In Defense of Creationism

[WalkingWithFire]

What evidence are you looking for that hasn't already been given? What do you do with the probability stats on the Bing Bang, or the complexity of single celled organisms that without there unique design couldn't exist in the first place, or the fact that no evidence exists that from chaos comes organization? The only explanation that makes sense is a creator. Just recently on this website there was an article talking about how physists "discovered" the possibility that the universe exists within one thing - a "mind" of some kind. Not a shock to the people who have read the Bible and know that it says that "... all things were made by Him and exist in Him..." How can ya'll explain dark matter, or black holes, or fissure in the deep sea without recognizing that there is Something out there holding this all together?

You have the evidence for a creator, it is simply that you reject it... I'm ok with that though.

Very well written post.

[fullywired]

In most discussions of Evolution Vs. Creationism, the "debate" usually ends up focussing on evolution and ignorring creationism. I would like to hear the case FOR creationism. Use whatever "proofs" you want: for purposes of this thread, the Bible is just as valid as any scientific journal. I would like to see observations from nature and/or passages from the Bible used to lay out the case. If you say "The Bible says ...." please tell me in which verse it says that and how you interpret that verse to arrive at your conclusions.

This thread is about the reasoning behind Creationism.

Thanks,

Doug

There is no reasoning behind creationism it is just blind belief and a total disregard of scientific facts .What does it offer in rebuttal? The bible a collection of folk stories

fullywired

[EmpressV]

What evidence are you looking for that hasn't already been given? What do you do with the probability stats on the Bing Bang, or the complexity of single celled organisms that without there unique design couldn't exist in the first place, or the fact that no evidence exists that from chaos comes organization? The only explanation that makes sense is a creator. Just recently on this website there was an article talking about how physists "discovered" the possibility that the universe exists within one thing - a "mind" of some kind. Not a shock to the people who have read the Bible and know that it says that "... all things were made by Him and exist in Him..." How can ya'll explain dark matter, or black holes, or fissure in the deep sea without recognizing that there is Something out there holding this all together?

You have the evidence for a creator, it is simply that you reject it... I'm ok with that though.

The only thing that creationists have is a book of fiction to explain how the universe began. How many scientific explainations do you need before you realize an entity had nothing to do with it. If your theory holds true then your god would have to have a creator. And as I've pointed out before, It was created by man.

[Beckys_Mom]

There is no reasoning behind creationism it is just blind belief and a total disregard of scientific facts .What does it offer in rebuttal? The bible a collection of folk stories

fullywired

thats how I see it

[moonlit12]

The only thing that creationists have is a book of fiction to explain how the universe began. How many scientific explainations do you need before you realize an entity had nothing to do with it. If your theory holds true then your god would have to have a creator. And as I've pointed out before, It was created by man.

Is that ya'll's only argument for why creationism isn't true - "a book of fiction..."? Tell me, what proof do you have that God doesn't exist..., that the Bible is fiction, or that everything developed from nothing? Give me the proof that you have for the first cell in the universe coming from nothing. How can you explain the fulfilled prophecy, the historical accuracies, the congruency from generation to generation of scripture and it's words? Creationism is the only thing that makes sense because it is the only thing that explains the beginning. God always existing is a lot easier to swallow than the truly out there theory that something came from nothing... by the way have you ever seen an experiment that difinitively showed how something comes from nothing?

[EmpressV]

Creationism is the only thing that makes sense

This is funny

[Poetic Reven]

Is that ya'll's only argument for why creationism isn't true - "a book of fiction..."? Tell me, what proof do you have that God doesn't exist..., that the Bible is fiction, or that everything developed from nothing? Give me the proof that you have for the first cell in the universe coming from nothing. How can you explain the fulfilled prophecy, the historical accuracies, the congruency from generation to generation of scripture and it's words? Creationism is the only thing that makes sense because it is the only thing that explains the beginning. God always existing is a lot easier to swallow than the truly out there theory that something came from nothing... by the way have you ever seen an experiment that difinitively showed how something comes from nothing?

Proof: Logic

But can you yourself prove the "Bible"?

