Can You PROVE Creationism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PantheistsRule
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
East_Anglican said:
Let’s get back to the OP.

I find no evidence that snakes have vocal chords or the gene for language. The only creature we have found with these things apart from ourselves is Neanderthal man.

If you have any evidence that sugest otherwise please share it with us.

Dogs understand commands but their language abillity is not enough for them to have a conversation about fruit.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear before I respond, you are citing this as proof of creationism, yes?

Just making sure, as before I believe you stated you believed theistic evolution. 😉

Peace
 
PantheistsRule said:
Just to be clear before I respond, you are citing this as proof of creationism, yes?

Just making sure, as before I believe you stated you believed theistic evolution. 😉

Peace
Click to expand...
I am a Thiest Evolutionist yes.

What I was saying was that if people want to prove Genesis is a literal account they have to prove that snakes either have or had the ability to hold an inteligent conversation with someone.

I am asking creationists for data that supports their hypothesis.
 
East_Anglican said:
I am a Thiest Evolutionist yes.

What I was saying was that if people want to prove Genesis is a literal account they have to prove that snakes either have or had the ability to hold an inteligent conversation with someone.

I am asking creationists for data that supports their hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Ah… I feel stupid, I forgot all about the snake in the Garden of Eden 😉
 
PantheistsRule said:
I was simply using examples. I know you do not believe in a floodgate for a sky, or that Earth is at the center of the Universe. What I was establishing was, that by the very same principle that many (Not necessarily you) use to justify or even prove God, many other quite odd things are also possible, or even “proven”, by extremely twisted logic.
Click to expand...
So? Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, that doesn’t mean I am going to eat it
So if God is a possibility, so must be the FSM, Russel’s teapot, etc. In fact, if he’s real, than as you said (I am aware of that paradox 😉 ) nothing, everything, no one, and everyone may not exist or exist. Anything you imagined to be real or unreal could potentially be the case, if you can’t entirely disprove it. I know the FSM is not likely real. You will agree with me, right? Well, the FSM is in essence “God”, if not the God you believe in. It is unfair to say that God is real and the FSM is not. Both are invisible, and unable to be tested.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I can show you when and where and by whom the FSM was invented. Now, granted, I know that I just ruled out those and ruled in other ancient mythologies, but that is another story.
Believing something only makes it PHILOSOPHICALLY real, not scientifically real. God is a scientific possibility, but only definitely real in your “soul”. So if God IS scientifically real only in theory, than Zeus, Vishnu, the FSM, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and every other conceivable deity must be. If God is but a possibility, you must respect all other possibilities, unless you are attempting to prove him, which you admit is impossible
Click to expand...
No. There is always the possibility that they are wrong and I am not. Basic theology can deal with that. Just because A is true does not mean anything about B through Z
But I really have no issue with your position on science. This is turning into a debate more about God than science.
Click to expand...
I was just putting out my position, as you did yours. You should keep an open-mind, not necessarily to becoming some sort of agnostic or whatever, but rather to how others think, comprehend. To you, God might be entirely reasonable. I’m sure you have your reasons, and respect that. I’m just expressing my beliefs as you are. I’m just trying to disprove a deity, while you try to prove one. It is unfair to not grant me that privilege when you have it 🙂
Click to expand...
No. What you are trying to do is to open a discussion about how God is not real based on ground rules that you slanted in your favor based on a position that Catholics do not hold
We will never convice each other I’m sure of what we believe about God. That’s fine 😉
Click to expand...
If there is a God, may he keep you all happy and well!
Peace,
PantheistsRule
Click to expand...
EDIT: I do know the OFFICIAL Catholic stand, but there are many Catholics who believe in Creationism. I posted this thread on this forum expecting more intelligent responses. I have been getting them so far, I think.
Click to expand...
TO be quite honest, I could care less what Catholics beleive. I am more worried about what the Church teaches. That is the Truth. But, you should be happy you are having this discussion here. Catholics are more likely to be able to accept evolution without ruling out God. Try to have this talk with Fundamentalists.
 
PantheistsRule said:
I’m no scientist, check this out. talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

If I’m right (I looked into it more) irreducible complexity states that life is far too complex for it to have evolved into the form it is in from primitive cells some 3.6 billion years ago. Evolution is very flexible, due to the ease with which DNA mutates, etc. You really have to underestimate it QUITE a lot to believe irreducible complexity. Today there are small lasting multi-generational physical mutations observed in animals and men. I’m no scientist, I can’t explain Evolution better than one. Check out the link. Irreducible Complexity is considered pseudoscience.

