Proof Creationism Is BS

originally posted by: daskakik

OP specifically mentions Adam so I think the god they are talking about is locked in.

OK, I'll bite, why would nipples mean anything either way... Was the OP talking about maybe a belly button...lol

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

We are talking about the unlikely intelligence of the design of the god of the Genisis creation story here.

I thought we were talking about nipples..

Why does anyone belief in God threaten any of you?
Why must you try and prove it wrong?
It's simple.
You BELIEVE your FAITH is superior.
You feel threatened.
You have to try an crush anything that contradicts your faith.
You are religious, in a sense, many of you prove it with every post you make.

Scientists, using science, can prove adaptation.
It fits the scientific method.
Almost everything else the "evolutionists" believes is taken on faith.
Time is your God.
TOE is your holy scripture.

a reply to: Xtrozero
There is nothing to bite, OP mentioned Adam which means he meant the creation story in the bible/torah/quran.

By the way, since I'm here, I actually like to get specific because as someone who thinks simulation theory is possible, I like to make clear that if that were the truth, the creation story in the bible/torah/quran could still be wrong, despite there being a creator.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You are religious, in a sense...

I think the word you are looking for is zealous.

Zealot

Over the years, zealot came to mean anyone who is passionately devoted to a cause.

The fact that the term "religious zealot" exists is the difference I have been talking about. You can be zealous about something without it being a religious thing.

a reply to: Degradation33

“Wilderness wandering” refers to the plight of the Israelites due to their disobedience and unbelief. Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Lord delivered His people from Egyptian bondage as described in Exodus, chapters 1–12. They were to take possession of the land God had promised their forefathers, a land “flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8). Prior to entry, however, they became convinced they could not oust the current inhabitants of the land, even though God told them they could. Their lack of belief in God’s word and promises brought forth the wrath of God. He cursed them with forty years of wilderness wandering until the unbelieving generation died off, never stepping foot in the Promised Land.

a reply to: Quadrivium

" Why does anyone belief in God threaten any of you? "

They are ALL AFFRAID of that Life Review they Will go through in the Afterlife . I Can Hear them ALL Crying Already........

a reply to: Zanti Misfit
Honest question, how afraid are you of being judged by the gods other people believe in?

originally posted by: daskakik

There is nothing to bite, OP mentioned Adam which means he meant the creation story in the bible/torah/quran.

By the way, since I'm here, I actually like to get specific because as someone who thinks simulation theory is possible, I like to make clear that if that were the truth, the creation story in the bible/torah/quran could still be wrong, despite there being a creator.

As I said earlier in this discussion, the bible is full of metaphors, imagery, similes, types, parables, allegories, and analogies. So, are we then suggesting the story of Adam and Eve is a true account of what happened? I'm really not sure the point people are trying to make here, to include the OP.


To me, it reads like the story of evolution.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

They are ALL AFFRAID of that Life Review they Will go through in the Afterlife . I Can Hear them ALL Crying Already........

That is a funny statement. I know just as many bad people that are religious or non-religious. Religion doesn't by itself establish good in a person, but it sure gives people a way to excuse their bad behavior over and over again...lol

a reply to: Quadrivium

Why does anyone belief in God threaten any of you?

This isn't about a belief in God. It's about believing the biblical creation story is a true account of how we all came to be.

One can still believe in God and see the Genisis creation story as allegory.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why does anyone belief in God threaten any of you?

This isn't about a belief in God. It's about believing the biblical creation story is a true account of how we all came to be.

One can still believe in God and see the Genisis creation story as allegory.

Allegory for what?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Allegory:
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one

An earlier post to you:

So then, you agree that the Genisis creation story isn't meant to be taken literally, that's it allegorical? Adam having been created first, and the biblical god seeing that "It's not good for man to be alone", created Eve, who is ultimately responsible for all of humanity being exiled from Eden, is all just a reflection of culture and justification, right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Xtrozero
The post I replied to said "The generalization in all this is either intelligent design or not, you pick whatever God." but that wasn't what this thread did. It was specific. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is why there was nothing to bite in my reply.

originally posted by: daskakik

While I may agree that some do seem religious about their POV, I see a big difference in how they, compared to people who hold actual religious beliefs, can drop what they believe if a good enough source of data is offered.

That's actually a pretty rare occurance amongst those philosophical naturalists who claim they are openminded like that, but it does happen from time to time...

Has Science Done Away With God? (Awake!—2010)

FOR 50 years, British philosopher Antony Flew was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. “Theology and Falsification,” his 1950 paper, “became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the [20th] century.” In 1986 Flew was called “the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism” (the belief in God or gods). So it came as a great shock to many when, in 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his viewpoint.

