Proof of Creationism (ID)

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I place my bets on erosion by water over a very very long time.:) I gave you a softball. What I was getting at was that I don't think anyone knows exactly how that occured.

It's maybe impossible to prove either creationism or atheism. Logic suggests to me that some intelligent force directs natural evolution and I also suspect this isn't confined to only one tiny planet. Still, that doesn't mean I believe in the religious idea of God as a walking, talking being who happens to be a man (not a woman).
If I were to be swung by any belief system the closest I could get would be reincarnation which is what Greeks and Egyptians believed.
Still, neither Dawkins nor the Pope can prove what they believe is true and Dawkins is too self-opinionated that he alone has all the answers.

:) I gave you a softball. What I was getting at was that I don't think anyone knows exactly how that occured.

It's maybe impossible to prove either creationism or atheism. Logic suggests to me that some intelligent force directs natural evolution and I also suspect this isn't confined to only one tiny planet. Still, that doesn't mean I believe in the religious idea of God as a walking, talking being who happens to be a man (not a woman).
If I were to be swung by any belief system the closest I could get would be reincarnation which is what Greeks and Egyptians believed.
Still, neither Dawkins nor the Pope can prove what they believe is true and Dawkins is too self-opinionated that he alone has all the answers.

Agree to a point.

Dawkins and his ilk criticise those who believe - because they (the believers) cannot categorically prove to Dawkins what they believe in.
Dawkins criticisms though fall on stony ground : faith by it's very nature is
not based upon physical/mathematical/scientific verification.
If one believes in God - that faith is of a metaphysical nature (metaphysical meaning that it is outside of human measurement/proof).

Those people who are agnostic/atheist are entitled to hold those views.
As are those who believe in God.

The problems starts when one side or the other starts trying to impose their views upon the other side.

It's maybe impossible to prove either creationism or atheism.
Atheism does need to be proved. If one wants to make the extraordinary claim that there is a god then it requries extraordinary evidence. It is no difference than someone cliaming there are little green men on mars. It is not up to the non-believers to prove that there are no green men.

Atheism does need to be proved. If one wants to make the extraordinary claim that there is a god then it requries extraordinary evidence. It is no difference than someone cliaming there are little green men on mars. It is not up to the non-believers to prove that there are no green men.
There is evidence, but just not in the form that you would be expecting or willing to see. I say that with all kindness, because until the age of 32 my view points were exactly like yours and like you I would be willing to stand by those very views without waivering, but at the age of 32 I had a life changing experience that changed my views immediately (not by the bible or someone preaching at me) and those views have not changed for the past 12 years and I don't believe anything could be said to cause me to waiver now.

People that knew me before were amazed at the change in my behavior, but they did not understand it so this change is not evidence to many of them, but those who knew me and were Christians understood it and it was evidence to them. All I can say is that if some One had not intervened in my life (my belief is Jesus did) I was on the path of killing someone or getting killed, which both of those things were very close to happening since I was in the drug trade back in that day. I know for a fact that I did not change my own personality and thoughts, but it was like I was reprogrammed internally and almost immediately. I flushed everything down the toliet and walked away to a new life that was given to me.

This statement will still not be evidence to you and I fully understand because again there was a time when I scoffed at the idea as well.

Carrera, are you messing with us?

If you want proof of creationism, just look at the websites!http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I don't know when the hobbits were thought to have lived exactly but they were saying they're between apes and men.
The Hobbits? Too much Tolkien for you.

My personal belief is life isn't restricted to this planet alone.My reasoning against intelligent life on other planets is that, if it existed, we would be able to read it in the electromagnetic radiation coming from the far reaches of the universe. As yet, there is no evidence of anything artificial in these signals.

Jackasses like Richard Dawkins have done more to destroy true scientific investigation than any religious nut.Richard Dawkins is considered a jackass because he sticks it right up the nose of the fairy-tale believers. Most scientists have been happy to let people believe in their faith-based beliefs up until recently. In fact over much of history, guys like Gallileo and Copernicus worked under constant risk of execution for their findings. In fact Gallileo was sentenced to die by the Pope if I'm not mistaken.

