Tell you one thing...........BLIND FAITH kills everything people stands for......kills your mind and all you could ever hope to be, following after some doctrine ( that is man made) that only gives you some hope and nothing achieved.....If you follow it, then you might as well call yourself dead, because youre not using what you've been given..............a mind...And that is what we all consist of.
Originally posted by xyz revolution
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life without mentioning these:[list]
[*]god
[*]bible
[*]jesus
[*]religion
[*]evolution
[*]anything to do with the above[/list]
You win at life.
Originally posted by G a n n o n
the proof is everywhere. how can the human body be so complex without the inteligent creator God?
It is very complex, therefore God made it? I guess God made New York city then, because that thing is irreducibly complex... Oh wait. That didn't have an intelligent creator. Oops. Bad logic.
Well, as we know scientists believe the universe was formed by a gigantic explosion as the result of built-up gasses that concentrated and formed an explosive chemichal reaction.
But where did those gasses come from? How were they formed? How did the universe go from nothingness to have gas that could slowly grow into a substance that could create the universe?
Though it's fairly possible considering how chemistry doesn't fail us, it seems awfuly ignorant and narscistic to believe no outside force could possibly be involved with said explosion. However, I believe both creationists and evolutionists spend far too much time, energy, and money, on the annoying tug-of-war of how the universe began, when it really doesn't matter, it's here, and it's here to stay. We should worry more about how it might end, especialy considering the times..
Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
Well, as we know scientists believe the universe was formed by a gigantic explosion as the result of built-up gasses that concentrated and formed an explosive chemichal reaction.But where did those gasses come from? How were they formed? How did the universe go from nothingness to have gas that could slowly grow into a substance that could create the universe?
Though it's fairly possible considering how chemistry doesn't fail us, it seems awfuly ignorant and narscistic to believe no outside force could possibly be involved with said explosion. However, I believe both creationists and evolutionists spend far too much time, energy, and money, on the annoying tug-of-war of how the universe began, when it really doesn't matter, it's here, and it's here to stay. We should worry more about how it might end, especialy considering the times..
Before the big bang was the big crunch and before that was another big bang and before that... get it? No beginning...
I personally think the assumption that creation NEEDS a beginning is humans putting linear limitations on everything. Humans think in terms of beginnings and endings. The idea that they don't apply to the universe is baffling, but to me it makes a great deal of sense.
I mean, what came before the beginning? And before that? And so on.
I ask you:
How do you think the plants in your garden existed?
than i ask:
How did the book of botany existed?
If creationism don't exist the book on botany shld not exist. So does your home, the buildings. It takes a intelligent being to create a AI being therefore it takes a supreme being to create a Intelligent being like u and me and all those around.
Originally posted by Wesker
We're wading through semantics here...Firstly, if you do NOT use empirical evidence to support your theory, you are arguing strictly a priori. And a priori arguments cannot prove things in the real world by themselves. You cannot tell me the mating habits of the sea turtle by pure a priori arguing. Now, before you toss around the term "faith", know its definition:
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs
Religious faith is based on the second definition- it does not rest on [b]logical proof or material evidence.
. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of science. Science uses both logical proof and material evidence.Look at my thread on the concept of an all-good god: rationally, God could not be allpowerful and all good and still allow evil to exist. The Bible scriptures would have you believe that freedom of choice exempts God from his responsibility, but then it also claims predestination and thus it contradicts itself. If you ask a staunch Christian how this can be, they will rattle of some illogical answer like "We can't know God" or "Who are we to question God?" They cannot prove their case with logic or with material evidence. Hence, theirs is blind faith, while scientific method and theory is based on common sense and applicable givens. To generalize faith as you have done is to mistake the word's very meaning. [/B]
Its not a semantics problem. Although I´m using the first definition for faith. For example, religious people have a confident belief in god even if we do not have empirical evidence for it....
What I am trying to tell you about science is that the validity of "empirical evidence" is assumed as priori knowledge, exactly like "god is assumed as a apriori knowledge by religion. A priori knowledge is a lot like faith, it is some knowledge that you assume to be true without proving it, and science uses it too.
Why epiricism is true ? It is a priori knowledge. The most interesting about this is that empiricism itself denies the existence of a priori knowledge.... what results in a contradiction.
Originally posted by BackFireIsn't that how religion started? If you can't explain it, study it, don't just say, "God did it proving religion" No. ❌ that's going to stop science all togethor if everyone thinks that. Then we'll be wasting ourlives trying to talk to someone who doesn't exist. I don't want that to happen.
Stuff happened that I can't explain, therefor, creationism is true.
Originally posted by whobdamandogwhat? Natural selection proves god? What the **** are you talking about? What language are you speaking because it sounds like Bollucks!
You've proved to all that there is a God, based on natural selection not allowing for the evolution of ass*oles like yourself.Now aren't you supposed to shut up?😉
Fin.
Originally posted by xyz revolution
Evolution-changes as we learn more. Begins with observation, then moves on to hypothesis, testing and debate. It never stops researching untill everything is explained.creationism-is rigid. It begins with fiction, then moves onto asserting, insisting, twisting the facts and even TORTURING those who disagree.
what christians don't understand that from the beginning Darwin said we're like this because of the environment we live in, and we develop over time to fit this environment better.
Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.
Sciences that support creationism: ...
Originally posted by xyz revolution
What are the facts supporting creationism?
Originally posted by xyz revolution
you can't explain creationism as science.
Originally posted by WeskerDoes it matter what the beginning is? We're never gonna know I think. What we should be focusing on is the future, how we could make that better.
I personally think the assumption that creation NEEDS a beginning is humans putting linear limitations on everything. Humans think in terms of beginnings and endings. The idea that they don't apply to the universe is baffling, but to me it makes a great deal of sense.I mean, what came before the beginning? And before that? And so on.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Its not a semantics problem. Although I´m using the first definition for faith. For example, religious people have a confident belief in god even if we do not have empirical evidence for it....What I am trying to tell you about science is that the validity of "empirical evidence" is assumed as priori knowledge, exactly like "god is assumed as a apriori knowledge by religion. A priori knowledge is a lot like faith, it is some knowledge that you assume to be true without proving it, and science uses it too.
Why epiricism is true ? It is a priori knowledge. The most interesting about this is that empiricism itself denies the existence of a priori knowledge.... what results in a contradiction.
Let's get our definitions in order firstly, because I think you're misusing a lot of terms.
2 entries found for a priori.
a pri·o·ri ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ä pr-ôr, -r, pr-ôr, -r)
adj.
Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
and empiricism...
empiricism
n 1: (philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience [syn: empiricist philosophy, sensationalism] 2: the application of empirical methods in any art or science 3: medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings [syn: quackery]
The ideas are mutually exclusive. By saying otherwise, you're demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of all the terms involved, and your point dissolves.