Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Okay... you made the statement that, "nature is a creator." Do you believe that to be true? If so, please provide an explanation.

A statement like "nature is a creator" is far too vague to be considered true or false without defining the terns.

na·ture
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" Gertrude Stein.
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" Percy Bysshe Shelley.
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.

cre·ate
1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.
adj. Archaic

I am a human and therefore a part of nature. I am a songwriter and therefore create songs.

The statement "nature is a creator" is true.

*clap, clap very good sir....boxing

bobing and weaving like a champ..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
*clap, clap very good sir....boxing

bobing and weaving like a champ..

boxing

I just wish he would come out and ask his question.

Shaky... your statement, "nature is a creator," originally applied to the comment -- or question, rather -- to JesusIsAlive (on page 49).

"So nature is eternal? Nature exists apart from a Creator," was the question.

Such wasn't even presented to you. It was spit-balled at "jaden101," but you felt the need to interject.

No problem.

But when a member of the KMC, such as myself, challenges your statement (and after much "beating-around-the-bush"😉 having you quote dictionary terms regarding "nature" and "create" as an argument, clearly implicates your ignorance.

Your probably a great guy to socialize with, and I'm sure you have many friends and family members that love you. And I would buy you a beer, by the way, ha ha!

Point is, you stab at debate/conversation (amongst members of the KMC) with subtle comments and are unprepared to defend them.

You have proved that in response to my questioning; you were given every opportunity.

No pun intended.

It's simply the truth.

*tisk tisk you resorted to a personal attack on his intelligence..

boxed

way to take a punch..

No... Shaky did that Himself.

what makes creationism more likely then evolution?

what religion is more accurate then another?

why cant we believe or trust world wide independent studies of science that overlap one another..

can science be that inept that they can get the atom bomb right or create televisions and satellites, but we cant trust them at all when it comes to biology?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So nature is eternal? Nature exists apart from a Creator? Nothing in this material universe exists without a cause. Have you ignored the first law of thermodynamics?

No my premise is that the first law of thermodynamics refutes your explanations thus far concerning the origin of the universe.

God is not a theory nor can I prove Him empirically, if I could He would not be worthy of being God. But God is (i.e. exists), there is evidence of His wisdom and power through the things that are created.

"Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientist alive, made this startling admission during the 1997 PBS program, Universe:

“In this century (twentieth century), science has come to understand how the universe began from a tiny point, fifteen billion years ago. No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the church’s ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning"

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH3A.htm

As i've stated twice already...only matter is subject to universal constants such as the laws of thermodynamics...so no...besides i don't know in which context you're trying to apply the conservation of energy law to this discussion.

I feel you're ignoring my point, however...If God has existed from an infinite time he must have existed somewhere...if that somewhere is space then space must have existed infinitely in time also. If God hasn't existed for an infinite time then something must have "created" God thus making God not the all powerful beginning of everything that you would like it to be.

It should be noted that i have no issue with God as a concept for belief....But the fact remains that there is as much evidence for the Christian God as any of the thousands of other Gods worshipped throughout history by many cultures across the world.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shaky... your statement, "nature is a creator," originally applied to the comment -- or question, rather -- to JesusIsAlive (on page 49).

"So nature is eternal? Nature exists apart from a Creator," was the question.

Such wasn't even presented to you. It was spit-balled at "jaden101," but you felt the need to interject.

No problem.

But when a member of the KMC, such as myself, challenges your statement (and after much "beating-around-the-bush"😉 having you quote dictionary terms regarding "nature" and "create" as an argument, clearly implicates your ignorance.

Your probably a great guy to socialize with, and I'm sure you have many friends and family members that love you. And I would buy you a beer, by the way, ha ha!

Point is, you stab at debate/conversation (amongst members of the KMC) with subtle comments and are unprepared to defend them.

You have proved that in response to my questioning; you were given every opportunity.

No pun intended.

It's simply the truth.

Again the big text is getting annoying and childish.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shaky... your statement, "nature is a creator," originally applied to the comment -- or question, rather -- to JesusIsAlive (on page 49).

But JIA ignores all my posts.

Originally posted by ushomefree
"So nature is eternal? Nature exists apart from a Creator," was the question.

How many times can you trace around a circle?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Such wasn't even presented to you. It was spit-balled at "jaden101," but you felt the need to interject.

Open public forum.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No problem.

Don't lie. 🙂

Originally posted by ushomefree
But when a member of the KMC, such as myself, challenges your statement (and after much "beating-around-the-bush"😉 having you quote dictionary terms regarding "nature" and "create" as an argument, clearly implicates your ignorance.

No, I was trying to get a point across. You make a lot of assumptions.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Your probably a great guy to socialize with, and I'm sure you have many friends and family members that love you. And I would buy you a beer, by the way, ha ha!

I'm not insecure.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Point is, you stab at debate/conversation (amongst members of the KMC) with subtle comments and are unprepared to defend them.

