Total Posts:366|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How can creationism be true? Losing faith...

Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.

Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...
Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Haha, I guess nobody had a good enough argument.

Maybe I'll head to the science section for this one... Lol
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:48:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.

Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...

I'm not religious, but I would like to answer some of this.

First, any law of our physical, observable universe is simply that- a law of our universe. The whole point of the Judeo-Christian deity is that it is outside of this universe. It created it, after all. It obviously didn't reside within the universe, so why would it be subject to its laws? It created the laws.

Second, and I think this is most important: why do you lose faith in your entire religion just because your specific tenet of creationism is now making less sense? Many, many good Christians hold that God created this world and us through the big bang and through evolution. Why would they be mutually exclusive?

Of course, they are mutually exclusive if you take the book of Genesis literally. But I'll just say, it is idiotic to say that one must take Genesis literally. You don't take Revelation literally, do you? I certainly hope the end of the world doesn't involve a pregnant woman being chased by a big dragon that forces people to get tattoos, and this is all looked over by seven headed beasts holding candles.

Further, as much as Christians like to justify everything God does/commands in the Bible, it is simply impossible. He commands rape of young girls and slaughtering of infants on many occasions. Now, you can try to justify these sick abominations and say they are consistent with an omnibenevolent God. Or, you can accept that not everything written in the Bible is necessarily an accurate representation of what actually happened/what God actually did/commanded.

Of course, I myself am not really a Christian. But I would hate to see someone lose faith for the wrong reasons. Lose it for the right reasons, at least.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:53:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Creationism isn't necessarily tied to being a christian. Despite what fundamentalists would have you believe there are countless christians who are not creationists.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:11:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.

Welcome to the group.

Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...

You cannot save something that does not exist in the first place.

Now that ive gotten the somewhat flippant remarks out of the way, here is my response.

Asking people to save your soul is fine. Its a good method to test whether your position is justified, or whether there are actual reasons to believe in a God. Just dont expect much from it, cause most of the arguments fail. Its always a good thing to keep researching, to keep the discussion open, to keep finding out whether your position is correct.
merbear2536
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.

Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...

First of all the First Law is used to describe what we see in the world. We have not seen energy or matter created nor destroyed, so we come up with a conclusion that it doesnt. Matter and energy do not follow the Law, the Law describes what the energy and matter do.

Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

The fossil record does not confirm macroevolution like my secular friends like to believe. If evolution is true, then why dont we see an abundance of transitional species in fossils? We dont. One might say the evolution of the horse is evidence, but it is not. A horse is still a horse no matter what. There is absolutely no evidence that species macro-evolved. Evolutionists simply see microevolution and assume it goes beyond that, which there is no rational evidence for.

Also, there are many instances where a tree is fossilized across many different layers of rock, supposably rock that is millions of years apart. How do these trees survive for millions of years while slowly the rock layers laid down? One might say that it is possible for trees to live millions of years but if it did then we would see some type of difference to the different parts of the trees that are exposed and not exposed at various times. We dont. The tree is the same all the way through the fossils.

Also, the are actually whole animals that have been fossilized standing up!! How is this possible over a long period of time? its not! The animal would have died and fell over. But they stand as if they were living.

Also, the whole basis of how life evolved is that DNA replicates itself and then multiplies. But when a DNA replicates, NO NEW DNA IS FORMED. Its the same DNA now there are just 2 of them. New information cannot come from old information. You cannot take an essay and copy it down and get a new essay! its still the same essay.

Finally, this is not a matter of evidence. Some people will believe what they believe about Creation/evolution strictly because once you accept Creation, you accept a God who will judge us all for our actions one day. Some people just do not want to accept God. Whether it be because they dont want to change their lifestyle or they dont want to lose their reputation as a "scientist", some people just will not accept it. I have no doubt an evolutionist will say I am being irrational or I cant be right because I believe in God, but that doesnt determine the truth. It is up to you to decide what you want to believe. You can follow God, which will lead to eternal communion with God, or you can follow the world, which will lead to eternal seperation from God.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:24:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM, merbear2536 wrote:

Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

And this is only part of the problem when it comes to creationists who want to tell their side of the story. Either intentionally or unintentionally, you're leaving out a very important part of the Second Law.

Click on the link below, and read the first sentence of the second paragraph very carefully.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
merbear2536
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:32:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:24:30 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM, merbear2536 wrote:

Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

And this is only part of the problem when it comes to creationists who want to tell their side of the story. Either intentionally or unintentionally, you're leaving out a very important part of the Second Law.

