Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: Isurrender73

The one thing Atheist hate to admit, and often stubbornly refuse to admit. They believe in something they can't and likely will not be able to prove. They have faith in Atheism, in the same way that I have faith in God.

Not everyone that does not believe in religion is an Atheist, I believe in god but not man made religion and thus a Deist. Stop blanketing everyone as an atheist who do not believe in organised religion as I would not mind betting that most folk you accuse of being an atheist are in fact Deists.

I believe in a God that created time. That outside of this universe their exits a place where God always was and always will be. That a creator of the universe does not need to be bound by either are small minds or the perfect laws that govern our universe.

Actually, I agree with you here, my personal believe is something or someone created this universe from outside it. However that is as far as my belief in god has gone. The big bang was over 13 Billion years ago, our sun formed over 4 billion years ago. What the hell was the Christian God doing for 9 Billion years in between?

Although it can't be proven, God it is at least as logical as what atheist can't prove. I get tired of Atheist thinking somehow they are more intelligent for their faith in what can't be proven then for my faith in God.

Because when the most vocal proponents of your religion are the likes of Kim Davies, WBC etc etc then unfortunately, you all get tarnished with the same "NUT JOB" Brush. Let's see proper Christians/religious folks deal with those most vocal in your religion and then perhaps the rest of us will see what a true Christian/Religious person is, other than a spiteful bad mouth troglodytes.

The worst elements of Christianity are a dominant force in American politics, and a deadly one that threatens the future of the world. This is because the conservative strains of the leading religions are utterly nihilistic and positively seek the world’s destruction and so far from the teachings of Christ, that it's laughable.

There are, of course, plenty of great, brilliant Christians. And the same applies to Islam and every other religious tradition. Although I respect the best strains of these faiths, I do not share their beliefs, as I reject revealed religion and miracles. As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one miracle: us.

I don’t believe this world is all there is, but we’re in it and will be for a long time, and God wants us to treat it well. It’s a gift from him, not some sin-stained ball of mud he wants us to destroy in order to set the stage for a divine hissy-fit.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

Why is it a "bad dichotomy" when it's the view taken by each side?

Because you are talking about two different things as if they are the same. I thought I said that. The origin of the Universe has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Where do you stand Phage, if you don't mind me asking?

I'm an atheist. I have no need for a creator.

Are you always this boring

Anymore seals need clubbing

It's nice to attack, how about defense, what about putting something out there for everyone else to judge you on.

Care to place your beliefs on the table? You know a real rebuttal of substance so they don't have to box at your shadow

a reply to: edmc^2

Lol omg your so ignorant that it hurts. From start to finish all I could do was laugh.

Maybe if you actually looked into everything with an open mind instead of saying "does this make sense? " after every scientific quote.
You talk about having evidence that proves your right... so what is it? Saying some scientists don't agree with the rest of the scientific community is just hear say really. If you really looked into that and wanted to prove your point then you would have talked about them, listed their names and theories... but you didn't.


The law of gravity always existed, it was only defined/discovered by Newton. But it was always there. It is not philosophy or metaphysics, it is science, it is fact, it is studied and proven.


Without science we would still be roaming around like apes. Science has brought you everything (meaning material items, entertainment,Healthcare, flight, cars, laser lightning guns [from another thread today], your home, your job, your computer, you get the point). Religion and religious beliefs have brought about many wars, scams, cruel and in humane practices like beheading people, hanging people, stoning people, rape, incest, child abuse, abortions (yes god was ok with it), slavery, genocide ect.

I'm not saying your wrong I'm just saying that point of view is very ignorant, but that's OK because we are all entitled to have an opinion. I'm just thankfull that in the western world atheist are alowed to exist otherwise all the religious folk would lynch us. Like what's happening in the middle east right now.

Science looks find the answers of life where as religion doesn't, it relies on a book(s) written in a med evil draconian time of the human Era and used to control and manipulate the general public.

To end my rant I will leave you with this.

A man in the sky made a man on the ground to look like him. Then when this man was lonely he made him a mate from his rib and dirt. Does that make sense? Is that logical?

a reply to: edmc^2

None of this makes sense. It doesn't make sense we're essentially on a spaceship with mountains, water, trees, ..., floating around empty freaking space at a ridiculous speed.

