Proofs For Creationism - As Requested

[unriggable]

Creationism is another one of religion's attempts to meddle in science.

last time i checked creationism came before any other theory in most society.

Because they did not have any adequate theory back in the day. I'm pretty sure the Earth in the center of the universe came before any other theory as well, and is that true? Nope.

[nunz]

I remember a biology class a few years back when I was still at school, we saw a movie about a kind of lizard that didn't need to mate in order to lay eggs and reproduce. I don't remember what they were called, it's been years since I saw it, but I think a lizard can be classified as on par with a chicken with regard to complexity.

Asexual is not the same as miotic or similar reporduction via cell division. Asexual can include hermaphrodites which is where one organism can fulfill the role of both sexes, ie have babies by themselves.

However, the lizard while being a complex organism is not capable of reproduction by cell division, which is part of reason some evolutionists believe an animal could develop complex egg laying organs and behaviours. They believe that an organism could continue to lay faulty or practice eggs which may fail, while continuing to breed via mitosis or other form of cell division. The Lizard doesn't fall into this category. Good answe though.

[nunz]

even frogspawn, although looking simple is a very complex form of egg.
an early asexual organism could leave one part of itself, just one cell, which would then grow into the entire organism (like taking a cutting of a plant) This organism would then be classed as egg laying.

Can you show one organism that does this? Either fossil or current? My argument against a complex egg (such as a chicken (or lizards) egg) which can survive on land or where the behaviour of the parent(s) allows it to be viable, and with the complexity of the embryo / child bein complex enough to let it survive and escape, is not shown in simple organisms.

The whole argument evolutionsts seem to use towards the egg being able to develop the compexity required over time, while getting all the pieces required in place, is that the parent organism (e.g proto chicken or proto-type of whatever) is that there was another reproductive method in place to keep the species viable while the more complex reproductive process 'evolved'. The only other methods offered so far seem to be reproduction via cell division which only (as far as I know) occurs in simpiler or less complex organisms.

[Neutrino]

When it comes down to Creationism v. Evolution, people will believe what they want to believe. There are a lot of things about origins that we just don't know, and are not even close to discovering.

That said, the three biggest questions are:
1. Origin of matter and energy
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of consciousness

So unless God reveals himself or scientists can provide definitive proof of how the universe came about, this argument is a stalemate.

who says their has to be an origin?
why can't matter and energy have existed forever?
can't the universe have existed forever?

so ur questions don't really work too well

(i no this is a really old quote, but i just started reading this thread)

That's the Steady State theory. It says the universe has existed forever and will exist for ever. It dosent hold up too well though, because if the universe was of infinite size, then the matter and energy inside said infinite universe would also have to be infinite (If they wernt, they would be 0; plainly not true) and so, because there will be an infinite number of stars in every direction, space would be as hot as the sun.

[Jenos Ridan]

Good point. Why the big gap between single-cells and billion-cell lifeforms?

[nunz]

Here is my question / observation: The organisms which are able to breed asexually are only ever simple organisms as far as I am aware. Hermaphrodites (for example) are reasonably common in nature (worms etc) as higher level organisms but that is still a form of sexual reproduction. Therefore the only type of organisms capable of reproducing asexually by cell division or similarly are most likely too simple to be egg bearing / laying?

see the following story from cnn. more comments later. sorry, I'm working and a colleague need my help, but I didn't want the thread to get too far without getting this in.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05 ... index.html

Yeah, that's what those lizards were doing, too.

Yes - A form of hermaphrodism or similar. I am sure there is a term for it. However, the idea of an egg laying creature growing in complexity, in colossusses previous post, suggests there needed to be an alternative method of reporduction (to the egg which needed to grow in structural complexity to survive (not to mention the organism needing to change to survive being in a hard shelled egg )) and that the alternative reproductive strategy probably involved cell division.

The shark, the frog, the lizard .. are all hermaphrodites or similarly sexual in their reporductive efforts. There are fish (other than the shark mentioned) that change sex when there is a lack of one gender. This however is not a-sexual reporductin. It is a form of sexual reproduction, albeit one which involved no partner.

The shark still laid eggs. It didn't have sex to reporduce but it is still a form of sexual reproduction (for the terms of this discussion). It was self fertilised but did not come about by cell division of the parent, causing two copies of the original organism. Maybe there is another word than asexual I need to use to get across the idea of reporduction by division , not reproduction without sex.

