outhouse
Atheistically
Your version of what took place, is not historical or credible.
-
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
Your version of what took place, is not historical or credible.
I point out the fact that beautiful designs do not happen without a cause. There would be no paintings, no written language, no flint knives unless someone intelligent created them. Organic life forms are the evidence for an intelligent Creator. You may reject the evidence; I do not.
Shad
Veteran Member
Beautiful is subjective. The rest is a watchmaker argument which was refuted by Hume. Your evidence is based on fallacious arguments thus isn't really evidence at all. you also ignore the created items are made by a series of people in many cases. For watches there are miners for the ore, smelters for refining it, smiths to create specific parts, people that transport and sell these parts then those that take these parts to make watches. As per the material resources and collection you omit this completely yet if you want your argument to stand you must also allow for material to exist prior to creation. Also you omit the multiple people involved so one could easily claim there were multiple gods taking part but you do not.
Take some time to actually research your watchmaker argument to see how horrible it is.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Again, what is the evidence that organic life is necessarily "designed" beyond it subjectively seeming that way? Is there any objective evidence?
Surely you know the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple is documented history?
What sort of evidence are you looking for?
outhouse
Atheistically
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Evidence supporting your claim that ORGANIC (not man made inorganic constructions) by necessity require a creator without resorting to irrelevant known man made creations that do not appear naturally without human interaction. It's OK to say that there isn't any. As I believe in God, but recognize that a creator isn't necessarily needed simply because organic life is "complicated" and/or "beautiful". I mean, look at the Grand canyon. It is complex and beautiful, yet there isn't any evidence pointing to it being necessarily designed.
I mean over 99% of organisms have gone extinct. So, it seems that evidence points to them not being directly designed, at the very least.
outhouse
Atheistically
That is the only thing you stated historical. The rest was not.
many people promoting pseudoscience use one truth then sneak pseudoscience is. If you ever decided to support what you posit with CREDIBLE sources, you would not be questioned.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Iow, you have been saying that "it seems that all complex beautiful things, including life, is designed". Yet, time and time again human inference of this sort has been shown to be unreliable. For a long time it seemed that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, and that God had something against black people. All turned out to be false. So, subjective inference is unreliable and objective evidence seems necessary to legitimately back up a claim such as yours.
Altfish
Veteran Member
OK, When that happens I review the evidence.
I repeat that no information based entity, living or non-living, has been demonstrated to exist apart from an intelligent creator. The fact that evolutionists cannot accept this evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. It means they refuse to admit the obvious fact that design requires a designer, and that information based entities display evidence of design. Claiming only man made designs prove a designer is simply nonsense, IMO.
Well, Daniel said the temple would be destroyed after the Messiah appeared and sure enough, it was.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Since you have yet to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator of life, this argument is baseless.
A bald assertion isn't evidence.
So how can you demonstrate the difference between design and non-design without prior knowledge of a design process? If you cannot answer this question, you cannot justify an assertion of design.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
I would argue that we as human beings and all biological life exist without a creator.
That is your belief and I respect your right to your beliefs. I find the evidence for a Creator irrefutable.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
So, where is the evidence that living organisms are designed? It seems like you are using circular reasoning, assuming that complex organisms are designed in your premise. And, without using a logical fallacy, can you provide evidence that complex organisms are designed by default?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What evidence?! Thus far, you have merely provided a claim that complex organisms are designed. Can you back that up?
outhouse
Atheistically
False. The unknown authors never even knew the temple was rebuilt.
the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164.
Many modern scholars believe that Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11 are examples of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecies after the event) relating to Antiochus
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
What evidence is there for the creator? What evidence is there that I was designed?