• 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?

Is there any verifiable evidence for creationism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 19.0%

  • No

    Votes: 85 81.0%
  • Total voters
    105
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Blastcat said:
If you agree that "substance" DOES mean "THING", as I guessed, then, yes. I already know what things are.
And yes, I have no reason to disbelieve "science", unless it's BAD science or pseudo-science.

I don't believe it's probable that all scientists are liars.



I can imagine anything that I choose. So, ok, I can imagine that I "see" a first singularity.
Great.



I already did try guessing. I gave you a guess.
I had to guess because I'm not quite sure what you precisely MEAN by either term, so I guessed at your meaning and gave you my approximate answer already.

I will repeat my answer in other words in case it helps you understand my previous answer :

Using my guesstimate on what you mean by the terms "Spirit" and "substance", I would say that matter has to come before mind, so, for me, my guess is Substance first, "Spirit" after.

That's my guess.

But since I have answered your question, could you answer mine, this one time, since it's what I'm really asking you?

Why do you anthropomorphize your god concept?

:)
Click to expand...
I don't see God as human....already said so..

and the singularity 'self' started...?
science would have to say.......no

what say you?
 
Blastcat

Blastcat

Active Member
Thief said:
dead substance cannot beget life

you don't confuse chemical reactions with life.....do you?
Click to expand...


If you are replying to me.. I fail to see what this has to do with why you anthropomorphize your god.
Are you going to turn into a pumpkin if you answer the question?

Why do you anthropomorphize your god concept?

:)
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Blastcat said:
But you attribute to it quite human characteristics like feeling and thinking, why do you anthropomorphize your god concept?

You don't seem to be able to answer that question.
Does answering that question go against your religion?

:)
Click to expand...
thought and feeling are spirit.
Spirit first
then Man

don't have a religion...btw
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Thief said:
I hate typos ...don't you?
food for the reaction.

yeah sure...you eat salt....
you need it to live

so salt is your God?
Click to expand...

No.

Just a refresher on what the word god means.

God: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
 
Blastcat

Blastcat

Active Member
Thief said:
thought and feeling are spirit.
Spirit first
then Man

don't have a religion...btw
Click to expand...

You define "spirit" as thoughts and feeling.
Apart from that definition, according to you, what ELSE is "spirit"?

Why do you say "spirit first, then "Man"? is this another one of these strange definitions?

If you don't have A religion, you certainly have some kind of religious BELIEFS. Maybe it's a religion of one, but people who speak about some "spirit" are usually talking about some supernatural thing that is somehow "above" like a god or a demon. IN any case, I would love to see how you arrived at the conclusion that brains exist before matter did.

You do realize that it takes a human brain to have human thoughts and feelings, don't you?

Can you also tell us why you would anthropomorphize this.... whatever it is you believe in. Is it a god? Most religious people believe in gods, and most gods are projections of some ideal human up there in the sky that some call "heaven".

I'd really like to know how you arrived at your beliefs. You seem so certain about them, too !

:)
 
Blastcat

Blastcat

Active Member
Thief said:
I could take my truck apart and reassemble.....it will still work
I take my dog apart and reassemble.....it's dead

more to life than chemistry
Click to expand...


OH that's true. There IS more to life than just chemistry. But it takes chemistry for it to BE life. At least until we have some science-fiction artificial life.. whatever that might be. We don't really KNOW what that "other thing" life is... It's something that we don't know. I DO hope that you aren't pretending TO know something that baffles all the scientists in the world. Because if that were so, you would be the most KNOWLEDGEABLE person on earth sitting on THE biggest news story in the world.

What do I say to people who would make such preposterous knowledge claims? I would say that they are AT LEAST mistaken, not thinking well, delusional or just plain lying. I would ASK them for their research, too. There probably isn't going to be any.

This is how most religious claims fail. Religious people make all kinds of outrageous assertions ... most of them quite nonsensical, without a thought to back them up with any DATA. Some people really do like to sit and pontificate to make themselves feel better.

That's hardly remarkable or very entertaining. It's NEVER a convincing argument.
I think the attempts are quite pathetic, frankly.

But, don't be shy....
Preach away.

But if you ever DO feel the need to engage seriously in a debate, we will NOTICE that.
What we notice now is that you haven't YET felt that need very much.

Instead of reasoned debate, you offer us preaching.
And nobody CARES about your preaching in here.

We would CARE about your reasoned argument, but you don't have any of those.


:)
 
AndromedaRXJ

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
Thief said:
I could take my truck apart and reassemble.....it will still work
I take my dog apart and reassemble.....it's dead

more to life than chemistry
Click to expand...

Nope. It's all purely chemistry in the end. It's just extremely complex.

I also reckon if you could, theoretically, reassemble a dog perfectly the way it was, taking every little cell and molecule into account, it would be alive again. The moment you take the dog apart, it dies, and it's cells immediately start breaking down. The point is, it's a daunting task to reassemble a living organism complete with trillions of cells and what-not.

If the dog is put back together perfectly, then it would only be clinically dead. There's no reason it couldn't be brought back with a defibrillator device.
 
Last edited:
Blastcat

Blastcat

Active Member
AndromedaRXJ said:
Nope. It's all purely chemistry in the end. It's just extremely complex.

I also reckon if you could, theoretically, reassemble a dog perfectly the way it was, taking every little cell and molecule into account, it would be alive again. The moment you take the dog apart, it dies, and it's cells immediately start breaking down. The point is, it's a daunting task to reassemble a living organism complete with trillions of cells and what-not.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that there are a few more parts to assembling a living organism than a truck?
Doesn't that depend if it's a Chevy or not?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top