Creationists: Here's your chance

[The_Evelyonian]

Okay, according to some, creationism hasn't gotten a fair chance to make it's case so, even though I'm not a creationist, I want to give it it's shot.

What I would like is for creationists to post their evidence that creationism is true.

Just a few points I'd like to get out of the way first:

1) Posting negative evidence about evolution doesn't cut it. Even if evolution were disproven, creationism would not win by default. You'd still have to produce positive evidence for creationism in order for the scientific community to take it seriously.

2) Scripture by itself is not evidence. You can use it to help make your case (I.E. the bible says the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and here is evidence that it really is...) but your argument cannot stand if it is based solely on a holy book.

3) If something you post gets refuted, move on, unless you can prove the refutation is false. There's no need to say the poster is blind, biased, etc. Even if he/she were, it wouldn't matter. The personal feelings/biases of the person trying to refute your claim are irrelevant. Any case you make has to be able to stand on it's own merit.

4) Bald assertion (I.E. the world itself is evidence) doesn't cut it. The evidence you provide must be tangible.

Okay, creationists, the floor is yours.

 

[tumbleweed41]

*bump*

 

[Willamena]

Are you asking Young Earth Creationists, Creation Scientist-type Creationists, Intelligent Design and Traditional Creationists, ID-ers, anyone who adheres to a philosophy of creation, or simply those who hold a belief in a god of creation?

Though I suspect I know which.

 

[bobhikes]

God exists
He created everything and made it so we couldn't prove that he did. IE. he made it look like dinosaurs existed and that the world was created by evolution and the big bang.
He can do anything but wants people to believe in him based on faith alone.
He has given us many ways and paths to believe in him by faith alone.

If you come to him out of faith you will be rewarded if not you will cease to exist. It is your choice

Live well.

 

[Nepenthe]

God exists
He created everything and made it so we couldn't prove that he did. IE. he made it look like dinosaurs existed and that the world was created by evolution and the big bang.
He can do anything but wants people to believe in him based on faith alone.
He has given us many ways and paths to believe in him by faith alone.

If you come to him out of faith you will be rewarded if not you will cease to exist. It is your choice

Live well.

The Omphalos hypothesis is a great unfalsifiable pseudo-explanation that suggests the Creator is a liar, which potentially means the Creator is also deceiving us by promises of an afterlife attained via faith.

I kinda like your lying Lord! But I think I'll stick with the Tlön school of thought.

 

[stiletto]

The Omphalos hypothesis is a great unfalsifiable pseudo-explanation that suggests the Creator is a liar, which potentially means the Creator is also deceiving us by promises of an afterlife attained via faith.

I kinda like your lying Lord! But I think I'll stick with the Tlön school of thought.

Sometimes I object to God being portrayed as a male, but now I understand

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Are you asking Young Earth Creationists, Creation Scientist-type Creationists, Intelligent Design and Traditional Creationists, ID-ers, anyone who adheres to a philosophy of creation, or simply those who hold a belief in a god of creation?

Though I suspect I know which.

Any and all. If you claim that the universe, earth, humanity, etc was specially created by a god (I don't care which) and you have tangible evidence to support that claim then, please, post it here.

 

[Danmac]

Everything that had a beginning had a cause. This is the law of causality and it is the fundamental principle of science.Without this law science would be impossible. Francis Bacon wrote:"True knowledge is knowledge by causes". To deny the law of causality is to deny rationality. David Hume wrote,"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause". Therefore, if all things are caused then behind every cause is a causer.

Before the big bang there was no time, or natural laws. There was nothing, yet the law of causality demands that this nothing caused the big bang. The problem is nothing can cause nothing. Therefore, something or someone caused the big bang. So who or what caused it?

 

[JustWondering2]

No takers yet HUH. HUMM wonder why?

 

[Jollybear]

Here is tangible evidence, the world, the universe, life is all complex, vitally complex, extremely complex. One vital part taken away will cause the whole thing to collapse. Emphasis on the word VITAL.

All that complexity implies design, thus a designer, chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented, second chance does not even exist, people just use it as a gap for their lack of knowledge about something.

There is your evidence that God exists. There is more, but this is the one I will state for now. I have another thread I am debating on with someone, but our points are all over the place with all the evidence there is to deal with. So, I don’t want to make another BIG one on here like there, so I will state just one evidence, this is it. Complexity is design.

Tell me how complexity is NOT design.

 

[Half Asleep]

Here is tangible evidence, the world, the universe, life is all complex, vitally complex, extremely complex. One vital part taken away will cause the whole thing to collapse. Emphasis on the word VITAL.

All that complexity implies design, thus a designer, chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented, second chance does not even exist, people just use it as a gap for their lack of knowledge about something.

