it accurately foretells the future and gives answers to questions that are found nowhere else, including modern science?

This may be in danger of derailing the thread, but I'd love to see your idea of an "accurate foretelling of the future" and a piece of "modern science" to be found in the bible.

That gives it's adherents the best way of life possible today?

How many of the old testament commandments do you keep, rusra? Ever drawn a picture? Worked over the weekend? Worn two different fabrics simultaneously? If a female colleague has her period, do you insist she works in another room? Given the huge number of prescriptions and proscriptions the bible contains, it would be very surprising if a few weren't apposite for today; the rest you and other theists conveniently put aside.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Since you have read large swathes of the Bible, you should have encountered such prophecies.

 

[rusra02]

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?


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?

Again, I find your attempts at redirection and personal attacks sad and entirely expected. As to your questions, I do not respond to hypothetical what-ifs.

 

[Skwim]

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

​

That you don't recognize your question as a logical fallacy, particularly when it's been pointed out and explained to you, is all the more pitiful.

P.S. Why would anyone, including evolutionists, bother answering logical fallacies?

.​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, I find your attempts at redirection and personal attacks sad and entirely expected. As to your questions, I do not respond to hypothetical what-ifs.

As per usual, nothing but defensiveness and dodging. If you feel I am making personal attacks, you are welcome to report my posts and have them judged by the moderators. Of course, you won't do that becuase you know I have made no such attacks and are just trying to divert attention from you inability to provide any logic behind your position.

 

[Tiberius]

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

You are jumping to conclusions. How do you know how the universe was at the Big Bang?

In any case, it is far more likely that we have less complex matter being uncaused than a complex creator god being uncaused, simply because increased complexity is more difficult to get. Most of the time when complexity is increased, things stop working.

 

[Altfish]

Since you have read large swathes of the Bible, you should have encountered such prophecies.

Well, I didn't.
Are you going to point me in the right direction? Please.

 

[leibowde84]

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)

You've made that claim and I understand, but what evidence do you have to support it? What evidence is there that complex organic organisms have an intelligent creator by necessity. If it is "obvious", it should be easy to point to demonstrable evidence, right?

 

[Thief]

You are jumping to conclusions. How do you know how the universe was at the Big Bang?

In any case, it is far more likely that we have less complex matter being uncaused than a complex creator god being uncaused, simply because increased complexity is more difficult to get. Most of the time when complexity is increased, things stop working.

hmmm....seems I grew up with science pointing it's finger to a 'point'......the singularity.
and that 'point' contained all that is.

and in the beginning the most simple of structure......hydrogen
(which is what I believe and seems to me most likely and why I read Genesis as I do......
His Spirit moved upon the water
firmament is then separated)

and as things began to 'gel' the condensation turns to fusion.
let there be light.

and yeah the more complex items have a limit.....holding themselves together.
iron is the last element a star can fuse and remain stable
so I've heard

and again, complexity will drive life on this planet to a fail point

 

[Thief]

You've made that claim and I understand, but what evidence do you have to support it? What evidence is there that complex organic organisms have an intelligent creator by necessity. If it is "obvious", it should be easy to point to demonstrable evidence, right?

still making denial for lack of 'evidence' of intelligent life greater than you own.....

and a Creator should be content talking to mold?

 

[Tiberius]

hmmm....seems I grew up with science pointing it's finger to a 'point'......the singularity.
and that 'point' contained all that is.

Unfortunately the laws of physics as we know them don't work in singularities.

and in the beginning the most simple of structure......hydrogen
(which is what I believe and seems to me most likely and why I read Genesis as I do......
His Spirit moved upon the water
firmament is then separated)

At the Big Bang, it was way WAY too hot for any elements at all. So no hydrogen. Also, hydrogen is not water. It requires two hydrogens and an oxygen for water. If there was no hydrogen, you can be sure there were no oxygens. Even when hydrogen first appeard, it was still a long way before there was any oxygen around. And even then, you need the right circumstances for water. Too hot and it simply vaporizes.

and as things began to 'gel' the condensation turns to fusion.
let there be light.

Um, no. Fusion is not a result of condensation.

and yeah the more complex items have a limit.....holding themselves together.
iron is the last element a star can fuse and remain stable
so I've heard

True, for the most part.

and again, complexity will drive life on this planet to a fail point

So you do you explain a complex God that needs no creator?

 

[Tiberius]

still making denial for lack of 'evidence' of intelligent life greater than you own.....

and a Creator should be content talking to mold?

