Origin of Creationism

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So DNA is an example of evidence that is accepted in the
courtroom and would also be considered scientific evidence?

a reply to: randyvs

Yes of course. DNA evidence is currently being used to prove evolution it is also being used to convict and overturn convictions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, I undertand there are various forms of evidence.
Physical, scientific, objective subjective etc etc.

What I was pointing out was that all evidence can lie.
And especially when one tries to employ a lack of evidence
to reach a conclusion.

In fact the lack of evidence for God in absolutely no way
suggests God doesn't exist.

a reply to: randyvs

You don't have ANY evidence for your arguments so you're not exactly in the position to be the chief arbitrator of what is and isn't considered objective evidence. I guess that's why you're trying to dismiss the concept of evidence from the get go!

a reply to: GetHyped


I edited my post above but you can see you were wrong.
Not dismissing the concept of evidence. Just the concept that
evidence or the lack of it dismisses God.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, I undertand there are various forms of evidence.
Physical, scientific, objective subjective etc etc.

Good

What I was pointing out was that all evidence can lie.
And especially when one tries to employ a lack of evidence
to reach a conclusion.

Scientists don't do that. They just say "I don't know" then proceed to try to dig up more evidence so they can change that answer to something other than "I don't know."

In fact the lack of evidence for God in absolutely no way
suggests God doesn't exist.

Firstly, I NEVER said that god doesn't exist. I know I've told you time and again that I am an agnostic. So don't insinuate my beliefs for me. I do have my doubts to his existence, but by no means am I convinced of the nonexistence.

We all know that no evidence exists to disprove god. But no evidence exists to prove him either. Therefore the answer is "I don't know," NOT "can't disprove it, guess it exists."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I NEVER said that god doesn't exist.

I know that and it isn't really the issue.

Now I want to suggest to you the possibility that we
have come far enough thru time that any physical evidence
there may have once been wasn't timeless. And that's the thing
with physical evidence isn't it? Maybe the evidence you seek once was,
but is no more.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
We all know that no evidence exists to disprove god. But no evidence exists to prove him either. Therefore the answer is "I don't know," NOT "can't disprove it, guess it exists."

Precisely.

I see no evidence to disprove a god's existence, but many (myself included) don't see evidence of specific creation stories being true. I don't think that this thing we call our reality is the result of an accident or a random occurrence, but I hold the belief that the origins of it all are likely to be vastly different that what is contained within the teachings of man's religions.

However, I think threads and discussions like this go to show that there is still a long way to go before we understand either side of the coin. The argument generally looks something like "Science Vs Religion", when in reality both paths of study are striving to describe and understand the same ideas and concepts.

a reply to: randyvs

Then why hasn't this god of yours produced more of said evidence if he is so insistent on everyone believing in him? Seems kind of odd that he would rely on testimonials of people from thousands of years ago to be the ONLY evidence of his existence that hasn't degraded over time when (according to the bible) he could produce said evidence easily and without much afterthought.

Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE just MAYBE belief in god isn't required to go where ever you are destined to go once you die? I know a thought like that is anathema to religion, but in all likelihood it is the most likely explanation for god and his not providing evidence for his existence. If he exists that is.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes you think he is so insistent that everyone believes in him?

Why do you think he should provide evidence? For you? For me?

Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE just MAYBE belief in god isn't required to go where ever you are destined to go once you die? I know a thought like that is anathema to religion, but in all likelihood it is the most likely explanation for god and his not providing evidence for his existence. If he exists that is.

Or maybe he simply provided us a book, whereby not all of us will be able to make sense out everything that is going on in the world today but some can see it all fit together perfectly and come to know him and that he exists.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes you think he is so insistent that everyone believes in him?

Why do you think he should provide evidence? For you? For me?

Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE just MAYBE belief in god isn't required to go where ever you are destined to go once you die? I know a thought like that is anathema to religion, but in all likelihood it is the most likely explanation for god and his not providing evidence for his existence. If he exists that is.

Or maybe he simply provided us a book, whereby not all of us will be able to make sense out everything that is going on in the world today but some can see it all fit together perfectly and come to know him and that he exists.

Erm, a book that gets Pi wrong, that seems to have been re-written in places to make Solomon's kingdom far larger than it actually was, that mentions one of the major powers of the Middle East only in passing, that fails in basic astronomy, geology, biology, not to mention history and which then seems to have been vigorously manipulated by a man who wasn't an apostle? That book? Really?

a reply to: tsingtao

Certain people?... lol... You mean the entire basis (the bible) for the religion right?... If you read the bible there is a heck of a lot of anthropomorphism in there... if you are trying to say that you don't anthropomorphise god, then you're interpreting it with modern understanding, proving that the "book" isn't an accurate historical record... merely stories with loose historical basis, and open to interpretation.

Actually, the Christian god is exactly like all those other obsolete god's... The story goes that He has a son... who funnily enough looks exactly like us, angels are portrayed as humans with wings... etc.

How did "god" make us in his image if there aren't similarities? Are you suggesting there are no physical similarities with your god? Are you saying that "his image" only applies to our spiritual self? (if you didn't notice, the soul and inner self are another anthropomorphism).