[unriggable]

The shark still laid eggs. It didn't have sex to reporduce but it is still a form of sexual reproduction (for the terms of this discussion). It was self fertilised but did not come about by cell division of the parent, causing two copies of the original organism. Maybe there is another word than asexual I need to use to get across the idea of reporduction by division , not reproduction without sex.

BTW you're wrong. It didn't have sex. It is asexual reproduction. A cell 'split off' and recreated an entire organism.

[nunz]

I pitty you nunz.

Listen to this, there's no god. I could show you point by point, argument by argument, the no existence of god but I won't waste my time. Besides, it's not a problem of logic or proofs, it's that you were brainwashed, you wanna believe there's a god and you will try to use theologic arguments and methaphysic to disprove the no-existence of god. That's all you got.

I ask now for your strongest argument or proof, which I will destroy.

Bring it on. Do your best. I'll be waiting.

P.S. For those who are happy with their beliefs and are not trying to convince anyone but were just reading by curiosity.. I'll recomend you to leave.

I have met with Him. Millions of others have also met with Him or experienced him. Jesus claimed to be from Him.

You cannot claim I am a liar or insane, you do not know me and according to the DSM3 and DSM 4 (American Psychiatrics Association Diagnositc Manuals) religious belief is not a form of mental illness.

Jesus, accroding to CS Lewis was either A madman on the level of aperson claiming to be a boiled egg (seque anybody?), a liar or the Son of God. No other choice. No one follows a mad mans teachings for thousands of years (although nietzsche's teachings are still around decades later and he was certifiable), Jesus was proved not to be a liar in two courts of law 9Jewish and Roman) and the best they could do was get him for Blasphemy and sedition. so that only leaves one alternative. He did come from God and his testimony is true.

So nietzsche. you have two things to disprove. One is I have met and expereinced God. Two, Jesus was a liar or a madman. Good luck as neither has yet been disproved.

[nunz]

The shark still laid eggs. It didn't have sex to reporduce but it is still a form of sexual reproduction (for the terms of this discussion). It was self fertilised but did not come about by cell division of the parent, causing two copies of the original organism. Maybe there is another word than asexual I need to use to get across the idea of reporduction by division , not reproduction without sex.

BTW you're wrong. It didn't have sex. It is asexual reproduction. A cell 'split off' and recreated an entire organism.

Like i said, maybe the word asexual is not quite the one i am looking for. The word I want to reproduction through cell division producing 'clones' of the original organism.

The shark also still presumaeably laid eggs as they don't give birth to live offspring.

[unriggable]

The shark still laid eggs. It didn't have sex to reporduce but it is still a form of sexual reproduction (for the terms of this discussion). It was self fertilised but did not come about by cell division of the parent, causing two copies of the original organism. Maybe there is another word than asexual I need to use to get across the idea of reporduction by division , not reproduction without sex.

BTW you're wrong. It didn't have sex. It is asexual reproduction. A cell 'split off' and recreated an entire organism.

Like i said, maybe the word asexual is not quite the one i am looking for. The word I want to reproduction through cell division producing 'clones' of the original organism.

The shark also still presumaeably laid eggs as they don't give birth to live offspring.

That can only happen at a molecular level. Something of such size has to create a small offspring. But it is a clone.

[nunz]

The shark still laid eggs. It didn't have sex to reporduce but it is still a form of sexual reproduction (for the terms of this discussion). It was self fertilised but did not come about by cell division of the parent, causing two copies of the original organism. Maybe there is another word than asexual I need to use to get across the idea of reporduction by division , not reproduction without sex.

BTW you're wrong. It didn't have sex. It is asexual reproduction. A cell 'split off' and recreated an entire organism.

Like i said, maybe the word asexual is not quite the one i am looking for. The word I want to reproduction through cell division producing 'clones' of the original organism.

The shark also still presumaeably laid eggs as they don't give birth to live offspring.

That can only happen at a molecular level. Something of such size has to create a small offspring. But it is a clone.

Yep ... And that is my entire point. I believe Colossus pointed out that the argument against irreducable complexity, was that an egg could evolve over time if the parent of the egg was capable of reproducing via cell division in order to keep the species going, while the egg evolved.

However, my contention is that there is no evidence of this happening and the only organisms capable of reproducing via cell division are simple ones that would not be capable of producing an egg of a complexity similar to a chickens (or other complex) egg.

