Proof Creationism Is BS

a reply to: Quadrivium

Not truth? You mean it's subjective?

When I said "That's your truth", yes, I meant "your truth" is subjective. That is, your truth is subject to, in this case, your faith. Faith is not truth, that's why it's called "faith" and not "knowing the truth".

But you already knew that. You're just playing dishonest word games, as usual.

Creationism explains why some people listen to what you don't want to say and so here we are pouring drinks in cups and doing dishes. The entire Bible is about Creationism through and through, every minute of it because there is nothing new under the sun and the God above it. The sad tragedy of life might save us a flat tire when we go on about with our days.

originally posted by: daskakik

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.

Yes, and now you have repeated the same statement above as I have moved on with the post you replied to with the above post. You and one other have suggested it is only the bible God so that is what my post was about so I'm not sure how your post here fits my post you connected it to.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Religion has Nothing to do with my Post . Why was it Inserted in the Responses then ?

I'm confused then. What do you mean by "Life Review they Will go through in the Afterlife" and who are "they"? Some form of religion establishes the whole afterlife accountability of one's deeds in their life, does it not?

originally posted by: Quadrivium

It does not matter.
They feel like you are attacking their faith.
They are not as confident in their faith, so they strive to make you question yours.
Honestly, I think many of them know the truth, they just refuse to admit they are not the apex intellect.

I'm not religious.... BTW what is the truth?

When you said "I believe that God created everything and through God all things are possible." then that means evolution could be the tool God used in his creations. I hardly understand the argument between evolution and creationism since evolution does not touch God in any way while creationism does not tackle science in any way, but here we all are debating the two as if they are matching opposites.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You and one other have suggested it is only the bible God so that is what my post was about so I'm not sure how your post here fits my post you connected it to.

Because I didn't reply to you to discuss the bible or whether the OP has any meat to it or not.

That is why I said there was no baiting in my post, it wasn't meant to be a starting point to any other discussion.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I rank creationists among the most dishonest people on the planet.

It's not that they are dishonest it's that they have zero path other than God waved a magic wand 6000 years ago and everything poofed into place as it is today. It is even explained that fossils were poofed into place too as is.
This is why I don't typically debate faith and/or creationist ideology since there is no actual point to debate.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Your Point was you Believe the Theory of Evolution is in Some way a Fact of Life . I Chose to Show you Otherwise .

The Theory of Evolution is always evolving (pardon the pun). What Darwin showed is about 2% of what we know today to further the theory. A good number of things Darwin got wrong, but much was still ground-breaking work even though nowhere near what we know today, so he gets big credit. All this doesn't mean we should use Darwin as the main point, he was just a starting point. I'm still waiting on the other theories as you suggest.

a reply to: Xtrozero

" Some form of religion establishes the whole afterlife accountability of one's deeds in their life, does it not? "

Short Answer , No .

The Experiences of NDE's proport the Possible Afterlife Scenario I mentioned . Religious Beliefs are Not part of the Equation unless the Experiencer Envisions them .

a reply to: Xtrozero

" I'm still waiting on the other theories as you suggest."

Divine Creation Augmented by the Interference of Higher Intelligences .

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Do you know we each have a subjective truth?

It's called an opinion (about what we think is true), not a "truth". Opinions are subjective, the truth about any subject matter is not, it is not "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" (definition for subjective from Oxford Languages). That's the remarkable thing about truth (its defining feature), 'it is what it is', regardless of our opinion or feelings about it. Now we may have a correct or incorrect opinion about what is true or false, but either way, that does not affect or influence the underlying truthfulness or falsehood of a matter. Or coming back to the earlier expression, 'it remains what it is' (no matter what we think or how we feel about it). The (popularity of the) philosophy of relativism may be involved in causing you to get your terminology confused.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

When I said "That's your truth", yes, I meant "your truth" is subjective. That is, your truth is subject to, in this case, your faith. Faith is not truth, that's why it's called "faith" and not "knowing the truth".

It's called "your opinion" (about what you think is true), not "your truth". Your opinion is subjective. The (popularity of the) philosophy of relativism may be involved in causing you to get your terminology confused.

The terms "your truth" or "subjective truth" come from thinking in the manner described in the bolded part below:

“WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

Source: Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers​—What Did They Find?

An "opinion" is a synonym for a "belief" (often listed as the first synonym in any list of synonyms for "opinion"). Isn't that much more applicable to what's described in the bolded part above than "truth"? So you see, that way of thinking also gets those terms confused (and depending on what argumentation or commentary accompanies such thinking, the term "conflation"* can also be used to describe how these terms get confused). *: from wikipedia:

Conflation is the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas or opinions into one, often in error. Conflation is defined as fusing or blending, but is often misunderstood as 'being equal to' - treating two similar but disparate concepts as the same.