Click on the link below, and read the first sentence of the second paragraph very carefully.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Isnt the universe a closed system? Please provide evidence that it otherwise isnt.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:45:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:32:08 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:24:30 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM, merbear2536 wrote:

Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

And this is only part of the problem when it comes to creationists who want to tell their side of the story. Either intentionally or unintentionally, you're leaving out a very important part of the Second Law.

Click on the link below, and read the first sentence of the second paragraph very carefully.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Isnt the universe a closed system? Please provide evidence that it otherwise isnt.

From what I understand, the universe itself is an isolated system. But it doesn't matter because the earth is an open system. Without looking it up, how many laws of thermodynamics are there?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:47:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.

Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...

First of all the First Law is used to describe what we see in the world. We have not seen energy or matter created nor destroyed, so we come up with a conclusion that it doesnt. Matter and energy do not follow the Law, the Law describes what the energy and matter do.

This is true.

Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

This is false. What exactly is "perfect", today? Who is claiming that anything is "Perfect" today? It doesnt make sense, because no one is making this claim.

The fossil record does not confirm macroevolution like my secular friends like to believe. If evolution is true, then why dont we see an abundance of transitional species in fossils? We dont. One might say the evolution of the horse is evidence, but it is not. A horse is still a horse no matter what. There is absolutely no evidence that species macro-evolved. Evolutionists simply see microevolution and assume it goes beyond that, which there is no rational evidence for.

This is false, again.

The argument that there isnt enough transitional fossils, first off, means that they admit that transitional fossils do exist, which demonstrate that common ancestry amongst some species that are otherwise different "Kinds" exist, therefore contradicting creationism.

Secondly, whether there is or isnt enough transitional fossils, is a subjective argument to make. How many is enough? 10? 100? 1000? What is the number, exactly?

Thirdly, our knowledge of the rarity of fossilization, our knowledge of the fact regarding what percentage of the planet earth we have excavated, etc etc, demonstrate how this is reasonable.

Also, there are many instances where a tree is fossilized across many different layers of rock, supposably rock that is millions of years apart. How do these trees survive for millions of years while slowly the rock layers laid down? One might say that it is possible for trees to live millions of years but if it did then we would see some type of difference to the different parts of the trees that are exposed and not exposed at various times. We dont. The tree is the same all the way through the fossils.

This is false, again.

The layers do not span millions of years, because it doesnt take millions of years to deposit. Layers can be deposited quickly, like in instances where volcanic ashe covers the area, or mudslides, landslides, and floods.

Also, the are actually whole animals that have been fossilized standing up!! How is this possible over a long period of time? its not! The animal would have died and fell over. But they stand as if they were living.

False again.

The same point as above. Strata do not need to deposit over millions of years. People get caught mudslides and swamps in and drown all the time. People get caught in quicksand and die all the time. Surely these would result in animals standing up.

Also, the whole basis of how life evolved is that DNA replicates itself and then multiplies. But when a DNA replicates, NO NEW DNA IS FORMED. Its the same DNA now there are just 2 of them. New information cannot come from old information. You cannot take an essay and copy it down and get a new essay! its still the same essay.

False again.

The english language disproves this. The english language is made up of only 26 letters. But when a new word in the english language is formed, NO NEW LETTERS ARE FORMED. Its the same LETTERS as before.

You can take an essay and copy it down, add and delete words, reshuffle them, and produce a completely different essay.

Finally, this is not a matter of evidence. Some people will believe what they believe about Creation/evolution strictly because once you accept Creation, you accept a God who will judge us all for our actions one day. Some people just do not want to accept God. Whether it be because they dont want to change their lifestyle or they dont want to lose their reputation as a "scientist", some people just will not accept it. I have no doubt an evolutionist will say I am being irrational or I cant be right because I believe in God, but that doesnt determine the truth.

Again, false.

Many theists accept evolution. Many christians accept evolution. So clearly their reputation as a scientist, is irrespective of their belief in God.

And what sort of lifestyle change are you talking about? I doubt my life is not much different than yours. Most Atheists arent axe murderers. Most Atheists dont go around having random sex with strangers all the time. Most Atheists dont go around having gay sex. What exactly would change, within our lifestyle, if we accepted God?

It is up to you to decide what you want to believe. You can follow God, which will lead to eternal communion with God, or you can follow the world, which will lead to eternal seperation from God.

Its up to you to decide what you want to believe. But its the evidence that determines whether you are justified in your belief.
merbear2536
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:50:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:45:58 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:32:08 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:24:30 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM, merbear2536 wrote:

Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

And this is only part of the problem when it comes to creationists who want to tell their side of the story. Either intentionally or unintentionally, you're leaving out a very important part of the Second Law.

Click on the link below, and read the first sentence of the second paragraph very carefully.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Isnt the universe a closed system? Please provide evidence that it otherwise isnt.

From what I understand, the universe itself is an isolated system. But it doesn't matter because the earth is an open system. Without looking it up, how many laws of thermodynamics are there?

There are 3 Laws to my knowledge. The first and second have been mentioned and the third states that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

Yes the earth is an open system. But as far as I know the 2nd Law applies to the whole universe.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:57:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:50:12 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:45:58 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:32:08 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:24:30 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM, merbear2536 wrote:

Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

And this is only part of the problem when it comes to creationists who want to tell their side of the story. Either intentionally or unintentionally, you're leaving out a very important part of the Second Law.

Click on the link below, and read the first sentence of the second paragraph very carefully.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Isnt the universe a closed system? Please provide evidence that it otherwise isnt.

From what I understand, the universe itself is an isolated system. But it doesn't matter because the earth is an open system. Without looking it up, how many laws of thermodynamics are there?

There are 3 Laws to my knowledge. The first and second have been mentioned and the third states that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

Yes the earth is an open system. But as far as I know the 2nd Law applies to the whole universe.

There are four laws of thermodynamics. I know that I'm going to sound snarky when I write this, but the reason I asked is there are only two laws that creationists tend to concern themselves with; the first and second. Not to mention the fact that since they read only a small snippet of those laws, they consider themselves experts in physics without fully understanding the zeroth law to begin with.
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:59:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.

Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...

You don't have to be creationist to be Christian...
Become a theistic evolutionist!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred.

Either you believe that God is omnipotent, in which case the law of themodynamics does not restrict God, and is in fact an extension of his will, or you believe that God is not omnipotent, in which case why do you call him God?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:11:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:11:15 PM, merbear2536 wrote:
Secondly, we can use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to point out a problem with evolution. The Law states whenever something happens, a little energy is made useless. In other words, the whole universe is slowly breaking down into total uselessness. How can the universe go from very simple to extremely perfect if the 2nd Law is true? It doesnt make sense.

The universe is tending towards increased entropy but local systems do not have to. There is absolutely no conflict with the second law of thermodynamics whatsoever. It is also staggeringly misleading to describe the universe as 'extremely perfect'.

The fossil record does not confirm macroevolution like my secular friends like to believe. If evolution is true, then why dont we see an abundance of transitional species in fossils? We dont.

Yes we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Either you are making claims on something you've not looked into at all or you are lying. Which is it?

Also, there are many instances where a tree is fossilized across many different layers of rock, supposably rock that is millions of years apart.

The above is creationist propaganda and entirely misleading.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Also, the whole basis of how life evolved is that DNA replicates itself and then multiplies. But when a DNA replicates, NO NEW DNA IS FORMED. Its the same DNA now there are just 2 of them. New information cannot come from old information. You cannot take an essay and copy it down and get a new essay! its still the same essay.

This is false. DNA is known to have copying errors. It can be demonstrated in a myriad of ways and to say otherwise is an outright lie. If you copy down the same essay with enough mistakes each time, over enough iterations you will end up with a new essay.

Some people just do not want to accept God.

And other people are awaiting credible evidence before they accept there is a god. I would love there to be an eternal party where I get to see my loved ones and live in bliss forever after I die. If the cost is an infinitely small chunk of eternity of behaving in certain ways, that seems like a fair trade off. The problem is that there is zero evidence to suggest that actually happens. None. Nada. Zilch.

It is up to you to decide what you want to believe.

This is entirely untrue; we do not choose our beliefs in this way. I am no more capable of deciding to believe in god than I am of deciding to believe I'm a fish.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:52:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:43:06 PM, Think_freely wrote:
Haha, I guess nobody had a good enough argument.

Maybe I'll head to the science section for this one... Lol

Probably so, if you want to discuss the Laws of Thermodynamics, including the origin of energy.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:55:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thanks guys, I think I'm team atheist on this one.

