Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: Murgatroid

Can you source the quotes for those?

I am getting no return on most of them, or not accredited to who you have saying it.

Ah they all come from creationist sites that don't give them context of them either.

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?

Everything man touches turns to evil. Religion started as good but was then twisted. Then man created his own religion, science, with the best of intentions but it all went to pot. Ask the people of Hiroshima. Medical advances came, biological weapons went. We no longer fear God, we fear nuclear or biological annihilation all thanks to science.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
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...

There is again. God of the Gaps. All you can do is try and punch holes in science so you can then insert God into the places where you don't know the answer.

You go even further and actually make the claim that Evolutionary Science is 100% false based on Science. What an incredibly ignorant claim being that Evolution is a branch of Science.

What's even funnier is you then claim that evolution is "faith" as if it's an insult even though Religion is based upon "faith" and always has been and we all know that.

You can't show even one piece of positive proof for anything you say. It creates a cycle of ignorance where the less you know and understand, the more holes in your knowledge exists and therefore the more places you can insert God as the answer.

Face it, you method of explaining things is to be as ignorant of reality as possible because the more you don't know the more room there is for God to be the answer. Because the more you actually do know, the less room there is for any so called God to exist.

originally posted by: mOjOm

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.

On the contrary mOjOm. The more I know about the universe and how it works the more I come to understand its creator - God. It's not the other way around as you put it.

For instance, where's the "god of the gaps" statement?

'For life to exist there MUST a pre-existing life to begin with'.

If science, experience, nature, biology, you name it agree with it, where's the gap?

Now if we say "nothing created life", then we have a problem. You can repeat your experiment trillions and trillion times, you'll never prove it. You just can't get life from "nothing". It's just the fact of life.

And to believe that this makes sense or that it's scientific is pure ignorance. To even say we don't know that "nothing creates something" is pure laziness and ignoring the facts.

Hence, there's no alternative but to accept the facts. There must be an Always Existing First Cause - a Creator to begin with.

It's both logical and scientific.

On the other hand, you have "nothing" to offer.

I see the logical reasoning behind the need for intelligent design. Our universe is bizarre... and where did IT come from? People say "the big bang" ... well, where was the "bang"? If everything exists within the thing it created - The universe?

The fact is.. even if we get down the rabbit hole far enough for the need or intelligent design, where/what did the designer come from? Can something really appear from nothing?

I'm starting to take the simulation theory really seriously.

I believe the universe has always been and always will be in one form or another. If thats the case, then anything that the universe's laws allow to happen will happen eventually, even if it's the 'spontaneous ' creation of life, same goes for the spontaneous creation of a 'god'-like thingy.

originally posted by: mOjOm

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.

The only thing that may disappear with time is Religion.

The theory of intelligent design will never go away. Because it has reasoning.

We're very ignorant to believe we know everything and because we don't understand certain things now or have "no cold hard facts" to back up intelligent design (of sorts) does not mean it doesn't exist.

Look at gravity. We can't see it. But we know it's logical for it to exist.

We might not be able to directly see "God" but when you actually question this universe, where it came from and everything it encompasses the only thing I can arrive at is... A design. Whatever or whoever designed or created it, who knows.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Murgatroid
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...

There is again. God of the Gaps. All you can do is try and punch holes in science so you can then insert God into the places where you don't know the answer.

You go even further and actually make the claim that Evolutionary Science is 100% false based on Science. What an incredibly ignorant claim being that Evolution is a branch of Science.

What's even funnier is you then claim that evolution is "faith" as if it's an insult even though Religion is based upon "faith" and always has been and we all know that.

You can't show even one piece of positive proof for anything you say. It creates a cycle of ignorance where the less you know and understand, the more holes in your knowledge exists and therefore the more places you can insert God as the answer.

Face it, you method of explaining things is to be as ignorant of reality as possible because the more you don't know the more room there is for God to be the answer. Because the more you actually do know, the less room there is for any so called God to exist.

Funny thing is, you haven't even proven that my premise is wrong. All you did is blabber.

Yet, I've proven time and time again that atheists have "nothing" to stand on. So who is ignorant here?

If you can't even show that "nothing" can create even a micron of matter, how can you argue your point?