Therefore. Simple organisms which reproduce through 'cloning', mitosis, asexual cell duplication (not hermaprodism or 'virgin birth') are incapable of producing an egg of the complexity required to evolve into a chickens (or proto chicken or any other form of complex egg).

Complex organisms capable of producing a prototype of the chicken egg (and also the behavioural changes and structural changes required by the organism) wont have the ability to breed via cloning so couldn't sustain the species while the egg 'evolves'.

Therefore the answer by colossus explaining away irreducible complexity in the case of the egg seems to me to be to be invalid.

[nietzsche]

I'm deleting my posts in this thread because a friend got upset.

May god bless you.. and save the queen.

[demigod]

I pitty you nunz.

Listen to this, there's no god. I could show you point by point, argument by argument, the no existence of god but I won't waste my time. Besides, it's not a problem of logic or proofs, it's that you were brainwashed, you wanna believe there's a god and you will try to use theologic arguments and methaphysic to disprove the no-existence of god. That's all you got.

I ask now for your strongest argument or proof, which I will destroy.

Bring it on. Do your best. I'll be waiting.

P.S. For those who are happy with their beliefs and are not trying to convince anyone but were just reading by curiosity.. I'll recomend you to leave.

I have met with Him. Millions of others have also met with Him or experienced him. Jesus claimed to be from Him.

You cannot claim I am a liar or insane, you do not know me and according to the DSM3 and DSM 4 (American Psychiatrics Association Diagnositc Manuals) religious belief is not a form of mental illness.

Jesus, accroding to CS Lewis was either A madman on the level of aperson claiming to be a boiled egg (seque anybody?), a liar or the Son of God. No other choice. No one follows a mad mans teachings for thousands of years (although nietzsche's teachings are still around decades later and he was certifiable), Jesus was proved not to be a liar in two courts of law 9Jewish and Roman) and the best they could do was get him for Blasphemy and sedition. so that only leaves one alternative. He did come from God and his testimony is true.

So nietzsche. you have two things to disprove. One is I have met and expereinced God. Two, Jesus was a liar or a madman. Good luck as neither has yet been disproved.

You didn't post any argument or proof valid to me. I was expecting something intelligent but I see you're just a fanatic. If you were born in the middle east you'd be a terrorist.

But i'll try to answer both points:

1. You met with god. This is no argument.
This is simply your personal will to believe that. In the same manner I could say I'm god, or that I was visited by a succubus last night and nobody could disprove it.

2. Jesus was a liar or a madman. No other choice.
I consider this argument really stupid. Makes no sense. You said that you were taught to think by yourself. Are you thinking right now? This guy Jesus found a sect 2 millenia ago, with a message of love or what was his ethics, what he believed should be the behaviour of men and that's it. He cured people? well, there is people that cure sick ones and they aren't "Sons of God" That he resucitated? Myth. After this, his followers founded the christian church which was used by the romans to control the masses and the church has survived because of his enormous power to control the lives of others.

I consider this 2 arguments really weak.

Creationism is not a fucking science. Creationism is a belief, a faith, keep it in the churches. Don't teach your children this kind of beliefs because in the future it will be accepted everywhere that the-god-belief was only a stage of human civilization therefore all their foundantions will break when they reach teen age.

nietzsche you are making the same sort of fundamentalist positive existential claim that nunz is making... by the same token he could say don't teach your children this kind of positive existential belief because in the future it will be accepted everywhere that the-atheist-belief was only a stage of human civilization

[nunz]

.....
Listen to this, there's no god. I could show you point by point, argument by argument, the no existence of god but I won't waste my time. Besides, it's not a problem of logic or proofs, it's that you were brainwashed, you wanna believe there's a god and you will try to use theologic arguments ....

I have met with Him. Millions of others have also met with Him or experienced him. Jesus claimed to be from Him.

You cannot claim I am a liar or insane, you do not know me and according to the DSM3 and DSM 4 (American Psychiatrics Association Diagnositc Manuals) religious belief is not a form of mental illness.

Jesus, accroding to CS Lewis was either A madman on the level of aperson claiming to be a boiled egg (seque anybody?), a liar or the Son of God. No other choice. No one follows a mad mans teachings for thousands of years (although nietzsche's teachings are still around decades later and he was certifiable), Jesus was proved not to be a liar in two courts of law 9Jewish and Roman) and the best they could do was get him for Blasphemy and sedition. so that only leaves one alternative. He did come from God and his testimony is true.

