Proof of Creationism

[ShaunZero]

You obviously have a foolish comment for every occassion. As I am so confident of this I will not discuss this with you further.

But give some serious consideration to your salt senario, two seconds should be enough to see your point is laughable. In fact Ill answer it for you.

YOU mix an acid and base together. YOU have made salt. And now YOU are claiming the salt does not have a cause? ANSWER= The cause is YOU mixing the two subtances together.

There are many other ways of analysing the 'cause' of the salt but this is simplest.

Regards, Tags.

I was thinking the whole salt idea was like this as well but I'm sure he has some sort of counter up his sleeve.

[tags]

I was thinking the whole salt idea was like this as well but I'm sure he has some sort of counter up his sleeve.

Whatever the fact is that every that has a beginning has a cause right?

No play on words or puzzles can change it.

Any way I dont think he has a reply, but hope he does it would be fun.

Edited February 16, 2006 by tags

[ShaunZero]

In my opinion, yes, everything with a beginning had to have a cause. Something had to happen before it existed for it to exist. If not, it came from no where.

[tags]

In my opinion, yes, everything with a beginning had to have a cause. Something had to happen before it existed for it to exist. If not, it came from no where.

This has been what i am trying to say, but stellar wont listen.

[ShaunZero]

Yup, and how did the salt come from no where?

Unless the 2 components he talked about [acid and something] can't make salt =D. I don't what makes salt so. But salt wouldn't even be made if the 2 mixed wouldn't make salt.

Edited February 16, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[aquatus1]

All right now, that is quite enough.

For heaven's sake, I leave for one day, and again this thread degenerates into pointless bickering.

Stellar, when you begin speaking about things at the level of the creation of the universe, you are in a quantum realm which is quite different in terms of reality from our own. Causal effects only exist when time is linear, as it is now, but when time is a dimension itself, not simply an effect, then we can no longer claim with absolute certainty that a cause must come before an effect. Therefore, it is possible for something as complex as God to have appeared prior to the existance of the universe, and similarly, it is equally possible for the universe to have existed before God.

So, please tone it down. The last time you did this, you had my thread shut down.

Tags, the above applies to you as well, but in addition, I will also add that there is a vast gap between writing a creation legend and publishing a scientific theory. They are not one and the same. Creation legends are inspired by men and must be believed by others to be considered valid; scientific theories are inspired by objective evidence and do not require personal belief in order to be valid.

Zeroshadow, once again, if you take science on faith, believing it only because you read it, you have missed the point of it completely. The entire purpose of science is to provide and objective lesson, meaning that you do not have to take it on faith, but that you can actually perform the study itself, you can run the evidence yourself, you can verify, independantly, for yourself, what the other person is claiming. That is the ultimate difference between faith and science. The first requires belief, the second merely requires personl effort.

BYstander (and Tags), let me repeat what not two pages ago I was told was redundant:

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD, EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST.

The purpose of this thread is for those who believe that creationism is a SCIENTIFIC theory to be able to present their case in a SCIENTIFIC format. This is NOT a thread from claiming that evolution is faulty. This is NOT a thread for declaring your allegiance to your belief system of choice. If you belief in something with all your heart and soul, congrats, kudos to you, but this isn't the thread for it.

If someone wishes to argue for the scientific validity of creationism, please present it in the following format:

1) DEFINITION: Please provide a short definition of the theory of creationism you will be explaining.

2) THEORY: Please provide a formal explanation of the phenomena you will be supporting as it relates to your above definition.

3) EVIDENCE: Please provide supporting evidence, either objective or logical, supporting your theory. Links and references would be nice.

For those of you who have questions as to how evolution works, here is a thread created specifically for that topic. Please post your questions there.

Proof of Evolution

[tags]

Tags, the above applies to you as well, but in addition, I will also add that there is a vast gap between writing a creation legend and publishing a scientific theory. They are not one and the same. Creation legends are inspired by men and must be believed by others to be considered valid; scientific theories are inspired by objective evidence and do not require personal belief in order to be valid.

Creation 'legends' , (some would not agree on your definition), are inspired by men you claim, so you can prove they have not been God given?