I don't stab at anything, I say what is on my mind at the time. You are projecting.

Originally posted by ushomefree
You have proved that in response to my questioning; you were given every opportunity.

I tried to explain to you how something can appear to have a creation and not be created. Then, all you did was ask silly questions. Let me explain what I mean by silly questions:

The story of the boy who cryed wolf: If I told someone that story and they then asked, "what was the name of the boy?" or "where did they live?" or "why didn't the authorities get involved?". Those would be silly questions, and I could only assume that the person was not able to understand the meaning of the story.

Originally posted by ushomefree
With all due respect, so what! Where did the "flatland" come from? And what caused the flatland to "curve into a ball and then expand"? And who in the world are the "flatlanders"?! Explain!

You see, you totally missed the point. All you did was ask silly question.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No pun intended.

I don't see a pun.

Originally posted by ushomefree
It's simply the truth.

In order for there to be a creator there has to be a creation. We know that the universe is expanding and we can run the clock backward and see that the universe must have been very small in the past. Just like the flatlanders in a curved flatland would see new land coming from nowhere as there universe expanded, they too would run the clock backward to a point were all of flantland was one little point. We call this the big bang. However, the big bang was not a creation; it was a change.

Personally I think Buddhism and Christianity have allot in common- the goal of both religions is to live a life of peace and love in order to reach a purer state of existence...

The are essentially different but similar paths to the same end...

Of course, as Gandhi said "these Christians are so unlike their Christ."

Now this is the main thing that I have a problem with the idea of God and even the Big Bang theory is the concept of “it/he has always existed”. I can understand the whole expand and contract of the universe and makes perfect sense to me but the concept of the universe and all of its matter has always existed is something that I just can’t fathom. It makes me wonder what was in the universe before us, and before it and so one but where did the matter come from? The same would be applied to God that what was there before him, what created him and what created the one before him and so on.

Science is based on concret researches and visible discoveries.Nobody can?t deny that human and animal skeletons have been fund and analysed !!
Religion is based on tales and writings but can't provide neither living witness nor any material proof allowing to prove whatever..

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Now this is the main thing that I have a problem with the idea of God and even the Big Bang theory is the concept of “it/he has always existed”. I can understand the whole expand and contract of the universe and makes perfect sense to me but the concept of the universe and all of its matter has always existed is something that I just can’t fathom. It makes me wonder what was in the universe before us, and before it and so one but where did the matter come from? The same would be applied to God that what was there before him, what created him and what created the one before him and so on.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Now this is the main thing that I have a problem with the idea of God and even the Big Bang theory is the concept of “it/he has always existed”. I can understand the whole expand and contract of the universe and makes perfect sense to me but the concept of the universe and all of its matter has always existed is something that I just can’t fathom. It makes me wonder what was in the universe before us, and before it and so one but where did the matter come from? The same would be applied to God that what was there before him, what created him and what created the one before him and so on.

The fact is, something came first in the process of the Universe. There must be an uncaused cause to the rest of existence. I think scientists currently believe that prior to the Big Bang there was a collection of gases etc which have always existed.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The fact is, something came first in the process of the Universe. There must be an uncaused cause to the rest of existence. I think scientists currently believe that prior to the Big Bang there was a collection of gases etc which have always existed.

I have heard that time, as we know it, did not exist before the big bang. It may sound strange to us, but there may not have been time before the big bang.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/13/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/

Each new universe would have it's own time. So, if you ask what happened before, you have to also ask were. This universe did not exist before the big bang. What was before was the multiverse. However, time, as far as I know, does not apply to the multiverse.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The fact is, something came first in the process of the Universe. There must be an uncaused cause to the rest of existence. I think scientists currently believe that prior to the Big Bang there was a collection of gases etc which have always existed.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
And that is the issue of something that always existed.

Oh sorry I thought you just said God in your post, I didn't realise you also posted Big Bang...

As such my point was an attempt to show that the notion of an uncaused cause is backed by current scientific theory. I know see you are not so sure about either.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think scientists currently believe that prior to the Big Bang there was a collection of gases etc which have always existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This universe did not exist before the big bang. What was before was the multiverse.

Originally posted by ushomefree
To all members of the KMC-

It was just last night that I posted my last comment on this thread, and I am lost in the confusion of posts. I can't compete, ha ha! I was wondering if members of the KMC would allow myself to create a thread committed to debate over the validity of Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). I ask, however, that the debate remain between myself and ONE other member. Whoever that may be, we can discuss the specifics via "private messages." Talk amongst yourselves. And the folks in administration can govern the debate, deleting unauthorized comments or simply blocking relevant members, for example. It's just a thought, let me know what you think. Thanks!

Here is the problem with your idea: The person you are debating will not fall for your silly word games, and not follow the path that you want to lead. You will then get upset, call them names, and you will leave the forum for a time.