Creationism

[Dan56]

On 5/14/2020 at 2:11 AM, RevBogovac said:

 

It isn't important what you or I find of that proof. At least there is proof. Objective, empirically testable, proof. So a lot more proof that there is of creationism. As for creationism there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. 

 

I don't see the proof of macro-evolution, let alone objective proof.. Its +99% speculative. And as far as proof of creation goes, I see a tree and it exist, so unless it sprung into existence out of nothing by itself, I'm more apt to believe it had a cause, and that cause was a Creator. So either way you swing it, macro-evolution or creationism requires faith, and I'm obviously as unpersuaded by 'science' as you are with God.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't see the proof of macro-evolution, let alone objective proof.. Its +99% speculative. And as far as proof of creation goes, I see a tree and it exist, so unless it sprung into existence out of nothing by itself, I'm more apt to believe it had a cause, and that cause was a Creator. So either way you swing it, macro-evolution or creationism requires faith, and I'm obviously as unpersuaded by 'science' as you are with God.

 

First, there is no good reason to think that this is true.

 

Second, there is no good reason to think that it is your Creator.  Something more than a bald, unsupported assertion.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

First, there is no good reason to think that this is true.

Second, there is no good reason to think that it is your Creator.  Something more than a bald, unsupported assertion

 

There's no good reason not to believe its true either. If you've got a better explanation for a first cause, I'd like to hear it.. But until that day arrives, accepting that God is the uncaused cause of all that exist is as good of an explanation as anything else.. I simply believe in God because I don't know of any better answer, while you believe in nothing that's unknown (unproven). Some folks just need to have peace of mind and believe there's a meaning and purpose to life beyond what's physically apparent. Do we exist in a brief vacuum of time by remarkable accident or is there some higher power that arranged it all for a reason. Your content with the former, I choose the latter. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

59 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

There's no good reason not to believe its true either. If you've got a better explanation for a first cause, I'd like to hear it.. But until that day arrives, accepting that God is the uncaused cause of all that exist is as good of an explanation as anything else.. I simply believe in God because I don't know of any better answer, while you believe in nothing that's unknown (unproven). Some folks just need to have peace of mind and believe there's a meaning and purpose to life beyond what's physically apparent. Do we exist in a brief vacuum of time by remarkable accident or is there some higher power that arranged it all for a reason. Your content with the former, I choose the latter. 

 

 

Just so.  You believe.     

 

Hello, Dan.     

[RevBogovac]

18 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't see the proof of macro-evolution, let alone objective proof.. Its +99% speculative. And as far as proof of creation goes, I see a tree and it exist, so unless it sprung into existence out of nothing by itself, I'm more apt to believe it had a cause, and that cause was a Creator. So either way you swing it, macro-evolution or creationism requires faith, and I'm obviously as unpersuaded by 'science' as you are with God.

 

Yes, you don't see it. That's obvious. But the fact that you can even say that the proof is "+99% speculative" already shows two things: 1. you really do not understand statistics, and 2. you really do not understand science. And that's OK. Not everyone can handle those. No problem. But there is ample proof too (like carbon dating, astronomy, biology, physics et cetera) to prove beyond any reasonable doubt (maybe that's more comprehensible than for instance saying that there is 95% confidence level) that the bible is simply wrong. That the story in genesis is actually no more than exactly that: a story. 

 

PS. please don't bother jumping through the loophole of the remaining 5%... 

Edited May 18, 2020 by RevBogovac

[Key]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There's no good reason not to believe its true either. If you've got a better explanation for a first cause, I'd like to hear it.. But until that day arrives, accepting that God is the uncaused cause of all that exist is as good of an explanation as anything else.. I simply believe in God because I don't know of any better answer, while you believe in nothing that's unknown (unproven). Some folks just need to have peace of mind and believe there's a meaning and purpose to life beyond what's physically apparent. Do we exist in a brief vacuum of time by remarkable accident or is there some higher power that arranged it all for a reason. Your content with the former, I choose the latter. 

It's called deductive reasoning. There's a saying, "big things start small." Who is to say that life didn't begin with a split cell? We have evidence than viruses or bacteria can evolve. So, it isn't so unremarkable to believe bigger things can evolve from small, simple things, too.

There's also a school of thought that since time doesn't conform to a deity as does humans, one could create a micro-organism, knowing it could evolve into something bigger later, taking centuries rather than days. Men couldn't fathom that much time when the Bible was written.

By that reasoning, all other religions can't be wrong, either, as you believe them to be.

[Seeker]

On 5/17/2020 at 2:39 PM, Dan56 said:

 

I don't see the proof of macro-evolution, let alone objective proof.. Its +99% speculative.