There is your evidence that God exists. There is more, but this is the one I will state for now. I have another thread I am debating on with someone, but our points are all over the place with all the evidence there is to deal with. So, I don’t want to make another BIG one on here like there, so I will state just one evidence, this is it. Complexity is design.

Tell me how complexity is NOT design.

Argument from incredulity.

Your notion of "complex" is 100% relative to what you yourself can fathom. Furthermore, you reject everything that isn't immediately self-evident, with the exception of course of your unfalsifiable and evidence-less claim.

If it happened, then there must have been a way for it to happen. If something is complex, then it has a complex origin. You don't get to say "God-did-it" just because you're too lazy to fathom this.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Everything that had a beginning had a cause. This is the law of causality and it is the fundamental principle of science.Without this law science would be impossible. Francis Bacon wrote:"True knowledge is knowledge by causes". To deny the law of causality is to deny rationality. David Hume wrote,"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause". Therefore, if all things are caused then behind every cause is a causer.

Before the big bang there was no time, or natural laws. There was nothing, yet the law of causality demands that this nothing caused the big bang. The problem is nothing can cause nothing. Therefore, something or someone caused the big bang. So who or what caused it?

Here is tangible evidence, the world, the universe, life is all complex, vitally complex, extremely complex. One vital part taken away will cause the whole thing to collapse. Emphasis on the word VITAL.

All that complexity implies design, thus a designer, chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented, second chance does not even exist, people just use it as a gap for their lack of knowledge about something.

There is your evidence that God exists. There is more, but this is the one I will state for now. I have another thread I am debating on with someone, but our points are all over the place with all the evidence there is to deal with. So, I don’t want to make another BIG one on here like there, so I will state just one evidence, this is it. Complexity is design.

Tell me how complexity is NOT design.

Both of these beg the same question. What designed the designer?
You cannot claim that complexity requires a cause and then declare, by fiat, that god is immune from this requirement.

It's an intellectual non-starter. Either all complex things require a designer, in which case god, being more complex than the universe he's being invoked to explain, would require a designer too, or, if all complex things do NOT require a designer, then god isn't really needed.

As for "All things must have a cause" you run into the same problem: What caused god?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Argument from incredulity.

Your notion of "complex" is 100% relative to what you yourself can fathom. Furthermore, you reject everything that isn't immediately self-evident, with the exception of course of your unfalsifiable and evidence-less claim.

If it happened, then there must have been a way for it to happen. If something is complex, then it has a complex origin. You don't get to say "God-did-it" just because you're too lazy to fathom this.

Here here :clap

 

[Jollybear]

Half_Asleep

Argument from incredulity.

BUNK, wrong answer, argument FROM EVIDENCE. Don’t touch on my intent again. Answer what I say based on it’s merit, not based on what you THINK my intent is.

Thank you.

Your notion of "complex" is 100% relative to what you yourself can fathom.

I heard this so many times it is getting dry. Give me an example of something that would be SIMPLE and create all the complexity then?

Furthermore, you reject everything that isn't immediately self-evident,

Oh, like the philosophical arguments for atheism? Yes I reject them because based on logic alone, they can be debunked. There are four views about origins, either mindless energy was here for eternity and then made this universe by chance, or the universe made itself, or nothing, plus chance, plus time made the universe, or God made it. Which one is most plausible? Logic says it’s God and not the others.

You want to go down the philosophical road or the science road? On what level do you want proof, the philosophical or the science? Because SCIENCE is NOT exempt from using philosophy.

with the exception of course of your unfalsifiable and evidence-less claim.

Yea, it is falsifiable if you can show that something simple can create all this complexity, or that nothing can create something, or that chance and natural selection can PUSH something forward and upward in building it, or can show how an infinite regression of causes can take place. If you can show any of this by logical means, you can then falsify my view.

Good luck with that one. You don’t stand a chance.

If it happened, then there must have been a way for it to happen. If something is complex, then it has a complex origin. You don't get to say "God-did-it" just because you're too lazy to fathom this.

Right, if it happened, something obviously made it happen, that part is obvious. And yes, the origin would be complex, since the universe is complex, that part also is obvious. But saying chance, or nothing did it, that is not a complex mechanism, that is a SIMPLE one based from ignorance.

The God view is the MOST plausible view. All other views people take have VERY BIG FAITH.

And I am not saying it based on laziness, I am saying it based on logic and that which is most plausible amongst the four views. Don’t call me lazy, I am NOT lazy. And just to get ahead of what you may shoot at me, I am not dishonest either, so don’t even go there. I am so sick of hearing that tactic from people who are just PURE cop outs.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Half_Asleep



BUNK, wrong answer, argument FROM EVIDENCE. Don’t touch on my intent again. Answer what I say based on it’s merit, not based on what you THINK my intent is.

Thank you.




I heard this so many times it is getting dry. Give me an example of something that would be SIMPLE and create all the complexity then?