They also do not have to be believed by others to be considered valid, if no one in the world except me believed it, it would stiil be valid . And the fact that billions of Christians actually do believe the creation account has not made it any more valid to those who do not believe!

Scientific theory/legend is tatalyy based on one own belief and world view. In fact this is exactly were scientists are making mistakes the creationist would contest. Science assumes God does not exist, assumes therefore that Genesis is a legend and ignores the accounts of the flood, babel, etc.

[God's soldier]

Welcome to UM God's Soldier.

Thank you, I hope I will learn a lot from these forums, since I've just started to study my whole religion, and the scientific theory of course

[ShaunZero]

Hmmm. If something can't be made of nothing, then, can't we use a microscope to look at something smaller and smaller and smaller, etc.. for infinity?

I'm made of atoms, atoms are made of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons, etc...

If we keep saynig what is "A" made of? Wouldn't it have to be made of something, as it can't be made of nothing?

Maybe I'm thinking wrong, but I always pondered this.

[God's soldier]

Hmmm. If something can't be made of nothing, then, can't we use a microscope to look at something smaller and smaller and smaller, etc.. for infinity?

I'm made of atoms, atoms are made of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons, etc...

If we keep saynig what is "A" made of? Wouldn't it have to be made of something, as it can't be made of nothing?

Maybe I'm thinking wrong, but I always pondered this.

Same here, I've always wondered on that!!!!

[Anubi]

if you magnify down far enough, you 'may' find dark matter which weighs around 100,000 times less as electrons (some say) . but then what is dark matter made of you say lol .. don't know

[ShaunZero]

Then.... where is the end? And how can it be made of nothing. >.>

Maybe there's an explaination for this but I really can't think of one. Just the idea of going on for infinity seems so damn strange. This is made of this, and that's made of this, etc for infinity? What the hell.

Edited February 17, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[tags]

Then.... where is the end? And how can it be made of nothing. >.>

Maybe there's an explaination for this but I really can't think of one. Just the idea of going on for infinity seems so damn strange. This is made of this, and that's made of this, etc for infinity? What the hell.

Yeah its as if each of us is made up of infinity. An infinity within, rather than looking out at an apparent infinity into space. Sounds nice but it probably is not accurate.

[aquatus1]

Creation 'legends' , (some would not agree on your definition), are inspired by men you claim, so you can prove they have not been God given?

Prove a negative?

I'll tell you what I can prove. I can prove that the judeochristian creation stories were predated by stories so similar that no scholar denies that they weren't used as a basis for them. I can tell you that a great deal of what is in the bible has been written before in different cultures and from previous times, all of them having contact with the Judeochristian culture.

In short, I may not be able to prove that God didn't provide dictation to his followers, but I can show how it is extremely probable that the creation stories we are referring to originated in a different land, to different people, with different Gods. The logical conclusion that we can draw from that is that either the stories were indeed inspired by a god (just not the one that plagiarized the stories), or that the story was inspired by men and later modified by other men, as has happened regularly (and continues to do so) through history.

That is why science has such authority. It isn't about inspiration, but rather about investigation.

They also do not have to be believed by others to be considered valid, if no one in the world except me believed it, it would stiil be valid . And the fact that billions of Christians actually do believe the creation account has not made it any more valid to those who do not believe!

We are not talking about global acceptance. We are talking about personal validity. Science is not done by majority vote. Simply because the rest of the world believes one thing does not make it scientific. Stories have to be believed by an individual before they are considered valid. Science does not have to be believed, merely understood. An individual can personally run the claims made by science and verify that the claim made is accurate; whether or not he chooses to believe it afterword is up to the individual, but they can no longer claim that it is not valid.

Scientific theory/legend is tatalyy based on one own belief and world view. In fact this is exactly were scientists are making mistakes the creationist would contest. Science assumes God does not exist, assumes therefore that Genesis is a legend and ignores the accounts of the flood, babel, etc.

That is incorrect. Science makes no assumptions concerning the existance of God. If you wish to claim that God exists, then it is incumbent on you to provide evidence that God exists. One cannot base a theory on an assumption. Einstein assumed that light was a constant, and spent the next twenty years finding the evidence that would turn his assumption into a fact prior to presenting it. The purpose of science is to provide a formal explanation for a given phenomena. If your given phenomena is God, and you have a valid scientific explanation for God, then it does not matter what individual scientists believe, the claim remains valid.

