If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up

Sort:
masmai
Shygirl6985 wrote:

Seems like it requires just as much faith to believe in evolution....

Only insofar as you have faith that you can trust your senses not to deceive you. The theory of evolution is based on a massive accumulation of evidence that is overwhelmingly convincing. "Evidence" here meaning data that is quantifiable and observableSo I suppose if you think it's possible that there is a demon deceiving thousands of scientists' senses, then yes, evolution is based on faith. If you have any faith in your own senses, though, then evolution is one of the strongest and most irrefutable scientific theories we have.

By the way I'm agnostic. I would make the claim that it requires just as much faith to be convinced that a god absolutely does not exist as to be convinced that one does exist, but I do not consider evolution to be an act of faith (aside from the very simple case stated above).

I tend to side with atheists, if we're talking probabilities, though.

ElvenQuill

Wow. What was the point of this forum again? OH YEAH! Chess. Someone must have been pretty darn bored to submit this topic...

yureesystem

@ masmai wrote:then evolution is one of the strongest and most irrefutable scientific theories we have.  





Really? A destructive force ( the big bang ) created life? That is a lot faith a faults science, more questions than answers! Can you explain why everything creative according to its kind? Because evolution believe we came from primodial slime, true science is the search for the truth, and evolution doesn't answer the important questions, how we came to exist and why there is governing laws in the universe, it is impossible for life to created without a creator. You need a lot faith to believe in a science that can never answers important questions, how did we come to existence, why do we die and where do we go after death, and why are we different from the animals?

yureesystem

scc314  

Why do you still need proof that God exists when the entire universe stands as a witness to his existence?  

 

 

Amen! God's creation is evidences.

yureesystem

alex-rodriguez wrote:

yureesystem, Evolution by natural selection and the Big Bang are different branches of science. Evolution by the way is the strongest fact of science. The 3.5 Billion year history of life on this planet is extremely interesting. You might want to learn more about it.  

 

 

 

Well, how did the universe came to an existence? Evolutionist will have a hard time explain this. Why, would I believe in a science that can't answer a simple question.

yureesystem

PBS TV program had on Evolution on 2001, this happen; Infact, its one-side depicion of evolution spurred a backlash from many scientists. A detailed, 151-page critique claimed it " failed to present accuretely and fairly the scientifc problems with the evidence or Darwinian evolution" and even systematically ignored 'disagreements among evolutionary biologists themselves".  Getting the Facts Straight. This is scientists saying evolution is faults. There many book on this, my personal favorite is 'Darwin On Trial", it leaves the evolutionist wanting, a sad case a of lack evidences to prove their case.

drpsholder
yureesystem wrote:

drpshoider wrote: Cool. My background is in science........anatomy, biology, physiology.

So beliefs shouldn't be based on evidence? Beliefs should be based on no evidence whatsoever?

Now, if beliefs should be based on evidence, then when all the evidence is natural............should we believe this earth was created supernaturally? Why?

If all the evidence is natural, why shouldn't I believe the earth was created naturally...........and then change my beliefs if new evidence reveals it happened another way?    

 

Even if I grant you this "creator" it doesn't tell WHAT the creator is. You assume this creator is a "who", which is biased because only a person's name will satisfy your question as to "who created the earth?".  I assume this creator is a "what", which is not biased because now anything will satisfy my question as to "what created the earth?".

that's the problem that creationists don't understand.

If we found something and knew nothing about it, would you ask "who" created it or would you ask "what" created it? If you ask "who" then you are biased and making assumptions about something that you know nothing about.

So, I say this creator is nature...........natural processes.

We have no evidence of supernature creating anything, but we have evidence of nature creating all kinds of things.  

 

 

 

Surely can one believe in science without a creator?  You can't have science without a creator, there has to be explanation to how things came to existence. Natural processes is not possible because it is impossible for something to come into existence without a creator. Human anatomy is too complex for it be random, human beings  testify to a creator; reason is animals is a lot lower than a human. We have a inner laws that give us right and wrong, animal don't have this and behave according to their nature. So,to answer your question, Yes, God is supernatural. The creation is a testimony to God, and there is your evidences; if everything came to existence by accident, natural processes or evolution it is not logical, it doesn't explain the why and the how it came to be .