Fact is, no one knows what in the hell is going on, and no one ever will, at least not for a very very long time. And anyone who says otherwise isn't self-analytical or bright.

The effort humans put into saying they "know" instead of "I don't know" could be spent on many more fruitful endeavors and wondrous curiosities than constructing a flimsy society based on paper notes, that then creates some weird academia that's worse than most cults, and murderous religions that've held us back since the dawn of time ... all because every one "knows."

It's all very cute and everyone sleeps well at night, but it doesn't get us any closer to legitimate answers when everyone already "knows" them. We don't even know what the hell gravity is! Or why it even exists! We have no explanation for the sun or all that empty space you see when you look up! We're monkeys with rockets, books, guns, and entirely too much confidence.

Sorry man. Anyone claiming they have all of the answers is lying to themselves. What you're referring to is your faith. And your faith is your prerogative. But don't put it out there as fact. That goes for both sides. We can discuss what we can deduce from our observations but no one really knows. There is only the current theories that are fluid and adjust when new information is available. That's the closest we can get to stating what we know to be true. None of that should infer that there is or isn't a god. They're not mutually exclusive.

If you look at it that way, you can maybe reconcile your faith and the current commonly accepted theories.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
There is only the current theories that are fluid and adjust when new information is available.

What theory in science means?? (Hint: search Science Theory)

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
If you look at it that way, you can maybe reconcile your faith and the current commonly accepted theories.

Science and faith are 2 different thing and science does not require anything faith can offer. They are so different that simply there is no reconciliation...

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: edmc^2
OK you really need to stop referencing Steven hawking. He is talking about his black hole theory.

Every bit of garbage you spit comes from 1 guy (forget his name) ...quite a following in texas. Just think for yourself. Do you genuinely believe you would have this warped view on the universe without exposure to a prehistoric book, religious leaders or forced indoctrination from your parents? If you believe that then I truly do feel sorry for you
Your clearly intelligent but like most religious people, completely retarded when drawing conclusions/ weighing evidence. I don't blame you as it is not your fault, but you must realise you did not have these views until told what to think right? You heard a charasmatic person and believed his interpretations right? Once you realise this is the case you can move on and think objectively. Saying evidence is all around, not stating any evidence and genuinely feeling that statement is evidence in itself is concerning. You must realise that if anyone else did this you would judge them as illogical/bat shet crazy. I ask that you apply the same standards to your own rationale.

But thankyou for starting the thread. Hasn't been a bible bashing thread in a while now, we were all getting worried...

Rossacus, thanks for your input but be careful trashing Hawking. Like you said, he has "quite a following in Texas".

In any case, the reason I cited him is to show that even brilliant people don't have all the facts. His statement is, to me, incoherent and nonsensical. It was really hard to understand what he was saying when I was reading it. But to be sure, I'm thinking for myself. That's why I'm challenging anyone on the opposite side of the discussion to debunk my contention. Really, it's a simple argument. Life comes from pre-existing life. What's so hard about it? It doesn't take a lot of knowledge to prove it. Why? Because it's a fact. It's a workable model. On the other hand, the atheist view is unfalsifiable.

As far as the pre-historic book, you mean the Bible, correct? Well, I wholeheartedly disagree!

In fact, it's current and even way ahead of its, our time.

Case in point.

It says, that the Universe had a beginning in Genesis 1:1. Yet, this scientific fact was only recently confirmed using mathematics, physics, science and very sophisticated instruments.

So the question is. Where did the information come from? How could an "ancient book" say exactly what science had confirmed thousands of years later?

So you see, it's not a warp thinking to think about these things.

In fact, our knowledge of the universe is greatly enriched by it enormously.

a reply to: edmc^2

Yeah but...... It also mentions Unicorns in your holy book ???

I've no problem accepting the possibility that there is a God (not a one true Christian god or any other specific religion god, as religion is a man made farce and "God" is most assuredly embarrassed by it) or that this God created the universe. However, I find it perfectly acceptable to believe that evolution is the way God creates life. I can do this, because I need not base my beliefs on a Bible.

However, the OP can be reduced down to one simple statement: "If man can't adequately explain something, then the answer is God." This is an asinine conclusion. To think that we have hit the limit of our ability to learn and discover, therefore what we don't know is all God? It's the same argument made when man didn't understand why the sky made booming noises, or why the mountain spewed forth hell. Can't explain thunder or volcanoes, so God. God is doing this.

