What Evidence Would it Take For You to Accept Creationism as a Valid Explanation?

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 113
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    I wouldn't rule out that God exists, but would he really be the viscious bastard....



    I bet If I walked out into the street and asked a complete stranger to give me 2 minutes of his time because it was more important than anything else *ever* I'd get a 90% success rate.



    What kind of parent abandons a child, and absolutely refuses to acknowledge them, unless they do all the running. And if they decide not to jump through hoops backwards with feet and hands tied, condemns them to death, no questions asked?
  • Reply 42 of 113
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    I'm not so sure that God's a member of this forum.



    yes i am.



    .



    for me to believe in creationism, it probably wouldn't take much. i generally accept science on faith. for all i know, the studies and papers, and what have you, that i've encountered were all forged; or were without any foundation. prove that, creationismists, then say "hey, creationism isn't a lie", and i'll believe. or prove that the immutable laws of fizix are.. mutable, to the will of the creator.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    How did we get everything from nothing?



    funny, a similar question pushed me away from religion. who/what created the creator? i'm inclined to think man did, after evolving from ooze.
  • Reply 43 of 113
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Fun stuff to be hand in the m-brane theories bouncing around right now (no pun intended... okay a little one) regarding the big, er, boing.



    Toss in some QM for fun, add a dash of non-linear causality because the light cones aren't quite playing on a Euclidean playing field anymore, and we get...



    There's always been something, there will always be something. It just cycles.



    Very Brahmin, Christian, and what have you, all at one shot. Yet oddly enough based on these funny little squiggles we like to call math. Hurm.





    The passage you were thinking of regarding the 144,000 saved is Revelations 7:4-8. And yeah, I wonder how many Christians have ever read it. It's pretty obvious most have never read most of the book, so what the hey, right?
  • Reply 44 of 113
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thuh Freak

    funny, a similar question pushed me away from religion. who/what created the creator? i'm inclined to think man did, after evolving from ooze.



    This brings up an interesting point.



    More often than not, creationists will argue this: How could all this stuff around us have come from nothing? There had to be a creator for all of this. It's not intelligent to just assume everything appeared from nothing.



    To which I say: What created the creator?



    And I always get the reply. He just is. ALways has been and always will be. He is God.



    So it's dumb for me to think everything came from nothing, but that's basically the answer when the origin of God is questioned. ALthough the answer to the existence of God makes less sense, because it is argued He didn't come from anything at all.
  • Reply 45 of 113
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kraig911

    ahh jumping to conclusions I see... well I did have a parent didn't love me *chuckles* we're digressing but still science doesn't necessarily prove anything... its merely a construct on how to base a thought on and then build on that, and bam! you have a principle to go by. What a lot of people don't realize is, is there truly nothing... and if something is there does it quantify to some degree that it is what it is.



    Thats why I like the bible, its finite, it is what it is. If you can't take it for what it says, then why are you trying to disprove it, when you can simply go your own way. Why can't you just let it be?



    Religion isn't something to resort too, its an explination as it also is a way to cope with life. I don't see why 'non-believers' look down believers of religion as such. They think that its helped soceity and yes it has, and it has also only lead people to enact their worst sick perverted fantasies of disaster, as people have done with religion. I guess they are such opposites, and yet in the end exactly the same no? In the end the value is null.




    I, for one, certainly don't look down on the religious per se, but take it on a case to case basis.



    I know people of faith who are compelling in their grace and poise, and I know people of faith that appear to be complete assholes.



    And I would be more than happy to leave it that, and go on my own way, except the assholes keep trying to remake my country in their own image.
  • Reply 46 of 113
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha





    The passage you were thinking of regarding the 144,000 saved is Revelations 7:4-8. And yeah, I wonder how many Christians have ever read it. It's pretty obvious most have never read most of the book, so what the hey, right? [/B]



    At todays population ~6 billion, thats 1 person in every 42000. Say goodbye to your friends and families Creationists.
  • Reply 47 of 113
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    At todays population ~6 billion, thats 1 person in every 42000. Say goodbye to your friends and families Creationists.



    But I found this



    In Chapter seven we have the vivid description of four angels being sent by God , to find and seal, and deliver 12,000 Elected individuals out of each of the twelve tribes of Israel, for a total of 144,000 . Revelations 7:4-8 - "The Remnant out of Israel sealed"



    These 144,000 Elected individuals will become, if you like, God's great tribulation period evangelism team.



    Just imagine, 144,000 "Billy Grahams" going forth during the final stages of the Great Tribulation to proclaim the truth that Jesus is "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS" the one and only True Messiah. Ministering this fact to all the Jews of Israel, and the rest of the world as well.



    Perhaps I misunderstood! Anyone care to explain?
  • Reply 48 of 113
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    I would require A LOT of proof. As the starting point, I consider all religious stories as credible. So whether it is any Native Ameircan story of the creation of the World, the Hindu Creation, or the Christian. I don't think any of them is a real truth.
  • Reply 49 of 113
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Oh, dmz, if you want to join in you're welcome! You can play by telling us what kind of evidence would be acceptable to you, as a creationist, as proof of evolution.









    play?---oh why don't you give me nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it while you're at it?