Tell me, what fulfilled prophecies, historical accuracies, and congruency?

Edited August 1, 2007 by Poetic Reven

[GreyWeather]

Is that ya'll's only argument for why creationism isn't true - "a book of fiction..."? Tell me, what proof do you have that God doesn't exist..., that the Bible is fiction, or that everything developed from nothing? Give me the proof that you have for the first cell in the universe coming from nothing. How can you explain the fulfilled prophecy, the historical accuracies, the congruency from generation to generation of scripture and it's words? Creationism is the only thing that makes sense because it is the only thing that explains the beginning. God always existing is a lot easier to swallow than the truly out there theory that something came from nothing... by the way have you ever seen an experiment that difinitively showed how something comes from nothing?

Actually it's full of historical inaccuracies ; Joshua's 40 year desert walk - no evidence has ever been found, and judging by the amount of slaves it'd be difficult to not leave any traces. Whereas evidence has been found of Nomads who spent a single night in an area.

Jacobs conquests happened before the cities were even built and in one instance he even conquered an ancient ruin (Au - literally means "Ruin") As well as the fact that ex-slaves - thus being broke (no money) suddenly had swords and became a great army over night is ridiculas in itself.

That's an example of your biblical history - it never happened. At all. There is overwhelming historical and archaeological evidience that none of it happened, and that Joshua's Canaan land was pure fantasy land that never existed.

OH, and the fact that there were no Jewish slaves in Egypt - the pyramids were built by the Pharaoh's worshippers and people.

But... By the by, it's pointless trying to teach a creationist that his veiws are not only impossible but also improbable, as they'll always use the bible to attempt to destroy scientific findings. When that fails they use the "Anything is possible with God" - as if it means anything.

Oh, and WwF

What's hard to conceptualize about the sun and moon not moving?

SIMPLE PHYSICS

Edited August 1, 2007 by Chokmah

[KBA]

So we should neglect possibilities and make assumptions that could be wrong?

Also, I would also suggest that the universe is both natural and supernatural.

No, we leave everything on the table, but stick to the theory that makes more sense and is more likely to be correct. The "supernatural" is not proven to exist in any way, shape, or form. The natural is very much so. It is thus far more reasonable to conclude that our universe has natural origins.

[Beckys_Mom]

Is that ya'll's only argument for why creationism isn't true - "a book of fiction..."? Tell me, what proof do you have that God doesn't exist..., that the Bible is fiction, or that everything developed from nothing? Give me the proof that you have for the first cell in the universe coming from nothing.

Thats TWICE you have asked for PROOF.........My oh my ...see either you have a short memory...OR you are very much baised

because...

Jesus said, "... This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah...

That was your responce to me, when I was the one asking for proof ( a sign / proof same thing)

Funny how you can do it eh??

Why dont you practice what you preach ?

[Bluefinger]

The world we see is too complex to be an accident. We certainly see design in all things. From a biblical perspective, the first thing we read about in the Bible is creation. This creation took 6 days, with man being created on the last day.

I agree. It can't possibly be an accident. Laws are not formed by accident. Governments don't legislate laws by accident; they are intentional. Those that break these laws cause chaos in the flow of social affairs.

The same goes with our universe. Einstein recognized that all aspects of the universe had a law, and thus a law-giver. He never said who he believed that law-giver to be though. We, as Christians, believe that the law-giver is the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

In every occasion, when something breaks its order (law), chaos occurs. When planets transgress their orbits, chaos occurs. When plants lose water, chaos occurs. In each case, things break down. When man rejected God, chaos occurred and the natural order of things broke down. Thus did sin and death enter the world. When cars collide at a fast enough speed, the metal bends and/or shatters. When a man beats his dog, the dog yelps from the pain. When water is heated to 100 degrees Celsius, it starts to boil. When water is cooled at zero degrees Celsius, it freezes. And every liquid has its own weight, mass, appearance, taste, smell, textured, boiling and freezing points, and composition. All these work according to pre-established laws (orders.) This is no different from what the Bible indicates.

God spoke (gave an order) saying, "Let there be light." And it was so. With the light, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars; even the entire universe and all within it he gave laws and limitations. When these things transgress these preordained orders, chaos occurs and things break down. Thats enough proof for me.

