Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[trader/warrior]

we already have a time-line, techniques, and theories on how things happen. i can link you to quite a few peer reviewed journals that contains evidence for creation but you will discredit them because you have a belief that anyone that does not believe in macro-evolution is not an Actual scientist. and yes we do have scientist who were once Darwinian evolutionist who now believe in young earth creation after examining the evidence.

Please, go ahead and link me. I promise I will not discredit it based on the source.

As many as possible in a wide variety of fields (ie YEC in the context of geology, astronomy, physics, genetics and biology and all the rest that YECers claim are totally wrong) would be good.

 

[kiwitt]

12 pages in two days. And nothing but anti-evolution hearsay, opinion and no evidence.

Simply, if you believe in God and he can do anything. *Poof* - now life exists. *Poof* - now life exists everywhere diversified. It reminds me of the story of a Genie and the 3 wishes.

But if you do not believe in God, none of this is possible, in scientific terms.

So really the debate should be about "Proving God Exists" and not "Creation", which is simply a by-product of God existing.

 

[fishjie]

12 pages in two days. And nothing but anti-evolution hearsay, opinion and no evidence.

Simply, if you believe in God and he can do anything. *Poof* - now life exists. *Poof* - now life exists everywhere diversified. It reminds me of the story of a Genie and the 3 wishes.

But if you do not believe in God, none of this is possible, in scientific terms.

So really the debate should be about "Proving God Exists" and not "Creation", which is simply a by-product of God existing.

ding ding ding ding

All the creationist arguments are just them trying to poke holes into evolution (really all this does is expose their lack of knowledge about evolution). At no point do they try to come out with their own scientific peer reviewed paper on creationism/intelligent design.

You are right, this debate is just a proxy of the God debate. I can only hope that as the overall level of scientific understanding and education increases over the years, historians can look back on threads such as these and laugh.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

EDIT: I think I should also explain that I do not believe they should teach Noah's Ark in School.

They should, and they do. But it is taught as literature along with the rest of the Bible. Why can't evolution be taught in science courses and the Bible be taught in literature courses? Isn't that a fair compromise?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here we are, 200 posts into the Part 2 thread, and still there is no more evidence of creationism. Quit discussing evolution! Must I remind you of the title of the thread?

So far, there has been one piece of evidence provided: the Biblical account. Maybe a second piece about the supposed discovery of Noah's ark. Let's discuss those, and any other EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM that someone can come up with.

Indeed.

It's strange, but I went along with providing a small, short, scientific, simple (running out of adjectives beginning with the letter "s" here.) case for evolution with the fossil record as evidence. My own words, no links. I get lots of responses. Then at some point you turn it around and ask to be shown something similar to that for Creation, only fair no? Just setting the stage and all of a sudden I cease to exist and I'm talking to an empty room.

Each and every time.

And lets be honest here, theoretical musings whether a Noah's Ark is possible is interesting, but that only creates evidence for the possibility of Noah's Arc. It says nothing about Creationism. I don't think it is, but lets say the amazing happens and someone figures out how to pull Noah's arc of and comes up with a reasonable explanation how that situation could end up with what we have now, that still leaves us with a wanting of evidence that this really did happen.

To illustrate, there are similar musings about the big bang, M-theory or even the start of life. But at least science is honest enough not to claim evidence. Please, lets use the same standards with regard to Creationism as has been applied to Evolution.

Even open to the possibility of abandoning the scientific approach. People say Evolution has no evidence because no one saw it happening? Fine, that would mean you need to see Creation happen before you claim Creationism is the right answer. People don't believe the fossil record is evidence? Show me something better that is evidence for Creation. It's an impossible task, but hey, I didn't set the standard, they did.

That is what this thread is about. That is what has been missing for 1,200 posts. That is what has been asked over and over again. And that is what Pro-Creationists have failed to provide.

If Noah's Ark is all you people got, I'd be very unimpressed. And lets be honest, so far all you have is wood on a mountain which could or could not be Noah's Ark. When you dismiss countless pieces of petrified bone and imprints on rock as inconclusive.

 

[Arakhor]

Yet again, you just admitted that Darwin's book is filled with inaccuracies and Science favors Creationism. What are we arguing about?

If you spam irrelevant, deceitful rubbish to this thread, I'll flag it as such. Please respect this thread for what it is.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

If Noah's Ark is all you people got, I'd be very unimpressed. And lets be honest, so far all you have is wood on a mountain which could or could not be Noah's Ark. When you dismiss countless pieces of petrified bone and imprints on rock as inconclusive.

Could or could not my big fat hairy white rear end, look here for proof of it's faking Creationists.

Ziggy I know you were being charitable, but there is no call for charity with the ones were having the debate with.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I didn't know much about that, so only thing I could do is keep the option open And it'd be beside the point as I explained earlier in the post anyway.

Lying is a sin right? So I'm sure those who believe in sin will be along shortly to condemn this fakery.

 

[Arakhor]

I think they should either teach both evolution and Creationism or neither. Neither in science class that's for sure.

Somewhere a biologist or twenty is crying.

And because it doesn't have too, Scripture isn't a Science textbook, merely scientifically accurate.

So, something describing the origins of the Earth and all upon it which is also scientifically accurate is not a science textbook?? Please tell me what you think is a science textbook then. (If you say the Bible, I'll throw things at you.)

 

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: I'm going to close this thread for eight hours. After reopening, the next post is going to provide some evidence for creationism. If it doesn't, it will be considered spam and infracted as such.


Moderator Action: Edit: reopened.