What made Flew change his mind? In a word, science. He became convinced that the universe, the laws of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

How Did the Laws of Nature Arise?

Physicist and author Paul Davies points out that science does a wonderful job of explaining physical phenomena such as rain. But he says: “When it comes to . . . questions such as ‘Why are there laws of nature?’ the situation is less clear. These sorts of questions are not much affected by specific scientific discoveries: many of the really big questions have remained unchanged since the birth of civilization and still vex us today.”

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked​—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design​—especially highly sophisticated design—​calls for a designer.

Which Faith Will You Choose?

Although the new atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith​—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause. The new atheists promote the notion that “all religious faith is blind faith,” writes John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England. He adds: “We need to emphasize strongly that they are wrong.” The question, therefore, is this: Which faith stands up under test​—that of the atheist or that of the religious believer? Consider, for example, the origin of life.

Evolutionists readily acknowledge that the origin of life remains a mystery​—although there are many conflicting theories. A leading new atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that by virtue of the vast number of planets that must exist in the universe, life was bound to appear somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. [whereislogic: unless you conveniently re-define the term "information", as philosophical naturalists have done to confuse the issue and conflate functional information with nonfunctional data, but let's not go along with that shall we?] Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

Luck as the First Cause​—Good Science?

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all​—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold​—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Do you agree with that statement?

“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Lennox, “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

Regrettably, among the things that undermine belief in God is evil perpetrated in his name. As a result, some have concluded that mankind would be better off without religion. What do you think?

A World Without Religion—An Improvement? (Awake!—2010)

T.J. Kirk makes the same claim of openmindedness to the evidence, notice Deflating Atheism's response at 2:29 below regarding what attitudes and behaviour he has experienced instead (context starts at 1:27)*, there's more about this behaviour after 7:44 (context 6:46), with an important illustration starting at 7:59 (*: and also demonstrated by T.J. Kirk when he quickly brushes aside the evidence for fine-tuning as 'not being evidence' because 'it's just an argument' at 3:24 - 3:43):

Deflating Atheism's response uses the expression "in my experience" and I have had the same experience. Key point at 8:49, which describes the actual situation regarding most believers in evolutionary philosophies and adherents of philosophical naturalism (whether or not they are aware of being adherents).

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

You don't wanna know....
But you asked, so......
The BIG BOUNCE (see? I told ya, you don't wanna know).
It's kinda like a balloon expanding and contracting.
Each cycle is like the universe starting over.......Aw hell nvm, just Google "Big Bounce"

For anyone who cares to know where that unverified idea/philosophy originated, check out below after 7:00:

Or this article covers it as well (although it skips past the origin of this idea of an eternal cyclical universe, cause that's not the topic of the article, so we go a little ahead and get to see a bit more about where that idea spread to):

Is Buddhism the Way to Enlightenment? (Awake!—1974)

...

Does Buddhism Satisfy Man’s Spiritual Need?

Man has an inborn need to worship God. That is why he has always had some form of religion. Can Buddhism satisfy man’s spiritual need? Can it answer his questions about how the universe came about, how life came to be upon earth, why wickedness exists and whether it will ever end?

Concerning the origin of the universe, Buddha said: “The origin of phenomenal existence is inconceivable, and the beginnings of beings obstructed by ignorance and ensnared by craving is not to be discovered.” Buddhist writings say that the universe evolved from the dispersed matter of a previous universe that wore out. In time Buddhists expect that the present one will dissolve and that out of it will arise another.

Zen Buddhist expert Daisetz T. Suzuki emphasized:

“To us Orientals . . . there is no God, no creator, no beginning of things, no ‘Word,’ no ‘Logos,’ no ‘nothing.’ Westerners would then exclaim, ‘It is all nonsense! It is absolutely unthinkable!’ Orientals would say, ‘You are right. As long as there is at all a “thinking” you cannot escape getting into the dilemma or the bottomless abyss of absurdity.’” [Italics ours]

How do you feel about that? Do you wish to believe in something that is admittedly “nonsense” if a person uses his thinking ability? In your own experience have you found that thinking leads only to “dilemma or the bottomless abyss of absurdity”? Are you more successful in coping with the problems of life when you refrain from thinking? Is it really enlightenment to say there is no Creator and to believe in an unprovable theory of evolution? Such a philosophy could never satisfy your spiritual needs. In fact, it failed to do so even for followers of Buddha in ancient times.

Professor Albert S. Geden explains:

“The human craving for an ideal or idealized object of love and homage was too strong. . . . The desire was met, and found its satisfaction, in the deification [after his death] of [Buddha] himself; . . . With him were reintroduced the Hindu deities, or the more important and popular of them. But they were always subordinated in attributes and power to the Buddha. And thus a system in theory deistic became a practical polytheism.”