It's a simple question, why are you avoiding it?

What evidence is there for a creator God?

 

[rusra02]

Well, I didn't.
Are you going to point me in the right direction? Please.

No problem. Here are two of many such prophecies:
“In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I [Jehovah] shall turn my attention to you people [the Jewish exiles], and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place [the land of Judah].”—Jeremiah 29:10. [ the prophet Daniel discerned the fulfillment of this prophecy. (Daniel 9:2)]
Fulfillment: After 70 years of exile, from 607 to 537 B.C.E., King Cyrus of Persia released the Jewish captives and allowed them to return to their homeland to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.—Ezra 1:2-4.
What history reveals:
● Did the Israelites remain captive in Babylon for 70 years as the Bible foretold? Note the comments of a leading Israeli archaeologist, Ephraim Stern. “From 604 B.C.E. to 538 B.C.E.—there is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.” The so-called gap in which there was no occupation or resettling of conquered territory corresponds closely to Israel’s exile in Babylon from 607 to 537 B.C.E.—2 Chronicles 36:20, 21. " (g 6/12)
"THE END OF AN EMPIRE: It would be amazing if a person could successfully predict the name of a man—long before his birth—who would organize the overthrow of a major world power, even indicating the unusual strategy that he would employ. God announced that a man named Cyrus would launch the conquest of a nation. This Cyrus would also free Jewish captives and support the reconstruction of their holy temple. Additionally, God foretold that Cyrus’ battle strategy would include the drying up of rivers and indicated that gates would be left open, facilitating the conquest. (Isaiah 44:27–45:2) Were the many details of God’s prophecy fulfilled accurately? Historians agree that this conquest by Cyrus actually occurred. Cyrus’ army employed the tremendous engineering feat of diverting one of Babylon’s waterways—in effect, drying up rivers. What is more, the army entered the city through gates that had been left open. Cyrus thereafter freed the Jewish people and declared that they could rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. That was unusual, for Cyrus did not worship the God of the Jews. (Ezra 1:1-3)" (W14 5/1)

 

[Altfish]

No problem. Here are two of many such prophecies:
“In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I [Jehovah] shall turn my attention to you people [the Jewish exiles], and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place [the land of Judah].”—Jeremiah 29:10. [ the prophet Daniel discerned the fulfillment of this prophecy. (Daniel 9:2)]
Fulfillment: After 70 years of exile, from 607 to 537 B.C.E., King Cyrus of Persia released the Jewish captives and allowed them to return to their homeland to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.—Ezra 1:2-4.
What history reveals:
● Did the Israelites remain captive in Babylon for 70 years as the Bible foretold? Note the comments of a leading Israeli archaeologist, Ephraim Stern. “From 604 B.C.E. to 538 B.C.E.—there is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.” The so-called gap in which there was no occupation or resettling of conquered territory corresponds closely to Israel’s exile in Babylon from 607 to 537 B.C.E.—2 Chronicles 36:20, 21. " (g 6/12)
"THE END OF AN EMPIRE: It would be amazing if a person could successfully predict the name of a man—long before his birth—who would organize the overthrow of a major world power, even indicating the unusual strategy that he would employ. God announced that a man named Cyrus would launch the conquest of a nation. This Cyrus would also free Jewish captives and support the reconstruction of their holy temple. Additionally, God foretold that Cyrus’ battle strategy would include the drying up of rivers and indicated that gates would be left open, facilitating the conquest. (Isaiah 44:27–45:2) Were the many details of God’s prophecy fulfilled accurately? Historians agree that this conquest by Cyrus actually occurred. Cyrus’ army employed the tremendous engineering feat of diverting one of Babylon’s waterways—in effect, drying up rivers. What is more, the army entered the city through gates that had been left open. Cyrus thereafter freed the Jewish people and declared that they could rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. That was unusual, for Cyrus did not worship the God of the Jews. (Ezra 1:1-3)" (W14 5/1)

I understood that the captivity lasted from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE to the fall of Babylon in 538 BCE, a period of only 48 years

 

[rusra02]

You've made that claim and I understand, but what evidence do you have to support it? What evidence is there that complex organic organisms have an intelligent creator by necessity. If it is "obvious", it should be easy to point to demonstrable evidence, right?

I am convinced you do understand that what is created gives proof of a Creator.

