English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The anthill is evidence of ants.

A Birdnest evidence of Birds

Spider webs evidence of spiders

Creation evidence of a Creator.

Tell me why you think this is true or why its not true.

2007-02-16 04:39:10 · 15 answers · asked by Maurice H 6 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

No...your comparing apples to oranges. Not to mention a totally leading question.

The correct phrasing should be "Universe evidence of a Creator." That would not be a leading question and more impartial.

This view also implies a Mechanistic or Ceramic view of the universe. Could there not be another view of the universe? The Ceramic view is popular in the west, but in the east it is a Process or Organic view of the universe. A process view does not require a beginning/creator.

There are exceptions and possibilities outside of your leading question - if you don't let yourself be led by it.

~ Eric Putkonen

2007-02-16 05:00:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The anthill is evidence of ants.
True. Anthills thrive by making thier anthills. When you step on an anthill, the ants die. I dont think ants would just leave thier anthill empty one day. The anthill is evidence of ants existing

A Birdnest [always] evidence of Birds
False. If one looked in a birds nest and saw a blue robins egg cracked open with no other birds, then no. however birds are the only creatures that nest this way becuase its what they are supposed to do when they lay eggs. A birdsnest is evidence of the existance of birds, but not of the specific bird itsself (a human can make a nest too if they want)

Spider webs evidence of spiders
Like above, the web is evidence of spider existance, its mean to catch food with the sticky floss stuff that only spiders have and can use to create a proper web with. however if youve never seen a spider weaving its web or on it, there would be no reason why we couldnt assume the spider died or something,

Creation evidence of a Creator.
True, as the same stuff above. while creation is proof that a creator existed at one point it is not proof that the creator is no longer in existance.

Tell me why you think this is true or why its not true.

2007-02-16 12:49:58 · answer #2 · answered by ♥Pictsy♥ 4 · 0 0

True. The Anthill (creation) was made by the ants (creator), the birdnest (creation) was made by the birds (creator), and so on.

Now if you're talking about Creationism, that's just plain b*llsh*t.

2007-02-16 12:49:19 · answer #3 · answered by foxfire101 4 · 0 0

1. True
2. Not necessarily, I have seen man-made bird nests before and I in fact used to make them.
3. True
4. No, the universe is not proof of a creator. Besides as I said in my question (which was deleted unjustly) even if you except the premise that the universe had a creator, it does nothing to prove the nature or identity of this creator. For all you know it could have been any number of other deities besides your own.

2007-02-16 12:58:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

What if I have killed all the ants and birds and spiders, but their dwellings are still around?

Everything needs shelter, so you're saying that the Creator created all of this because It needed somewhere to live? Isn't it supposed to be all-powerful? Why would it need to build a house? Creation exists because -something- has put Order to the Chaos, whether you want to call it God or Physics is up to you.

2007-02-16 12:46:11 · answer #5 · answered by gimmenamenow 7 · 1 1

1. True. Only ants make this structure.
2. False. It could be man-made.
3. True. Spiders are marvellous creatures.

4. Circular reasoning. You first assume the existence of your Creator (obviously, since you're a Christian) and from there assume the existence of a "Creation" because of your assumption of a Creator.

Maurice, you really don't learn, do you? You're a lot like other Christians on this site, posting the same repeated and refuted arguments.

Repeating them does not make them true.

2007-02-16 12:44:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

True.
Why? Uh...well. Oh, boy!
Lets take it from the top.
It is generally accepted that the universe formed after the big bang correct (some wish for the story to end there, but too bad!). How was the big bang created? (They answer from the collection and condensing of gases). Where did those gases come from? (No answer). Name me one scientist who believes something can be made from nothing.
To make something you must have materials and the knowhow to build the said creation. (Mankind)
When it all comes down to it, its all based upon faith.

2007-02-16 12:50:12 · answer #7 · answered by You Ask & I Answer!!! 4 · 0 1

Its not true because there is no evidence of creation. There is evidence of bird nest,Spider webs, and aunt hills. Gotcha!

2007-02-19 19:14:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

1. true
2. true
3. true
4. False. The word itself is subjective. To say "Creation" already implies a "creator".

Have you ever thought that perhaps your logic is flawed and you should listen to people with more knowledge and wisdom than you?

2007-02-16 12:49:10 · answer #9 · answered by Kallan 7 · 3 0

It's true.

Doesn't help you though, there's no evidence the universe is a creation.

2007-02-16 12:49:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers