Creationist Theories?

Question

If I can come up with half a dozen theories (i have btw) that are equally as convincing as "god created the universe" and which have basically the exact same illlogical and rediculous flaws and reasoning to it as "god created the universe" laid out in grand technicolour - does this not disprove the existence of god?

I can come up with many many theories whereby you will say "ahhhhh but who created (whatever it is I reckoned created the universe)".

Yet when I ask you "who created god", you will come up with a bunch of equally unbelieveable tosh.

Hence I have disproved the existence of god..because the people judging whether god exists are being total hypocrites -when measuring any belief against the validity of they're own.

There you go abandon religion - come join the human race.

Supertop - Judging by your lovely polite, unassuming and judgemental answer that makes no sense but much noise - Is it fair to assume you are a christian?

Answer 1

the main problem with creationist theory is that it is not supported by any credible scientific data. the theory of intelligent design is primarily constructed around the biochemical behaviour of the bacterial flagellum which is made up of a number of proteins coded for by genes. when one of these genes are removed the flagellan does not work proof say the intelligent design advocates that evolution could not possibly have occurred, what they do not tell you is that the proteins which are present in the flagellan will then perform other functions, this is proof that these protein groups have evolved from simpler functions to higher functions. this is not seen in the case of evolution which although a theory is more than backed up by large amounts of scientific data. Creationism does not hold up to scientific scrutiny evolution does. in my own opinion intelligent design should be renamed as "UNITELLIGENT DESIGN" and should be given no creedence whatsoever as a scientific theory

Answer 2

Here's a thought, what I call Latter Day Joe Bloggsianism. It goes like this:

At the moment we're getting quite good at creating virtual worlds on computers.

If we assume the development of these virtual worlds will continue to advance in complexity and realism, in some 300 years from now, it will be possible to create a universe exactly like this one, including its possible histories (including the history we know) from Big Bang to present. From that point onward, programmes with such capability will multiply the same way that games and entertainment programmes are proliferating on disk and in cyberspace at the moment. The point is that it will be literally impossible to tell the difference between such a programme and real life!

So it's reckoned that in some 300 years time, it will be possible for anyone to create a new universe! Let's imagine, say, a 3rd-rate lab technician (let's call him Joe Bloggs) looking for something to do in his lunch break, experimenting with such a creation programme, maybe for his Open University assignment. He starts the programme off and can visit any event during the evolution of the resulting universe for the purpose of observing events or even altering them. With such total control over events, he'd basically be all-powerful to that universe. To any intelligent beings who've evolved inside it, he'd be the supreme god. Not a bad promotion for a 3rd-rate lab technician!

The question for us then, is are we living in the original universe or in a virtual copy? Being products ourselves of a virtual universe, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Considering the number of such programmes operating in a few hundred years' time, the chance that we are living in the original universe is billions-to-one against! So it's fairly safe to assume the Big Bang was just the push of a button or click of a mouse on a computer in a parrallel universe which itself was almost certainly not the real McCoy.

Answer 3

By using God as a creator you don`t solve the question you find another one who created God. I view God as life so the existance of God is indeed everywhere but most religions make people very stupid . Faith forces you to believe without evidence and denys logic and reason therefore keeping the mind in a state of infancy. The fact there are dinosaur bones shows if God created Dinosaurs first he must therefore be a reptile, but no dinosaur bones were planted to test faith by a joking God. The stupidity of faith turns people into morons my book is right yours is wrong . Science has given us everything food homes technology faith has only given us wars I suggest people who don`t like science should stop using its advantages (electricity cars etc )
Ps I can`t prove there isn`t a tea pot going round the sun should we all believe there is until we can prove otherwise some very stupid answers so far why is it people who deny evolution forget it says it in the bible after all are not different races a form of evolution if we come from Adam and Eve

Answer 4

No, it does not disprove the existence of God, it merely disproves the existence of your ability to stick with the facts ... you can't even find one theory, you must have a half dozen.

Answer 5

you don't have to disprove anything, you can believe what you want to. the question is why would you want to disprove? why would you care?? there are a million things you could be doing rather that sitting there thinking about that. why do you want to pick on god???????ah but yes a man wrote a book a couple thousand years ago and told us that people would do this didn't he??

Answer 6

What is interesting is that mainstream scientists have decided that any mention of God is "unscientific". In true science there should be a willingness to accept all theories until they are proven wrong. So far, the existence of God has not been disproven. That means that theories of Intelligent Design are valid scientific theories. Scientists who automatically rule them out are just showing their own bias. They are being dogmatic and turning modern science into an atheistic religion.

Intelligent Design need not be proven in order to be a theory. The theory of Evolution is not proven.

Answer 7

Another set of incredibly stupid answers, this time mostly about proving a negative.

Creationism is NOT a theory, it is religious belief. It explains nothing and assumes everything, twisting the facts and demonizing those who point out its flaws in the process.

Answer 8

you think evolution is a fact? show me just 1 single fossil from the millions found that shows evolution. cause you must be bright, for not even scientists can show this bone.

I just watched a show last night and they said " since we can't figure out how these 2 skulls formed, we just figured it had to of happened this way ". what? you couldn't figure it out so you guessed and now its fact? whoa! you call that science?

let alone, look up the proper term.....THEORY of Evolution. Then define theory. ABSTRACT THOUGHT, SPECULATION.

Fact....thats hillarious. Next science will say the Easter bunny still jumps around.

Answer 9

What a silly question! Why would you suggest re-creating what you see as flaws(or illogic) in an argument? Do two wrongs make a right?
The interesting thing about faith is that it cannot be proved or disproved.Our knowledge of existence is so small in comparison to all of time and all of space, that you cannot logically claim existence or non-existence of a higher power.
Therefore some people may claim non-existence, which is a shot in the dark. Yet admitting that God's existence is at least possible (not to say probable) is to recognize the lack of data to suggest otherwise.
So I conclude it is logical to beleve.

Answer 10

Where the PROOF there is a god to disprove ? You don't need to waste you time dude - any sensible person who can think and use logic knows a god doesn't exist.