[WalkingWithFire]

I agree. It can't possibly be an accident. Laws are not formed by accident. Governments don't legislate laws by accident; they are intentional. Those that break these laws cause chaos in the flow of social affairs.

The same goes with our universe. Einstein recognized that all aspects of the universe had a law, and thus a law-giver. He never said who he believed that law-giver to be though. We, as Christians, believe that the law-giver is the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

In every occasion, when something breaks its order (law), chaos occurs. When planets transgress their orbits, chaos occurs. When plants lose water, chaos occurs. In each case, things break down. When man rejected God, chaos occurred and the natural order of things broke down. Thus did sin and death enter the world. When cars collide at a fast enough speed, the metal bends and/or shatters. When a man beats his dog, the dog yelps from the pain. When water is heated to 100 degrees Celsius, it starts to boil. When water is cooled at zero degrees Celsius, it freezes. And every liquid has its own weight, mass, appearance, taste, smell, textured, boiling and freezing points, and composition. All these work according to pre-established laws (orders.) This is no different from what the Bible indicates.

God spoke (gave an order) saying, "Let there be light." And it was so. With the light, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars; even the entire universe and all within it he gave laws and limitations. When these things transgress these preordained orders, chaos occurs and things break down. Thats enough proof for me.

I agree. Very well written.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

[Bluefinger]

Hi Walking

Time after time, when I read your interesting posts, I feel as though I had written them.

I would like to read your opinion on something. We hear about the ancient Sumerian text and how the Annunaki came to the Earth and created Homo Sapiens.

When in the Bible it talks about God......and about the Creator, in your opinion, do you believe God is the creator of mankind as we know it, or could he be the Creator of the universe. If he were the Creator(of the universe), then could this possibly mean that he created the Annunaki, and the Annunaki created Homo Sapiens on this planet?

*scratching head* hmmmm......

One more question, in your most honest opinion, do you think we should ignore Sitchin's writings about Creation on this planet?

I'm not familiar with Sitchin's writings about the Creation on this planet. I think that if the Bible says that God created all things AND created mankind in his image, then I would take that over the Sumerian account. If we're defending the Biblical account, then I'd stick with the Bible's account.

[Cimber]

I agree. It can't possibly be an accident. Laws are not formed by accident. Governments don't legislate laws by accident; they are intentional. Those that break these laws cause chaos in the flow of social affairs.

The same goes with our universe. Einstein recognized that all aspects of the universe had a law, and thus a law-giver. He never said who he believed that law-giver to be though. We, as Christians, believe that the law-giver is the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

In every occasion, when something breaks its order (law), chaos occurs. When planets transgress their orbits, chaos occurs. When plants lose water, chaos occurs. In each case, things break down. When man rejected God, chaos occurred and the natural order of things broke down. Thus did sin and death enter the world. When cars collide at a fast enough speed, the metal bends and/or shatters. When a man beats his dog, the dog yelps from the pain. When water is heated to 100 degrees Celsius, it starts to boil. When water is cooled at zero degrees Celsius, it freezes. And every liquid has its own weight, mass, appearance, taste, smell, textured, boiling and freezing points, and composition. All these work according to pre-established laws (orders.) This is no different from what the Bible indicates.

God spoke (gave an order) saying, "Let there be light." And it was so. With the light, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars; even the entire universe and all within it he gave laws and limitations. When these things transgress these preordained orders, chaos occurs and things break down. Thats enough proof for me.

Those that say this possibly can't be accident have no real background in science as far as I am concerned. Have you really looked at molecules and given enough time, what they can accomplish on their own? Yet they have no mind or conscience. They do this as a response to a cause.

Also you use Einstein in your post. Einstein DID NOT believe in the God you are refering to. Famous quotes such as "god does not play dice with the universe" were used as a way to give information to the public sector. He did not believe in the 'law-giver' as you say he did. You say two conflicting statements right after the other.

And I don't know what you were trying to achieve with that long list of chaos causing events. Each and every one of those has a scientific basis. God didn't make it happen.