Peace
Click to expand...
Now that you bring up DNA, there is another problem: DNA is a protein. DNA is required to synthesize protein. Which cam first? And how? Score 2 for ID
 
Now concerning this tea pot going round he sun thing.

No Christian or Thiest or diest believes in anything that absurd. If people believe God is absurd it doesn’t indicate non-existance of God. People thought that an animal like the duckbilled Platypus was absurd but it still exists.

The Tea Pot analogy stems from this idea that it is a crazy idea that we should have grown out of it like the tooth fairy or Santa. How many people have you met who started believing in the tooth fairy in adulthood.

People who say faith is irrational have a completely differant deffiniton of it to what we have.
 
ralphinal said:
So? Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, that doesn’t mean I am going to eat it

Wrong. I can show you when and where and by whom the FSM was invented. Now, granted, I know that I just ruled out those and ruled in other ancient mythologies, but that is another story.

No. There is always the possibility that they are wrong and I am not. Basic theology can deal with that. Just because A is true does not mean anything about B through Z

No. What you are trying to do is to open a discussion about how God is not real based on ground rules that you slanted in your favor based on a position that Catholics do not hold

TO be quite honest, I could care less what Catholics beleive. I am more worried about what the Church teaches. That is the Truth. But, you should be happy you are having this discussion here. Catholics are more likely to be able to accept evolution without ruling out God. Try to have this talk with Fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
I think I know why I started the thread far more than you, sir/ma’am.

God being real and Zeus not being real is possible, but not fair. You have every reason to believe in Zeus that you have to believe in God.

Forget the ground rules if you want. Say anything. The ground rules were intended to get more intelligent responses, but that seems at this point to be failing.

I’m done trying to disprove God, I don’t want to be disrespectful. I was pointing something out, that’s all. Keep an open mind please. More importantly try to stay calm.
 
East_Anglican said:
Now concerning this tea pot going round he sun thing.

No Christian or Thiest or diest believes in anything that absurd. If people believe God is absurd it doesn’t indicate non-existance of God. People thought that an animal like the duckbilled Platypus was absurd but it still exists.

The Tea Pot analogy stems from this idea that it is a crazy idea that we should have grown out of it like the tooth fairy or Santa. How many people have you met who started believing in the tooth fairy in adulthood.

People who say faith is irrational have a completely differant deffiniton of it to what we have.
Click to expand...
Last post on this issue before I refuse to comment on it again…

I get what you’re saying. I was trying to point out that God is sort of of the same nature as the invisible tea pot: You can’t prove it at all. The tea pot is as likely to exist as God.

And that’s no problem for some people. I understand how many feel God has touched their lives, and know many people who feel that. I have no problem with that, as long as they aren’t hurting people over their different beliefs or being “idiots” about it. You sir/ma’am are not being an idiot about it.

Let’s drop the whole “I tried to disprove God” thing. I was demonstrating someone’s lack of consideration. In my opinion, the only people who can justify belief in God have considered his nonexistence, the existence of another deity, and our lack of ability to prove him, and still arrive at the conclusion he exists.

Until next time…
Peace,
PantheistsRule
Peace
 
The tea pot is not as likely to exist because it is illogical.

We all look at the world around us and the Universe and some of us conclude that God exists and some don’t but nobody would conclude that the tea pot exists.
 
6 pages
90 posts
0 evidence

Some Catholic facts:
  • The Bible isn’t a science book but a revelation of God. God didn’t author the Bible to tell us about the Sun or the plants or dinosaurs but authored the Bible to tell us about Himself.
  • The heart of the revelation of God is Jesus Christ, Perfect God and Perfect Man. He didn’t come to tell us what is the smallest seed in the world or what the speed of the wind is or what the geography of the hereafter is but came to tell us about Himself.
  • Creationism is a Jewish belief rooted in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which actually comes from the Pharisees, who believed the Bible ought to be interpreted literally. This literal interpretation is different from the literal sense of the Bible, which is inseparably united to the spiritual sense of the Bible just as the Divinity of Christ is inseparably united to the Humanity of Christ, in that the literal sense reads the Bible as it is: the person interprets poetry as poetry, symbolism as symbolism, historicity as historicity, etc.
 
East_Anglican said:
The tea pot is not as likely to exist because it is illogical.

