Bring factual evidence of all the above otherwise your argument is built on sinking sand. We both know that your beliefs about science requires more faith than a creationists. A creationist knows their God and so can have confidence in what he has said. The bone of contention is this.. Science cannot prove or explain where the first life came from. The second is that when it comes to the universe they are left stranded when it comes to evidence.
God told us how he has the power to speak everything into being.
35 comments
A creationist knows THEIR God? It's easy to see that the science of writing is beyond your belief.
Sure, science can't explain how life started, yet. This still doesn't mean that your god is the right answer by default. All other religions have their own creation story, and they all have exactly the same amount of evidence in their favor.
When it comes to the Universe they are left stranded? Science knows a lot about some aspects of the Universe, and nothing at all about other aspects, yet.
There are no theories without evidence, stupid. An hypothesis doesn't turn into a theory until it has been explaind with evidence again and again and again.
Where did God come from?
"Science cannot prove or explain where the first life came from."
Nonsense. There are some very good ideas of how this could have happened. Occams razor makes all those ideas more likely true than some god(s) 'talking' stuff into existence.
"God told us ..."
You are clearly either ignorant or a liar. Why should we believe you?
"Science cannot even tell you how we are here."
Because, unlike you, it's not given to begging the question and pretending to knowledge it does not possess.
Also, see the Big Bang for an explanation of 'how' we are here. If you're looking for the 'why', perhaps you should start in the philosophy section.
@Swede : no, that's actually grammatically correct English. "They" has been used as a gender-inspecific third person singular pronoun at least since Chaucer. it's more cumbersome than other languages' ungendered pronouns because it's bad form to use it when the subject is a specific, known, individual, but "a creationist" isn't that.
"We both know that your beliefs about science requires more faith than a creationists."
We both know you are full of shit.
"Science cannot prove or explain where the first life came from. "
Religion cannot prove - well - anything.
"God told us how he has the power to speak everything into being."
Obi wan Kenobi told us to trust the force. Your point is . . .?
No, science is honest. We don't know, but we may find out. Faith is thinking you know something on no evidence at all. Saying you already know, when you don't.
Stop lying.
Typical debate between a scientist and a creationist:
CREATIONIST: There is no evidence for evolution!
SCIENTIST: Here is evidence for evolution.
CREATIONIST: Well, uhm, that doesn't prove anything.
(continue until the scientist is pounding his/her head against the floor in frustration, whereupon the creationist claims victory)
Well Super God says that your God is lying little shit and a brutal, genocidal demiurge who is misleading all fundies into being violent, hateful, lying sycophants. I didn't say it, Super God did. And I trust Super God because I have a close, personal relationship with Super God. Plus, Super God, by definition, is better than your God.
Of course there's evidence that life began due to chemical processes. You only have to look at cellular biology to see that complex though it may be, it's all still chemistry at work. It isn't unexplained. It isn't magic. It's all chemistry.
It's kind of like a card trick. You might not understand exactly how it was performed, but you can be assured it didn't actually involve magic or breaking the laws of physics.
Bring factual evidence of all the above otherwise your argument is built on sinking sand. We both know that your beliefs about science requires more faith than a creationists.
If anyone was said to be being dishonest then it is those who believe without reason to believe science in these matters. Because without evidence those theories do not cut it.
So...just to be clear...you don't accept a proposition without factual evidence to support it, and faith is a bad thing?
Think carefully before you answer, Sassy.
So, how does religion explain where god came from? If god was just able to always be there or to just come from nothing what is the point of needing god to explain anything?
You are as a dumb as a rock.
A creationist knows their God and so can have confidence in what he has said.
Is this the same God who stated that he sends lying spirits to deceive people? If so, I wonder just HOW you can have any confidence in what he claims...
If not, then you're no Christian.
Sentence one is utterly at odds with sentence two. You can't prove that your God or any god exists, you can't show the Bible to be the word of a deity, yet, you dismiss science becuase currently it doesn't explain absolutely everything. Making up an answer doesn't make it true. Grow up and become comfortable with self-correcting uncertainty.
@Mech610:
While it is true that there is no definitive answer to how life originated on Earth, there are numerous plausible theories all supported by evidence and proper data.
very true.
Currently the one with the most pull is Panspermia.
[Citation needed]. it could well be argued that panspermia just kicks the can down the road --- doesn't explain how life may arise, just tries to show that it could have done so on any of several planets. that's nice, i suppose, but not really the theory we want to have.
@Pule Thamex:Thank goodness God didn't say crocotyrranolionshark. Phew! Close one.
Give it time. The Sci Fi channel will probably get around to making that movie in another year or two based on their track record.
(OP)
That's always puzzled me. I thought creationists considered faith a good thing (that's why they don't need evidence, after all). If that's so, why would they outright state that their opponents have more of it than they do?
"God said he made everything, so science is BS. There's the universe, therefore god is right."
I have never once heard a theistic argument that didn't boil down to that.
God told us how he has the power to speak everything into being.
And what possible evidence do you have of any supernatural being ever 'speaking everything into being'? The buybull?
That's like using quotes from Star Trek to prove Star Trek is true.
1: Even if science requires more faith than religion does, science has evidence to carry that burden.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