I think the reason why people stubbornly cling to their religion is because it's too hard to accept the world any other way.
Who would want to live in a world that holds no deeper meaning for humans? A world where death is final and everything is subject to change.?
As human beings, creatures who crave purpose in our lives, this is a terribly sad truth to accept.
Maybe that's why I was hoping someone would change my mind.

I can see why so many Christians plug their ears and say "lalalala" anytime they hear argument against creationism. Accepting God is imaginary is accepting that our lives don't mean anything beyond our deaths.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:07:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On the contrary; it is accepting that our lives mean so much more. No-one else is going to give us a better world after this life, so if we ever want to see one we have to act now. If not for ourselves then for others.

Purpose does not have to be innate or ordained for it to be of value. Be a good person because it makes the world a more beautiful place.
Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:15:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:07:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
On the contrary; it is accepting that our lives mean so much more. No-one else is going to give us a better world after this life, so if we ever want to see one we have to act now. If not for ourselves then for others.

Purpose does not have to be innate or ordained for it to be of value. Be a good person because it makes the world a more beautiful place.

That isn't what I meant exactly, because I definitely agree with what you are saying. Life is precious BECAUSE it ends. The fact that it's brief makes it something to savor.
I will always have my high morals and sense of kindness, no matter what I believe.

But for those who are unhappy with their lives and find happiness through god and through looking forward to eternal paradise... Those are the stubborn religious people I am referring to. The ones who can't face the initial sting of the truth long enough to learn to appreciate it.

I'm just saying I understand why they are so reluctant to change.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:26:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ah, then yes, there is an element of that. But it's also other factors; some people really do think it more likely (obviously I disagree with them, but they do), there is the potential for falling out with family and friends in highly religious communities, neurological factors such as particular patterns of thought becoming totally ingrained and so forth.
Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:39:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yeah that makes sense. I've always been very open-minded, but that's my personality. Some people have very fixed opinions and values, all rooted too deeply to change.
And I am going to have to feign Christianity to my mom's side of the family for the rest of my life so I can understand that view, too.
Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:41:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't understand the people who genuinely believe that creationism is more viable than Big Bang/evolution.
That's baffling.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:54:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
It seems you haven't heard the The Zero-Energy Universe Hypothesis., which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It is a plausible hypothesis, but needs some time to be confirmed.

Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Theory of Evolution is also plausible, but it is not one unified theory, it has some hypothesizes and "sub-theories", and things which has to be confirmed.

None of arguments above is denies existence of Creator.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.
Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...
This is red.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:39:58 PM, Think_freely wrote:
Yeah that makes sense. I've always been very open-minded, but that's my personality. Some people have very fixed opinions and values, all rooted too deeply to change.
And I am going to have to feign Christianity to my mom's side of the family for the rest of my life so I can understand that view, too.

Good luck with that. I can't imagine having to pretend to any of my family that I believed something I didn't but that mattered so much to them. It's hard to get my head around the fact that it's apparently a common situation in the US and some other countries.
Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:03:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:54:45 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:11:46 PM, Think_freely wrote:
There are many reasons why I am beginning to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
Firstly being, the Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. It is not a theory like the Theory of Evolution, it is a legitimate law.
It seems you haven't heard the The Zero-Energy Universe Hypothesis., which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It is a plausible hypothesis, but needs some time to be confirmed.

Although the Evolutionary Theory is not a law, I also believe everything I have read about evolution. I can think of a perfect counter argument for every argument against it. It makes sense.
Theory of Evolution is also plausible, but it is not one unified theory, it has some hypothesizes and "sub-theories", and things which has to be confirmed.

None of arguments above is denies existence of Creator.
Creationism, miracles, and the afterlife are starting to make no sense to me.
Can anyone of religious background save my soul? Although it might be too late...

I don't understand the relevance of the Zero-Energy Universe Theory. The LAW of thermodynamics still contradicts creationism. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. Life cannot be created.

And I am aware of the sub-theories in evolution. I agree with them all. Natural selection, convergent evolution, analogous and homologous structures, speciation over time, random genetic mutations, etc.

Creationism doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Science does.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:30:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:55:33 PM, Think_freely wrote:
Thanks guys, I think I'm team atheist on this one.

I think the reason why people stubbornly cling to their religion is because it's too hard to accept the world any other way.
Who would want to live in a world that holds no deeper meaning for humans? A world where death is final and everything is subject to change.?
As human beings, creatures who crave purpose in our lives, this is a terribly sad truth to accept.
Maybe that's why I was hoping someone would change my mind.

