What if creationism is true?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What scientific evidence suggests to you "that God created all living things at or around the same time"?

This isnt a scientific conclusion. This is a philosophical conclusion. If we evovled this highly complex reproductive system, how were we reproducing before we evovled it? That would lead me to believe that there is no huge gap in between genders, and that all genders were created at or about the same time.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If we evovled this highly complex reproductive system, how were we reproducing before we evovled it? That would lead me to believe that there is no huge gap in between genders, and that all genders were created at or about the same time.

Yes, male and female genders evolved at the same time. Many less complex lifeforms reproduce asexually, others are hermaphroditic, still others have fixed genders.

 

[camanintx]

Yes, according to Gen 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. "God", the intelligent designer (supernatural life)..created the "heavens" and the "earth". Yes, the first ten words of the bible draws this conclusion and I tend to agree.

So you're either suggesting that God has a physical existence or that life can exist independant of a physical body. Where is your evidence for either of these?

 

[Agnostic75]

What scientific evidence suggests to you "that God created all living things at or around the same time"?

This isn't a scientific conclusion. This is a philosophical conclusion. If we evovled this highly complex reproductive system, how were we reproducing before we evovled it? That would lead me to believe that there is no huge gap in between genders, and that all genders were created at or about the same time.

Many if not a sizeable majority of Christian biologists and biochemists, such as MIchael Behe, and Ken Miller, believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Do you disagree with them?

Are you implying that the flagellum is not an example of evolution via mutation and natural selection?

Please provide your definition of "intelligent design."

Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

If a God created life, you still have the task of reasonably proving who God is, and you have not yet done that.

If a loving God exists, that would be wonderful. Who would oppose such a being if they believed that such a being exists? All that you need to do is provide reasonable proof that a God exists, and that God is the God of the Bible.

If a God exists, he could easily show up and convince far more people to love and accept him if he wanted to.

 

[Agnostic75]

The problem is, you people are explaining things, and yet, the stuff that you are attempting to explain, STILL doesn't provide answers. You people always say theists give the response "goddidit", but yet when it comes to life from nonlife, although we have no explanation of how and why it happened, the answers theists get from naturalists is "it just happened". This response is no more better than the "goddidit" response you people like to mock. Until a person is able to show me how life can come from nonlife without intelligent design, then i won't believe it. Unless someone can show me how an animal can begin to produce a different kind of animal, why should I believe it?

Were you opposing two things there, or just one thing? You opposed abiogenesis, but did you also oppose evolution? Evolution does not deal with how life began, only with how life changed after it began.

The Britannica Online Encyclopedia says that evolution is a "theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory."

Do you dispute evolution according the that definition?

Although I do not support or oppose naturalism, some physicists support it.

 

[Agnostic75]

This isn't a scientific conclusion. This is a philosophical conclusion. If we evovled this highly complex reproductive system, how were we reproducing before we evovled it?

If God originally started life by creating some simple organisms with reproductive systems, and then proceded to change life at various rates of change over millions of years by using theistic evolution, that is your answer, as opposed to your claim that God created all animals at the same time. There is not any scientfic support for your claim, at least in the opinions of the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you're either suggesting that God has a physical existence or that life can exist independant of a physical body. Where is your evidence for either of these?

God can take a physical presence, yes (John 1:1-14). And life can exist independent of the body, due to the fact that whatever created the universe had to exist immaterially with a will to create. This suggest an immaterial/supernatural reality to go with a thinking/intellectual reality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If God originally started life by creating some simple organisms with reproductive systems, and then proceded to change life at various rates of change over millions of years by using theistic evolution, that is your answer, as opposed to your claim that God created all animals at the same time. There is not any scientfic support for your claim, at least in the opinions of the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

As I keep stressing, it doesnt matter if God used evolution as a means to create different species/kinds of animals. That doesn't help the atheist/agnostic position, because even on that view evolution would still be the product of intelligent design. Whether or not God was invovled in this evolutionary process is an internal problem for Christian theism. We can work on this amongst ourselves. This kind of I.D. talk has no place with a naturalist whatsoever. So as I pointed out, theistic evolution is still the idea of an intellect designer.

