How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NewChapter

  Sab, you may have a right to choose your topic, but you don't get to change definitions.

  Theistic Evolution has no conflict with science, and science has no conflict with it.

  Creationism, on the other hand, has been thoroughly falsified. Species evolve. That is a fact. How that happens, why, and different intricacies are theory.

  It's like gravity. Gravity exists. That's a fact. Explaining it enters the realm of theory. A theory is very well tested and strong, but it is always on the falsification block, and always open to adjustments and fine tuning.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Hahaha....ok sab. You're God here. :-)

  However...I don't see how it could be accused of going off topic to define a term that was used in the actual TITLE of the thread. If we can redefine terms in our own way...well we are doing something no different than what the Watchtower does in redefining terms...
• 

  sabastious

  First explain specifically what role you think the intelligent being played in the history of life, the universe and everything.

  That's jumping ahead billions of years and I don't like that. Please DISPROVE that the universe was created by an intelligent being.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Theistic Evolution has no conflict with science, and science has no conflict with it.

  This thread is NOT about theistic evolution, although we will probably end up there. It's not how we start though. We start with the Big Bang and how it COULDN'T have contained ANY intelligence.

  -Sab
• 

  NewChapter

  My thread, my definitions. You are off topic.

  First, you jumped to the universe, when your thread claimed it was about creationism. Have you conflated two separate theories?

  Anyway, if you are not going to respect definitions, and are going to create your own language and switch it around as you see fit, then there is no point in contributing here anymore. If you can't even agree on the basics of language, then this is not a serious discussion.

  Enjoy the wibble to follow.
• 

  cofty

  Sab you don't sound like somebody who is remotely interested in hearing an answer to anything.

  Its possible that an intelligence lit the fuse that set the unverse in motion. This is a "god-of-the-gaps" solution though. It stops research before it has even begun.

  This is not creationism so why did you use that word in your OP and title?
• 

  sabastious

  First, you jumped to the universe, when your thread claimed it was about creationism. Have you conflated two separate theories?

  I don't care what the official definition of Creationism is. To me that word implies an intelligence present during the Big Bang. Can this be disproved? That's what the scientific method is there for, to disprove claims, right?

  Anyway, if you are not going to respect definitions, and are going to create your own language and switch it around as you see fit, then there is no point in contributing here anymore. If you can't even agree on the basics of language, then this is not a serious discussion.

  I am not creating any definitions, I am stripping a definition down to make it simple to understand and debate. Creationism always starts with a beginning and that beginning has to be the actual beginning, which was the Big Bang, right? Using any other beginning would be starting from a faulty premise. So, creationism asserts that an intelligent presence was there at the Big Bang. If the theory requires Earth to prove itself then it's a faulty theory. You should work with an idea in the beginning and chart it's possible course through the expansion of the known universe.

  Sab you don't sound like somebody who is remotely interested in hearing an answer to anything.

  I do want to hear everything you have to say, but I don't want to be directed to an educational structure. I want to be TOLD the truth and shown evidence, not told to instruct myself in a truth that requires scientific education to prove to myself. I want to be able to prove to an illiterate that there was never any intelligence at the beginning. If I can do that, then I too will not beleive in an intelligence at the beginning. That's the crux, so lets hover at the beginning and not venture into complexities billions of years later.

  Its possible that an intelligence lit the fuse that set the unverse in motion. This is a "god-of-the-gaps" solution though. It stops research before it has even begun. This is not creationism so why did you use that word in your OP and title?

  Why do you ignore the OP definition? It's there for a reason. Why do you just look at the title and call foul?

  -Sab
• 

  Etude

  The universe was created by an intelligent being.

  I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that "an intelligent being" capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot.
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  sab,

  If I am not mistaken, disproving a claim entails demonstrating why the proofs for that claim fail. Thus I think that in the absence of the assumed proofs for the claim "the universe was created by an intelligent being," one simply cannot begin to "disprove" it. Do you have support(s) for this claim which may be assessed?

  Mebaqqer
• 

  sabastious

  I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that "an intelligent being" capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot.

  An intelligent (self-aware) being capable of creating an explosion using Higgs-like quantum particles to create the existence you and I reside within.

  -Sab