So you have two things to disprove. One is I have met and expereinced God. Two, Jesus was a liar or a madman. Good luck as neither has yet been disproved.[/quote]

You didn't post any argument or proof valid to me. I was expecting something intelligent but I see you're just a fanatic. If you were born in the middle east you'd be a terrorist.

But i'll try to answer both points:

1. You met with god. This is no argument.
This is simply your personal will to believe that. In the same manner I could say I'm god, or that I was visited by a succubus last night and nobody could disprove it.

2. Jesus was a liar or a madman. No other choice.
I consider this argument really stupid. Makes no sense. You said that you were taught to think by yourself. Are you thinking right now? This guy Jesus found a sect 2 millenia ago, with a message of love or what was his ethics, what he believed should be the behaviour of men and that's it. He cured people? well, there is people that cure sick ones and they aren't "Sons of God" That he resucitated? Myth. After this, his followers founded the christian church which was used by the romans to control the masses and the church has survived because of his enormous power to control the lives of others.

I consider this 2 arguments really weak.

.....[/quote]
[/quote]

Yawn ... boring .

1. You met with god. This is no argument.

Sure it is. It is the basic proof of all our experiences of life.

Here is why:
Either you are a total existentialist who believes I don't exist and also believe that nothing is real - at which point I punch you in the nose and walk away coz , as a figment of your imagination, the punch didn't exist.
or
You have to experience everything yourself in order to believe in it or to admit the thing is proven
or
At some point you have to believe someone elses testamony and take that as proof.

Now I am not just talking religious belief here but all belief. Whether that is a belief that the sky is blue on the other side of the world (coz the weather man told you) or that your parents met where ever they said they met (coz they told you) or that someone has experienced something you personally haven't. At some point you have to take a leap of trust or faith that because someone else told you something it is true.

Now, I have testified, that I have experienced God, met with God, or had some other experience of God. That IS a form of proof. Either that or you have to go back to believing I am a liar, insane or deluded.

Your belief about my statement that I have experienced and met with God does not stop my testamony (regarding my experience of God) being an argument for the proof of God. Huh? Let me put it in an anology. If I said the sky is blue today in NZ and you choose not to believe me, that does not disprove the fact that the sky really is blue today here in NZ. All that proves is that you choose not to believe what I have told you.

Now, having said the sky is blue you can claim it is not true. You can choose to believe I am a liar, deluded or insane but it doesn't change the facts.

You said for me to state my strongest proof or argument that God exists and you will disprove it. You haven't. All you have done is insult me and claim my experience is invalid.

Now .. here is the funny thing. For you to claim that my experience is invalid ('You met with god. This is no argument. ') you must have stronger proof than me that my personal experience is invalid. For you to claim the experience of billions of people (who have experienced god) is invalid means you must have stronger proof than all of them. In order for you to know what I have experienced (not to mention the billions of others) you must be omnicienst and omnipresent. In order for you to be both of those you would have to be god (by definition the only being who is both omnicient and omnipresent).

So , Let us all hail DemiGod, the omnicient and omnipresent being, All hail demigod. Demigod is god, he knows the experience of us all. He is our proof that god exists ... either that or he is a liar or conceited enough to know more than billions of believers.

Demigod, you are either god, knowing more of this worlds believers experience than they themselves do, or your argument is completely bogus. Which is it? Do I worship or dismiss you?

Secondly.

. Jesus was a liar or a madman. No other choice.
I consider this argument really stupid. Makes no sense.
You said that you were taught to think by yourself. Are you thinking right now? This guy Jesus found a sect 2 millenia ago, with a message of love or what was his ethics, what he believed should be the behaviour of men and that's it. He cured people? well, there is people that cure sick ones and they aren't "Sons of God" That he resucitated? Myth. After this, his followers founded the christian church which was used by the romans to control the masses and the church has survived because of his enormous power to control the lives of others.

You have just dismissed one of the better thinkers of last century - (CSLewis. ) as being really stupid. Either you are a veritable genius or arrogant to dismiss him so dismissively.
Calling everything you disagree with stupid doesn't make it so. It just shows you aren't prepared to think hard enough to make a reasonable dismissal of someone else's ideas. It is a sign of mental laziness.


