Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler :

I beg to differ sir. There's fancy words like "data" and "model", you elitist.

You want proof?

BAM.

I would like to see a similar explanation actually.

1. If the Universe needs a Creator, why doesn't the Creator need a Creator?

2. Explain why this Creator needs to go outside the physical laws of the Universe that he designed in order to make His Will happen. Seems to me, if he designed it properly, it should function without His intervention as soon as he speaks it into existence. After all, he's omniscient and omnipotent and flawless, so it should work exactly as He intends it to as soon as he presses the "on" button, without further fiddling.

3. Explain why other things attributed to God's intervention have been explained without supernatural powers being involved, yet everything that remains a mystery to science still requires supernatural powers to explain, according to certain people.

4. Demonstrate positive scientific evidence of there being a Creator, rather than absence of evidence for scientific explanations. Positive evidence, rather than negative evidence. (No God of the Gaps)

5. Demonstrate how anything about this Creator is capable of being known.

6. Demonstrate why other theories about a Creator that contradict your own theory are false.

7. Demonstrate how Creationism can be taught as science without evidence of God, or miracles, or divine intervention, and with logical inconsistencies and outright contradictions in the supposedly flawless book detailing his supposedly flawless existence.

8. Explain why cultures that existed before Judaism had no knowledge of this God or the creation story that happened in the Bible. It seems to me they should have been experts on the subject of what happened closer to their time period, and that all people on earth should have been a believer in this specific God, since every single living person would have had a direct ancestor that had actually spoken directly with God, according to Genesis. Where did they get polytheistic views and pantheistic views, if they were all descendant from those who had direct contact with the Abrahamic God? Or is it possible the Abrahamic view of God is incorrect?

9. What are the actual, documented miracles that science has yet to explain which are not mythological or otherwise lacking evidence that they occurred?

10. How can God be tested scientifically? (If applicable, what about Satan? Or Angels? Or demons?)

All of this stuff would be discussed, at length, in any real, "scientific" Creationism class. I'd like to hear responses to this.

 

[stuge]

You know ATPG, you made me sit here and think about actually responding to your points in earnest for a few minutes. Then considering the subject matter, I came to the conclusion that it would be total wankery and a complete waste of time.

So instead I'm hoping that this climax of retardation educational video will drive your brain to suicide void all your arguments.


Link to video.

 

[sophie]

Lulz that video was so funny. Anyone who actually tries to use that argument doesn't deserve to participate in this thread.

That video is already irritatingly wrong 30 seconds in. Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. That lies in the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution deals with the development of life once it already began.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I got about 55 seconds into that video before thinking "this is one of the most deluded and pathetic arguments against evolution that I've ever seen."

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

They're confusing the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, again?

I also love how life is supposed to appear within a human life span in conditions nowhere near resembling the conditions on Earth when life began. That obviously disproves abiogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Conditions similar to those of the Miller–Urey experiments are present in other regions of the solar system, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the energy source for chemical reactions. The Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia in 1969 was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, darkening surfaces of these bodies.[24] The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. This has been used to infer an origin of life outside of Earth: the panspermia hypothesis.

But gosh, not inside a peanut butter jar? Rats, I guess the charade is over. I'm a dummy for believing in blasphemous science over a proven God.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

So things made from living tissues, which don't make new life after they are turned into food disprove evolution? Eat the PB boy and it'll make new life as sure as eggs is eggs.

P.S. Nice playing of Devil's Idiot's Advocate Stuge.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But gosh, not inside a peanut butter jar? Rats, I guess the charade is over. I'm a dummy for believing in blasphemous science over a proven God.

In all seriousness though, evolution is as viable a theory as any other, but not proven. If it is proven, prove it.

 

[cardgame]

You can't "prove" anything except mathematical theorems.

However, there can be such a large body of evidence for a specific notion (such as the theory of gravity) that is would be foolish to disregard it as false.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You can't "prove" anything except mathematical theorems.

However, there can be such a large body of evidence for a specific notion (such as the theory of gravity) that is would be foolish to disregard it as false.

Where is this evidence for evolution then? I'd genuinely like to know.

 

[stuge]

Where is this evidence for evolution then? I'd genuinely like to know.

1. go to wiki
2. find article on evolution
3. read it and read the article's sources
4. hey guys I watched the video a second time and my brain leaked out through my nose
so you might want to watch out
5. learn

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

In all seriousness though, evolution is as viable a theory as any other, but not proven. If it is proven, prove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Reading it won't hurt you, Dommy.

 

[sophie]

Where is this evidence for evolution then? I'd genuinely like to know.

There is such a massive volume of evidence for evolution that a simple google search would be all you'd need.

Here's a good place to start though:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

A compendium of UC Berkeley articles on Evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

First link in the above that gives an overview of the evidence used that validates the fact of evolution. Here's an excerpt.

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[GhostWriter16]

So "It was answered two centuries ago" now counts as evidence?

Is there anything better than that in the link?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I do prefer the non-Wiki sources for the data, but I like the layout and presentation that Wikipedia offers. Unless the page has been recently vandalized, the points usually involve sourced data which you can follow by linking to the source.

If you want to eliminate that margin of error, go ahead and read the Berkley site.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

So "It was answered two centuries ago" now counts as evidence?

Is there anything better than that in the link?

Did you actually click on the links underneath that introductory paragraph?

Jumping fracking Jebus.

 

[negZero]

@Dom you know what else you can't prove? That a miracle with no scientific explanation ever happened.

 

[sophie]

So "It was answered two centuries ago" now counts as evidence?

Is there anything better than that in the link?

If you would click on the link, you'd notice that the article then goes on to explain how it was proved.

*EDIT* Actually, looking through the link in depth really makes me wonder why this page was posted ages ago. It really does a good job explaining how evolution works, and why it's virtually incontestable.

EDIT EDIT! http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01

Another VERY good article. Read before trying to "refute" evolution pl0x.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

@Dom you know what else you can't prove? That a miracle with no scientific explanation ever happened.

I don't think he is ever going to answer your question.

 

[negZero]

I don't think he is ever going to answer your question.

You see him answering isn't the point of me asking the question. The point of the question is to show how little understanding of the subject matter he has, damage any reputation he has, and to cement all this into a third person's mind with repetition of a single phase.

So keep on posting Dom cause I will keep on asking till you answer my question. I also have one for magicfan and Berzerker set up already.

Edit:
@stuge I see your peanut butter and I rise you a banana

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Could I please propose that no-one open an edition 3 of this thread. It is clear that those Creationists who post here have no evidence for creation, and also that they conflate trying to disprove evolution with proving creationism. We clearly know that this doesn't follow.

So for our collective sanity (us evolutionists of course) we should not pursue this farther when this thread closes.