Creationists, what is your case for proving creationism?

what about all of the prophecies that came tru we cant back up our story without the bible just like you cant without the science book there is a difference though at least our book has all of the answers and yours changes as your knowledge changes. ours will last forever and yours will be burned ours is enlightening and yours is dull. yours is full of inaccurate information, while ours states information that hasnt been proved wrong yet, got it.

Is science not based, at it's most basic level, on Faith?

Line 2

reply to post by habfan1968


umm no its seems to be based on theories that get disproved every day. but thats weird faith actually holds some measure. but your theories dont complete opinion. right? no facts, can often be be disproven with our scripture which is kind of like your science book. accept accurate

reply to post by habfan1968

Is science not based, at it's most basic level, on Faith?

What do you mean? If you see an apple fall from a tree, do you not conclude there was some force acting on it? If you measure several apples and observe that they fall at the same rate, do you not conclude that there is some constant force acting on them?

If you have to have a faith on what you are seeing is true, then you have a problem. We could get into philosophy and perhaps we are living in a matrix?

Science is an observation of nature.

reply to post by make.changes


I dispute that there are seven atmospheric layers, you can only get that number if you fudge around the definition of atmospheric layer. Googling it seems to suggest that this includes the magnetosphere which isn’t part of the atmosphere; so if we’re going to include this then we can add many more such as the ozone layer. Ultimately we can get many more than seven layers.

However this is beside the point because you claim that the only way that this could be known at the time was through god to which I say why not aliens?

Your evidence is nothing of the sort, it’s an observation that you link to an unnecessary cause which is no different to me saying that it was aliens.

reply to post by havok


No that’s not better; you’re also diverging from the question. I’m not asking for you to prove god, I’m asking for you to prove creationism. I.e. the popular argument that is put in opposition to evolution.

Saying there is harmony isn’t evidence of this. I can equally say, no it’s because of chance. That statement alone is not true because of observed harmony just as your statement “that’s the creator” is evidenced by it either.

reply to post by spy66


You’ll have to expand on that for me, it just looks like gobbledygook to me. Are you talking about some physical laws or what? You need to give some frame of reference.

Originally posted by havok
reply to post by ChemBreather

 

I think you misunderstood me. I think that we label things according to what we think it is. Not saying we are right or wrong.

Thats the problem. We don't know if its right, we just think that it is.

Has nothing to do with God.

Yes, I misunderstood you ! It is a bad habbit of mine !!!

Seems we may have some what of a same idea of things !
Things that cant be explained needs to be explained, so the most logical explanation is applied ...

Originally posted by make.changes
reply to post by habfan1968

 

umm no its seems to be based on theories that get disproved every day. but thats weird faith actually holds some measure. but your theories dont complete opinion. right? no facts, can often be be disproven with our scripture which is kind of like your science book. accept accurate

My point is FAITH is at the foundation of science. When it gets down to Creationism(faith in God) or Evolution (faith in theory) neither can be disproved without using faith as the reason. From beginning to end the debate relies on faith from both sides with one major exception, the Creationism theory has support from a couple of very old books. At then of the debate though Creationism is more correct as it has an answer to the question at the end of the debate, where did that come from? A. God created it.

reply to post by habfan1968

My point is FAITH is at the foundation of science. When it gets down to Creationism(faith in God) or Evolution (faith in theory) neither can be disproved without using faith as the reason.

I am almost afraid to ask...

Do you have faith that your computer is working? Do you have faith that the ATS server is working and is taking your posts in and making them appear to everyone on ATS?

reply to post by Deaf Alien


are you talking about an ordinance that god set on this earth. would it not be a little strange if he decided to make two things that weighed the same fall at different rates. anyways thats the job of the holy spirit because if he allowed you to do everything you might just get the impression that you are god.

reply to post by habfan1968

At then of the debate though Creationism is more correct as it has an answer to the question at the end of the debate, where did that come from?

That doesn’t make sense, if I give two three year olds the question “a + 10 = 37, find a” and neither knows answer, is the one who points at the page and says “it’s there” more correct than the one who doesn’t answer?


