• 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!

For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

Audie

Veteran Member
Here we go again....

"god can do anything"

Off course, if you start with such an assumed conclusion as a premise, then you feel like you can make any wild extraordinary claim and pretend to be exempt from evidence.

Because "god can do anything" - even those things that are impossible.

What a wonderfully fallacious, circular, special pleading position that amounts to absolutely nothing with zero explanatory power.

Glad we sorted this out.

In other words: we can safely ignore any and every creationist claim you can think off.

If the creos had even one fact, one bit of data
to present on their behalf, surely they would have
by now?

If they were right, would not there be the occasional
bit of data floating about?

If ToE were false the disproof would be everywhere.


"I am right because magic-poof" is just too sorry
for a grade school kid to try. But chronological
adults are committed to it!
 

ecco

Veteran Member
How is it possible to make alive a decaying corpse as Jesus did?


The observed event, however was very possible with the Great Scientist.

Please provide detailed evidence of who observed the event and how many people and how much time there was between the observed event and its mention in a written form. Be sure to show the basis for your comments.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I see intentionality in the makings of the mind, hands, feet, arms, legs, eyes, ears, nose and mouth.

If intentionality then an intender must exist. Call it a force inside nature; a force of mentality. The intender would not be inside the force. Nature is too sloppy to be made by a God.

I also know that I have an actual, genuine me inside this body.

It's as simple as that. I fall to spiritual naturalism.

The creative force is prone to errors obviously. And no one knows the details of how life is created.

I fall to the logic that life must come from other life. My reasoning intuition is that life cannot possibly come from non life because of intentionality in nature.

I have not heard any convincing arguments that there is no intender force in nature. It is a mystery how intenders of nature would exist. Nevertheless I enjoy the mystery.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I see intentionality in the makings of the mind, hands, feet, arms, legs, eyes, ears, nose and mouth.

If intentionality then an intender must exist. Call it a force inside nature; a force of mentality. The intender would not be inside the force. Nature is too sloppy to be made by a God.

I also know that I have an actual, genuine me inside this body.

It's as simple as that. I fall to spiritual naturalism.

The creative force is prone to errors obviously. And no one knows the details of how life is created.

I fall to the logic that life must come from other life. My reasoning intuition is that life cannot possibly come from non life because of intentionality in nature.

I have not heard any convincing arguments that there is no intender force in nature. It is a mystery how intenders of nature would exist. Nevertheless I enjoy the mystery.
That is merely bias in your part. You have no logic that supports your beliefs. Confirmation bias is of no value in the sciences. One must propose a model and explain what could refute it and then test for that. If your model passes the test it is not proven, but at least you can claim to have evidence for it.

And the fact that you won't listen to reason is not a refutation. If one side can produce evidence and the other cannot, one goes with the side that is supported by evidence of one thinks rationally and logically.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
That is merely bias in your part. You have no logic that supports your beliefs. Confirmation bias is of no value in the sciences. One must propose a model and explain what could refute it and then test for that. If your model passes the test it is not proven, but at least you can claim to have evidence for it.

And the fact that you won't listen to reason is not a refutation. If one side can produce evidence and the other cannot, one goes with the side that is supported by evidence of one thinks rationally and logically.

It's not that I won't listen. It's that I am not convinced. Perhaps your argument is bias.

Why should I officiate your reason over my simple, obvious observation?

Besides if naturalism is true then why should anyone trust reasoning from anybody?

Naturalism is an intuition of yours not all people. And certainly not me.

You are claiming to be on the side of authoritative, official reasoning. That is pretentious. Humans, and human science is prone to errors in explanation. Naturalism is a faith. Science should stick to the bounds of observation and not extend it's reach further then that but it doesn't.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's not that I won't listen. It's that I am not convinced. Perhaps your argument is bias.

Why should I officiate your reason over my simple, obvious observation?

Besides if naturalism is true then why should anyone trust reasoning from anybody?

Naturalism is an intuition of yours not all people. And certainly not me.

You are claiming to be on the side of authoritative, official reasoning. That is pretentious. Humans, and human science is prone to errors in explanation. Naturalism is a faith. Science should stick to the bounds of observation and not extend it's reach further then that but it doesn't.
First off never accuse others of your flaws. That is not honest and will not get you anywhere.

Second you really should learn what is and what is not evidence. Scientists realize that personal prejudices often affect reasoning so they have done their best to minimize that sort of bias.

I will gladly go over this concept with you.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
First off never accuse others of your flaws. That is not honest and will not get you anywhere.

Second you really should learn what is and what is not evidence. Scientists realize that personal prejudices often affect reasoning so they have done their best to minimize that sort of bias.

I will gladly go over this concept with you.

It's honest if that's exactly what I see. You have a bias towards naturalism. As far as I can tell you are mightily convinced it's fact. I do not buy in.