Also how do you know it was so? Were you alive back when light was first given? The sun is alot older than us, thus it was established first. Light was given off before the humans were first on the planet. You attribute things breaking down to God. I would attribute it to physics, biological systems, and chemical reactions.

[Leonardo]

To get back to the topic of the OP. Creationism as a theory to explain why we are here, the creation of all forms of life and the structure of the universe, has no defence except the faith of the believer in divine cause. Creationism in this sense does not include evolution as, according to creationism all the modern forms of life sprang into existence complete and as they are. There is no doubt that speciation does not take place in Creationism. Which is ironic due to the passage describing the interbreeding of the sons of God (angels?) with human women to create a race of giants - the nephilim, a clear case of sub-speciation if ever there was one - the ancient peoples simply had no idea of genetics and, if we consider the bible divinely inspired, neither did God. The incorporation of evolution into Creationism ('the prime forms were created and everything evolved from there') is a modern defence against the overwhelming evidence for evolution as the cause for the origin of species (thanks Darwin ) and is contrary to the biblical accounts.

Creationism as a theory to explain the origins of life itself (not species) gains some respectability so long as it stops there. No one has yet explained how organic molecules combined to form the first living organisms - although experiments have recreated some of these molecules in laboratory conditions resembling those thought to have existed on the early Earth. So, given we do not have any knowledge as to how life was generated, both abiogenesis and Creationism have equal billing for the moment.

[InnerSpace]

So, given we do not have any knowledge as to how life was generated, both abiogenesis and Creationism have equal billing for the moment.

Great post Leo...

[Llucid]

In most discussions of Evolution Vs. Creationism, the "debate" usually ends up focussing on evolution and ignorring creationism. I would like to hear the case FOR creationism. Use whatever "proofs" you want: for purposes of this thread, the Bible is just as valid as any scientific journal. I would like to see observations from nature and/or passages from the Bible used to lay out the case. If you say "The Bible says ...." please tell me in which verse it says that and how you interpret that verse to arrive at your conclusions.

This thread is about the reasoning behind Creationism.

Thanks,

Doug

Hello Doug!

I am a Christian. I guess now-a-days that doesn't say much so I elaborate that I read the Bible in the most literal of senses. So, in turn, I take the Genesis account of creation literally. This means that I am a supporter of Creationism. I feel that evolution is unBiblical and that theistic evolution and similar concepts are just another form of 'evolving christianity'- that is Christianity sacrificing it's beliefs to become more aligned with the world and it's views.

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will."

- Romans 12:2 (NIV)

One of the main reasons why I take such a hardcore literalistic view of the Bible is because of the problems caused by all these various interpretations over the years. Interpretations birthed the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, denominations and on and on and on.

"Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." - 2 Corinthians 4:2 (NIV)

The plainest way to take something is at face value. It was stated before that creationism is like a child's fairytale and you don't need brains to understand it, that it's too easy. The same person stated that understanding evolution is a gift for the learned, the wise and the intelligent. I have heard this sentiment stated time and time again when I speak to people about evolution. As the conversation evolves, I am treated more and more childlike (almost pity) until I get to the point where I feel like they're going to offer me some juice and turn on some cartoons. When I get treated like this, it only serves to reinforce my stance.

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'"

- Matthew 18:1-4 (NIV)

"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise." - 1 Corinthians 3:18 (NIV)

Taking the creation account literally, it isn't possible to follow evolution. That is why I don't. I will not try to prove to anyone that God created the world. If I did prove it, then people would believe because they know the truth, not because they had faith, and that's not how it works. I am comforted by the fact that tomorrow there could always be a scientific discovery that disproves evolution, that's just the way science is. I try not to think that discoveries like these have probably been swept under the rug because Satan doesn't want us to know the truth.

This is the way I see it, from a creationist point of view. My life is full of experiences that confirm the existance of God and experiences that prove to me the authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God. I'm not about to abandon all these things because someone has another theory on why it happened. I don't care how many voices are mirroring it. So while the world screams 'evolution! evolution!', I will be content knowing that this isn't my home and it helps to make the voices a little quieter.