You are misunderstanding "random". Random doesn't mean for no reason. Read up on random from a scientific perspective because you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

If I toss a coin into the air, the results are random........it could land on heads or tails.  You don't know which one it will be.  But whether it lands on heads or tails is dependent upon physics(momentum, velocity, etc.).  How far up you toss the coin, how hard you make the coin flip while being tossed, etc. etc.

So just because science says something is random doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause.  They call it random because the things that actually cause it to happen(physics, momentum, velocity) are unknown.

But again, again, again..............just because you say there was a creator doesn't mean it was supernatural. There is no evidence for anything supernatural.  I wonder why you can't find any evidence for supernatural?

Now we do have evidence for natural processes. So it can only be logical to believe the evidence instead of believing what you don't have evidence for.

drpsholder
petrosianpupil wrote:

@ DRP

No I realised you wanted me to explain the difference between the words. I dont have to do what you want. So you assumed that I assumed incorrectly . You seem to have real talent at going off on one.

I am more interested in ideas than labels. Its not my job to educate you on the definitions of words, you should thank me for pointing out your incorrect insistence of using belief in the wrong context and manner.

I am guessing a lot of people do run away from you. My worry is that you seem proud of that fact.

then I have no reason to change my beliefs. Why should I believe Im wrong when you can't show me where Im wrong?

fischerman_bob

If the universe has an explanation then that explanation must have an explanation. As Hawking said if we could explain why there is something rather then nothing in an equation, how can an explanation create anything, what breathes fire into the equation?

drpsholder
petrosianpupil wrote:

@ DRP

No I realised you wanted me to explain the difference between the words. I dont have to do what you want. So you assumed that I assumed incorrectly . You seem to have real talent at going off on one.

I am more interested in ideas than labels. Its not my job to educate you on the definitions of words, you should thank me for pointing out your incorrect insistence of using belief in the wrong context and manner.

I am guessing a lot of people do run away from you. My worry is that you seem proud of that fact.

Sadly you didn't! LOL.

Because remember...........you said its not your place to explain the difference to me.

Right, they do run away from me once they realize they can't prove me wrong, which would lead them to change their beliefs.........but they are incapable of learning, so its just much easier to run away instead of admitting that they can't prove me wrong. 

fischerman_bob

I disageee. Evolution has been empirically verified and is valid. It holds together logically. Shygirl6985 wrote:

Seems like it requires just as much faith to believe in evolution....

fischerman_bob

However, we are talking about the creation of everything (reality, the universe ) not just life.

drpsholder
chessterd5 wrote:

Well said yuree,

Evolution is a religion. First one must believe a creation story ( the big bang). Second, one must believe that the earth formed perfectly as it needed to over the course of about a billion or so years + or - in an unstable enviroment. And then you must believe that over an extrodinary amount of time every living thing as we understand it emerged from a single amino acid formed by a caustic reaction between primordial rain and contact with a rock, the surface of the earth.Remember, this all happened without ANY STRUCTURE,GUIDANCE, OR INFLUENCE BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE!

Nope. Religion is a set of belief based on no real justifiable evidence. Evolution is based on tons of evidence.

Shygirl6985

This seems so complicated...

drpsholder

Well, how did the universe came to an existence? Evolutionist will have a hard time explain this. Why, would I believe in a science that can't answer a simple question.


Notice how you are confusing two different fields of study...........evolution and abiogenesis?

You ask how the universe came into existence(abiogenesis) and then say that evolutionists will have a hard time explaining it. DUH? You confused two different fields of study. LOL!

And you guys wonder why we love to talk about this stuff to creationists/religious people?  Because of the entertainment value, that's why.  Its not to change your mind. Its so we can be entertained!


drpsholder
yureesystem wrote:

@ masmai wrote:then evolution is one of the strongest and most irrefutable scientific theories we have.  





Really? A destructive force ( the big bang ) created life? That is a lot faith a faults science, more questions than answers! Can you explain why everything creative according to its kind? Because evolution believe we came from primodial slime, true science is the search for the truth, and evolution doesn't answer the important questions, how we came to exist and why there is governing laws in the universe, it is impossible for life to created without a creator. You need a lot faith to believe in a science that can never answers important questions, how did we come to existence, why do we die and where do we go after death, and why are we different from the animals?

No one is saying that the big bang created life! LOL

Evolution does answer the important question of where man came from, but it doesn't answer questions about how the universe was created.......that's abiogenesis.

Just like evolution doesn't tell us how the universe was created, abiogenesis doesn't tell us how life evolved. Two mutually exclusive fields of study designed to answer different questions.

