Debunk Creationism Thread

[spindoc]

Evolutionists, knock yourselves out.

Maybe we can finally find that missing link.:argue:

Personally I thought it might be Tyson, I was wrong.

 

Quid pro quo!

[halfback20]

I'm not sure how to debunk something that can't be proven in the first place.

 

Creationism is based on faith. You can't prove or disprove one's faith.

[RowdyRedRam]

How about the time line issue.

[Hearsay]

^What is the time line issue?

[Hearsay]

I'm not sure how to debunk something that can't be proven in the first place.

 

Creationism is based on faith. You can't prove or disprove one's faith.

 

Not just faith. There is a written document as well. You may not choose to believe the written document, which is fine. You choose to believe other written documents, which is also fine. However, the written document is still evidence, and the weight you give to it and I give to it may be different.

 

Let's say you are presented with a document. Let's say that it contains 1000 items. Let's say I set out to find archaeological or other such evidence of each item. The more I find, does it not also follow that the more likely it is that the remainder of the document is probably accurate? So, if I prove 60% of the places, persons, and events in the rest of Genesis were tangible, is it more or less likely that Genesis 1:1 is also true?

 

Do I have to prove 100% of something for it to be true? If you say "yes," then evolution cannot be a viable theory because you know as well as I do that it has holes. If you say "no," then all I have to do is to prove that some of what is contained in the Book of Genesis via archaeological or other evidence is accurate, to suggest that perhaps the remainder of Genesis may also be accurate. If you say "there is a spectrum of proof and evolution has shown more," then you are merely re-stating that the theory is a process of study and one's acceptance is just a question of weight to the evidence. How much is enough? 60% of the theory? 40%?

 

I state that Creationism can be proven, and my belief is that it is, as it relates to humans.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I'm not sure how to debunk something that can't be proven in the first place.

 

Creationism is based on faith. You can't prove or disprove one's faith.

 

I will ask you the same question I asked in the other thread and you did not answer.

 

How can you know that you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God?

 

And yet the scientific community is fighting the desire to research the topic of Creationism.

[cch5432]

How can you know that you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God?

FWIW, anyone who uses science to disprove or prove God is using it in the wrong context.

[nkysportslegend]

FWIW, anyone who uses science to disprove or prove God is using it in the wrong context.

 

Thank you!:thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

FWIW, anyone who uses science to disprove or prove God is using it in the wrong context.

 

why?

[cch5432]

why?

 

Because the nature of science is to explain the natural, not the supranatural or supernatural. Not great wording on my part.

[nkysportslegend]

why?

 

The way I see it is that God is not something that can be proven by science. You either believe or you don't, and regardless there will never be any true scientific proof that there is a God or that there isn't. So therefore to me it seems somewhat pointless to use science in the argument of the existence of God.

[Hearsay]

Because the nature of science is to explain the natural, not the supranatural or supernatural. Not great wording on my part.

 

We try and use scientific instruments and cameras to prove the existence of ghosts/spirits. Fringe at best right now, but they've got their own TV show.

 

We spend tax dollars studying after-life or near-death experiences and cataloguing them.

 

I think you need to think more outside the box on this issue.

[cch5432]

FWIW, anyone who uses science to disprove or prove God is using it in the wrong context.

Let me further explain:

 

Disproving evolution does not give good reason that God exists, and proving evolution does not give good reason that God does not exist.

 

If you want to find some great reasons for the existence of God, I recommend Kierkegaard, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, but especially Aristotle. Aristotle (as well as Plato), who had never heard of or seen a Bible, Torah, Koran, or any of the Abrahamic religions' texts, and lived in a strictly polytheistic society, came to the conclusion that their was one, eternal, perfect, immortal being that is the standard of excellence to which we all strive. The only difference between Aristotle's God and the Christian God, IMO, is that he viewed God as impersonal, where we believe in having a relationship with God. His reasoning was that a personal God requires a personality which allows for change, and his God was everlasting.

 

Sorry about that....

[cch5432]

We try and use scientific instruments and cameras to prove the existence of ghosts/spirits. Fringe at best right now, but they've got their own TV show.

 

We spend tax dollars studying after-life or near-death experiences and cataloguing them.

 

I think you need to think more outside the box on this issue.

As I just wrote, I have read philosophers to come to my conclusion. And I believe in God very much so.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Because the nature of science is to explain the natural, not the supranatural or supernatural. Not great wording on my part.

 

The way I see it is that God is not something that can be proven by science. You either believe or you don't, and regardless there will never be any true scientific proof that there is a God or that there isn't. So therefore to me it seems somewhat pointless to use science in the argument of the existence of God.

 

I see God as much as the natural as the sun, the stars or the sky.

I see God as much as the natural as the trees out my windown, the rain falling from the sky or the makeup of the human eye.

 

Science has researched the connections between twins. Is that natural, supranatural or supernatural when a twin can feel something negatively happening to their twin while they are in different coasts?

 

NKYSPORTS, your assumption is that it cannot be proven. How can you say without a doubt that there will NEVER be any true scientific proof?

 

I think science can more explain God than not. You look at how an eye works and it SCREAMS of a God who had a purpose and plan for the eye. NOT that it was an accident.