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: 'He catches the wise in their craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.'"

- 1 Corinthians 3:19-20 (NIV)

"All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country–a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them." Hebrews 11:13-16 (NIV)

[Startraveler]

Also how do you know it was so? Were you alive back when light was first given? The sun is alot older than us, thus it was established first. Light was given off before the humans were first on the planet. You attribute things breaking down to God. I would attribute it to physics, biological systems, and chemical reactions.

Let me preface what I'm about to say by noting that I'm both an atheist and an avid student of science. I don't want you to mistake where I'm coming from. But what you're presenting here is not a complete view of the world. And there's nothing wrong with that, one doesn't need a complete view of the world to live his life (and, in fact, I imagine few people have anything approaching a truly "complete" worldview). Richard Feynman once said "I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose — which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."

Physics, biology, and chemistry can tell us how things are. They are the way we discern the rules and principles by which the universe operates and it would be absurd to ignore or deny the results of these sciences. Any belief conflicting with what we observe to be so in the universe is undoubtedly wrong. But scientific results span only a very small piece of the full landscape of human experience. By themselves, they are largely devoid of any meaning and, while they certainly transmit vast amounts of knowledge, they communicate little in the way of understanding at a fundamental level. Attributing something to physics is fine at a shallow, practical level but if you probe that a little deeper you'll find it to be an almost circular situation. Physics is, after all, what happens in the universe, if we wish to put it simply. It's a set of rules governing processes, a great algorithm according to which things play out. Why does such-and-such happen? Ah, because the rules dictate that it should be so. But that tells me nothing. Well, in fairness, it tells me quite a bit; physics is, after all, a very rich field. I can make predictions, describe complicated series of events in terms of a few relatively simple rules and concepts, and begin to grasp the underlying unity behind a great many disparate processes.

So why did I say it tells me nothing? Because I don't know where the rules come from or what they are, I don't know what the concepts correspond to in the physical world, and ultimately I don't even really know what the physical world is. It's a bit like reading a bill where none of the key terms are defined. By reading through the bill you see how these key entities or concepts interrelate and you get a set of rules for how things are to go between them. But at the end of the day you simply don't know what the key words you're dealing with correspond to in the world. Now, as I said, I'm an atheist and a physics student. I can live with this, it isn't the end of the world. But I do recognize that to deal with science in any human way we have to apply very unscientific treatments to it. If we wish to use it as a tool for understanding the universe and building are own picture of the way things are (which I think we are, in the context of this thread) we need to infuse the science with meaning. But this is not supplied by the science itself, anymore than the much-needed definitions are supplied in that bill (I'm not particularly sure why I'm using a legal metaphor to discuss science). We have to come up with those on our own, which is a very unscientific process. But it's absolutely necessary if we wish to use science as a tool of enrichment, rather than simply a sterile tool used to churn out predictions accorded to some mysterious algorithm.

My point here is that you can choose the extent to which you go beyond the science (though, undoubtedly you do to some extent, likely dipping into something one might call philosophy or metaphysics to make sense of it). You can stay very close to the tiny window science can provide on truth and take Feynman's stance of simply being unafraid of not knowing. This sort of view embraces the incompleteness of one's understanding of and view of the world. But many people turn to things like religion (organized or otherwise) to go further and take steps toward grasping some meaning, some rhyme or reason to it all. It isn't a fault of science that it can't provide this, it simply isn't designed or equipped to do it. It does what it does. But there is nothing inherently wrong with someone seeking some sort of truth or understanding that goes deeper than what science is equipped to provide. It's only wrong when someone believes something that disagrees with that which we can observe and verify, i.e. the results of science.

[Bluefinger]

Those that say this possibly can't be accident have no real background in science as far as I am concerned. Have you really looked at molecules and given enough time, what they can accomplish on their own? Yet they have no mind or conscience. They do this as a response to a cause.

Also you use Einstein in your post. Einstein DID NOT believe in the God you are refering to. Famous quotes such as "god does not play dice with the universe" were used as a way to give information to the public sector. He did not believe in the 'law-giver' as you say he did. You say two conflicting statements right after the other.