Except now, religion has entered the political sphere, and we have the most powerful man in the world for instance telling us that he makes decisions from his gut and from what God tells him, and has aides within his administration who promulgate the view that the earth is going to end in the next 50 years with the second-coming apocalypse so worrying about the environment is a waste of time.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to pick up the newspaper one day and hear that we have started a war somewhere because it was prophecised in the Bible to be necessary to spark Jesus' return.

All of a sudden, science has come under attack. Evolution is being witheld from children in schools in Kansas. And BTW evolution is not just some random theory that fits some data here but doesn't there. It fits 100% of the data. Yes there are some gaps in the fossil record. But that isn't a problem with evolutionary theory. That's more of a problem of fossilization only being a rare occurrence.

Doesn't mean that a new theory won't come through in the future, but it will almost certainly be an incremental add-on to the foundation of evolutionary theory. Just because some people can't imagine the intermediary stages of an eye's evolution (ie sensitive skin membrane) doesn't mean the theory is wanting.

When I hear people making opinions about evolution, its like construction workers giving criticism of legal juris prudence or human pathological viruses. Everybody has an opinion based on what they've been told by their "advisers". But not qualified to give an opinion themselves.

Where I take issue is over the idea apes evolved into homo sapiens without sufficient data to back this up. I don't have any religious objection to the idea but just find it improbable.Apes to man is a simple evolutionary bridge to cross. I've seen men in my own life that have closely resemble apes, save for a little less body hair. What part of that evolutionary jump do you have problems with?

The missing link is not a missing piece of the puzzle that confounds the theory. Its just something they'd like to find so their evolutionary charts would look nicer.

Dawkins is no different from a fundamentalist. He takes bits and pieces of a theory, presents them as fact then uses them to promote a philosophy.
Can you please give some example of what you mean here?

:) I gave you a softball. What I was getting at was that I don't think anyone knows exactly how [the Grand Canyon] occured.No... they don't know exactly.

They are 99.99999999999% sure of how it occurred.

Atheism does need to be proved. If one wants to make the extraordinary claim that there is a god then it requries extraordinary evidence. It is no difference than someone cliaming there are little green men on mars. It is not up to the non-believers to prove that there are no green men.
Please listen to the above man. Read what he says carefully.

But atheists IMO are also not trying to prove that belief in God does you no good. In fact, a lot of atheists I think envy the beautiful feelings that come with the typical beliefs and communal practices of people enveloped in religion. They're just not prepared to fool or lie to themselves to get there.

The problems starts when one side or the other starts trying to impose their views upon the other side.
Which is why an elderly man like Dawkins was provoked to go public in defence of reason.

There is evidence, but just not in the form that you would be expecting or willing to see. I say that with all kindness, because until the age of 32 my view points were exactly like yours and like you I would be willing to stand by those very views without waivering, but at the age of 32 I had a life changing experience that changed my views immediately (not by the bible or someone preaching at me) and those views have not changed for the past 12 years and I don't believe anything could be said to cause me to waiver now.

People that knew me before were amazed at the change in my behavior, but they did not understand it so this change is not evidence to many of them, but those who knew me and were Christians understood it and it was evidence to them. All I can say is that if some One had not intervened in my life (my belief is Jesus did) I was on the path of killing someone or getting killed, which both of those things were very close to happening since I was in the drug trade back in that day. I know for a fact that I did not change my own personality and thoughts, but it was like I was reprogrammed internally and almost immediately. I flushed everything down the toliet and walked away to a new life that was given to me.

This statement will still not be evidence to you and I fully understand because again there was a time when I scoffed at the idea as well.Felt - I respect your story because it is real. And I am happy for you and the positive life you're experiencing. But I don't think that the positive effects you have experienced prove that there is a God. All it proves is that believing in a God can give you positive effects.

Which isn't that profound, considering the survival of religion throughout the ages. If it had negative effects, it wouldn't have lasted long.

So why don't I believe in a Divine Creator? Same reason I don't believe in Santa.

When I hear people making opinions about evolution, its like construction workers giving criticism of legal juris prudence or human pathological viruses. Everybody has an opinion based on what they've been told by their "advisers". But not qualified to give an opinion themselves.
Welcome to the internet....;)

Please listen to the above man. Read what he says carefully.