I am not afraid of seeing reality as it is. If there is a drop dead argument that naturalism is completely the reality, I would accept it.

I do not consider logic to be a foolproof science.

Anyways, I am sincere in my intuition. I see that you are sincere in your intuition.

I appreciate the honest effort of science to see things as they are, and not as one might want them to be. I just do not buy into the naturalist perspective.

I do not see why I should let go of something that is so blatantly obvious and extremely simple as my point of view on this subject. As sure as I recognize familiar faces, I recognize intentionality in nature. Why would I change it?

Your concept of evidence is going to be based on a naturalist philosophy. Am I wrong?
 

dad

Undefeated
Please provide detailed evidence of who observed the event and how many people and how much time there was between the observed event and its mention in a written form. Be sure to show the basis for your comments.
The witnesses and events are in what is called the bible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's honest if that's exactly what I see. You have a bias towards naturalism. As far as I can tell you are mightily convinced it's fact. I do not buy in.

I am not afraid of seeing reality as it is. If there is a drop dead argument that naturalism is completely the reality, I would accept it.

I do not consider logic to be a foolproof science.

Anyways, I am sincere in my intuition. I see that you are sincere in your intuition.

I appreciate the honest effort of science to see things as they are, and not as one might want them to be. I just do not buy into the naturalist perspective.

I do not see why I should let go of something that is so blatantly obvious and extremely simple as my point of view on this subject. As sure as I recognize familiar faces, I recognize intentionality in nature. Why would I change it?

Your concept of evidence is going to be based on a naturalist philosophy. Am I wrong?
What you see appears to be colored by bias. That is why it is best to rely on evidence and not feelings. And of course I am very convinced that it is a fact. It is the only concept supported by reliable evidence.

And once again, intuition is merely bias. It is worthless in a argument on reality. The question is do you want to learn, which can only be done by testing one's ideas or do you merely wish to live on in confirmation bias. The same sort of thinking that supports a Flat Earth?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hilarious. Using beliefs to make evidence fit beliefs doesn't make for good science.

dad, once again you break the Ninth Commandment. Mere beliefs are what you have. Why do you constantly accuse others of your flaws? Though this is common among creationists. They appear to realize that all that they have is beliefs and for some strange reason they think that is all that others have too.

There is a reason that your side loses in courts of laws. You cannot support your beliefs nor can any other creationists. Those on the side of science have to be able to support what they know.

Knowledge trumps mere belief.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
What you see appears to be colored by bias. That is why it is best to rely on evidence and not feelings. And of course I am very convinced that it is a fact. It is the only concept supported by reliable evidence.

And once again, intuition is merely bias. It is worthless in a argument on reality. The question is do you want to learn, which can only be done by testing one's ideas or do you merely wish to live on in confirmation bias. The same sort of thinking that supports a Flat Earth?

You do not have any test for what I consider to be self evident. Does a pencil, or any tool self construct itself?

What test could you possibly have for naturalism other then conjecture?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You do not have any test for what I consider to be self evident. Does a pencil, or any tool self construct itself?

What test could you possibly have for naturalism other then conjecture?
So you live in your own fantasy world.

And you do not seem to understand what "conjecture" means. As a test of naturalism a punch to the nose can be a quite effective argument.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I see intentionality in the makings of the mind, hands, feet, arms, legs, eyes, ears, nose and mouth.

If intentionality then an intender must exist. Call it a force inside nature; a force of mentality. The intender would not be inside the force. Nature is too sloppy to be made by a God.

I also know that I have an actual, genuine me inside this body.

It's as simple as that. I fall to spiritual naturalism.

The creative force is prone to errors obviously. And no one knows the details of how life is created.

I fall to the logic that life must come from other life. My reasoning intuition is that life cannot possibly come from non life because of intentionality in nature.

I have not heard any convincing arguments that there is no intender force in nature. It is a mystery how intenders of nature would exist. Nevertheless I enjoy the mystery.

There is no "logic" to "life must come from life".
It is ok as an opinion,but logic / science does need
some facts to work with.


I think a person who had a basic understanding of
evolution would find if very difficult to think that
the design of any body part was intentional, in the
sense of being figured out and designed by an
intelligent entity.

Mysteries are great, but effectively "inventing" a
mysterious designer as an alternate explanation
for something that could be understood thro
study seems a little pointless, when there are
so many wonderful real mysteries.

Not that the above in any way is intended to suggest
"there is no force" or "designer".

To the extent that I might believe there is one, I'd
want my belief to conform to reality or logic as
best I can understand it. There is no logic at
all to a god having made ear bones out of reptile
jaw bones, or those from gill arches.

There is logic and detailed evidence that evolution
did that.

There may be a god who made the laws of nature
as they are, and set it going.
No logic or common sense would say he made
each waterfall, rather than letting nature do its thing.
 
Top