There is no more merit in the OP's argument that the unexplained must be God, than there was when man didn't understand plate tectonics or thunderstorms. Eventually, we learned. We discovered. Does that mean we will some day discover the factual truth regarding the creation of life or the creation of the universe, beyond theories and hypothesis? Maybe. Maybe not. But that does not mean we should automatically go with God as the only possibility and close the books.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The one thing Atheist hate to admit, and often stubbornly refuse to admit. They believe in something they can't and likely will not be able to prove. They have faith in Atheism, in the same way that I have faith in God.

I’m not sure that the phrase “faith in Atheism” even makes semantic sense. Atheism is a lack of belief or faith in deities. I’d further argue that most atheists are agnostic atheists – they acknowledge that there’s a possibility that deities exist, just that it’s either inherently unknowable or currently unknown whether they exist or not. So what does “faith in Atheism” mean for the agnostic atheists out there? Even Dawkins acknowledges that there’s a possibility that a deity exists.

I believe in a God that created time. That outside of this universe their exits a place where God always was and always will be. That a creator of the universe does not need to be bound by either are small minds or the perfect laws that govern our universe.

So you believe in something that is inherently untestable and for which no evidence can exist. That’s fine, completely your prerogative. Atheists are simply saying that isn’t a good enough explanation for the universe we can observe around us.

Although it can't be proven, God it is at least as logical as what atheist can't prove. I get tired of Atheist thinking somehow they are more intelligent for their faith in what can't be proven then for my faith in God.

What can’t an atheist prove? Or, rather, what is the burden of proof for one who is pointedly not making a claim?

To me if there was no God we would never wonder why we are here. The simple question begs for an answer. And to say there is no reason for life is no reason at all and leads many to nihilism.

This objection to atheism is nothing more than appeal to consequences. It's a logical fallacy.

It is much more intelligent in my opinion for one who does not believe in the God of religion to be agnostic. As agnosticism is saying I don't know.

As pointed out above, agnosticism and atheism aren’t exclusive.

Atheism is an arrogance that says I don't know, yet pretends by blind faith that it does know. Atheism is a faith based belief because science has far from proven that life originated from natural causes apart from God.

Incorrect. I think you need a basic primer on theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. Theism/atheism is a measure of what you believe i.e. theists believe in a deity, atheists lack belief in a deity. Gnosticism/agnosticism is a measure of what you claim to know i.e. gnosticism is a claim of knowledge, which agnosticism is a claim of a lack of knowledge or even that something isn’t inherently able to be known.

We have no understanding of Abiogenesis. And many famed scientists have believed it is simply impossible. And currently as far as science is concerned 2 things are impossible without an imagination. Abiogenesis and single cell evolving to multi cell.

In science, there’s a huge difference between claiming something is impossible and not yet knowing how something occurs. While we haven’t been able to fully replicate abiogenesis in the lab at this point, there’s plenty of evidence based on experiments that have already been conducted that suggest it’s quite possible. And as far as a single celled organism evolving into a multicellular one, it not that hard to keep up with three year old research in the area to see that we’ve already observed this occurring.

Without any scientific evidence that Abiogenesis or a single cell evolving to a multi cell organisms is possible, an atheist simply has faith that someday science will answer the question.

See above for rebuttal to both.

Atheism is faith and the outcome is nihilism.

Another appeal to consequences logical fallacy.

Right or wrong my life has a purpose greater than chaos. Why should anyone believe an Atheist whose faith lies in chaos? It is simply illogical to believe that a mathematically perfect universe was created by anything less than a mathematician.

In what way does atheism correspond to chaos? And how is our universe “mathematically perfect”?

If creation is based on Chaos we should expect to find chaos in the universe. But man seems to be the only chaotic creature that was created.

What’s your measure of chaos to make a claim like this?

originally posted by: snypwsd
a reply to: edmc^2

Lol omg your so ignorant that it hurts. From start to finish all I could do was laugh.

Maybe if you actually looked into everything with an open mind instead of saying "does this make sense? " after every scientific quote.
You talk about having evidence that proves your right... so what is it? Saying some scientists don't agree with the rest of the scientific community is just hear say really. If you really looked into that and wanted to prove your point then you would have talked about them, listed their names and theories... but you didn't.