And yes, life must have had a creator and the only evidence we have is natural.  We have no evidence of supernatural, so its irrational to believe that supernatural created anything.  Feel like Im having to say this over and over again.

Why are you not understanding? LOL

drpsholder

This seems so complicated..."


Really?  Looking around at all the other life forms, you can't tell that humans and apes are related, more so that humans and turtles?

drpsholder
yureesystem wrote:

drpshoider wrote: Cool. My background is in science........anatomy, biology, physiology.

So beliefs shouldn't be based on evidence? Beliefs should be based on no evidence whatsoever?

Now, if beliefs should be based on evidence, then when all the evidence is natural............should we believe this earth was created supernaturally? Why?

If all the evidence is natural, why shouldn't I believe the earth was created naturally...........and then change my beliefs if new evidence reveals it happened another way?    

 

Even if I grant you this "creator" it doesn't tell WHAT the creator is. You assume this creator is a "who", which is biased because only a person's name will satisfy your question as to "who created the earth?".  I assume this creator is a "what", which is not biased because now anything will satisfy my question as to "what created the earth?".

that's the problem that creationists don't understand.

If we found something and knew nothing about it, would you ask "who" created it or would you ask "what" created it? If you ask "who" then you are biased and making assumptions about something that you know nothing about.

So, I say this creator is nature...........natural processes.

We have no evidence of supernature creating anything, but we have evidence of nature creating all kinds of things.  

 

 

 

Surely can one believe in science without a creator?  You can't have science without a creator, there has to be explanation to how things came to existence. Natural processes is not possible because it is impossible for something to come into existence without a creator. Human anatomy is too complex for it be random, human beings  testify to a creator; reason is animals is a lot lower than a human. We have a inner laws that give us right and wrong, animal don't have this and behave according to their nature. So,to answer your question, Yes, God is supernatural. The creation is a testimony to God, and there is your evidences; if everything came to existence by accident, natural processes or evolution it is not logical, it doesn't explain the why and the how it came to be .

 Again, again, again.........I have told you several times(who knows why Im having to tell you again) that for something to come into existence, it needs to be created.  GET THAT?  Man, I hope so because it doesn't make you look very good the longer I have to repeat myself.

But you still have yet to deal with my objection to acknowledging what this creator is. I claim that this creator is nature..........which we have evidence of. You claim this creator is supernature.........which we have NO Evidence of.

When baking soda and vinegar combine it produces a reaction.........bubbles, fizzing. These bubbles were not there before vinegar and baking soda combined. The bubbles occur naturally, not supernaturally.

When you can find evidence of anything supernaturally created, let me know.  ANYTHING?  Just 1 thing?

yureesystem

drpsholder wrote: When you can find evidence of anything supernaturally created, let me know.  ANYTHING?  Just 1 thing?  

We have no evidence of supernatural, so its irrational to believe that supernatural created anything.  Feel like Im having to say this over and over again.      

 

 

 

A single cell is prove God existence. It proves only something supernatural create something as complex as a single cell. That is why scientists are going towards creationist. ouch! Another reason is the scientists complain to PBS for unfair and biased representation towards evolution; let me stated this again scientists not Christians. There are many books written by scientists speaking against evolution and stating it as faults. ouch! That is I say it take great faith in believing a lie, that make into a religion, not a science. You choose not to do your own research  and so you believe a lie and prefer to have someone teach you a lie. Not to challenge your professor is person who is conformist and will believe anything being told. 

drpsholder
yureesystem wrote:

drpsholder wrote: When you can find evidence of anything supernaturally created, let me know.  ANYTHING?  Just 1 thing?  

We have no evidence of supernatural, so its irrational to believe that supernatural created anything.  Feel like Im having to say this over and over again.      

 

 

 

A single cell is prove God existence. It proves only something supernatural that can create something as cmplex as a single cell. That is why scientists are going towards creationist. ouch! Another reason is the scientists complain to PBS for unfair and biased views towards evolution; let me stated this again scientists not Christians. There are many books written by scientists speaking against evolution and stating it is faults. ouch! That is I say it take great faith in believing a lie, that make it religion, not a science.

No a single cell isn't evidence of a god.  Remember we have no evidence of  supernatural processes, but we do have natural processes.

So even if I don't know HOW a single cell was created, I going with "it was created naturally" because we have no evidence of anything being created supernaturally.

You have no evidence!

This forum topic has been locked