 

[camanintx]

God can take a physical presence, yes (John 1:1-14). And life can exist independent of the body, due to the fact that whatever created the universe had to exist immaterially with a will to create. This suggest an immaterial/supernatural reality to go with a thinking/intellectual reality.

You accuse scientists of basing evolution on assumptions when your entire belief system rests totally on unproven assumptions.

You do realize that the cosmological arguement for God is particularly week, don't you? Besides relying on special pleading and circular reasoning, nothing supports the assumption that the first cause is an intelligent agent, much less the God of the Bible.

It is much more logically consistent to argue that the universe itself is finite yet unbounded, bypassing the problem of an uncaused first cause completely.

 

[fishy]

The problem is we are arguing EVOLUTION with a person who believes that evolution describes a dog giving birth to an elephant with mutated testes. It's like a tiger chasing it's tail around a tree, it's a vicious circle.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As I keep stressing, it doesnt matter if God used evolution as a means to create different species/kinds of animals. That doesn't help the atheist/agnostic position,

Once again;

Biological evolution has nothing to do with atheism, or agnosticism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I keep stressing, it doesnt matter if God used evolution as a means to create different species/kinds of animals. That doesn't help the atheist/agnostic position, because even on that view evolution would still be the product of intelligent design. Whether or not God was invovled in this evolutionary process is an internal problem for Christian theism. We can work on this amongst ourselves. This kind of I.D. talk has no place with a naturalist whatsoever. So as I pointed out, theistic evolution is still the idea of an intellect designer.

You seem to be confused as to exactly what is being referred to when people in this debate talk about "intelligent design". What is meant by the phrase in the context of "evolution vs. intelligent design" is not that intelligent designed just means "God is involved in some capacity" - it is the idea/movement that all species were intelligently designed rather than evolved and were either formed as they are now or else only evolve within certain strict limitations.

You also seem to be confused as to exactly what the bone of contention in this debate is. You seem to think this is naturalism vs. theism, but it is not. This is a debate purely about what is science and what is not. Ergo, someone who accepts the science of evolution but still believes in a God does not fall on the ID side of the debate because they accept evolution as a valid scientific explanation for the origin of species, and their religious beliefs do no impede their ability to accept it as such. Do you understand?

 

[Vile Atheist]

CotW...I think you're just begging the question.

I've already posted enough evidence here and frankly I'm just wasting kilojoules of energy doing it because you're just going to respond "Beggin the question". Let's see some of your evidence for IDiocy...you know other than just bald assertions that it "must have" been that way.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You accuse scientists of basing evolution on assumptions when your entire belief system rests totally on unproven assumptions.

Not at all. First off, I admit that my belief is a religion. I admit that I accept it by faith. This DOESN'T mean that I dont think that there is good logical evidence that strongly supports my belief. But I still admit that I accept by faith. This is a different approach than the naturalistic view, as they pass unproven assumptions off as facts. This is not only illogical but it is also disingenuous. Second, my belief system (Christian theism) is a cumulative case, which starts off by logically concluding that the universe began to exist by a transcendent intelligent designer who has the power and will to create life and who also is the ultimate source of goodness and has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So my belief system is a cumulative case which I can make a sound case for in all the aspects that I mentioned.

You do realize that the cosmological arguement for God is particularly week, don't you?

No I dont. I think the kalam cosmological argument is the best argument that a theist can use to make a cause for theism.

Besides relying on special pleading and circular reasoning, nothing supports the assumption that the first cause is an intelligent agent, much less the God of the Bible.

