Creationists' theory in detail

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
26,107
Reaction score
3,840
Points
290
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,971
Reaction score
2,466
Points
290
Location
Texas
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,029
Reaction score
889
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,934
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing
Here is what ancient man captured in Genesis.

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
67,934
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing
Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Lastly, thanks for the opportunity to get this message out. What you intended for evil, God has used for good. ;)
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,211
Reaction score
3,287
Points
1,115
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and the Scientific Method. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational and testable evidence of chemical and biological mechanisms that produce change over time. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from partisan religious claims.
 
Last edited:

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,971
Reaction score
2,466
Points
290
Location
Texas
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
'Natural laws',eh? Yes, the Intelligent Design arguments explain those quite well, unlike the evolution theories, which just pull magical improbabilities out of their asses, and then demand 'gay marriage' out of the nonsense, for some reason, most likely insanity or ideological rubbish.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,971
Reaction score
2,466
Points
290
Location
Texas
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and the Scientific Method. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational and testable evidence of chemical and biological mechanisms that produce change over time. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from partisan religious claims.
And as usual somebody comes along and tries to conflate genetic adaptation with mutation, not really knowing what they're talking about re empiricism or even what a chain of evidence is. Even your hero Dawkins ended up having to admit to that in his own 'debates'. He also thinks a little pedophilia is okay too, though, so you probably don't want to cite him outside your little tree house club.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,971
Reaction score
2,466
Points
290
Location
Texas
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be.
This is of course their only genuine objection; they could care less about 'fact's, or 'science', they want to get rid of any restrictions on mindless self-indulgence and being penalized in any way for that indulgence; if it means butchering millions of babies or raping little boys on a whim, then they're especially enthusiastic about the agenda.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,211
Reaction score
3,287
Points
1,115
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
'Natural laws',eh? Yes, the Intelligent Design arguments explain those quite well, unlike the evolution theories, which just pull magical improbabilities out of their asses, and then demand 'gay marriage' out of the nonsense, for some reason, most likely insanity or ideological rubbish.
ID'iot creationism answers nothing. Those are simple minded appeals to supernaturalism.

ID'iot creationists don't propose theories. The entirety of ID'iot creationism amounts to attacks on valid theories and supported principles of science. ID'iot creationists certainly could publish in peer reviewed science journals but don't, for obvious reasons: supernatural intervention by the gawds is not testable or demonstrable
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,029
Reaction score
889
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
'Natural laws',eh? Yes, the Intelligent Design arguments explain those quite well, unlike the evolution theories, which just pull magical improbabilities out of their asses, and then demand 'gay marriage' out of the nonsense, for some reason, most likely insanity or ideological rubbish.
I have no idea what 'magical improbabilities' you speak of or why 'gay marriage' is relevant but if you imply that ID is not 'magical' I'd be very curious to know how it works. Or are you pulling it out of your ass?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,211
Reaction score
3,287
Points
1,115
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and the Scientific Method. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational and testable evidence of chemical and biological mechanisms that produce change over time. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from partisan religious claims.
And as usual somebody comes along and tries to conflate genetic adaptation with mutation, not really knowing what they're talking about re empiricism or even what a chain of evidence is. Even your hero Dawkins ended up having to admit to that in his own 'debates'. He also thinks a little pedophilia is okay too, though, so you probably don't want to cite him outside your little tree house club.
Not having a science vocabulary might suggest you ask questions when you don't understand terms of science. Mutation and adaptation are terms of science. Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any legitimate scientific organization that has actually conceded to supernaturalism as a viable component of science.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,971
Reaction score
2,466
Points
290
Location
Texas
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
'Natural laws',eh? Yes, the Intelligent Design arguments explain those quite well, unlike the evolution theories, which just pull magical improbabilities out of their asses, and then demand 'gay marriage' out of the nonsense, for some reason, most likely insanity or ideological rubbish.
ID'iot creationism answers nothing. Those are simple minded appeals to supernaturalism.

ID'iot creationists don't propose theories. The entirety of ID'iot creationism amounts to attacks on valid theories and supported principles of science. ID'iot creationists certainly could publish in peer reviewed science journals but don't, for obvious reasons: supernatural intervention by the gawds is not testable or demonstrable
Moron thinks no one should challenge bad theories with zero chains any empirical evidence. and for the record, I'm not 'religious', nor am I enough of a dufus to spout evolutionist rubbish that has no evidence to support it. Whether your deviants and sociopaths and your Xian bashing like that or not is not anything that worries me, since I know you have exactly nothing to back up your junk 'science' theories.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
14,557
Reaction score
2,374
Points
290
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing
well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
41,125
Reaction score
4,987
Points
1,830
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,971
Reaction score
2,466
Points
290
Location
Texas
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and the Scientific Method. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational and testable evidence of chemical and biological mechanisms that produce change over time. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from partisan religious claims.
And as usual somebody comes along and tries to conflate genetic adaptation with mutation, not really knowing what they're talking about re empiricism or even what a chain of evidence is. Even your hero Dawkins ended up having to admit to that in his own 'debates'. He also thinks a little pedophilia is okay too, though, so you probably don't want to cite him outside your little tree house club.
Not having a science vocabulary might suggest you ask questions when you don't understand terms of science. Mutation and adaptation are terms of science. Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any legitimate scientific organization that has actually conceded to supernaturalism as a viable component of science.
Your own babbling is nothing but 'supernaturalism', dumbass. the mathematical probabilities of an immense number of beneficial mutations, in the correct and exacting sequence, which is the only way 'evolution' can proceed according to what is known these days, are indeed in the realm of the purely magical. Being an illiterate who is just parroting some rubbish you personally like didn't make you right, no matter how much Mommy built up your self-esteem. The Peanut Gallery can amuse themselves with looking up the ratios of beneficial mutations to harmful mutations in real life. You aren't going to be happy with the facts of that reality, for sure.
 
Last edited:

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,029
Reaction score
889
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.
I asked my plumber and he sided with evolution.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
41,125
Reaction score
4,987
Points
1,830
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.
I asked my plumber and he sided with evolution.
Ask an obstetrician.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,971
Reaction score
2,466
Points
290
Location
Texas
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.
Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.
I asked my plumber and he sided with evolution.
Ask an obstetrician.
And we're suppose to believe males and females also just coincidentally happened to mutate together at the exact same time, too, then as babies managed to crawl and find food and shelter and avoid getting eaten for a decade or so. lol the whole premise is preposterous as 'science', but it's what the commies and deviants want to sell. They also like to peddle 'social Darwinism' and other silliness, too, so we shouldn't be surprised they are confused by the differences between mutations and adaptations.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top