As for evolution, since you have no proof of the existence of the "first replicator" but believed in it, then I must say, you have faith in something you have not seen and have no proof of.

originally posted by: edmc^2

On the contrary mOjOm. The more I know about the universe and how it works the more I come to understand its creator - God. It's not the other way around as you put it.

For instance, where's the "god of the gaps" statement?

'For life to exist there MUST a pre-existing life to begin with'.

If science, experience, nature, biology, you name it agree with it, where's the gap?

Now if we say "nothing created life", then we have a problem. You can repeat your experiment trillions and trillion times, you'll never prove it. You just can't get life from "nothing". It's just the fact of life.

And to believe that this makes sense or that it's scientific is pure ignorance. To even say we don't know that "nothing creates something" is pure laziness and ignoring the facts.

Hence, there's no alternative but to accept the facts. There must be an Always Existing First Cause - a Creator to begin with.

It's both logical and scientific.

On the other hand, you have "nothing" to offer.

You see, you're still doing it. You have no choice but to do it either because Creationism has NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. All you can point to are the things you don't know or don't understand and then claim that is where God exists. Because anything you do actually know or could have evidence for also can be shown why and how it operates without God being a part of it.

That's why you point to all the areas where questions still remain. Because everywhere we have answers for shows clearly that they operate without God.

Face it, you cannot show evidence of God within any area of reality that we understand the operation and function and show God being part of it, not one!!!

This is why you continue saying the most uninformed statements because the less you know the more holes there are for you to insert a fictional God. On the contrary anywhere you do have working knowledge of something it can be explained without God.

You have chosen the path of increased ignorance for the purpose of having "faith" in God. Period. End of story.

But if you don't think so, fine, prove me wrong. I dare you. Provide evidence as you have claimed from the start of this thread with nothing shown so far. Show us the Evidence in Nature that you claim is "all around us" so that we can see this evidence of God. Do it. That's your claim so let's see it.

a reply to: edmc^2

one question...are "you" the result of a system of evolution or were you created. Meaning you started out as a single cell and evolved/grown/change to now fully matured homo sapiens or did you wake up one day and, "presto!" here you are. What evidence exists?

Can an atheist explain this: Binary code

originally posted by: Tsubaki
I believe the universe has always been and always will be in one form or another. If thats the case, then anything that the universe's laws allow to happen will happen eventually, even if it's the 'spontaneous ' creation of life, same goes for the spontaneous creation of a 'god'-like thingy.

Problem with you belief is that "laws" have no causal power, they can only describe and predict what naturally occur in nature.

Hence, you're confusing descriptor / predictor with creator.

T make my point clearer. The law of motion will not and cannot move a single atom. It can only describe what it will do and predict what it will do IF an OUTSIDE force acted upon it.

a reply to: edmc^2

Dwayne: Are we alone in the universe?
Astronaut: No

Whether our origins are the consequential effect resultant from intelligence or chance, one thing is certain, since we can both split the atom and leave the earth to explore, "somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known"

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

The only thing that may disappear with time is Religion.

The theory of intelligent design will never go away. Because it has reasoning.

We're very ignorant to believe we know everything and because we don't understand certain things now or have "no cold hard facts" to back up intelligent design (of sorts) does not mean it doesn't exist.

Look at gravity. We can't see it. But we know it's logical for it to exist.

We might not be able to directly see "God" but when you actually question this universe, where it came from and everything it encompasses the only thing I can arrive at is... A design. Whatever or whoever designed or created it, who knows.

That's my whole point. Think about it. All you can do is point out all the things we don't have an answer for and then conclude that since we don't have a provable answer yet, God must have done it.

However, when you look at all the areas where we do have provable answers for things, where we actually have figured out the how and why of something, there is no God to be found.

Nobody is claiming to "know Everything" except for the Religious and the fact is they don't know everything. Science admits it doesn't "know everything" but it does know "somethings" and all the "somethings" that is does know and can prove show no evidence of God. Therefore no belief in God.

That's what Creationists don't seem to understand. Science isn't out to prove there is No God and that is not what it claims. What it shows is that wherever we have understanding of how and why something functions there is no evidence of God being in control of it.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
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

Didn't we conclude that your list of creationist, which most lived more then century ago is not proof of anything. Lots has changed in past 5 years, new fields of science were created in past 50 years, and yet you believe someone who without much counterargument, mostly based on self religious dogma wrote something against evolution?!