Um, yes it does. The second premise of the kalam cosmological argument is that the universe began to exist. To say that the universe began to exist is a religously neutral statement and can be found in any text book on cosmology. This is a statement that is backed up by empirical science and philosophy. Once you establish a finite universe, you then ask the question "what does it mean to create the universe?" Well, if the universe is all space, matter, time, and energy, then, whatever gave the universe its cause could not be material and temporal. So the first cause had to be immaterial and atemporal, with the will and power to create the universe. So coincidentally, the only thing that has the attributes necessary to create a universe would be, what we call, God. So the kalam cosmological argument, is, in my opinion, the best argument for theism.

It is much more logically consistent to argue that the universe itself is finite yet unbounded, bypassing the problem of an uncaused first cause completely.

Well, If the universe is finite, that would mean it began to exist. That is the key issue. If the universe began to exist, there absolutely has to be a cause. Everything that BEGINS to exist has to have an external cause. You can call it "unbounded" after it began to exist, but that still doesn't answer the question of origins. So the question will forever be unanswered on the naturalistic view, but on the theistic view the answer is clear, God created the universe.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

CotW...I think you're just begging the question.

I've already posted enough evidence here and frankly I'm just wasting kilojoules of energy doing it because you're just going to respond "Beggin the question". Let's see some of your evidence for IDiocy...you know other than just bald assertions that it "must have" been that way.

I kept saying it because you kept doing it. You are assumping a proposition that has yet to be proven. This is similar to someone asking me "Did you stop beating your wife". The question ASSUMES that I have been beating my wife in the first place. If I answer yes, that would mean that I was beating my wife and now stopped. If I say no, that would mean that I am still beating her. This is exactly what you are doing with your responses. I am asking you about the origins of the reproduce system along with compatibility, and your responses are "well, it started with small scale reproduction of organsms and mutation" or something along those lines. This is presupposing reproduction while trying to explain the origins of it. You cant logically explain the origin of something by starting off with that something. I dont see what is so hard for you to understand. As I said, the gender problem is an issue on the naturalistic view.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I kept saying it because you kept doing it. You are assumping a proposition that has yet to be proven. This is similar to someone asking me "Did you stop beating your wife". The question ASSUMES that I have been beating my wife in the first place. If I answer yes, that would mean that I was beating my wife and now stopped. If I say no, that would mean that I am still beating her. This is exactly what you are doing with your responses. I am asking you about the origins of the reproduce system along with compatibility, and your responses are "well, it started with small scale reproduction of organsms and mutation" or something along those lines. This is presupposing reproduction while trying to explain the origins of it. You cant logically explain the origin of something by starting off with that something. I dont see what is so hard for you to understand. As I said, the gender problem is an issue on the naturalistic view.

Because you're trying to take this all the way back to abiogenesis when I'm not talking about abiogenesis. I'm talking about evolution. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origins of life.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Once again;

Biological evolution has nothing to do with atheism, or agnosticism.

For the most part, I agree, because as I said, if you believe in God and also believe in biological evolution, you believe in Intelligent Design. You people are constantly telling me how some theists believe in evolution. Thats fine, but what you people fail to realize is that those theists also believe in intelligent design. That separates them from naturalists.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because you're trying to take this all the way back to abiogenesis when I'm not talking about abiogenesis. I'm talking about evolution. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origins of life.

And I said I dont believe in evolution because it has not been observed or scientifically proven. And what is used as proof could be evidence of something else.

 

[Vile Atheist]

And I said I dont believe in evolution because it has not been observed or scientifically proven. And what is used as proof could be evidence of something else.

But it HAS been observed. In lab. With bacteria that reproduce very quickly. You just choose to be willingly ignorant of that fact, despite that point being repeatedly made.

 

[tumbleweed41]

For the most part, I agree, because as I said, if you believe in God and also believe in biological evolution, you believe in Intelligent Design. You people are constantly telling me how some theists believe in evolution. Thats fine, but what you people fail to realize is that those theists also believe in intelligent design. That separates them from naturalists.

You seem to, again, have your definitions wrong.

Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God.

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed. This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge

(Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Hope that helps.