Getting further into your dismissal.... was Jesus message a message of love? Have you read the bible? Jesus called his best friend satan. He and John called the religious rulers of the day caves with rotting bones in them (which is the equivalent of throwing pigs blood on a moslem today). He over turned the giving tables in the temple. He made a whip of ropes and hit people with it, he mocked priests in church in front of their congregations, he taught his believers to be seditious and stand up for themselves (turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile). He made the common people laugh by telling funny stories where the rulers of the day were the butt of his jokes.
What do you mean by love? Do those things fit into your definition of love?


Also the claim about the romans ... are you joking? Have you read any history? Let me point a few thing out about the christians and the romans.

Nero, the roman emperer dude who was around in about 70ad used to feed christians to the lions in the cirucus. The christians hid under ground in crypts / catacombes (tombs) and held their services there (in fact many of them lived there) to escape being killed for their faith.
Faggots were not originally homosexuals. THey were christians coz nero and several other emporers around that time used to tie christians into bundles, doues them in oil and set light to them to provide light for the circus.
St Peter and St Paul were executed by the romans, just for being christian.
Christians were persecuted as they owed their allegiiance to just one god, and so would not worship the roman emporer as god.
Christians were blamed by nero for burning down the city.
To be christian was to be put to death for the first couple of hundred years of christianity.


You also said, 'That he resucitated? Myth'. Finally something I can agree with you on. He wasn't resucitated. He was resurrected. An entirely different thing altogether.

He died, was buried and on the third day rose back to life. His body has never been found , as there is no body to find. He is still in it, alive and well. Over 500 people saw him alive, with the marks of the crucifixation on him in the month following his death. Historians, even non christian ones, have recorded his body was never found, that there were appearances in various places, that many people claimed to have seen him, that a squad of roman soldiers - guarding the tomb, couldn't produce the body....

Do you deny their testamony too? See argument 1.

[Jenos Ridan]

I'm deleting my posts in this thread because a friend got upset.

May god bless you.. and save the queen.

I take this as a victory of sorts. Have you finally admitted that you just might have been wrong all along? Hey, you wouldn't be alone and I'm not gonna judge you on it.

[MeDeFe]

nunz, is it possible that you messed up the quotes in your last post?

[Iliad]

nunz, is it possible that you messed up the quotes in your last post?

just a little bit.

[Jenos Ridan]

Looks coherent to me.

[MeDeFe]

Except for this:

.....[/quote]
[/quote]

right before the second box with a quotation. It gives me the feeling something went wrong, that's why I like to use the "preview" button whenever I've used any sort of BBCode at all.

[Jenos Ridan]

He made his point. Now you're trying to trip him up on what amounts to semantics.

[MeDeFe]

No, I'm not, so far I haven't said ANYthing about what he wrote and quoted. I've said is that I get the feeling the BBCode is messed up in his post.

Addition: Which leads to some of the things he quoted not being indicated as quotes.

All I'm implicating is that people should pay attention when they quote others so it shows up correcty, not just nunz, but EVERYone. (Whether they're Christian, atheist or whatever else is of no importance)
So please don't start arguing about something that isn't even an argument.

[Jenos Ridan]

No, I'm not, so far I haven't said ANYthing about what he wrote and quoted. I've said is that I get the feeling the BBCode is messed up in his post.

Addition: Which leads to some of the things he quoted not being indicated as quotes.

All I'm implicating is that people should pay attention when they quote others so it shows up correcty, not just nunz, but EVERYone. (Whether they're Christian, atheist or whatever else is of no importance)
So please don't start arguing about something that isn't even an argument.

Thanks for clarifing.

[vtmarik]

Regardless of the authenticity/evidentiary weight of a case for God, it's not science.

Creationism is religion, not science. It doesn't belong in a science class, it belongs in a theology class or a class on comparative religions. If you want to stick alternative theories as to the origin of life, then you are accepting that Creationism is just as scientific as Evolution, which then means that Evolution is religious enough to teach in Church.

Besides all of this, Evolution isn't a theory on the origins of life. It is a scientific theory built upon the observable biodiversity in the world, the principles of genetic drift (as put forth by kimimura) and the idea of special diversity.

Anyone who says that Evolution is a theory on how life began is just as close-minded and moronic as someone who says Intelligent Design is science.