And I don't know what you were trying to achieve with that long list of chaos causing events. Each and every one of those has a scientific basis. God didn't make it happen.

Also how do you know it was so? Were you alive back when light was first given? The sun is alot older than us, thus it was established first. Light was given off before the humans were first on the planet. You attribute things breaking down to God. I would attribute it to physics, biological systems, and chemical reactions.

I don't think you understood me. These molecules, though they have no mind of their own, have an order; a law. They follow this and often don't transgress this. When something is put out of order, and this natural law is transgressed, then these molecules break down.

What I'm saying is that the 'scientific proof' is that each and every thing that has a law has a law giver. You are dodging the discussion by pulling science over God's head, as if God couldn't have established all that we scientifically know. Also note that what we call 'fact' in science is constantly being 'updated,' making it not really a fact at all. These should be things to consider before one assumes that he is too scientifically smart to believe in God.

And about me knowing that it was so: I was quoting the Bible. Of course, you know that I wasn't there. I was showing how the Bible doesn't disagree with everything having a law; an order. The Book of Job testifies that God would say to the tsunamis to go "here, and no further." This showing that the tidal wave would not go further than its preordained limitation. The, unfortunately, is too hot too approach and thus we study only from a distance. No, I don't attribute things breaking down to God. Never did. I attributed things being set in order to God. Big difference. I would attribute physics, biological systems, and chemical reactions to be orders set up by God.

Its easy for someone to trick themselves into thinking that they know more than an all-knowing God. However, this isn't the problem, is it? What is so horrifying about accepting a Savior that brings us into acceptable approach of the universal Law-Giver? I think it might be that breaking down is a lot easier than being set in order, and thus many take the former over the latter. They enjoy living the way they do and don't want to change because 'some book' told them to. So to support their desires to live and die the way they want to, they take collective scientific information and claim that God couldn't have existed. These arguments are then based on 'their' understanding of the Bible which they don't even believe in. A Christian says that God created the universe in six days and the atheist replies, "That's absurd! We know that our earth alone is over a billion years old and took millions of years to form." Actually, you can only guess that. You weren't there when earth was created, you haven't observed other planets being born and develop, and what you can see will not change for years on in. This is true. There is scientific data that can be used to support or deny the issue.

For example: We have seen that the universe is 12.8 +/- 1.1 Billion years. Yet, we have found stars older than our universe. Well this doesn't fit the big bang theory, but many try to fit it. So what we thought was fact has to be observed once again. Its hard to believe 'scientific fact' sometimes when we have to modify it to fit our understanding.

And they do it with such zeal as if they were trying to prove wrong a book that doesn't even matter to them. Doesn't this sound odd. If you didn't believe in something, wouldn't you 'not' bother with it? I think deep down they feel like the Bible has some authority that they desire to not be true, and thus they set themselves against it with everything they have.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Bluefinger

[moonlit12]

Thats TWICE you have asked for PROOF.........My oh my ...see either you have a short memory...OR you are very much baised

because...

That was your responce to me, when I was the one asking for proof ( a sign / proof same thing)

Funny how you can do it eh??

Why dont you practice what you preach ?

The sign I ased for was proof God is not there... the "sign" Jesus referred to was the proof that God WAS there. I already believe God was, so I have assessed the signs that He was speaking of and found that they are enough; however, ya'll are saying there is proof that there is NO God, and I would like to see it... this statement by Jesus doesn't apply to my question, only yours - thank you

[fullywired]

Is that ya'll's only argument for why creationism isn't true - "a book of fiction..."? Tell me, what proof do you have that God doesn't exist...,

The same amount that you have, that he does

fullywired

[moonlit12]

Actually it's full of historical inaccuracies ; Joshua's 40 year desert walk - no evidence has ever been found, and judging by the amount of slaves it'd be difficult to not leave any traces. Whereas evidence has been found of Nomads who spent a single night in an area.

Jacobs conquests happened before the cities were even built and in one instance he even conquered an ancient ruin (Au - literally means "Ruin") As well as the fact that ex-slaves - thus being broke (no money) suddenly had swords and became a great army over night is ridiculas in itself.