But atheists IMO are also not trying to prove that belief in God does you no good. In fact, a lot of atheists I think envy the beautiful feelings that come with the typical beliefs and communal practices of people enveloped in religion. They're just not prepared to fool or lie to themselves to get there.
That last statement seems to imply that believers are fooling or lying to themselves to get there...because it feels nice. Though I think maybe you didn't mean it like that...I said once before in a different thread that being a believer often means sacrifice and sometimes painful choices when we'd rather "do our own thing." Spiritual growth does not always come with beautiful feelings.

Not to mention having to put up with other believers...:rolleyes: :D .

That last statement seems to imply that believers are fooling or lying to themselves to get there...because it feels nice. Though I think maybe you didn't mean it like that...I said once before in a different thread that being a believer often means sacrifice and sometimes painful choices when we'd rather "do our own thing." Spiritual growth does not always come with beautiful feelings.

Not to mention having to put up with other believers...:rolleyes: :D .
Fair point. It was wrong to imply that "believers" are in a cloud of ignorant joy all the time.

One of the offshoots of faith, IMO, is that it encourages one to take a good look at oneself. Because once one accepts the existence of an omnipresent being, especially a God that judges, one cannot fool oneself or others any longer. So a relationship with God, approximates a relationship with the core of oneself. And if there is one commonality to most religions it is this tussle with oneself and seeking righteousness. The image/definition of God maybe different, but these things are similar. It would be good though if people could seek their own spiritual happiness without the multitude of tenets that are inflicted by organized faiths.

Just my 2c.

That last statement seems to imply that believers are fooling or lying to themselves to get there...because it feels nice. Though I think maybe you didn't mean it like that...I said once before in a different thread that being a believer often means sacrifice and sometimes painful choices when we'd rather "do our own thing." Spiritual growth does not always come with beautiful feelings.

Not to mention having to put up with other believers...:rolleyes: :D .
Well put nns.

Cranky you projected your thoughts on me based on what you believe and I can understand that because it is your view. In my last post I clearly said that my change of heart would not be evidence to those who do not believe, but only to those who have experienced what I experienced will know what I am talking about. If that makes me look like someone who believes in ghosts or mystical things or if I appear to be a nutcake to forum members I can understand that. I scoffed, mocked and made jokes of Christianity until I was 32 as well so I understand your perspective.

nns's highlighted comments are very true because there are still very many struggles in this life for all of us to endure and many hard lessons to be learned in the future.

And if there is one commonality to most religions it is this tussle with oneself and seeking righteousness. The image/definition of God maybe different, but these things are similar. It would be good though if people could seek their own spiritual happiness without the multitude of tenets that are inflicted by organized faiths.

Just my 2c.
I agree with that being the commonality...however I believe that when you look below the surface, every other belief system is ultimately about what the individual has to do or accomplish to achieve or earn that righteousness (or oneness or nirvana, etc etc). The effort must come from the individual, it's on his/her shoulders to get there. "Works based" is what that's called.

Christianity is the only belief system that offers a relationship with a personal God. And a righteousness that cannot be achieved on one's own. God has done it for you...accepting the righteousness of Jesus Christ in your stead is what reconciles you to God. In fact, it's quite the opposite of other systems. There is NOTHING you can do or achieve that will earn God's grace. This isn't to say that the life of a Christian doesn't involve "good works" etc but that isn't what creates the relationship with God.

I don't know if you saw The Passion of The Christ, but after I saw it, it made that even more clear to me. There really isn't anything I can add to what Jesus Christ did. It seems ridiculous in fact after that. In my view, Jesus is who makes me whole, and right with God, and then spends the rest of my life here molding (and hammering) me into the person he wants me to be.

NOTE: If someone wants to go off flaming about that movie, please just start a new thread. Even if you don't like me.

And unfortunately, it is "organized religion" that has added works based philosophy (the "have to" part) to Christianity, most especially Catholicism, and on the other end of the spectrum, some conservative forms of Baptist, Disciples Of Christ, etc. I grew up with people saying things like you can't get to heaven if you play cards, drink, dance or participate in "mixed bathing." I didn't even know what the hell that was until I was an adult (going swimming with members of the opposite sex - sounds worse though doesn't it). I even heard someone say someone else wasn't "saved" because they had one hand still sticking out of the baptismal waters. :rolleyes:

Just my 2c...well, maybe that was more like 5 cents. ;)