Toward the beginning of the Common Era images of Buddha made their appearance. The simple places of Buddhist devotion were changed into elaborate temples. Some of these temples also contain images of the Hindu gods Vishnu, Siva and Ganesha. Buddha’s refusal to enlighten his followers about God left a vacuum that was filled by his own deification and by adopting gods and practices of other religions.

What about guidance for everyday life? Buddhism does contain some moral precepts. There are, for example, the “five precepts” against killing, stealing, adultery, lying and drunkenness. But moral precepts alone are not sufficient. People need a reliable guide for making everyday decisions. Where do many Buddhists turn for such guidance? Professor L. A. Waddell observes:

“Divination is sought after by the majority of professing Buddhists in matters of almost everyday business, as well as in the great epochs of life​—birth, marriage, and death—​or in sickness. . . . The Burmese, who may be taken as a type of the [conservative] ‘Southern’ division of Buddhists, are lettered in the bonds of horoscopes and witch-doctors.”

Buddhists, like everyone else, have a need for spiritual guidance on matters. Because Buddha’s philosophy does not fill that need, they resort to divination.

What About Hope for the Future?

Does Buddhism offer any hope for the future? Buddhists divide an epoch of evolution and destruction of the universe into four “incalculable” periods. Buddha spoke of the length of one of these in this way: “Suppose a mountain of iron to be touched every hundred years by a muslin veil; the mountain will be destroyed before the Incalculable is at an end.” After four of these “incalculable” periods the whole cycle starts over again. So, according to Buddhist belief, evil and suffering have always existed and will continue forever as a part of recurring world cycles.

What about Nirvana as a hope? This, too, is questionable. Why so? Because Nirvana is supposed to signify that one has reached the end of one’s cycle of rebirths. Some Buddhist monks have even burned themselves to death to make sure they do not slip back into the rebirth cycle. But if a person is not to be reborn, what happens to him? Buddha considered this one of the “questions which tend not to edification.” He said:

“I have not elucidated that the saint exists after death; I have not elucidated that the saint does not exist after death; I have not elucidated that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; I have not elucidated that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death.”

In other words, Buddha offered no enlightenment whatsoever as to the future hopes of even a Buddhist “saint,” not to mention the hopeless situation of most laymen who must experience innumerable rebirths.

Long live the philosophy of vagueness, i.e. agnosticism usually along with relativism (which is usually accompanied by the belief that we can't know anything for certain, there's also a more selective version of that belief, only inconvenient proven facts/certainties/realities/truths, such as regarding God's existence and identity, are denied as being something that can be known for certain, or conclusively proven). The article does continue about the topic of the origin of these religious beliefs/ideas/philosophies, but I don't know how much space I have left:

Origin of Buddha’s Teachings

Buddha’s belief in rebirth and that a person’s deeds in one life affect him in his next life came from Hinduism. So did his ideas about meditation and Nirvana. Where did these Hindu beliefs get their start?

The Encyclopædia Britannica (1952 edition) observes: “The religion [of India] is not based on anything exclusively Indian but on old world-wide beliefs.” How did these “old world-wide beliefs” get to India? William H. McNeill explains in The Rise of the West:

“The existence of trade relations between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley from [the third millennium B.C.E.] . . . suggests that the Sumerians may have played a role in the earliest stages of Indus civilization . . . Seaborne contact with Sumer may have provided ready-made models and ideas which the Indus peoples could adapt to the peculiarities of their local cultural tradition.”

Interestingly, the Holy Bible pinpoints Babel in Mesopotamia as the center from which civilization spread out after the confusion of man’s languages because of disobedience to God in the third millennium B.C.E.​—Gen. 11:1-9.

Of course, the teaching of rebirth comes from belief in immortality of the soul. Interestingly the Bible sheds light on the origin of that teaching.

...

a reply to: Sookiechacha
I know what an allegory is, I asked an allegory for what.

ETA:
This?

is all just a reflection of culture and justification, right?

Next question,
So, Why do you care?

a reply to: Quadrivium

So, Why do you care?

About what? Your personal beliefs or about religious fanatics being able to teach creationism alongside evolution and requiring the 10 Commandments be displayed in all classrooms?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
Honest question, how afraid are you of being judged by the gods other people believe in?

Not at All . They are All Demi Gods . Back Of the Bus........

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

So, Why do you care?

About what? Your personal beliefs or about religious fanatics being able to teach creationism alongside evolution and requiring the 10 Commandments be displayed in all classrooms?

Where is that being done?
You sure you don't mean CRT and Gender?