And when you get to the notion that 'there really was no way to determine what is truth', that's where you enter the realm of relativism (or vice versa, when you're affected by the philosophy of relativism you tend to end up thinking that there really is no way to conclusively determine what is truth, just like the philosophers below, which is handy if one wants to fall back on willful selective or general agnosticism, or South Park's Agnostic Code for that matter):

THE two men facing each other could scarcely have been more dissimilar. One was a politician who was cynical, ambitious, wealthy, ready to do anything to advance his own career. The other was a teacher who spurned wealth and prestige and was prepared to sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. Needless to say, these two men did not see eye to eye! On one matter in particular, they disagreed absolutely​—the matter of truth.

The men were Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ. Jesus was standing before Pilate as a condemned criminal. Why? Jesus explained that the reason for this​—indeed, the very reason that he had come to the earth and undertaken his ministry—​came down to one thing: truth. “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world,” he said, “that I should bear witness to the truth.”​—John 18:37.

Pilate’s reply was a memorable question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Did he really want an answer? Probably not. Jesus was the kind of man who could answer any question asked of him in sincerity, but he did not answer Pilate. And the Bible says that after asking his question, Pilate walked straight out of the audience chamber. The Roman governor likely asked the question in cynical disbelief, as if to say, “Truth? What is that? There is no such thing!”* [According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”]

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today. Many believe that truth is relative​—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it​—“relativism.” Is this how you view the matter of truth? If so, is it possible that you have adopted this view without thoroughly questioning it? Even if you have not, do you know how much this philosophy affects your life?

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing.

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. ...

In many lands the school systems seem to engender a similar type of thinking. Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.”

...

Source: “What Is Truth?”

Since I brought it up in one of my edits:
Notice the last line in that code, bringing us to the closing remarks of the article above, and the next page:

Of course, some might argue that much of this relativism represents open-mindedness and therefore has a positive impact on human society. Does it really, though? And what about its impact on you? Do you believe that truth is relative or nonexistent? If so, searching for it may strike you as a waste of time. Such an outlook will affect your future.

Next page: Why Search for Truth?

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth [whereislogic: notice the similarity with the expression "your truth"; when we form opinions/beliefs, we do not make our own truth(s)], then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Divine Creation Augmented by the Interference of Higher Intelligences .

You kind of see the same problem I see with the chicken or the egg scenario here. Seems there would always be a need for a higher order that just goes on layer by layer. The reality is that life forms most likely anytime the conditions are in favor of it, now one could say it took a Divine Creation to make life in general, but that doesn't mean it also designs the path for all life too. It may have started the petri dish so to speak, but I would say if we rewind Earth 600 million years and replayed it again we would not be here as all life today would not be here either as it would have been once again a more randomized event.

We don't even have to go back that far. 65MYA, had the asteroid missed, our planet would remain dominated by reptiles. Mammals would be herding on plains or burrowing underground. Dinosaurs are still the most successful and long-lived family of animal that has ever lived on this planet, long after they've gone.

Revelation 11:3
“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.”

originally posted by: TerraLiga
We don't even have to go back that far. 65MYA, had the asteroid missed, our planet would remain dominated by reptiles. Mammals would be herding on plains or burrowing underground. Dinosaurs are still the most successful and long-lived family of animal that has ever lived on this planet, long after they've gone.

True, but even if events like that played out the same every form of life on the planet would still be different today.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Exactly. Life as we know it today was not predetermined. Human beings are not destiny.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Xtrozero

Exactly. Life as we know it today was not predetermined. Human beings are not destiny.

Hmmmm, how do you know, is that your belief?

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Exactly. Life as we know it today was not predetermined. Human beings are not destiny.

With or without God

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Hmmmm, how do you know, is that your belief?

What you suggest is just not an argument anyone can do, that is how faith works. What you are talking about is outside of space/time in the normal flow of the universe, so yes I'm pretty damn sure based on that. Now if you want to suggest God is outside of all that and has written the flow of every atom in the universe from the beginning until a trillion years from now then so be it, but there is also no need for God for all that to happen too.

I do find it interesting that for some reason God put humans into existence for a very short period of time like we are just a chapter in his book of unlimited pages. So what will God do when humans will not be human in a million years? Start over a new chapter for his next special children?

All these are called unfalsifiable statements and so I'm not saying there is no God, I'm saying there can be, but also there really isn't a reason for God to exist either.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So what will God do when humans will not be human in a million years? Start over a new chapter of his special children?

Although if there is to be a next time, the tree of knowledge needs to be unreachable so we can remain as originally intended, dumbed down for our own good.