PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Proof or no proof?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Could a Creationist please give me ONE thing (only ONE) about Creationism that we can proove.

PS. The bible is not proof.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 3:41 PM on December 14, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Could you please give ONE (only one) piece of evidence that GOD is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond (not considering the Bible, just GOD as a higher power)?

And why would GOD leave his fingerprints on everything for us to see?

PS. Its called FAITH...nobody needs to "prove" there is a GOD for people to believe it. FYI, your sarcasm is offensive and will never promote a descent debate.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 9:23 PM on December 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Could you please give ONE (only one) piece of evidence that GOD is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond (not considering the Bible, just GOD as a higher power)?

And why would GOD leave his fingerprints on everything for us to see?

PS. Its called FAITH...nobody needs to "prove" there is a GOD for people to believe it. FYI, your sarcasm is offensive and will never promote a descent debate.


You start with the erroneous assumption that science's goal is disprove religion. Disregarding the rest, since I agree with it, I think it's still notable that by challenging the Theory of Evolution not on grounds of faith but on grounds of science, Creationism had better be prepared to defend on the basis of science.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:30 PM on December 20, 2006 | IP
Carico

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That each species breeds its own kind, humans rule over the anmals, the sun gives light by day, the moon and stars give light by night and are used to mark the months, seasons and years. That's more than one thing. So...where do apes breed human descendants in reality?

(Edited by Carico 12/21/2006 at 09:40 AM).


-------
Yours in Christ,
Heidi
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 09:38 AM on December 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So...where do apes breed human descendants in reality?
[/quote

Never heard of any scientific claim that says they do.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:55 AM on December 21, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I really wasn't making any claims or assumptions of what the goals of science are, I was just trying to make blade think about what he was saying. Neither side of this debate can show "proof" of whether or not GOD is behind everything we see and feel (which is more or less the topic of this thread).
I was certainly not challenging the Theory of Evolution, because I agree with it. I just happen to also believe that GOD is behind it.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 12:26 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from rockclimber_10 at 9:23 PM on December 20, 2006 :
Could you please give ONE (only one) piece of evidence that GOD is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond (not considering the Bible, just GOD as a higher power)?

And why would GOD leave his fingerprints on everything for us to see?

PS. Its called FAITH...nobody needs to "prove" there is a GOD for people to believe it. FYI, your sarcasm is offensive and will never promote a descent debate.


So you want me to prove a negative, I can't, no one can.
But I will answer with as much sense as you have shown.

Could you please give ONE (only one) piece of evidence that FATHER CHRISTMAS is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond (not considering the Bible, just FATHER CHRISTMAS as a higher power)?

And why would FATHER CHRISTMAS leave his fingerprints on everything for us to see?

There is no such thing as a GOD,
but because you believe there is, you want me to prove that he didn't make everything.

I believe a PINK PANTHER made everything, you prove it didn't.

PS. Its called FAITH...nobody needs to "prove" there is a PINK PANTHER for people to believe it. FYI, your sarcasm is offensive and will never promote a descent debate.

I am being offensive because I don't agree with you, and if you cannot stand sarcasm you should not say you believe in such crazy things, If I told you my GOD was a pink Panther I suppose you would treat me with the same respect, because I would be an idiot.



 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 12:38 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

PS.
Where did you get the idea a GOD was resposible for everything?
I am sure it was not YOUR idea.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 12:43 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's nothing wrong with theistic evolution, or even a worldview that's totally based on theism. If faith doesn't contradict science, Blade, what's the problem?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:30 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 1:30 PM on December 22, 2006 :
There's nothing wrong with theistic evolution, or even a worldview that's totally based on theism. If faith doesn't contradict science, Blade, what's the problem?


I never said there was anything wrong with 'theistic evolution or even a worldview that's totally based on theism'.

What I find wrong is BLIND faith.

When you are young and someone you love tells you something is right, you accept it as the truth,
until a time comes when you can analyse it and look at it for yourself,
if it stands up and makes sense to you, you carry on believing it,
if it doesn't, you stop believing it.

As a child I believed, as did a lot of other children, that father Christmas brought me toys at Christmas, I soon found out that was not true
and I stopped believing it, what would you think was wrong with me if I still believed in father Christmas?
it stands to reason it is not true, it cannot possibly be true, it breaks every law of nature it is possible to break, if after having all of this explained to me, I still believed it, would you think I was ill? or stubborn? or just plain stupid?
because to believe in father Christmas I have got to be one of these.

Now let's talk about a GOD.



(Edited by blade 12/22/2006 at 4:50 PM).

(Edited by blade 12/22/2006 at 4:51 PM).

(Edited by blade 12/22/2006 at 4:53 PM).

(Edited by blade 12/22/2006 at 4:53 PM).

(Edited by blade 12/22/2006 at 4:54 PM).
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 4:48 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, have you ever seen anything that has not, at some time or another, been created?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:34 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, have you ever seen anything that has not, at some time or another, been created?


Electrons, protons and neutrons aren't created (with or without ingellience). Neither is matter and energy as a whole.

We see non-intelligent forces creating rocks, sediment, entire planets, stars, and in some cases protocells too.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:35 PM on December 23, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So then you agree that there can be something that has existed forever with no beginning.  So do Christians.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:01 PM on December 23, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from blade at 12:38 PM on December 22, 2006 :
Quote from rockclimber_10 at 9:23 PM on December 20, 2006 :
Could you please give ONE (only one) piece of evidence that GOD is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond (not considering the Bible, just GOD as a higher power)?

And why would GOD leave his fingerprints on everything for us to see?

PS. Its called FAITH...nobody needs to "prove" there is a GOD for people to believe it. FYI, your sarcasm is offensive and will never promote a descent debate.