 

There is a lot of evidence. What would you consider objective proof?

 

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, Seeker said:

 

There is a lot of evidence. What would you consider objective proof?

 

 

Lots of conjecture, but no objective evidence that proves macro-evolution, which is evidence based on provable facts. Looking at fossilized creatures and comparing them to more advanced fossilized creatures, is not evidence that one evolved into the other.

[Seeker]

Which is non-responsive.

 

What evidence would you accept?

 

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, Seeker said:

Which is non-responsive.

 

What evidence would you accept?

 

 

Factually tell  (show) me the origin of bacterium, and then demonstrate how unicellular microorganisms evolved into every other type of life form on earth.... You can't, because the evidence isn't there. What's non-responsive is the absence of acceptable evidence, so I can't accept something that does not currently exist. And when I say "show me", I'm not referring to an artist rendition of a monkey to ape to man. Creatures with similar characteristics provides zero evidence that one evolved into the other. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Seeker said:

Which is non-responsive.

 

What evidence would you accept?

 

 

This is futile.  If Dan were to accept evolution theory as fact; it would destroy his entire belief system.  It won't happen.  Dan can't let it happen.  He has invested too much of his life into his beliefs.  The facts don't matter.  They never did.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

This is futile.  If Dan were to accept evolution theory as fact; it would destroy his entire belief system.  It won't happen.  Dan can't let it happen.  He has invested too much of his life into his beliefs.  The facts don't matter.  They never did

 

 

Its futile because the evolutionary theory is just that, and is not scientific fact. . Who is it that always demands objective evidence to prove something? Now all of the sudden your willing to accept a subjective hypothesis as acceptable proof? While I admit that my belief is accepted by faith, your convinced that your belief in macro--evolution is substantiated by proof, but its not. Perhaps its you who dismisses creationism because it destroys your belief system? Facts matter, but you have no more facts than I do. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its futile because the evolutionary theory is just that, and is not scientific fact. . Who is it that always demands objective evidence to prove something? Now all of the sudden your willing to accept a subjective hypothesis as acceptable proof? While I admit that my belief is accepted by faith, your convinced that your belief in macro--evolution is substantiated by proof, but its not. Perhaps its you who dismisses creationism because it destroys your belief system? Facts matter, but you have no more facts than I do. 

 

 

 

     Hello Dan.

 

[RevBogovac]

 

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its futile because the evolutionary theory is just that, and is not scientific fact. . Who is it that always demands objective evidence to prove something? Now all of the sudden your willing to accept a subjective hypothesis as acceptable proof? While I admit that my belief is accepted by faith, your convinced that your belief in macro--evolution is substantiated by proof, but its not. Perhaps its you who dismisses creationism because it destroys your belief system? Facts matter, but you have no more facts than I do. 

 

Well, at least scientific facts disproof creationism as described in genesis:

 

On 5/18/2020 at 10:18 AM, RevBogovac said:

 

Yes, you don't see it. That's obvious. But the fact that you can even say that the proof is "+99% speculative" already shows two things: 1. you really do not understand statistics, and 2. you really do not understand science. And that's OK. Not everyone can handle those. No problem. But there is ample proof too (like carbon dating, astronomy, biology, physics et cetera) to prove beyond any reasonable doubt (maybe that's more comprehensible than for instance saying that there is 95% confidence level) that the bible is simply wrong. That the story in genesis is actually no more than exactly that: a story. 

 

PS. please don't bother jumping through the loophole of the remaining 5%... 

 

 

[Pete]

Evolution is both fact and theory. Fact in the sense it is still going on and new spcies are evolving today. It is also a working theory as no scientific evidence can improve upon it. There is no credible scientific support creationism and it cannot be used in scientific study. In science terms creationism is not a working theory and is no more than a religious assertion with no supporting scientific evidence. Quoting a mythical 2000 year old bronze age book is not deemed credible or scientific.. It is interesting only in terms of understanding what people believed back then. Their ignorance can be forgiven because they knew no better. Modern day creationism is just nonsense and totally unscientific.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Evolution is both fact and theory. Fact in the sense it is still going on and new spcies are evolving today. It is also a working theory as no scientific evidence can improve upon it. There is no credible scientific support creationism and it cannot be used in scientific study. In science terms creationism is not a working theory and is no more than a religious assertion with no supporting scientific evidence. Quoting a mythical 2000 year old bronze age book is not deemed credible or scientific.. It is interesting only in terms of understanding what people believed back then. Their ignorance can be forgiven because they knew no better. Modern day creationism is just nonsense and totally unscientific.

 

 

Yes.  Of course.     

 

Once upon a time, God created the Heavens and the Earth.