The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Aye, I've let it go on but it really is time to get back to the original topic.
Last edited:
-
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!
Creationists: Here's your chance
- Thread starter The_Evelyonian
- Start date
Aye, I've let it go on but it really is time to get back to the original topic.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Just a reminder for those who've forgotten:
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 entirely 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 its 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.
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 entirely 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 its 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.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Here was Evelynians response to a question in what specifics were being asked from post number seven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I believe pure energy to be the creative deterministic force of creation and metaphysics as a study of this understanding.
My view is that energy is a deterministic force of creation. I believe evidence is starting to suggest that evolution is more deterministic then what was realised.
Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study
If you just want to engage with an argument against a bearded man in the sky poofing things into existence then I respectfully will bow out of the discussion as we already have a number of such discussions on the forum.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K. great. So I guess what we need from you is some evidence that pure energy is the creative deterministic force of creation. In particular, how does "pure energy" create new species of organisms? What would evidence for that look like?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Well from what I see(and I am know scientist) is that by examining the very nature of ourselves as humans we can understand the very forces behind all of creation.
As humans we are deterministic and we have the ability to be in line with or resistant to nature itself.When we choose to not be deterministic then we find ourselves living in patterns and ruts.It takes a detterministic energy to overcome these patterns and ruts.
I believe the resistance created between these two different energies is part of the process of evolution as the resistance causes form to change.
We know that deterministic energy exists and we know that energy is all that exists so at what point did energy become deterministic or has it always been deterministic?
I believe trying to prove randomness is a much harder argument to defend.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Key word: evidence. The thread is asking for evidence. What would evidence of your claim look like? What predictions does it generate?
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Do you have evidence to back up any of this? Claims and "I believe"s are all well and good but that's not what this thread is here for. We're looking for actual tangible evidence for creationism.
Remember point 4 of the OP:
4) Bald assertion (I.E. the world itself is evidence) doesn't cut it. The evidence you provide must be tangible.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Energy is deterministic. The fact you ask for evidence is evidence!
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Nice try.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
This is about as simplistic and nonsensical as the Romance, Atheists, etc are Proof of God threads.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
It may sound over simplified, But I believe it is humans intellectualism that is complicating
the very forces of nature that drive us.We look at the effects of other species to try and determine what is driving them and how do they evolve and it is the very same source that is driving us. Life itself comes from a deterministic source of energy that strives to survive.Do you believe are ability to analise the universe is from randomness?
We are only atoms from the universe just as all other materialism.We are deterministic and I believe it foolish to think our determinism came from that which isn't deterministic?
If the universe is random then the dilemma comes from at which point did random energy become deterministic?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Do you have any idea what is meant by the word, "evidence?"
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
If you have tangible evidence for any of this then present it.
If not, then start another thread.
This isn't a thread for baseless claims.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The universe is neither random nor intentionally deterministic.
Natural laws are followed, but there is no evidence of guidance.
Natural laws are followed, but there is no evidence of guidance.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Humans are part of the universe and we go against nature as we choose so the universe does not always follow natural law.
Humans are examples of evidence whether you deny it or not.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Take a look at point #4
4) Bald assertion (I.E. The world itself is evidence) doesn't cut it. The evidence you provide must be tangible.
Your statement that "Humans are examples of evidence" doesn't qualify. This thread is for tangible, physical evidence, not assertions.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Wait... when does the universe not follow "natural law"???
When do humans "go against nature"??
wa:do
When do humans "go against nature"??
wa:do
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
What evidence does science look at for assuming natural law if not part of the universe which humans are?
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Screw it. Let's go from the top.
Do you have any evidence to support this?
Evolution is deterministic only in the sense that it follows natural laws. If you're claiming that there is an intelligence or an intent behind it, behind those laws, or behind the Universe in general then you need to do much better.
How do you define "deterministic energy"?
Forms change due to genetic mutation. Mutations are a result of errors during DNA replication, the basis for biological inheritance.
Oh, matter doesn't exist then?
Do you have any evidence to support this?
Evolution is deterministic only in the sense that it follows natural laws. If you're claiming that there is an intelligence or an intent behind it, behind those laws, or behind the Universe in general then you need to do much better.
How do you define "deterministic energy"?
Forms change due to genetic mutation. Mutations are a result of errors during DNA replication, the basis for biological inheritance.
Oh, matter doesn't exist then?
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Natural Law, as in, the Physical Laws of the Universe.
When has any human, or anything for that matter, broken the very Laws that govern the Universe?
Which Natural Laws would that be?
The law of conservation of energy?
The four laws of thermodynamics?
Kepler's laws of planetary motion?