• Living things are brilliantly design, according to all available evidence
• Complex design requires an intelligent designer, according to all available evidence
• Intelligence requires a mind, according to all available evidence
• A intelligent mind does not exist apart from a person, according to all available evidence

 

[Rick O'Shez]

and a Creator should be content talking to mold?

You mean God created humans just for some company? Like I might get a cat?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Oh. POO on this whole argument. BOTH sides are dead wrong.
Don'cha'know that ALIENS came here and genetically altered squid to produce
hormones that were harvested by elemental apes that were genetically altered
by space aliens from dying Mars to keep the Martian race alive.
Ergo we is here.

They weren't from Mars though. It was actually the Space Alien Cat People from the planet Littatrey, which is in the Naff Nebulous.

 

[McBell]

I am convinced you do understand that what is created gives proof of a Creator.

• Living things are brilliantly design, according to all available evidence
• Complex design requires an intelligent designer, according to all available evidence
• Intelligence requires a mind, according to all available evidence
• A intelligent mind does not exist apart from a person, according to all available evidence

Sad how you seem to think that adding "according to all available science" to end of your bold empty claims makes them something other than bold empty claims.
Even more interesting is how you just shown god to be a person.

 

[Etritonakin]

Anyway.... to summarize...

We know that certain things in our immediate environment cannot happen without conscious decision.

From a scientific perspective, we do not understand (or realize we do) the environment which existed before the initiation of the universe well enough to determine what would require conscious decision.

"The existence of the universe required prior conscious decision." may be a true statement -even if we do not yet have scientific evidence, or are not seeing available evidence correctly.

"The existence of evolution on earth required prior conscious decision." would then also be true -even if the conscious decision is far removed.

If we say a bag full of watch parts would never become a watch without the intent to assemble them as a watch, and attempt to apply the same principle to the existence of the universe or evolution (once a watch is assembled, conscious decision is not necessary for it to work), we would need to understand that which preceded the universe to about the same degree as we understand a bag full of watch parts.



...and to continue
(From an evolutionary standpoint... why would it be impossible for "God" , the creator, to necessarily have self-evolved/self-created before all else?
Using God and evolution together likely makes most cringe a bit, but evolution and design are both parts of the same whole.
Evolution exists and design/creativity exist. Might we not find that creativity necessarily evolved before the extremely complex big bang was executed?
Might we not find that it was necessarily packaged and set in motion by an intelligence?
When I say that God might have evolved, I do not mean that God was perhaps the product of the evolution based on the elements.
I mean that God is everything -IS evolution, IS design, IS creativity, IS both consciousness and that of which to be conscious -that everything was once less complex and became more complex by decision -but also that decision began simply and became more complex.
I mean that God is the everything that is able to say "I AM" -the beginning of the mutual relationship of design and evolution.
To be able to say "I AM" at the most simple level requires a certain arrangement -and perhaps that most simple level was the very first initial interaction, which is the basis of action and awareness.
If you think about it, "I AM" may always be true -but "I AM" means something different as the one becomes a different whole.
God says "I AM THAT I AM" -but God also says "NOW I WILL EXALT MYSELF" -and once that is accomplished, God could say "NOW I HAVE EXALTED MYSELF".
In other words.... "I AM" was once "I AM NOT YET EXALTED" and will become "I AM EXALTED" -but also, "I AM" is true even if reduced to the most simple interaction, as consciousness is a product of interaction.
Would it truly be blasphemous to consider that God might once have been the most simple interaction possible?
That might seem to go against the idea of God being eternal, but God himself said "I am the beginnig and the end" -and time is also a product of arrangement. God would still have always existed.

Could it be possible that a certain complexity of interaction -a certain level of self-awareness of the everything -and the ability of the everything to consciously decide its own future state - necessarily preceded the big bang?)

 

[Shad]

No problem. Here are two of many such prophecies:
“In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I [Jehovah] shall turn my attention to you people [the Jewish exiles], and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place [the land of Judah].”—Jeremiah 29:10. [ the prophet Daniel discerned the fulfillment of this prophecy. (Daniel 9:2)]

The book of Daniel was made after the events thus is not a prophecy.
Fulfillment: After 70 years of exile, from 607 to 537 B.C.E., King Cyrus of Persia released the Jewish captives and allowed them to return to their homeland to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.—Ezra 1:2-4.

The book of Daniel was made after the events thus is not a prophecy. The book of Ezra was also written after the fact but also edited as well.

What history reveals:

That you have zero understanding of modern biblical scholarship