So you want me to prove a negative, I can't, no one can.
But I will answer with as much sense as you have shown.

Could you please give ONE (only one) piece of evidence that FATHER CHRISTMAS is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond (not considering the Bible, just FATHER CHRISTMAS as a higher power)?

And why would FATHER CHRISTMAS leave his fingerprints on everything for us to see?

There is no such thing as a GOD,
but because you believe there is, you want me to prove that he didn't make everything.

I believe a PINK PANTHER made everything, you prove it didn't.

PS. Its called FAITH...nobody needs to "prove" there is a PINK PANTHER for people to believe it. FYI, your sarcasm is offensive and will never promote a descent debate.

I am being offensive because I don't agree with you, and if you cannot stand sarcasm you should not say you believe in such crazy things, If I told you my GOD was a pink Panther I suppose you would treat me with the same respect, because I would be an idiot.





I asked you to prove a negative? I thought I said to give me one piece of evidence...you do know the difference, right?

And I have absolutely no problem with you not believing in GOD, that is completely fine with me and I respect that. And I completely understand that there are people on both sides of this debate that say stupid things, but I didn't think I was one of them. Well, now you have, and you are one of those people...so, congratulations.  

"I am being offensive because I don't agree with you" - nice


(Edited by rockclimber_10 12/23/2006 at 10:19 PM).


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 10:07 PM on December 23, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before I can give ONE piece of evidence that GOD is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond, we will need to find out if a God exists or not, that is why I am saying you want me to prove a negative,
to me, the question is illogical, it's not illogical to you because you believe in a God, but just because you believe in a God does not make the God any more real, he is as real as if you didn't believe, what goes on in your head has nothing to do with true reality, only your reality,
you could change the word God for anything you like and it would be just as illogical.

"I am not only being offensive because I don't agree with you, but because you are asking me to believe in Magic."

And another thing.
You can quote the Bible and believe whatever you like, you can want it all to be true, you can wish it all to be true, you can even demand that it all to be true, in fact every person on this planet can believe it's true, but that wont make it true, so all you can do is hope that it's true.



(Edited by blade 12/24/2006 at 10:05 AM).

(Edited by blade 12/24/2006 at 10:14 AM).
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 10:03 AM on December 24, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm done with you Blade. We are not going to change each others mind and you are no longer providing me with arguments that provoke thought. Your now wasting my time with common atheistic statements that I've heard many times (although they are usually, at least, put into complete sentences).


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 2:39 PM on December 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before I can give ONE piece of evidence that GOD is not behind everything we see here on earth and beyond, we will need to find out if a God exists or not, that is why I am saying you want me to prove a negative,
to me, the question is illogical


Atheism must prove a negative. Atheists have the burden of proving a God does not exist. It's not merely a matter of saying "Because there is no evidence, God cannot exist." If you have no evidence that God doesn't exist, your argument falls apart. You're asserting a case of agnosticism, the position that we can't know whether or not God exists.

Your position of atheism, on the other hand, is no less fallacious than Irreducible Complexity.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:25 PM on December 24, 2006 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Atheism must prove a negative. Atheists have the burden of proving a God does not exist. It's not merely a matter of saying "Because there is no evidence, God cannot exist." If you have no evidence that God doesn't exist, your argument falls apart. You're asserting a case of agnosticism, the position that we can't know whether or not God exists.

You got it the wrong way round as theists are the ones making the claim that god(s) exist, atheists merely reject your claims. It's theists who have to show that their claim of god(s) existing.


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 03:21 AM on December 26, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You got it the wrong way round as theists are the ones making the claim that god(s) exist, atheists merely reject your claims. It's theists who have to show that their claim of god(s) existing.


That's exactly the point. By rejecting the claim, atheists receive a burden of proof. It's different than merely saying "I don't know," as is the position of agnostics. Agnosticism is the only reasonable standpoint on theism for a faithless someone (like me) who is unaware of any evidence for a god.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/26/2006 at 11:20 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:19 AM on December 26, 2006 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's exactly the point. By rejecting the claim, atheists receive a burden of proof. It's different than merely saying "I don't know," as is the position of agnostics. Agnosticism is the only reasonable standpoint on theism for a faithless someone (like me) who is unaware of any evidence for a god.


I disagree.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, atheism is a classification based on belief and agnosticism is based on knowledge. I would class myself as an agnostic atheist - I don't know that gods exists or don't exist but I believe that they don't based on not seeing any evidence for its existence.

Going back to the question of burden of proof,  logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. For example a person claiming X needs to show evidence for X, if another person finds the evidence lacking they can reject X.
X without evidence presented is merely a concept. If its a concept that describes something that exists in reality then evidence should exist, if it doesn't exist no evidence exists and it's cant be shown to be true or untrue. There are exceptions to this where the claimed concept contains self-contradictory elements such as a square circle, because of its contradictory elements it can be shown not to exist but such elements in the concept of gods are smoothed over by apologetics.  


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 06:28 AM on December 27, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, atheism is a classification based on belief and agnosticism is based on knowledge. I would class myself as an agnostic atheist - I don't know that gods exists or don't exist but I believe that they don't based on not seeing any evidence for its existence.


I really like the way you chose to word that. It's a good explanation.

Going back to the question of burden of proof,  logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. For example a person claiming X needs to show evidence for X, if another person finds the evidence lacking they can reject X.


This is the same fallacy that plagues Irreducible Complexity. You can reject X and claim X does not exist, but a lack of evidence does not prove anything. Take a murder trial. If the evidence that the defendant committed the murder is lacking, they are found "Not Guilty"; they are not found "Innocent". They can still commit the crime and be "not guilty" due to lacking evidence.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/27/2006 at 2:12 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:12 PM on December 27, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.