The law of gravity always existed, it was only defined/discovered by Newton. But it was always there. It is not philosophy or metaphysics, it is science, it is fact, it is studied and proven.


Without science we would still be roaming around like apes. Science has brought you everything (meaning material items, entertainment,Healthcare, flight, cars, laser lightning guns [from another thread today], your home, your job, your computer, you get the point). Religion and religious beliefs have brought about many wars, scams, cruel and in humane practices like beheading people, hanging people, stoning people, rape, incest, child abuse, abortions (yes god was ok with it), slavery, genocide ect.

I'm not saying your wrong I'm just saying that point of view is very ignorant, but that's OK because we are all entitled to have an opinion. I'm just thankfull that in the western world atheist are alowed to exist otherwise all the religious folk would lynch us. Like what's happening in the middle east right now.

Science looks find the answers of life where as religion doesn't, it relies on a book(s) written in a med evil draconian time of the human Era and used to control and manipulate the general public.

To end my rant I will leave you with this.

A man in the sky made a man on the ground to look like him. Then when this man was lonely he made him a mate from his rib and dirt. Does that make sense? Is that logical?

Ok - if you say I'm ignorant, then humor me, please.

You said:

The law of gravity always existed

If so, where was it when there was no point of singularity?

Furthermore, what is gravity before there was no universe, if as you claim it "always existed"?

And how can the Law of Gravity exist if there was no law maker?

also, how could the law of gravity be a causal power when all it does is describe and predict what naturally happens in nature?

I think you haven't given much thought about this. Right?

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: edmc^2

Yeah but...... It also mentions Unicorns in your holy book ???

Flammadraco. You should consult the original Hebrew word before you make any conclusion. And also, make sure that you have the right verses before you cut and paste something.

But just to help you out, let me refer you this version:

[Isa 34:7 ASV] 7 And the wild-oxen shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls: and their land shall be drunken with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

a reply to: edmc^2

This argument again? You should have titled this thread, "Why I believe creation is true", not "the only logical explanation". There is no logic involved in that whatsoever. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. That rules out creation. The claim that something came out of nothing is unfounded, and to attribute that position to science makes it a straw man.

If life can only come from life, what life did god come from? It violates your own rule (which is an assumption in the first place).

Simply put it makes sense, moreover, the evidence is all around us. It's hard to miss them. Unless of course you choose to completely ignore them.

What evidence? You posted 2 full pages and all you did was nitpick atheism and question quotes from scientists. I didn't see any logical explanation for creation. What gives? Why the false advertising? I came here for a logical argument for a creator. Where is it?

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
I've no problem accepting the possibility that there is a God (not a one true Christian god or any other specific religion god, as religion is a man made farce and "God" is most assuredly embarrassed by it) or that this God created the universe. However, I find it perfectly acceptable to believe that evolution is the way God creates life. I can do this, because I need not base my beliefs on a Bible.

However, the OP can be reduced down to one simple statement: "If man can't adequately explain something, then the answer is God." This is an asinine conclusion. To think that we have hit the limit of our ability to learn and discover, therefore what we don't know is all God? It's the same argument made when man didn't understand why the sky made booming noises, or why the mountain spewed forth hell. Can't explain thunder or volcanoes, so God. God is doing this.

There is no more merit in the OP's argument that the unexplained must be God, than there was when man didn't understand plate tectonics or thunderstorms. Eventually, we learned. We discovered. Does that mean we will some day discover the factual truth regarding the creation of life or the creation of the universe, beyond theories and hypothesis? Maybe. Maybe not. But that does not mean we should automatically go with God as the only possibility and close the books.

I think you're referring to the "god of the gaps", of which I don't believe in. In fact, Christians don't believe in a "god of the gaps".

It has nothing to do with the Creator, the Living God.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
There is only the current theories that are fluid and adjust when new information is available.

What theory in science means?? (Hint: search Science Theory)

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
If you look at it that way, you can maybe reconcile your faith and the current commonly accepted theories.

Science and faith are 2 different thing and science does not require anything faith can offer. They are so different that simply there is no reconciliation...