[aquatus1]

Yeah its as if each of us is made up of infinity. An infinity within, rather than looking out at an apparent infinity into space. Sounds nice but it probably is not accurate.

Well, that depends a great deal on perception. If, for instance, one has already penetrated to the quantum realm, the it behooves us to remember that we are now in what is essentially a different plane of existance. The reality of this realm becomes radically different from the one in whcih we inhabit. Because of that, we have to take into consideration that the dimensional forces which we are accustomed to do not necessarily apply anymore. Remember that we consider time to be linear only because we, as 3rd dimensional creatures, can only feel the effects of time. If we were 4th dimensional creatures, members of that dimension in which time is a physical manifestation of reality, in the same way that length, width, and height are to us, then time is something that can be moved through at will, essentialy becoming infinite in nature.

In that respect, one could reasonably (although not really validly) argue that it is possible for something complex, like out universe, to be created prior to the presumably more complex creator being in existance. Cause and effect only apply when time is linear; when time is not linear, when you can move through time as easily as walking from one room to another, then cause-and-effect no longer apply. Of course, the flip side of it is true as well. Just as a complex universe could have been made by a creator, so could a complex universe not have been made by a creator, rendering the entire point moot.

[Stellar]

instead of setting up the rope to repeatedly get to

I think you misunderstand me. I did not say that as reasoning of mine. I said that to show that the logic being used by tags is not valid, because, while he claims it proves that the universe was created by an intelligent being, his logic also proves the same way that there is no god.

IF you beleive Evolution occured and that the earth is millions of years old why don't we evolve today?

The question is not why dont we evolve today, but why dont you know that we do?

Yes,scientists say we are already in the highest form of evolution but do they have any proof?

They dont say that.

There are no fossils,no evidence.Nothing but the beliefs of people.

There are no fossils to conclude that humans are the highest form of evolution, you're right. Science doesnt claim that though.

Okay..if we did evolve from bateria,apes etc..is there ANY proof?

Its a theory, meaning there is supporting evidence.

Also explain the fact of breeds of dogs,animals and races of people.

Lol, you really want me to explain that? You dont see how the fact that there are different breeds of dogs, animals, and different races of people seems to support evolution rather than go against it?

So evolutionists are saying African-American people are a low form of people because of their skin colour.And what about the other races?How did they become that colour by Evolution?Isnt that just being racist?And the Evolutionists say that all the different breeds of dogs came from 1 particular dog which came from a wolf...etc.Any proof at all?NONE.

Evolutionists arent saying that at all. No one has said that african-americans are a lower form of man or anything. Go read a book.

Evolutionists say there was nothing in the world.No living organisms..nothing.Then all of sudden out of no there came the so called "Big Bang."

Not really. Thats more along the lines of what religious types are saying. "There was nothing but god... then pouf! The universe came into existance from nothing."

Although, there are a few that actually have a slightly modified (and more freasable) approach to it all.

First of all scientists have concluded that life CANNOT come from any non-living thing.

No they havent. They've shown that life can indeed do so.

That we came from a "Big Bang" of nothing?It sounds pretty pathetic if you asked me.

Thats why you dont see many people claiming it came from absolute nothing... except some religious folk.

It is impossible to come from a non-living thing.Carrying on..after the "Big Bang" came molecules and they evolved into higher forms of life one by one.It just doesnt make sense!

Why? Because YOU dont understand it? Because YOU dont believe it?

Another thing may I add that Evolutionists say we came from apes because they look like us,they have the same functions of the body and almost an exact replica of a human being inside and out.

No, thats not quite the reason why science says that.

[manapa99]

well it's good to see you';re still trying to make some sence of all of this for the less.... scientificly educated... people areound here stellar

great posts and excilent explanations...

personally i no longer have the time, or the paitients to post much any more besides it seems the more you try and explain the theories and the fact that all of these things that scientists "claim" are based on evidence, the more people ignore you and just keep repeating all the same old bull they've been tought by someone else who doesn't understand....

seems like a losing battle sometimes i think personally....

but keep it up stellar maybe some of these people might get some higher understanding of science

great job