Interesting....

originally posted by: TheLamb
Can an atheist explain this: Binary code

What? People hearing voice or binary code signals in head?

Atheist - no, it can't help, but psychiatrist might be of some help...

originally posted by: edmc^2

Funny thing is, you haven't even proven that my premise is wrong. All you did is blabber.

You have to provide some evidence for something being right first!!! You are so ignorant it's unbelievable.

Yet, I've proven time and time again that atheists have "nothing" to stand on. So who is ignorant here?

YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING. PROOF REQUIRES EVIDENCE. YOU HAVE SHOWN ZERO EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID. ZERO.

If you can't even show that "nothing" can create even a micron of matter, how can you argue your point?

As for evolution, since you have no proof of the existence of the "first replicator" but believed in it, then I must say, you have faith in something you have not seen and have no proof of.

I don't have to show evidence for anything because I've made no claims about anything. YOU HAVE. THIS IS YOUR THREAD WHERE YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE WITHIN NATURE THAT PROVES GOD.

So show it then. Once you do I'll be happy to prove it wrong. But you first must put forth some evidence so that I can prove it wrong. When you put nothing forth as evidence there is nothing for me to show evidence against.

If you don't understand that it's your problem not mine.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

On the contrary mOjOm. The more I know about the universe and how it works the more I come to understand its creator - God. It's not the other way around as you put it.

For instance, where's the "god of the gaps" statement?

'For life to exist there MUST a pre-existing life to begin with'.

If science, experience, nature, biology, you name it agree with it, where's the gap?

Now if we say "nothing created life", then we have a problem. You can repeat your experiment trillions and trillion times, you'll never prove it. You just can't get life from "nothing". It's just the fact of life.

And to believe that this makes sense or that it's scientific is pure ignorance. To even say we don't know that "nothing creates something" is pure laziness and ignoring the facts.

Hence, there's no alternative but to accept the facts. There must be an Always Existing First Cause - a Creator to begin with.

It's both logical and scientific.

On the other hand, you have "nothing" to offer.

You see, you're still doing it. You have no choice but to do it either because Creationism has NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. All you can point to are the things you don't know or don't understand and then claim that is where God exists. Because anything you do actually know or could have evidence for also can be shown why and how it operates without God being a part of it.

That's why you point to all the areas where questions still remain. Because everywhere we have answers for shows clearly that they operate without God.

Face it, you cannot show evidence of God within any area of reality that we understand the operation and function and show God being part of it, not one!!!

This is why you continue saying the most uninformed statements because the less you know the more holes there are for you to insert a fictional God. On the contrary anywhere you do have working knowledge of something it can be explained without God.

You have chosen the path of increased ignorance for the purpose of having "faith" in God. Period. End of story.

But if you don't think so, fine, prove me wrong. I dare you. Provide evidence as you have claimed from the start of this thread with nothing shown so far. Show us the Evidence in Nature that you claim is "all around us" so that we can see this evidence of God. Do it. That's your claim so let's see it.

OK - here's a simple one.

Without intelligence, can a law, any law, you name it, exist by itself?

If you say yes, then where do you start?

How did the law of nature begin to exist apart from a law maker?

Who or what can create it without any intelligence? It's impossible and science can confirm it.

But if you say, it just happened, then that to me is faith without any evidence. You sir / madam have blind faith.

There, I didn't even invoke God.

Two undeniable facts I've already provided for the existence of God.

"Life comes from pre-existing life"
"Law requires a law maker"

I dare you to tell me that I'm wrong.

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
________________________________________
References: National Geographic - Gene Study
Wikipedia - Chordate

a reply to: edmc^2

Erm, what created your law maker???

What kind of proof you have that 'laws' (I assume you think gravity when you say law) were created??

a reply to: edmc^2

No I'm not. When I say law, I'm simply referring to what can and cannot happen within the universe. Substitute the word 'law' with 'properties' if you'd like.


Objects move, so the properties of the universe allow it (not saying that the universe will move objects) .


Think of the universe as a class declaration.