[edit on 29-8-2009 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by make.changes

 

I dispute that there are seven atmospheric layers, you can only get that number if you fudge around the definition of atmospheric layer. Googling it seems to suggest that this includes the magnetosphere which isn’t part of the atmosphere; so if we’re going to include this then we can add many more such as the ozone layer. Ultimately we can get many more than seven layers.

However this is beside the point because you claim that the only way that this could be known at the time was through god to which I say why not aliens?

Your evidence is nothing of the sort, it’s an observation that you link to an unnecessary cause which is no different to me saying that it was aliens.

reply to post by havok

 

Well, I think of God (or Gods as elohim is plural, jews were to choose 1 out of 4,which is why I think only Enoch is in the Bible, and not the three others: Enlil,Enki and Innana) as aliens, and if we play around with K.Hovin's redicules theory that Earth had one more Layer, but it melted and rained down on Earth. Why not ? It cant be denied as Impossible, just look at the moon of Jupiter, same scenario, an Ice canapy, Yes Sir ...

reply to post by make.changes

are you talking about an ordinance that god set on this earth. would it not be a little strange if he decided to make two things that weighed the same fall at different rates.

That's the power of observation. If we see that two apples of same weight fall at different rates, then we'd revise hypothesis. See how easy it is? If a theory doesn't work or is not adequate, then the theory is revised or a new theory comes in it's place.

anyways thats the job of the holy spirit because if he allowed you to do everything you might just get the impression that you are god.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by habfan1968

 

At then of the debate though Creationism is more correct as it has an answer to the question at the end of the debate, where did that come from?

That doesn’t make sense, if I give two three year olds the question “a + 10 = 37, find a” and neither knows answer, is the one who points at the page and says “it’s there” more correct than the one who doesn’t answer?
[edit on 29-8-2009 by Mike_A]

Well, the answer is 27 , it is in the question ...

reply to post by Mike_A


you want us to use scriptures know? like this

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

it states exactly what he means

reply to post by ChemBreather

Why not ?

That’s the point. Why not? Or rather why?

If you can’t articulate why using evidence then it’s not scientific.

By the way, I know the answer to that question. That wasn’t the point.


@ Everyone

I repeat for those that still don’t seem to understand what this thread is about; this thread is for those creationists that claim creationism is scientifically valid to prove this claim by providing a scientific argument.

It is NOT for those who believe faith is good enough and it is NOT for those who don’t believe in science.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


the bible holds all of the answers there is no need for science seeming how the bible has all of the answers, which science is trying to discover for themselves because they dont believe god theyy somehow want to figure out the knowledge that has already been given to them by god.

Originally posted by make.changes
reply to post by Mike_A

 

you want us to use scriptures know? like this

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

it states exactly what he means

So you are a Christian? I haven't read your other posts, so I do not know what I am dealing with. You believe that the Judeo-Christian God created the universe as stated in Genesis?

The problem is the perception of creationism and the perception of god along with the perception of evolution.

Evolution is merely precieve'd by the human eye and mind. It is based off of only what we can see and measure with today's technology and then assumptions are made to end up at an evolution theory.

Creationism is associated with the supernatural and/or god like being. However that is precieve'd by a human belief system.

If you factor out all perception used in both cases what you come up with is all life, planets, galaxies ect. were created by something we have no proof for and mankind stumbles along believing they know all the answers to this. Groups form and debate which perception is correct when in fact we were created by something no matter which side of the fence you stand on. There for by eliminating the precieve'd notions we are left with the simple fact, "We were created by something but we are too stupid to fully comprehend it."

If that's not the answer your looking for then in fact you are trying to do a religious debate without religion which is not possible. Both evolution and creationism are a religion.

reply to post by Mike_A


there is a difference between science and math. i trust math math is symbols such as three dots or ...

equals 3 the symbol for ... is three etc. so if ...+.... would equal ....... dots or the number 7 not scientifiaclly proven but it is accurate for construction WHICH IS ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY!!! science is not enjoy : )

reply to post by Deaf Alien


ill use texts that involve one ultimate god that match up with the bible and the qurran and the torah and the tanakh and all of that good stuff.