We all look at the world around us and the Universe and some of us conclude that God exists and some don’t but nobody would conclude that the tea pot exists.
Click to expand...
Well, they are both equally illogical, both human concepts we claim to be Univsersal, of the cosmos. No one would conclude the teapot was real because of our culture, while due to our culture many believe in God. I mean, to the ancient Egyptians, their half-animal half-man gods were completely reasonable. Culture defines what we figure as reasonable or unreasonable, so if you “flipped” Russel’s Teapot’s and God’s places in our culture, we would not think the teapot illogical.

I thought long and hard on this for many years, and I figured God must exist in one of the manners following:

A) He does not.
B) He is an infinite number of Gods (Both God and Zeus exist, for example; these is not one conscious singular God, as that poses the question “why am I not him, when he is like me?”)
C) He has no number.

I flip between A and C at different times. The Universe is a Hell of an odd place, I wouldn’t be surprised if God was C.

The nature of God by his definition is that he cannot be proven, thus making him illogical. So, in believing in him, you have to realize that, and come to terms with it. I tried, and couldn’t.

So, no disrespect intended. Just responding. Your posts are some of the ones I take the most seriously, as you seem intelligent

Oh, and I enjoyed the video 😉

Peace,
PantheistsRule
 
Eucharisted said:
6 pages
90 posts
0 evidence

Some Catholic facts:
  • The Bible isn’t a science book but a revelation of God. God didn’t author the Bible to tell us about the Sun or the plants or dinosaurs but authored the Bible to tell us about Himself.
  • The heart of the revelation of God is Jesus Christ, Perfect God and Perfect Man. He didn’t come to tell us what is the smallest seed in the world or what the speed of the wind is or what the geography of the hereafter is but came to tell us about Himself.
  • Creationism is a Jewish belief rooted in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which actually comes from the Pharisees, who believed the Bible ought to be interpreted literally. This literal interpretation is different from the literal sense of the Bible, which is inseparably united to the spiritual sense of the Bible just as the Divinity of Christ is inseparably united to the Humanity of Christ, in that the literal sense reads the Bible as it is: the person interprets poetry as poetry, symbolism as symbolism, historicity as historicity, etc.
Click to expand...
By 0 evidence, do you mean for Creationism, Evolution, or both?

And you are right about the Bible (minus the dogma pieces in my personal opinion), it is a philosophy book, not a science book, which as I stated, I DO read often.

Peace.
 
PantheistsRule said:
I’m no scientist, check this out. talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

If I’m right (I looked into it more) irreducible complexity states that life is far too complex for it to have evolved into the form it is in from primitive cells some 3.6 billion years ago. Evolution is very flexible, due to the ease with which DNA mutates, etc. You really have to underestimate it QUITE a lot to believe irreducible complexity. Today there are small lasting multi-generational physical mutations observed in animals and men. I’m no scientist, I can’t explain Evolution better than one. Check out the link. Irreducible Complexity is considered pseudoscience.

Peace
Click to expand...
DNA has copy protection and resists any mutations and copy errors. It is self correcting.

IC simply states that a specified complex machine serving a purpose needs all of its parts. It does not say that any of those parts cannto serve other functions. They are building blocks.

And it is time once again to play the Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge See if you can do better than others.
 
The DNA code is intelligently designed. All codes come from a mind.
 
buffalo said:
DNA has copy protection and resists any mutations and copy errors. It is self correcting.

IC simply states that a specified complex machine serving a purpose needs all of its parts. It does not say that any of those parts cannto serve other functions. They are building blocks.

And it is time once again to play the Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge See if you can do better than others.
Click to expand...
buffalo said:
The DNA code is intelligently designed. All codes come from a mind.
Click to expand...
PantheistsRule said:
By 0 evidence, do you mean for Creationism, Evolution, or both?

And you are right about the Bible (minus the dogma pieces in my personal opinion), it is a philosophy book, not a science book, which as I stated, I DO read often.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Oh,PantheistsRule, You must believe the creative power of God, because you will not find anything else, like buffalo said, the DNA code is intelligently designed, all codes from a mind. You will not believe that accidental birth would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy. like the in the post Ralph said:
please show me the macro-evolution history information, with no gaps or holes, for humans, horses, chickens, and whales
Click to expand...
,

“Lift up your eyes on high and see:
Who created these?”
Isaiah 40:26

"for in* him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in* him all things hold together. "
Colossians 1:16-17
:angel1:🙂
 
East_Anglican said:
The tea pot is not as likely to exist because it is illogical.

We all look at the world around us and the Universe and some of us conclude that God exists and some don’t but nobody would conclude that the tea pot exists.
Click to expand...
Would anyone conclude that the teapot maker doesn’t exist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top