Oneatatime
Huh?
224 pages and still no evidence for creationism....
-
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, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
What a perfect post for a pagetopper.
I am a Creationist! I agree. So far I've seen nothing. When I get the time (hopefully in a couple hours) I'll post a thought or two on here. But just to kick it off, I think what needs to argued isn't necessarily Creationism vs. Evolution. It's Philosophical naturalism vs. supernaturalism. You may gawk at this, but think about it. The way most of you atheists define science completely excludes the supernatural (a creator), thus making the supernatural (God) something which cannot be evidenced scientifically. You automatically reduce religion, God, and the supernatural to personal preference.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
The supernatural is called the supernatural because it does not fit within the realm of evidence. We can't test the supernatural, we can't measure the supernatural so therefore we dismiss it out of hand for obvious reasons.
Science and God are in no way reconcilable.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Seems to me you are merely trying to bring science down to the lowly level of religion.
darkendless - Which proves my point. The way you have defined science means that there is no way I can convince you that God exists because any evidence for him you would consider unscientific.
Mestemia - Not at all. You are assuming religion is lowly. Actually, both religion and science are biased theories. There are no unbiased theories. You try to say that science (knowledge) doesn't reflect any particular belief and should then dominate the public sphere, rule education, etc. (This is why you say science is higher than religion) . You assume that it is just the way reasonable people think, thus ruling supernatiuralism out.
Mestemia - Not at all. You are assuming religion is lowly. Actually, both religion and science are biased theories. There are no unbiased theories. You try to say that science (knowledge) doesn't reflect any particular belief and should then dominate the public sphere, rule education, etc. (This is why you say science is higher than religion) . You assume that it is just the way reasonable people think, thus ruling supernatiuralism out.
David M
Well-Known Member
But there is nothing stopping God from providing evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny, instead we have a slew of religions claims that are refuted by scientific evidence.
For example if the world was 6,000-10,000 years old as the Young Earth Creationists claim and there was a year long global flood there is no reason why the evidence wouldn't show this.
That is where your premise falls down completely, if there is a supernatural being there is no barrier that prevents their actions leaving natural evidence that is subject to the scientific method.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
You've got it backwards. Evidence for god is not dismissed out of hand because it is supernatural, rather god is considered supernatural because there is no evidence for its existence.
But this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not about the existence/nonexistence of any deities, so even if you had evidence of your god you wouldn't necessarily have evidence of creationism.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Exactly, because the common concept of God is outside logic and reasoning (scientific).
If you believe in God thats cool, no problem by me. Where I do start to take offense is when God becomes scientific. There is nothing scientific about God and in order to ensure God is testable scientifically, facts/ laws and theories need to be altered which is against science and its methodology.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Actually, it's the theists who define their gods in such a way that excludes them from the realm of science. All science cares about is whether something can be tested.
So if you wish for your god to be considered by science, please provide a means to test it. Anything short of that and you're wasting your time.
If naturalism is true, then every event in nature is caused only by natural forces.
If every event in nature is caused only by natural forces, then our thoughts are caused only by natural forces.
If our thoughts are caused only by natural forces, then they are irrational.
Therefore, it naturalism is true, then our thoughts are irrational.
Naturalism is self-defeating.
If every event in nature is caused only by natural forces, then our thoughts are caused only by natural forces.
If our thoughts are caused only by natural forces, then they are irrational.
Therefore, it naturalism is true, then our thoughts are irrational.
Naturalism is self-defeating.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Perhaps you should stop dictating to my beliefs?
Or perhaps that is the only way you can deal with those who disagree?
Religion is what pushes for the supernatural to be considered natural.
Science uses what it actually available.
Religion tends to just make **** up as it goes expecting people to just follow along.
When did I try to say any thing about any beliefs?
See what I mean, making **** up as you go along....
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Based on what, exactly?
Or are you content by merely making a statement that fits your agenda?
:biglaugh:
As soon as you can show that there is some "supernatural" force....
It is impossible for the cell (and other complex things) to have evolved. All parts depend on all other parts. If something evolves bit by bit, it could not exist as a complex thing.
How do you explain consciousness? Shouldn't all our thoughts be products of the system (nature)? So how do we have free will?
How do you explain consciousness? Shouldn't all our thoughts be products of the system (nature)? So how do we have free will?
I think most of us would agree that the universe had a beginning. Explain to me exactly how nothing can produce something. Or chance as some people prefer. But what is chance? It's just a measurement. It has no power, no substance. It's nothing without something already existing. Have you every created something out of nothing?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
So where did god come from?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
And you base this bold statement on what?
What research supports this claim?
1) On naturalism, evolution selected for our cognitive system
2) On evolution, it is what is beneficial for survival that is selected
3) Therefore, our cognitive system was selected for survival
4) What is beneficial for survival is not necessarily what is true (in an objective sense)
5) Therefore, we can’t know (on naturalism) that our cognitive system is truth-seeking
6) If we can’t trust our cognitive system, but we come to the conclusion that naturalism is true, then we can’t trust this conclusion
7) Therefore, naturalism is self-defeating
2) On evolution, it is what is beneficial for survival that is selected
3) Therefore, our cognitive system was selected for survival
4) What is beneficial for survival is not necessarily what is true (in an objective sense)
5) Therefore, we can’t know (on naturalism) that our cognitive system is truth-seeking
6) If we can’t trust our cognitive system, but we come to the conclusion that naturalism is true, then we can’t trust this conclusion
7) Therefore, naturalism is self-defeating