Oh, like the philosophical arguments for atheism? Yes I reject them because based on logic alone, they can be debunked. There are four views about origins, either mindless energy was here for eternity and then made this universe by chance, or the universe made itself, or nothing, plus chance, plus time made the universe, or God made it. Which one is most plausible? Logic says it’s God and not the others.

You want to go down the philosophical road or the science road? On what level do you want proof, the philosophical or the science? Because SCIENCE is NOT exempt from using philosophy.



Yea, it is falsifiable if you can show that something simple can create all this complexity, or that nothing can create something, or that chance and natural selection can PUSH something forward and upward in building it, or can show how an infinite regression of causes can take place. If you can show any of this by logical means, you can then falsify my view.

Good luck with that one. You don’t stand a chance.




Right, if it happened, something obviously made it happen, that part is obvious. And yes, the origin would be complex, since the universe is complex, that part also is obvious. But saying chance, or nothing did it, that is not a complex mechanism, that is a SIMPLE one based from ignorance.

The God view is the MOST plausible view. All other views people take have VERY BIG FAITH.

And I am not saying it based on laziness, I am saying it based on logic and that which is most plausible amongst the four views. Don’t call me lazy, I am NOT lazy. And just to get ahead of what you may shoot at me, I am not dishonest either, so don’t even go there. I am so sick of hearing that tactic from people who are just PURE cop outs.

So, a complex universe was created by an even more complex god because complexity requires design.

Do you not see a problem there?

 

[Jollybear]

The_evelyonian

Both of these beg the same question. What designed the designer?
You cannot claim that complexity requires a cause and then declare, by fiat, that god is immune from this requirement.

Yes, he is immune from this requirement. Here is why, there has to be a FIRST cause. There CANNOT be a infinite regression of causes and this argument alone is your downfall. Here is why there cannot be a infinite regression of causes, because first it would then take an eternity for all causes to take place, thus no causes would take place since it’s taking forever for them all to happen. Or second, all causes would be happening at the same time, thus everything would be motionless. This argument shows that there has to be a FIRST cause.

Thus God does not need to be made or designed, or have a designer above him. Plus, if a designer was above him, then that designer above him would be THE God and “God” below him would NOT be God by definition.

 

[Tristesse]

The_evelyonian



Yes, he is immune from this requirement. Here is why, there has to be a FIRST cause. There CANNOT be a infinite regression of causes and this argument alone is your downfall. Here is why there cannot be a infinite regression of causes, because first it would then take an eternity for all causes to take place, thus no causes would take place since it’s taking forever for them all to happen. Or second, all causes would be happening at the same time, thus everything would be motionless. This argument shows that there has to be a FIRST cause.

Thus God does not need to be made or designed, or have a designer above him. Plus, if a designer was above him, then that designer above him would be THE God and “God” below him would NOT be God by definition.

Why does there have to be a first cause? And if there does, why do you presume that it's an intelligent cause?

 

[Jollybear]

So, a complex universe was created by an even more complex god because complexity requires design.

Do you not see a problem there?

I see what you’re trying to show me, but what you’re showing me is flawed. Here is why: NO irreducible complexity can be caused by chance because first, chance don’t exist, it’s just used as a way to fill in the gap of peoples knowledge, and second, chance is blind and purposeless, thus it has no direction to BUILD UP into something if it did exist. So complexity cannot be caused by chance, so, it has to be caused by design. Now that does not imply that ALL complex things are designed, there is just ONE complex thing that is NOT designed, it’s GOD. But no complex thing can be caused by chance. And why is God exempt from being designed, because there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. There has to be a first cause.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The_evelyonian



Yes, he is immune from this requirement. Here is why, there has to be a FIRST cause. There CANNOT be a infinite regression of causes and this argument alone is your downfall. Here is why there cannot be a infinite regression of causes, because first it would then take an eternity for all causes to take place, thus no causes would take place since it’s taking forever for them all to happen. Or second, all causes would be happening at the same time, thus everything would be motionless. This argument shows that there has to be a FIRST cause.

Thus God does not need to be made or designed, or have a designer above him. Plus, if a designer was above him, then that designer above him would be THE God and “God” below him would NOT be God by definition.

However, there is a fatal flaw in your argument. Namely, that complexity requires a designer. Now, if god created a complex universe then he would have to be infinity more complex than the universe itself.

So, if complexity requires design, and god is complex....

 

[Jollybear]

Tristesse

I just told you in the paragraph you just quoted WHY there has to be a FIRST cause. I will re quote myself.

“Here is why there cannot be a infinite regression of causes, because first it would then take an eternity for all causes to take place, thus no causes would take place since it’s taking forever for them all to happen. Or second, all causes would be happening at the same time, thus everything would be motionless. This argument shows that there has to be a FIRST cause.”