 

[sophie]

I'm willing to risk an infraction for this post, but I think it really gives a good analysis of how Science works, how one should approach scientific theory, and how one should go about creating or challenging scientific theory. It is my hope that whosoever decides to post next in this thread watches this video, and keeps it in mind when they are making their assessment.


Link to video.

 

[Behind The Mask]

I'm willing to risk an infraction for this post, but I think it really gives a good analysis of how Science works, how one should approach scientific theory, and how one should go about creating or challenging scientific theory. It is my hope that whosoever decides to post next in this thread watches this video, and keeps it in mind when they are making their assessment.


Link to video.

Somewhere a biologist is saluting with heroic music in background for your valiant sacrifice.

 

[kiwitt]

This is a video for Creation Astronomy (the first of 9 parts)

Link to video.
And here is one that possibly debunks Creation Astronomy (the first of 7 parts)

Link to video.
Well worth watching to see the debate from both sides.

 

[Trev]

Proof of creation. ATP synthase, DNA, RNA. All 3 are needed in every living cell. None can replicate without the other, therefore could not evolve separately. None is functional partially evolved without the other so all 3 must have occurred simultaneously. They are far too complex for anyone of them to have just occurred by chance. As all 3 must have come into existence simultaneously within one entity, that is creation, no other viable explanation exists. If it does, show me how the ATP synthase and associated functions could evolve from molecules, or for that mater from amino acids and proteins by chance. Saying there was billions of years is not a reason as these things can only function if they came into being simultaneously and simultaneously is not a billion years.

 

[carlosMM]

Proof of creation. ATP synthase, DNA, RNA. All 3 are needed in every living cell. None can replicate without the other, therefore could not evolve separately. None is functional partially evolved without the other so all 3 must have occurred simultaneously. They are far too complex for anyone of them to have just occurred by chance. As all 3 must have come into existence simultaneously within one entity, that is creation, no other viable explanation exists. If it does, show me how the ATP synthase and associated functions could evolve from molecules, or for that mater from amino acids and proteins by chance. Saying there was billions of years is not a reason as these things can only function if they came into being simultaneously and simultaneously is not a billion years.

You will need to get used to the idea that life is not a well-designed machine, but was cobbled together from preexisting parts, which usually changed their function. Also, DNA is not needed at all - every heard of RNA viruses?

Please educate yourself on the subject before c&p-ing nonsense from creationist websites. it saves you a lot of embarrassment.

 

[sophie]

Proof of creation. ATP synthase, DNA, RNA. All 3 are needed in every living cell. None can replicate without the other, therefore could not evolve separately. None is functional partially evolved without the other so all 3 must have occurred simultaneously. They are far too complex for anyone of them to have just occurred by chance. As all 3 must have come into existence simultaneously within one entity, that is creation, no other viable explanation exists. If it does, show me how the ATP synthase and associated functions could evolve from molecules, or for that mater from amino acids and proteins by chance. Saying there was billions of years is not a reason as these things can only function if they came into being simultaneously and simultaneously is not a billion years.

Ah, the old "irreducible complexity" argument. Here's a video explaining how what you are saying is "impossible" could be entirely possible.


Link to video.

 

[Trev]

Proof of Global flood - Vast layers of sediments 1000's of metres thick over thousands of kilometres. Generally no or minimal erosion between the layers (if there was a time gap between layers there should be easily visible evidences of erosion). Polystrate fossils often disect many layers of sediment proving that multiple layers are laid down in a very brief period of time, only possible with catatrophic flood. The vastness and thickness of the sedimentary beds, lack of erosion between layers and existence of polystrate fossil like tree trunks through multiple layers can only be satisfactorily explained by a global flood as they must have been laid down in a brief period of time and that is unachievable any other way.
Noah's flood per se is not so easily proved, but it fits the evidence of a global flood and therefore cannot be disproved as the global flood that caused the sedimentary beds of rock.

 

[Trev]

Also, DNA is not needed at all - every heard of RNA viruses?

Yes I have heard of RNA viruses and they use DNA to replicate, the DNA of other life, so there existence does not alter my argument

 

[sophie]

Proof of Global flood - Vast layers of sediments 1000's of metres thick over thousands of kilometres. Generally no or minimal erosion between the layers (if there was a time gap between layers there should be easily visible evidences of erosion). Polystrate fossils often disect many layers of sediment proving that multiple layers are laid down in a very brief period of time, only possible with catatrophic flood. The vastness and thickness of the sedimentary beds, lack of erosion between layers and existence of polystrate fossil like tree trunks through multiple layers can only be satisfactorily explained by a global flood as they must have been laid down in a brief period of time and that is unachievable any other way.
Noah's flood per se is not so easily proved, but it fits the evidence of a global flood and therefore cannot be disproved as the global flood that caused the sedimentary beds of rock.

Please explain to me how a giant flood, if it did in fact occur, would provide sufficient evidence to prove, emphatically, that life was created supernaturally by some sort of "God"

Yes I have heard of RNA viruses and they use DNA to replicate, the DNA of other life, so there existence does not alter my argument

1.) The Edit button is your friend.

2.) As I said before, watch the video I posted above on the development of DNA as it explains this leading theories on this process far better than I could ever hope to myself.

 

[Samson]

we already have a time-line, techniques, and theories on how things happen. i can link you to quite a few peer reviewed journals that contains evidence for creation but you will discredit them because you have a belief that anyone that does not believe in macro-evolution is not an Actual scientist.

Go on, link them. That is what this thread is all about.