I can see why so many Christians plug their ears and say "lalalala" anytime they hear argument against creationism. Accepting God is imaginary is accepting that our lives don't mean anything beyond our deaths.

It'd be nice if you refrained from making up motives for people snd engaging in armchair psychology. Do YOU like being told tg at the only reason your an atheist is because you want free license to sun without guilt? No? I thought so.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Think_freely
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:40:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:30:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/31/2014 2:55:33 PM, Think_freely wrote:
Thanks guys, I think I'm team atheist on this one.

I think the reason why people stubbornly cling to their religion is because it's too hard to accept the world any other way.
Who would want to live in a world that holds no deeper meaning for humans? A world where death is final and everything is subject to change.?
As human beings, creatures who crave purpose in our lives, this is a terribly sad truth to accept.
Maybe that's why I was hoping someone would change my mind.

I can see why so many Christians plug their ears and say "lalalala" anytime they hear argument against creationism. Accepting God is imaginary is accepting that our lives don't mean anything beyond our deaths.

It'd be nice if you refrained from making up motives for people snd engaging in armchair psychology. Do YOU like being told tg at the only reason your an atheist is because you want free license to sun without guilt? No? I thought so.

It's people like you who make debates painful.
I'm not making up motives for anyone.
I'm trying to rationalize something that I cannot understand and I came up with a theory.
How about you come at me with a legitimate argument against my claim? Or at least some depth.
And what the hell is a free license to sun?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:55:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:40:05 PM, Think_freely wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:30:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/31/2014 2:55:33 PM, Think_freely wrote:
Thanks guys, I think I'm team atheist on this one.

I think the reason why people stubbornly cling to their religion is because it's too hard to accept the world any other way.
Who would want to live in a world that holds no deeper meaning for humans? A world where death is final and everything is subject to change.?
As human beings, creatures who crave purpose in our lives, this is a terribly sad truth to accept.
Maybe that's why I was hoping someone would change my mind.

I can see why so many Christians plug their ears and say "lalalala" anytime they hear argument against creationism. Accepting God is imaginary is accepting that our lives don't mean anything beyond our deaths.

It'd be nice if you refrained from making up motives for people snd engaging in armchair psychology. Do YOU like being told tg at the only reason your an atheist is because you want free license to sun without guilt? No? I thought so.


It's people like you who make debates painful.

Not really.

I'm not making up motives for anyone.

Um, yes you are.

I'm trying to rationalize something that I cannot understand and I came up with a theory.

I.e. armchair psychologizing.

How about you come at me with a legitimate argument against my claim? Or at least some depth.

Legitimate argument against what claim?

And what the hell is a free license to sun?

Sin.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 5:00:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Keep at it PCP, it's probably all too easy for her to make sense of as it is so she really will benefit from more sh*t from random strangers on the internet. I mean, more displays of love from a good Christian. Hard to tell the difference these days.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 5:03:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:55:33 PM, Think_freely wrote:
Thanks guys, I think I'm team atheist on this one.

I think the reason why people stubbornly cling to their religion is because it's too hard to accept the world any other way.

That's not true. It is very easy to just accept that energy/matter had no origin, or just place one's faith in the idea that it's always been here, or postulate all sorts of other claims.

Who would want to live in a world that holds no deeper meaning for humans? A world where death is final and everything is subject to change.?

True

As human beings, creatures who crave purpose in our lives, this is a terribly sad truth to accept.
Maybe that's why I was hoping someone would change my mind.

Have you looked into the fulfilled prophesies in the Bible?

I can see why so many Christians plug their ears and say "lalalala" anytime they hear argument against creationism. Accepting God is imaginary is accepting that our lives don't mean anything beyond our deaths.

Repeat the above. I've said many times on here that one major reason for accepting the Bible as very different from other so-called "holy" books is the fulfilled prophesy therein - or there out, really. The fulfillments of Matt 24 and the vast majority (~99%) of the Apocalypse in such a precise manner seems mighty strange. The major enemy on this front, by the way, is not atheists. It is ignorant Christians. Indefensibly ignorant. They want to try to speculate, to theorize ... to guess ... and as a corollary to apply these prophesies all the way down the line - to us. In so doing, they lose the fulfillment - and lose one of the single greatest verifiers of Biblical veracity.

I've never seen an effective counter-argument, and actually I'd like to see an intelligent one. By the way, the weakest counter-argument is, of course, the no-brainer: simply re-date all the books, i. e. write a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem after it has already fell. One could be pretty accurate that way.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."