Um... huh? You lost me at the end. Explain your post please. As for there being no evidence in creation: There is actually. Look around you. Seriously, go look out your window sometime or stare up into the night sky. The universe is absolutely huge, and it's full of an indescribably beauty. It didn't all come by chance. I'm not saying you have to be a Christian, but you can't deny that a greater being started everything. It's called "faith" my friend. Believing what in what you can't see. No, there isn't any hard, tangible evidence, but the universe as a whole is evidence enough. Not to be rude, but if you honestly think that we got here without the help of God, you are an idiot. It's as simple as that.
My point is - what makes you believe in creation? Why is believing in a God that created the universe and life so much more rational than believing in a clan super-squirrels that created all life? The answer is simple - it isn't. I could just as quickly call you an idiot for not believing in super-squirrels. Because I'm sick of stubbornness. I've given up morality arguments, and at a time I was close to leaving this argument. Once a person brings up faith in a debate, that pretty much means the debate is over. It means that no matter how much logic you force them to see, they will refuse to change their minds of think openly. They will simply shut their ears and say "lalalala" whenever you try to change their mind. Faith just means 'believing what you have always believed because you don't want to change your mind.'
Here's something I forgot to mention. A lot of people are convinced we evolved from monkeys. Scientifically it could make sense, but it's not possible. Why? Well, because the main thing that separates us from animals is the fact we have a spirit. It makes sense if you think about it. Animals mostly act out of instinct. They couldn't comprehend sin even if they could sin. We're different. We have a choice between right or wrong. There's a difference between your brain and your spirit. I just thought of another reason creation and evolution could co-exist. God says that Adam was made from the dust. I'm not a bible scholar, but I still think that it's all a metaphor. EDIT: Super-squirrels are a tangible thing. Creation and God are not. There's a major difference, so I still don't believe in super-squirrels. And as I mentioned, I believe in creation because I have faith that it is real. I refuse to believe that the universe was created by chance. Everything just fits together so perfectly sometimes that God just has to be involved.
We have no spirit. The only difference is a brain evolved to think consciously. This isn't a debate if you have already decided that you will not change your mind.
How ironic. People state their faith and you say they "shun you out" and yet you say creation has no evidence. Just because someone else is stubborn doesn't give you the right to be ignorant. What kind of argument is there for morality?
But the fact of the matter is that the theory complies with current knowledge about our universe. Until it can be demonstrated that it does not, or another model that does more closely can be demonstrated, we must rely on our modern knowledge of reality to create and understand perceptions of said reality.
Hypocrite much? YOU are the thing that you dislike so much. How does that feel? Anyways, debates are here to make people think about things they haven't thought about. Just because I won't stop believing in faith and God doesn't mean that I shut out every single idea that doesn't exactly match my own. I'm also here to try to help the people who don't believe to understand. It doesn't feel good knowing that people all around you will end up in hell because no one ever told them the truth.
I'm still waiting for some evidence of creationism... If you show me some than I will happily take back what I said and admit that I was wrong. By 'morality arguments' I meant arguing over anything that isn't directly related to the existence of god or the idea of creationism. Give me some logical, rational, straightforward reasons to believe in creationism (or god) and I will. 'The universe is beautiful' isn't a reason - there are hundreds of potential explanations for why the universe is the way it is.
I edited my earlier post by the way. I hope it clears some things up. As for this: That's just ridiculous. Don't argue about faith when you don't even understand its depth. You're just making a fool of yourself. And how many times do I have to tell you. I HAVE PROOF! The universe is proof enough, I've already told you that. Do you even read my posts? God and faith and creation aren't tangible, so obviously you won't find tangible proof. Is it really that hard to understand? Tangible things = tangible proof. Supernatural things = faith. Get it yet?
Announcement: To all of you who say "give me proof of the supernatural," we can't. We CAN'T give you the tangible proof you want because there isn't any. Supernatural things have supernatural proof. Only tangible things have tangible proof. So stop using the same old "you have no proof" line because it doesn't even make sense to say. Obviously we aren't going to have physical proof of something that isn't physical. It's like telling someone that you're in a good mood. Sure, you can act like you're in a good mood, but there's no way of actually proving it because moods aren't a physical thing. Sorry for the double post. I'm going to bed.