    Okay. For proof of evolution:



    prove on paper, gene-by-gene, mutation-by-mutation, there are viable, Darwin-proof, pathways between any two Classes or Orders.



    (I don't think this can be done without some Punctuated Equilbrium within the creatures themselves.)
  • Reply 50 of 113
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    prove on paper, gene-by-gene, mutation-by-mutation, there are viable, Darwin-proof, pathways between any two Classes or Orders.



    Examples, please?
  • Reply 51 of 113
    jesperasjesperas Posts: 524member
    How about a theory of creationism which isn't based on disproving evolution?
  • Reply 52 of 113
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    At todays population ~6 billion, thats 1 person in every 42000. Say goodbye to your friends and families Creationists.



    I think that I'm going to have way better odds than you now hehe just kidding. All of revelations shouldn't be read in that context. Everything in revelations is pretty much a metaphor that has to be taken in reason. If you read elsewhere it refers to the seven eyed lamb (aka jesus)... opening the 7 seals.



    I digress but has anyone else here seen those apocamon things out on the web? I can't find them but if someone could find them so we can all see them and make jest of this argument hehe, because i really enjoyed them.
  • Reply 53 of 113
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    But I found this



    In Chapter seven we have the vivid description of four angels being sent by God , to find and seal, and deliver 12,000 Elected individuals out of each of the twelve tribes of Israel, for a total of 144,000 . Revelations 7:4-8 - "The Remnant out of Israel sealed"



    These 144,000 Elected individuals will become, if you like, God's great tribulation period evangelism team.



    Just imagine, 144,000 "Billy Grahams" going forth during the final stages of the Great Tribulation to proclaim the truth that Jesus is "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS" the one and only True Messiah. Ministering this fact to all the Jews of Israel, and the rest of the world as well.



    Perhaps I misunderstood! Anyone care to explain?




    Go talk to the JWs. See, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that *they* are the stock from whence the 144k will be chosen.



    So all those Israelis are just imposters, and the real children of Israel are based in Brooklyn.



    Everybody wants to be the favorite kid in the family. Sheesh.
  • Reply 54 of 113
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kraig911

    I think that I'm going to have way better odds than you now hehe just kidding. All of revelations shouldn't be read in that context. Everything in revelations is pretty much a metaphor that has to be taken in reason. If you read elsewhere it refers to the seven eyed lamb (aka jesus)... opening the 7 seals.



    I digress but has anyone else here seen those apocamon things out on the web? I can't find them but if someone could find them so we can all see them and make jest of this argument hehe, because i really enjoyed them.




    Now maybe you can tell me how fundamentalists are supposed to read a metaphor literally . . . . isn't the 'literal' reading of the bible what Fundies are all about?
  • Reply 55 of 113
    soulcrushersoulcrusher Posts: 587member
    I've never seen God.

    I've never seen a lizard turning into an iguana.



    So, both evolution and creationism seem equally stupid.
  • Reply 56 of 113
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    Examples, please?





    I dunno---I've never heard of anyone doing this. Most of the time it's really, really broad generalizations. It would seem to me that even if you took it back to something as simple as yeast, you could jump from one organism (on paper) to another---but doing it with Darwin-style methods.
  • Reply 57 of 113
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Now maybe you can tell me how fundamentalists are supposed to read a metaphor literally . . . . isn't the 'literal' reading of the bible what Fundies are all about?



    "no I say until seventy times seven...." I don't think the Lord meant waiting until the guy pissed you off 490 times---then stop forgiving him.
  • Reply 58 of 113
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Now maybe you can tell me how fundamentalists are supposed to read a metaphor literally . . . . isn't the 'literal' reading of the bible what Fundies are all about?



    Nope not necessarily, fundamentalist mantra is whatever the bible says we know about, and believe, what it doesn't we have to find out for ourselves. At least thats how I was raised. Its interpretation is ones own personal vendetta, and revelations is incredibly complicated, when you look elsewhere in the bible and compare it too other books in the bible. Other interesting books are Jobe, and Leviticus (sp?) I don't have a bible nearby.
  • Reply 59 of 113
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    play?---oh why don't you give me nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it while you're at it?





    Okay. For proof of evolution:



    prove on paper, gene-by-gene, mutation-by-mutation, there are viable, Darwin-proof, pathways between any two Classes or Orders.



    (I don't think this can be done without some Punctuated Equilbrium within the creatures themselves.)




    Now, in the interests of brevity, I suggest that we henceforth refer to DMZ's standard of proof as:

    POPGBGMBMTAVDPPBATCOO, or, with further elision, the ""DPP-BATCOO" (pronounced dip-bat-coo) Standard"
  • Reply 60 of 113
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    I dunno---I've never heard of anyone doing this. Most of the time it's really, really broad generalizations. It would seem to me that even if you took it back to something as simple as yeast, you could jump from one organism (on paper) to another---but doing it with Darwin-style methods.



    Are you talking about proving that every intermediary form between two separate species is viable? Yeah, I'd like to see that too.
Sign In or Register to comment.