That's an example of your biblical history - it never happened. At all. There is overwhelming historical and archaeological evidience that none of it happened, and that Joshua's Canaan land was pure fantasy land that never existed.

OH, and the fact that there were no Jewish slaves in Egypt - the pyramids were built by the Pharaoh's worshippers and people.

But... By the by, it's pointless trying to teach a creationist that his veiws are not only impossible but also improbable, as they'll always use the bible to attempt to destroy scientific findings. When that fails they use the "Anything is possible with God" - as if it means anything.

Oh, and WwF

SIMPLE PHYSICS

In the same way that it is impossible to teach a creationist that God doesn't exist - it is impossible to teach someone to believe He does... this thread is about creationism and why it makes sense, so I expect to hear your reasons unless you have come into the wrong topic.

You have talked much of the Jewish God in threads that I have seen - don't you understand that there IS no Jewish nation without the Bible? They started there! I fail to understand why you have involved yourself here - except to take us off topic - so I will not be replying to any more of your threads unless you have something useful to add to the topic.

[moonlit12]

The same amount that you have, that he does

fullywired

Then if you have nothing to add for why Creationism is true - why be here?

Since science has yet to prove that God as the Creator doesn't exist, how can anyone make the claim as fact? Poetry, songs, artwork - throughout time these have all been used to express the wonder of the world - without a creator, how does beauty exist? How are we all wired to understand things, to learn, to grow? Time and again scientists have failed to provide concrete evidence that things just happened, and yet they are unwilling to admit that they didn't just happen. The problem is that accepting a Creator means accepting something that we can't control or replicate or dominate, and in that there is fear. How many people have spent their lives trying to prove God is nonexistant, and yet have found no evidence that without a creator we could be here? I am still waiting for someone to explain what physical thing happened to make a "Big Bang" occur... the laws of Physics say that something must act upon something else to cause energy - what was it that acted on the universe to create the energy for creation?

Physics says that nothing comes from nothing - so if there was nothing than nothing could have come from it. Even if there was something in the univers - a cell, a gas, a strand of DNA Physics tells us that it would have been motionless, useless, and without energy until something acted on it - what was that thing if not God?

[fullywired]

Then if you have nothing to add for why Creationism is true - why be here?

Since science has yet to prove that God as the Creator doesn't exist, how can anyone make the claim as fact? Poetry, songs, artwork - throughout time these have all been used to express the wonder of the world - without a creator, how does beauty exist? How are we all wired to understand things, to learn, to grow? Time and again scientists have failed to provide concrete evidence that things just happened, and yet they are unwilling to admit that they didn't just happen. The problem is that accepting a Creator means accepting something that we can't control or replicate or dominate, and in that there is fear. How many people have spent their lives trying to prove God is nonexistant, and yet have found no evidence that without a creator we could be here? I am still waiting for someone to explain what physical thing happened to make a "Big Bang" occur... the laws of Physics say that something must act upon something else to cause energy - what was it that acted on the universe to create the energy for creation?

Physics says that nothing comes from nothing - so if there was nothing than nothing could have come from it. Even if there was something in the univers - a cell, a gas, a strand of DNA Physics tells us that it would have been motionless, useless, and without energy until something acted on it - what was that thing if not God?

I can't believe that you are coming with that old chestnut " you can't prove that god doesn't exist " I will give you another old chestnut "every morning when I am alone, a 6ft rabbit with pink ears comes and gives me a shave.Now prove that it doesn't Of course you can't ,you don't need to because the idea is absurd ,it is up to me to prove that it does ,just as it is up to you to prove that God exists ,I don't have to prove anything

fullywired

[moonlit12]

I can't believe that you are coming with that old chestnut " you can't prove that god doesn't exist " I will give you another old chestnut "every morning when I am alone, a 6ft rabbit with pink ears comes and gives me a shave.Now prove that it doesn't Of course you can't ,you don't need to because the idea is absurd ,it is up to me to prove that it does ,just as it is up to you to prove that God exists ,I don't have to prove anything

fullywired

Again I ask, ... if you have nothing to add for why Creationism is true - why be here?