Super squirrels aren't tangible either. They exist everywhere and nowhere... within us all... Why don't you have faith that the super squirrels created everything? Explain to me why you have your faith, then. If you were born in a primarily Muslim country, would you still the same views of faith? You didn't get it from seeing the universe - you got it because you were either born and raised with it or felt an urge to get some faith, and chose a religion.
We all exist in the present; and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (where did the animals come from? how did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present. However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so that we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so that we could know for sure about past events. Christians, of course, claim they do have, in a sense, a time machine. They have a book called the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. 1 Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g., no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation); so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions. That’s why the argument often turns into something like: “Can’t you see what I’m talking about?” “No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?” “No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.” “No, it’s not obvious.” And so on. These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses. It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions. A Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions. It is, of course, sometimes possible that just by presenting “evidence” one can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense of “the facts.” But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than the first, that person will swing away from the first argument, thinking they have found “stronger facts.” However, if that person had been helped to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they would have been better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions. ______________________________________________________ That's for one. I like this source.
I have to go to bed in a few minutes, so I don't really have time to fully respond to this. I will go more in-depth tomorrow night if I have to.. The problem with that source is that it is assuming that the bible is trustworthy. As we have already gone over before this, the bible could just have easily been written by a bunch of random people with no input from god. This fallacy alone makes everything written in the bible very shaky evidence. That really isn't a great counterpoint, though. This is a far better one: Going into the debate, the Christian presupposition is to assume that god exists, right? The problem with this is that, as I have already shown, there is no reason to believe in god in the first place. You can enter an argument believing god exists and interpret evidence all you want- the fact is that since the actual chances of god existing are so low, your beliefs based on the evidence presented carry even less weight.
Not very great, but it brings up a few errors in your post. Why is there no reason to believe in Creation? It gives all the answers we need. All evolution tells us is how things evolve. How does this help my day to day life? Nill, unless I do science. Honestly, who the hell cares if that source believes in the Bible? Am I not allowed to believe in a science book when it says "gravity happens" but if it says "evolution happens" I can't believe in gravity? What's wrong with that? I'll let you find that one out. It seems as if you're trying your best to evade the fact of subjective interpretation.
Finally something we can agree on. Yes, yes we can. Insulting us won't make god any more real. There is no soul. We do have brains however, a highly complex organic machine. Reality isn't subjective. God is real or he isn't (as it happens he isn't). Having faith doesn't make creation real, you just believe it to be. Once again, I agree. No-one said it happened by chance. Or evolution. We've already had the "I'm saving you from Hell" "I'm saving you from wasting your life" part of the debate. You're an altruist, we get it. You believe stuff without evidence. That's deep. It was like being forced to read Mein Kampf. Gravity wasn't immediately obvious at first. There were no enormous down arrows, things didn't glow orange as they fell. But with a smart mind capable of accepting new ideas, we had a better understanding of the universe. If creation is so obvious, you'd think there would be one iota of evidence. Things are ONLY tangible if they have proof.
Good afternoon, gentlefolk. waiting *Jeopardy music* Well to be honest, I still think that a God made everything. However, I can hold myself to a high moral standard without worshipping God. That is why I no longer feel a need for religion. But hey that's beating around the bush. I also personally find the "Big Bounce" theory to be intriguing. What is your opinion on that? (A perpetual cycle of expanding and contracting.) Often, people simply say "Creation" is "God made everything" when in fact the definition is more specific. Creation details how God made everything by basically waving his hands and nothing changed much after that. Evolution says otherwise. True, there might be a reason to believe Creation, but evolution is undoubtedly more backed up with facts. Space is nothingness. Space is pretty much what "existed" before the universe (assuming the universe hasn't been constantly cycling between life and death). Now, you say God is infinite; where did he exist before he made the universe? What if the universe was infinite (Big Bounce)? And if you think of it, if God is infinite then when did he make the universe? It's like picking an unlabeled point on an infinite line. I think the issue here is that we think of time linearly; one event after another. Infinite stretches on forever; so wouldn't that suggest a circular chain of events?