Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

OP, I could agree with you that there is creator. And I do think that, however I also believe in our scientific research showing the age of the earth, galaxy and Universe and also believe in the scientific evidence for evolution. I don't think those two are incompatible. I think evolution and the big bang theory are the way God creates. She creates through the processes that our scientists have observed.

What I can't believe in, is Genesis and the Bible. What say you to that?

Editing to add, that I can't show any proof of God or that life goes on for us after death, yet still do I believe those. Why? Personal experience and research.

a reply to: toktaylor

You really going to stick to your guns on that one?

originally posted by: edmc^2

If this is the extent of your intelligence mOjOm, then you're showing us the weakness of your stance, weakness of your argument and your belief.

What stance???? What stance are you talking about??? What claims have I made and what is my position here???? Do I have one??? What is it??? I'd like to know???? You seem to know for some reason even though I've made no stance at all.

ALL I'VE DONE IS ASK YOU TO PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE FOR GOD WHICH YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE. THAT'S IT. YOU REFUSE TO SHOW ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO MAKE UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS OF FACT OR ASK QUESTIONS FOR OTHERS TO ANSWER.

I don't have any stance. I've haven't claimed to know anything. STOP TRYING TO PUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON EVERYONE ELSE WHEN IT IS YOU WHO CLAIM TO HAVE KNOW SOMETHING.

a reply to: mOjOm

You claiming he is wrong is an absolutist position yet you advocate that you have no position. How can this be?

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: mOjOm

You claiming he is wrong is an absolutist position yet you advocate that you have no position. How can this be?

I'm not claiming he's anything. I'm asking for the evidence of God he claimed to have but won't or can't show. I don't know if he's wrong or right until he shows some evidence for what he claims.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

If this is the extent of your intelligence mOjOm, then you're showing us the weakness of your stance, weakness of your argument and your belief.

What stance???? What stance are you talking about??? What claims have I made and what is my position here???? Do I have one??? What is it??? I'd like to know???? You seem to know for some reason even though I've made no stance at all.

ALL I'VE DONE IS ASK YOU TO PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE FOR GOD WHICH YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE. THAT'S IT. YOU REFUSE TO SHOW ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO MAKE UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS OF FACT OR ASK QUESTIONS FOR OTHERS TO ANSWER.

I don't have any stance. I've haven't claimed to know anything. STOP TRYING TO PUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON EVERYONE ELSE WHEN IT IS YOU WHO CLAIM TO HAVE KNOW SOMETHING.

So if you have no stance, then where are you basing your argument that I have no evidence?

You're not making sense mOjOm.

originally posted by: edmc^2
'For life to exist there MUST a pre-existing life to begin with'.

Citation still needed.

You can't just keep repeating the claim and pretend you are making a logical case. In order to follow logic, there must be an objective reason to believe that. It is nothing more than a guess, therefor your logic stops right here and any conclusions drawn from this statement can be ignored. Are you going to at least try or will your next post just repeat that line again and talk in more riddles and metaphors?

a reply to: mOjOm

Actually he just made a claim and offered an axiomatic example. You can not refute his example by showing any instance in which life arose from inanimate (non living) sources. You can claim theories but if you go back to the infographic I posted you can clearly see that his reasoning is more sound and closer to actual science than supposition that follows the pseudo-scientific claims made by opposing theories.

originally posted by: edmc^2
So if you have no stance, then where are you basing your argument that I have no evidence?

You're not making sense mOjOm.

Ummm, on the fact that you haven't shown any.

Pointing out possible errors in science or evolution isn't evidence that supports your claims. It might be evidence to show they are incorrect but not that you are correct.

Asking me or someone else to questions to which we may not have answers isn't evidence that your answers are true.

Asking me to prove your assumptions wrong also is not evidence that your assumptions are correct.

So you can see, being that as it may, you have provided no evidence to support your claim.

In the same way I provided no evidence to support my claim that "God is a horses ass that crapped the universe into existence." Yet being that you cannot prove me wrong, does that mean I'm right???

originally posted by: amazing
OP, I could agree with you that there is creator. And I do think that, however I also believe in our scientific research showing the age of the earth, galaxy and Universe and also believe in the scientific evidence for evolution. I don't think those two are incompatible. I think evolution and the big bang theory are the way God creates. She creates through the processes that our scientists have observed.

What I can't believe in, is Genesis and the Bible. What say you to that?

Editing to add, that I can't show any proof of God or that life goes on for us after death, yet still do I believe those. Why? Personal experience and research.

Thanks for the input amazing.

You know what? Genesis is one my favorite books of the Bible. It contains information that can't be found anywhere. It goes back to the very beginning and shows us how it happened or why it happened.

It's a gem of a book.

For example, how did the writer know that there was a beginning?

Where did the writer get his information from?

It's amazing.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Actually he just made a claim and offered an axiomatic example. You can not refute his example by showing any instance in which life arose from inanimate (non living) sources. You can claim theories but if you go back to the infographic I posted you can clearly see that his reasoning is more sound and closer to actual science than supposition that follows the pseudo-scientific claims made by opposing theories.