I don't think that god sits on a cloud with a beard, so no need to condescend me, but millions of others have thought that... and still do. The fact that you can come up with that visual image yourself proves my point.

My view of a god... if there is one... is much closer to Olaf Stapledon's "Starmaker".

First and foremost, I am not afraid to admit that I have absolutely no idea how we, as humans, originated. I believe we did evolve up to a point, but the rate at which we evolved so quickly seems a bit unnatural to me. I think when it comes down to it it's what you know, absolutely know, from your experience, that can give clues as to the big questions. I form theories by what I know first hand, and then apply them on a larger scale when it comes to origination, higher evolved beings, and, quite possibly, a "creator" or "creators." I honestly think the only way we would truly KNOW though is to use time travel and go back and see for ourselves how everything originated. To say you "know" how creation originated is absolutely false. We have theories, and that's all.

a reply to: randyvs

Because said book is a bunch of testimonials from humans SAYING they spoke to god. We don't believe people when they say they do it today; we just call them mentally ill. What makes it any different back then?

As for why I think he should provide proof and demands everyone believe in him, I go to YOUR book of testimonials saying that you best believe in him or not get into heaven. It's like half of the ten commandments alone. So the least he could do, is give an up to date phone number or something. You know, if someone ignores me long enough when I talk to them, I eventually figure they don't want to talk to me. I don't see any reason to believe any differently than with any "superior beings".

If he wants us to believe in him, then it should be a two way street. We don't live thousands of years. If we make it to a century we are lucky. But even if we did live thousands of years, time is relative. It's not like we share the memories of our ancestors. We just know what we've experienced personally. So it reasons that the best way to gain belief is to talk to EACH person in a way that they'd accept as true. That would TRULY give the person a choice to either accept or deny him. A book doesn't cut it. It has to be a REAL experience. Something measurable and repeatable. Like I dunno... talking in a language that you can understand in your head, specifically answering any question you may have with the correct answer and being able to demonstrate the ability to manipulate events in real time like all the claims of its omnipotence suggest. And that is just the beginning, testing a claim of omnipotence would take a VERY long time. Longer than any of our lifetimes, and probably even many of our descendent's lifetimes. But if it holds true THEN we can say there is a god.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I thought this was going to be a thread on the origins of the book of Genesis, not some person's personal interpretation of it... Man if I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church. Misleading thread title aside, this thread is going to go in circles since there is no way the OP can prove his point (no evidence for it outside the bible). Of course there is plenty of evidence to say that he is wrong, but I'm sure he won't listen to it.

Sorry but the Bible is a book of stories, it is not evidence in regards to factual historical occurrence of human existence on this planet. Any GOD who inflicted pain on their own feminine creation during the birth of another human because they chose to become self aware should be mocked rather than venerated...

The vatican is a mens club that preys on the weak, any other global organization with a ten percent pedophile content would be SHUT DOWN.

Any other global organization with the history of abuse, murder and manipulation of other countries would be shut down, as you have said there is no interaction with their perceived god except by those who would be considered mentally ill.

originally posted by: subtopia

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I thought this was going to be a thread on the origins of the book of Genesis, not some person's personal interpretation of it... Man if I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church. Misleading thread title aside, this thread is going to go in circles since there is no way the OP can prove his point (no evidence for it outside the bible). Of course there is plenty of evidence to say that he is wrong, but I'm sure he won't listen to it.

Sorry but the Bible is a book of stories, it is not evidence in regards to factual historical occurrence of human existence on this planet. Any GOD who inflicted pain on their own feminine creation during the birth of another human because they chose to become self aware should be mocked rather than venerated...

The vatican is a mens club that preys on the weak, any other global organization with a ten percent pedophile content would be SHUT DOWN.

Any other global organization with the history of abuse, murder and manipulation of other countries would be shut down, as you have said there is no interaction with their perceived god except by those who would be considered mentally ill.

creationism is a science and Saga proved by science

a reply to: subtopia

You may be replying to the wrong person buddy... I'm an ex-Catholic turned agnostic. I don't believe that book of testimonials.

Creationism is a science of the highest caliber the DNA science that tops all other science by miles.
DNA proved humanity descend from one man in the last 50k years verytrcent and did not revolve and that evolution is a scam porputrated by fake science zoology and palaeontology based on clues from observation mixed with lied observations. Period

a reply to: adnanmuf

DNA proved this? I'm unfamiliar with that study and experiment. Could you please direct me to the study that was done with DNA that showed this. Last I checked, the more we learn about DNA, the more it proves evolution. But I eagerly await this evidence. I'm just SURE you'll carry through and aren't blowing a bunch of smoke.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: adnanmuf

DNA proved this? I'm unfamiliar with that study and experiment. Could you please direct me to the study that was done with DNA that showed this. Last I checked, the more we learn about DNA, the more it proves evolution. But I eagerly await this evidence. I'm just SURE you'll carry through and aren't blowing a bunch of smoke.

read Wikipedia Mrca or Y chromosomal Adam