Geiste challenges (Creationism)

[geiste37]

Ok I'm curious about something. I've been in so many debates with Christians about the concept of creationism. Every time they only attack evolution as their stance. So here's the challenge. State proof of creationism without attacking the concept of evolution. Also state at least 2 independent sources for your evidence so that I may look them up please.

[markdrums]

Ok I'm curious about something. I've been in so many debates with Christians about the concept of creationism. Every time they only attack evolution as their stance. So here's the challenge. State proof of creationism without attacking the concept of evolution. Also state at least 2 independent sources for your evidence so that I may look them up please.

Since you brought up the challenge, & applied specific "rules" in an effort to limit the resources of creationists, the burden of prrof is also on you, to provide "proof" for your viewpoint that creationism is wrong.

;)

[mcgyver]

Just a gentle reminder for all involved in this thread:

Excerpt follows (complete forum rules are found at the top of this forum):

I. The Purpose of this forum:

The purpose of this forum is for non-Christians to present earnest questions on issues that may be keeping you from being a Christian, and to receive answers from Christians. We welcome any earnest seeker who comes in peace. We will answer your questions to the best of our ability to help you understand our faith.

Please be aware that this is not a debate forum.

We'll be happy to answer questions, but debates are not allowed...so let's all try to keep from going there ;)

[Buck shot]

I would think a couple of proofs of creation would be Hydrogen and Oxygen.

These two things were created by someone. Is there any logical explanation how they could have just gotten here from nothing?

It is impossible to give "proof" of how they started from either side of the fence without using something that was handed down to us. No one was there to see it except God. We can come up with all kinds of theories but we need something to start with for things to happen. Thus a creator had to have been there.

Does this make sense?:hmm:

[daughter]

The first law of thermodynamics seems to imply an outside cause, something beyond our universe, as the prime mover.


Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

The second law of thermodynamics seems to destroy the theory of evolution... far from "evolution" it predicts "devolution", which is precisely what we see in nature.

In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. (In other words, "entropy increases.")

If entropy increases then there must be something that countered that "in the beginning," or we'd never have evolved into any kind of complexity. Systems become more disordered, chaotic, fragmented over time. Far from evolving to better fit our environment, we're devolving, collapsing on cellular and genetic levels, and losing information in our dna with each passing generation.

[Lucariokid13]

Yeah i might be able to help for once :D

ok, Life must come from life, louis pasteur proved that many years ago ago, but in an athiest view is that life came from.. well thats the hole problem isnt it? Life came from Nothing according to evolutionists, it just appeared for no reason.

[Tanya~]

According to creation everything reproduces after its own kind.

In real life, whenever you plant an apple seed, you get an apple tree that produces more apples and more apple seeds. There is plenty of room for genetic variability in apples and we have lots of different varieties of apples. But an apple will always only make another apple, never a pine tree or some other kind of plant or animal.

[tango]

Ok I'm curious about something. I've been in so many debates with Christians about the concept of creationism. Every time they only attack evolution as their stance. So here's the challenge. State proof of creationism without attacking the concept of evolution. Also state at least 2 independent sources for your evidence so that I may look them up please.

You've phrased your question such that it's virtually impossible to provide a qualifying answer. Let's face it, if scientists could conclusively prove that life evolved from nothing by chance the Church would die out very quickly. Likewise if Christians could conclusively prove that God exists then the theory of evolution would soon be forgotten.

So let's look at what we can see and look at how the two approaches (creation or evolution) stacks up against it.

I was created by my parents, who in turn were created by their parents, and so on. If we trace that line back we end up with some entity that was not created, a point of singularity if you will. The question then boils down to whether that something is God (with or without the capital G) or random evolution.

If we accept that the something is God then everything else falls into place. We can read the book of Genesis to see how we all got here.

If we wish to believe that the something is a random process of evolution we have a number of further steps of faith to take. Firstly we must believe that something came of nothing (defying all known laws of physics). Then we must assume that living matter appeared spontaneously from non-living matter (never duplicated in a laboratory). We must also assume that at no point during the life of these early organisms did anything happen to squash them (when only a single living thing exists on a planet it takes very little to qualify as an extinction level event).

Unfortunately believing in random evolution requires further leaps of faith. We have to believe, with no evidence at all, that fully functioning organs could develop almost instantly. For example, vision requires some kind of visual receptors, an optic nerve, and an area of the brain to process the signals (this is even before any form of focussing mechanism comes into play). A retina is no use without an optic nerve, an optic nerve is useless without a retina, and so on. So a working eye would have to appear in a single generation, otherwise it would serve no purpose and be "evolved out".

We would also have to accept that related species appeared at the same time. We can see how insects pollinate flowers - in the absence of insects then flowers are not pollinated, and in the absence of flowers insects have no food source. So how would a plant know to produce a flower unless it knew there was something there that would pollinate it? If it was ahead of the evolutionary curve the flower would serve no purpose and die, if it were behind the curve then the insects would have been and gone, and the flower would serve no purpose.

Frankly, I find it takes less faith to believe in creation than in evolution.

[markinro]

You may not like this suggestion but the Ben Stein movie "Expelled" uses a number sources to show how evolutionists are attempting to squash ANY discussion of creation. They don't set out to attack evolution but show it to be just another false religion.

[Sold Out]

Ok I'm curious about something. I've been in so many debates with Christians about the concept of creationism. Every time they only attack evolution as their stance. So here's the challenge. State proof of creationism without attacking the concept of evolution. Also state at least 2 independent sources for your evidence so that I may look them up please.

I look at a painting. Because the painting exists, I know there is a PAINTER.
I look at a building. Because the building exists, I know there was a BUILDER.
I look at creation. Because creation exists, I know there is a CREATOR.