We are not talking about organisms replicating. We are talking about the origin of life. We do not have any examples of life arising, whether natural or unnatural. Since nothing can be proven either way, his statement is an assumption. He tries to justify it by equivocating giving birth with the origin of life. So he is justifying an assumption with a logical fallacy. Double whammy in logic.

a reply to: mOjOm

Have we observed horses crap out universes? Your claim has no basis in reality it would be a theory and you would have to look for evidence to fit your theory which is not how science works. We have observed life coming from other life. We have looked but never found any instance of life beginning from a non-life source. Do you see now how it works? Observation was made. Now we test and record the data (things live and come from other living things no testing needed really) then we interpret the data. If all of the life we encountered (observed) came from living sources then the evidence indicates that life comes from living sources. You cant say well what if it didn't and then try to look for evidence to fit an unobserved claim.

a reply to: Barcs

Finally someone who actually understands what it means to have evidence of something rather than just making statements of fact based on assumptions.

Good luck Barcs. I can't handle it anymore. It's all yours man. The idiocy is powerful with these guys. I feel like I've been stabbing myself in the brain with an ice pick simply trying to get a straight answer out of them for what they claim to be true and have evidence for.

I'm out. Anymore of this and I'm going to have an stroke.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Have we observed horses crap out universes? Your claim has no basis in reality it would be a theory and you would have to look for evidence to fit your theory which is not how science works.

Right. Have we observed God's creating Universes??? Your claim has no basis in reality either. You claim an Infinite God, existence outside space and time, existing forever without start or end, God being everywhere yet nowhere. Capable of doing anything yet cannot even do the most simple of things that we can do.

Now you're starting to get it. Of course my example of a horse crapping the universe is a lie. It's following the same logic as your claim of God doing the same. Neither of which has anything to support either claim.

a reply to: mOjOm

I made no claim about god. I made a claim about the observations we can make about life. Do you even science?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
'For life to exist there MUST a pre-existing life to begin with'.

Citation still needed.

You can't just keep repeating the claim and pretend you are making a logical case. In order to follow logic, there must be an objective reason to believe that. It is nothing more than a guess, therefor your logic stops right here and any conclusions drawn from this statement can be ignored. Are you going to at least try or will your next post just repeat that line again and talk in more riddles and metaphors?

YOU: Where did the universe/life come from?
ME: Why did it have to come from anything?
YOU: Everything/life has to come from something.
ME: Then, you tell me. Where the universe/life did came from?
YOU: The universe/life came from God.
ME: Where did God come from?
YOU: God did not have to come from anything. He always was.
ME: Then everything/life does not have to come from something after all. Perhaps the universe/life always was.

"YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED"

a reply to: iterationzero

Yeast adapted to work together. Yeast is still yeast. The experiment with yeast is a start but does not prove anything beyond a single cell organisms clumping to work with it's own kind, while remaining it's own kind. Many scientists don't except this as proof of anything.

And here is the science for you.

Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff’s experiment.

“I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely,” says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. “I don’t think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly.”

www.newscientist.com...

Belief/Faith - a semantics game not worth playing. The definition of both words is nearly identical and they are accepted as synonyms.

If you don't understand that our universe i s governed by perfect mathematical laws I suggest you should do some research.

If there is no creator. Then from then from the big bang to man was an act of Chaos.

There are only 2 choices life arose by intelligent design or by randomly generated chaos. There is no third option.

a reply to: edmc^2

Genesis has two creation stories. Both contradicting each other...

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Have we observed horses crap out universes? Your claim has no basis in reality it would be a theory and you would have to look for evidence to fit your theory which is not how science works.

Right. Have we observed God's creating Universes??? Your claim has no basis in reality either. You claim an Infinite God, existence outside space and time, existing forever without start or end, God being everywhere yet nowhere. Capable of doing anything yet cannot even do the most simple of things that we can do.

Now you're starting to get it. Of course my example of a horse crapping the universe is a lie. It's following the same logic as your claim of God doing the same. Neither of which has anything to support either claim.

I tend to see one's belief in God goes two ways. A cult like thing, such as Christianity or Scientology or Jim Jones or the second way is a profound experience or series of experiences that defy belief, coincidence and sometimes the laws of science. Still even an individual who had actually witnessed an actual miracle, would be unable to provide any proof.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: amazing
OP, I could agree with you that there is creator. And I do think that, however I also believe in our scientific research showing the age of the earth, galaxy and Universe and also believe in the scientific evidence for evolution. I don't think those two are incompatible. I think evolution and the big bang theory are the way God creates. She creates through the processes that our scientists have observed.

What I can't believe in, is Genesis and the Bible. What say you to that?

Editing to add, that I can't show any proof of God or that life goes on for us after death, yet still do I believe those. Why? Personal experience and research.

Thanks for the input amazing.

You know what? Genesis is one my favorite books of the Bible. It contains information that can't be found anywhere. It goes back to the very beginning and shows us how it happened or why it happened.

It's a gem of a book.

For example, how did the writer know that there was a beginning?

Where did the writer get his information from?

It's amazing.

But that brings up questions. Is Genesis literal? 6 actual day creation with the genealogies presented the actual age of the earth? Because if that's true, then why do scientists think the age of the universe is billions of years? Why also did God let man write a creation story and book in the bible that is so ambiguous and up for so much debate, even among Christians?