Theories do change. (Search: why scientific theory might be changed)

They both sometimes attempt to provide answers to same unknown. And sometime those answers are in contradiction. If you're stating that it's a personal choice whether or not you require them to be reconciled, then yes I would agree.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Theories do change. (Search: why scientific theory might be changed)

It is very rare that theory completely changes and/or becomes obsolete. If you know of examples of this, please share it with us. It is common that new discoveries lead to updates to theory, but as I have said, it is rare that new theory completely replaces old theory. (For example quantum physics is not completely replacing Newton's laws, but it explains how large gravitation source can give different results not predicted by Newton's laws.)

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
They both sometimes attempt to provide answers to same unknown. And sometime those answers are in contradiction. If you're stating that it's a personal choice whether or not you require them to be reconciled, then yes I would agree.

Sometimes?? More like, all the time.

Start with Genesis, its almost completely non scientific and really does not explain anything, rather places God instead of an answer...

There is no reconciliation between science and religion/scriptures. They are two things.

There is no ability to believe in both... one is wrong...

Either we were created, or we were not created, as all evidence shows us. There is no in between...

originally posted by: edmc^2

I think you're referring to the "god of the gaps", of which I don't believe in. In fact, Christians don't believe in a "god of the gaps".

It has nothing to do with the Creator, the Living God.

Wrong. A God of the gaps is exactly what you believe in. That's what all Creationists believe in because they cannot show evidence for anything they claim. Just like you have done since the start of this thread where you claimed "evidence all around us" found within nature that would prove God. However, when asked to produce that evidence you go silent or start asking questions instead of answering them.

The difference between the Creationist view and a Scientific view is that Creationists point out everything they don't know and claim God. (God of the Gaps)
Science points toward everything it does know and shows how none of the things it knows requires a God.
That's the main difference. That is also why as time and knowledge have progressed God get's more and more elusive.

Thousands of years ago people claimed God everywhere controlling the whether, causing the sun to rise, in the oceans and trees, in volcanoes, etc. There were wind Gods and Fire Gods and Gods of the Sky, etc. Then using science we figured out that no God controls the weather or the sun rise anymore and those Gods vanished. Now creationists have to claim a God outside time and space for God to exist because using science shows that whenever we look at the things we know about in nature we can explain them just fine without a God. Meanwhile Religion looks at all the things in nature we don't know and simply says God.

As time goes on less and less places remain where they can stick their God of the Gaps as science fills in those holes with an actual truth.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I made no claim that theories radically change. You're putting words in my mouth. I stated "There is only the current theories that are fluid and adjust when new information is available." See my original post.

I think we're confusing the biblical religion/scripture with god (in any form). It all depends on how you define god. Plenty of good threads on ATS around that topic.

Apply your theories that you insist are facts and actually apply the above and see where you think that it falls. I can say that theories that involve ex nihilo or infinity are pseudoscience.

Careful and valid logic? Yes something from nothing seems perfectly logical. There are no examples we have ever come across but sure its logical.

Makes conservative or tentative claims? Yeah sure lets just throw around astronomical and unverifiable numbers.

Precise terminology and clear definitions? Please explain nothing.

Embraces criticism? The thread responses speak for themselves.

Rigorous and repeatable methods ? Sure as soon as we can repeat "the beginning" or can repeat infinity.

Follows evidence wherever it leads? No evidence to follow. If there was evidence there would be facts but it is all theory. Seems like someone started with a theory and is trying to make the (lack of) evidence fit. Which side of the graphic does that fall on again?

originally posted by: rossacus
You clearly have no concept of what a religion represents compared to a scientific theory.

Au contraire mon frère...

Yet you have no problem whatsoever believing in a 100% fabricated religion based upon faith and assumptions that have nothing to do with Science.

Evolution is 1000% blind faith - which is is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...

There are so many holes in it that it clearly becomes obvious what the real "faith" is...

“many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientist can do.” ~ Robert Millikan (Nobel Prize winner and one of the most eminent physicists of the 20th century)

“The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.” Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

“Nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.'” ~ Prof. Derek Ager, Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK

“The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.” ~ Louis Agassiz, Harvard University professor and pioneer in glaciation.]

“Science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded.” ~ Australian biologist Michael Denton

“Evolution is a ‘metaphysical myth … totally bereft of scientific sanction.” ~ Mathematics professor Wolfgang Smith

“What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.” ~ Arthur N. Field

“ `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling.” ~ T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission