Evidence for creationism

[Ziggy Stardust]

There plenty of ignorance to go around since evolutionist will often use ignorance as a defense of why some evidence does not fit their theory.

And now you're projecting.

Shall I remind you of the point of this thread?

The claim that creationism has verifiable evidence keeps coming up, so here is a thread with which you can enlighten us, especially me as I'm genuinely interested in actual evidence for creationism.

Please go right ahead.

So far all that has been produced is trying to discredit Evolution, some often debunked claims copied directly or paraphrased from creation.com. In other words, the exact modus operandi of creationists. In fact, the closest thing I ever saw to someone trying to present evidence was the Atheist Nightmare the Banana. Not too convincing I might add. Surely you as someone with an understanding of how science works can see you cannot present verifiable evidence for one theory simply by discrediting another?

Remember, theory just means a hypothesis which passed a basic test. Doesn't make it true

And this is plain wrong.

A scientific theory is something different than the way you might use the word "theory" in every day speech.

Type the term "scientific theory" in google, and find out for yourself.

 

[Haseri]

No, it really doesn't, Dommie.

Explore that last site. It may answer some of your questions, even if it is quite anti-creationist.

 

[Tacitusitis]

This is often true

I admit I'm too ignorant to disprove evolution, so I'm not going to try. I don't have a problem with it as a POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY. But I don't believe in it and it is certainly not fact.

Remember, theory just means a hypothesis which passed a basic test. Doesn't make it true

You do not understand what a theory is

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wait, Smidlee I have a great idea.

Since Domination will listen to you, why don't you explain to him what a scientific theory is and how they are formed.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

There are plenty of ignorance to go around since evolutionist will often use ignorance as a defense of why some evidence does not fit their theory.

What evidence? Everyting cited up to and including right this second by antis has been conclusively proved to be false, and deliberately misleading, from the "half an eye" arguement, which Darwin himself demolished in anticipation of Creationists being stupid enough to use it, to the irreducible complexity argument of Behé. There is nothing put out there that has managed to invalidate Evolution as the best explanation of how we got here today (as a species that is), some things have modified and refined it, but it is still essentialy as it was 150 years ago.

 

[Arakhor]

As Ziggy has handily reposted my original post, people will note that it mentions creationism, not evolution. Shoddily attempting to dismiss evolution does not in any way present evidence for creationism, for which I'm still waiting.

 

[cardgame]

I didn't know evolution was a hypothesis! That's awesome!

Evolution has some evidence for it sure, but none of it anywhere near conclusive. Macroevolution that is. Microevolution is proven, but that that automatically means macroevolution is a logical fallacy. It could mean that sure, but its not conclusive.

Which is also based on the assumption that the present is key to the past. On that kind of logic, the Earth should have been inside the Sun millions of years ago.

There's some evidence from the other thread

hi im 12 and what is this i dont even

 

[Miles Teg]

I didn't know evolution was a hypothesis! That's awesome!)

Put up or shut up.

This thread has had way too little actual Young Earth Creationism for my taste, and I'd love to hear exactly why you think the majority of natural science is just a "hypothesis".

 

[Seon]

Eh, you know what?!

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttals.html

 

[carlosMM]

I'll try to explain.

Ah, I see what you mean! Personally, I'd not use the word "belief" in this case, because it is very easily misunderstood, and removes the fact-based analysis that (probably, I'm inferring that) caused your deconversion.

Its not made up on the spot, and you not being fair at all by describing it in such a manner.

nah, God is just altered constantly to fit the current level of discussion. Shifting goalposts ad nauseam.

No one said you cant discuss it either.

You did, you claimed that (paraphrasing here) we can't understand god anyways. That makes any discussion moot.

Go right ahead. But I fully appreciate the problems of trying to explain God to someone determined to not believe in God. That's why there is a little something called 'faith' to make up the difference.

Do you ask your gardener for advice on your eyesight? no? Why don't you have "faith" in him, hu? (parable)

"Faith" is nothing but an excuse when rationality fails. Thus, it is not a problem when we discuss a general belief in a god, or a general god. It only enters the discussion when we discuss a specific person's belief or a specific person's personal picture of a specific god.

Why would I be interested in discussing something I take seriously with someone who describes it as my 'god thingy'? Would you waste your time trying to explain something to someone who referred to your expert area of science as that 'science thingy'?

I'd LOVE to, because I believe that - given honest interest in gaining knowledge and understanding on both sides - discussions are beneficial to at least one, more often both sides. Debating someone who calls "science" the "science thingy" is a delightful opportunity: he (she) quite obviously is ready to question every aspect of my position, and unwilling to accept any convention or expertise as fact.
Why do I write "god thingy"? Because writing "God" (capital G) (usually) implies that one talks about either the Jewish or the Christian or Muslim monotheistic god (usually No.2 on CFC), in either the vengeful OT version or the loving-allfather NT version. it brings all the baggage of its history - but then, suddenly, in the middle of the debate, I will very likely realize that you disagree with one or more minor points of the generalized picture I have formed of that "God" concept. And that leads to misunderstandings, at best. At worst, it gives each of us much room for strawman arguments and evasion.

So yes, I'd LOVE to debate someone who uses the term "science thingy" out of honest skepticism and interest. I understand that when I write "god thingy" you immediately suspect dishonest motives, and I don't blame you. But in fact I only apply the very principles I use for my everyday scientific work: doubt everything and make sure definitions are clear to all.

Free will. As a parent, I can appreciate the fact that I have to allow my kids to go through pain to learn tough lessons sometimes. Especially now that they are adults, and have no desire to listen to good advice, since they think they know better. The same adage appllies with God.

Good point, covers a small percentage of the topic. What "learning" is there to do for a newborn on nicotine withdrawal?

The irony of the situation is that people who dont believe in God simply cant appreciate how he eases suffering as opposed to causes it. A tradgedy indeed.

Oh, but I can! However, that easing is usually within an individual's consciousness, while the suffering is usually either widespread (innocents) and/or intentionally caused by those who claim to act in the name of that god-thingy (e.g., Catholic church 600 A.D. to 2010 A.D. version of "God").

Its not a question thats dodged, its just simply one you never like the answer to. /shrug.

You again dodged it. I still have no answer to how an all-loving and all-powerful god can let newborns suffer through nicotine withdrawal.

Well according to the Bible, no one is "innocent" since we are all sinners. So as a result of sin we a destined to death, all that matters is the timing of it. The only thing that you should worry about is this. Repent or perish.
Luke:1-5 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

You're not seriously telling me that - as opposed to the official position of the Catholic church - you consider an embryo at the 64 cell stage a "sinner"?
What about sperm and egg a millisecond before they merge? While they merge?
What about the 256 cell stage?
What about sixth month of pregnancy?

Evolution itself is a creation myth.

may I recommend you pick up a dictionary and look up both "creation" and "evolution"?
You'll see that those two simply can't be the same.

Wait, Smidlee I have a great idea.
Since Domination will listen to you, why don't you explain to him what a scientific theory is and how they are formed.

Those in support of the motion raise their hands please!

 

[Arakhor]

Hear, hear!

 

[Cu Chulainn]

30 pages and still not a soul with the tiniest iota of evidence to support creationism. I'm sure no one saw this result coming.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

A hypothesis is an educated guess which was created upon observation. A Theory is a Hypothesis which has been verified and proven to be true.

 

[cardgame]

Maybe if the creationists were real scientists they'd be able to find holes in the ToE. Unfortunately for them, they appear to more parts preacher than scientist.

 

[Xanikk999]

A Theory is a Hypothesis which has passed the scientific method of verification of whether it is valid. There IS a possibility that Evolution, which can be observed in both nature and the laboratory, is wrong, but the possibility of that is very, VERY low.

I don't see how evolution can be wrong ever since the field of genetics has been developed. Of course observation of similarities pretty much sealed it as the only logical explanation because lamarkism was discredited and religious explanations dont count.

Long term evolution may look unreasonable if you look at life hundreds of millions of years apart however if you compare genes of animals with a very recent common ancestor you can find all sorts of similarities in structure.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

What I meant was that the possibility of it being wrong is so small that it would make a string look like a galactic supercluster. Perhaps I should have stated that in the first place.

 

[Xanikk999]

Perhaps you didn't notice the part where I wrote "but the possibility of that is very, VERY low." I would estimate that the possibility of it being wrong would be 1/Graham's Number.

I suppose. Nothing can ever be proven with 100% certainty. If you look at it philosophically we could all be in a virtual reality machine on an alien world and we are actually aliens from another dimension named X'graxj and Mx'pash. In that world evolution doesnt exist, we were just created by a deity.

 

[Berzerker]

Aside from your narrative being a tenuous tissue of non-science-ness, you're also transplanting your modern viewpoint onto the ancient texts.

This is a thread dealing with the scientific basis of creationism, of course I'm "transplanting" my modern viewpoint onto the text. And you just contradicted yourself, first you accuse me of ignoring science (or whatever you meant by "non-science-ness") and then you accuse me of trying to explain Genesis in scientific terms.

The ancients certainly did not conceive of the earth as a planet, or of the sun as a star.

I know, thats what I said - the "Earth" is not this planet, its the dry land - Earth is the name God gave to the dry land when it appeared from under the waters (waters God did not create). And I didn't say they viewed the Sun as a star (but they did, see the link), I said they described a spinning planet in close proximity to a star (thats our/my modern viewpoint). They said the Earth was submerged (not dry) and darkness was on the face of the deep - a water covered world in darkness. Then "creation" gave birth to a new world where Light ("Day") was separated from Darkness ("Night") - regardless of what ancient peoples knew (or what you think they believed) that is a description of a spinning planet in close proximity to a star. And that was followed by the appearance of the "dry land" from under the waters, our modern viewpoint is that plate tectonics began creating the land sometime after 4 bya and life came next.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/va_243 page.htm

check out the cylinder seal, and I aint interested in debating the guy's gibberish - just look at the seal. And then compare it to the gods/planets in the Enuma Elish.

The ancients believed in a dome cosmology. If you've ever seen the movie The Truman Show, it's a good parody of the idea.

The Hebrews believed the Earth was a flat disc floating on cosmic waters ("the deeps"). Above the earth was a solid dome ("firmament" in the KJV) to which the stars were affixed and which the sun and moon traversed. Above the firmament was a second cosmic ocean (God divides "water from water" with the firmament). The heavenly ocean is where rain comes from.

And Kansas is flat... Do you take that literally too? We're dealing here with the actual text, not with what someone else thought or how they described creation in metaphorical terms. You cant be serious, ancient mariners damn well knew they were on a globe, so would anyone traveling north and south for any significant distance (or anyone who studied the Moon).

This is the cosmogony that is clearly and literally described in Genesis.

No it isn't, and I suggest you read the Enuma Elish and pay particular attention to the creation of celestial gods/planets - there's more than 5 planets and it says the proto-Earth (Tiamat) was outside of Venus and Mars.

This sort of just-so-story is exactly what someone who didn't know their butt from their ankle would come up with.

Thought Process Of An Ancient Hebrew/Sumerian/Babylonian
1. What is rain all about?
2. The water falls from the sky, so that must mean it's stored up there.
3. It doesn't come down all the time, so that must mean there's something keeping it up there.
4. God must open windows in the sky to let water come down.

And how is that wrong? Window is a metaphor, not a literal window.

Here is a massive but interesting paper on the topic by respected theologian Paul H Seely.

Ever since reading this devastating paper I see all the flood theories, canopy theories, collision theories, etc, as being rather silly attempts to deny that the authors of the bible

*were prescientific
*did not have access to a prescient/advanced/divine source of knowledge
*were PLAIN WRONG in describing how the world works

I wasted my time reading that, but he does say "Earth" in Genesis refers to "dry land".
But I imagine Flood stories are the result of the massive flooding peoples witnessed around the world as ice melted following the ice age. That aint silly, its obvious... A Tlingit myth claims the Great Flood happened 14,000 years ago, thats close to the time the Bering land bridge disappeared under rising seas. As for the collision, various peoples claimed the proto-Earth was a dismembered celestial god - part of which became the "Heaven" and the other became this world.

 

[Akka]

So eating chicken is evil?

I'm pretty sure that being eaten or dying of disease or being drown by a tidal wave are not really situation you would put your own children into, yet if god existed, he created a world that run on these.
Funny how you take a situation and reduce it to "eating chicken" (though, as idiotic your simplification is, it still points at the fact that eating another animal just feel normal, which was one of the example supporting my point).

Yet the scripture does claim during the reign of Christ there were be world peace including the animal kingdom yet at the end men will hate it so bad they will raise up against Christ the first chance they get.

God really created a faulty and messy creature then, unable to understand the advantage of living in peace.
Couldn't get it right ? Not omnipotent then. Or find it funny to see his creatures failing and suffering ? Not benevolent.

The argument stays the same, you just run in circle around while ignoring its point.

Peace is something we know deep down is good yet it's very boring and unappealing to the flesh. War is a lot more interesting. This is why Hollywood can create a much more interesting Hell then they can of Heaven which looks extremely dull.

See above : God has created us, he's responsible for this attraction to evil then. Same point, he's either not benevolent or not omnipotent.
(and innate agressivity is much more logically explained by evolution BTW, but well, if people were able to see the obvious, this thread would not exists)

I hardly think the evidence backing it up qualifies as "Masses and masses"

Your knowledge is dreadfully lacking then, as well as your logical abilities.
Educate yourself.

Maybe if the creationists were real scientists they'd be able to find holes in the ToE. Unfortunately for them, they appear to more parts preacher than scientist.

If they were scientists, they would not be creationists. Kind of a lost cause.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Maybe if the creationists were real scientists they'd be able to find holes in the ToE. Unfortunately for them, they appear to more parts preacher than scientist.

I've found the comparison of creation "science" to cargo cults to be both humorous and appropriate. Cargo cults arose amongst Pacific Islander tribes after WWII when they saw the goods brought in by American and Japanese soldiers. Once the war was over and the soldiers left, the islanders set up crude airfields and imitated the actions of the soldiers thinking that the goods or "cargo" came from the gods. If they could only perform the ritual correctly, they thought, the gods would give them cargo too.

Similarly, creationists imitate the actions of scientists expecting to get the same results. They put on lab coats, fiddle with microscopes, and call their ideas a theory. They think that if they present their ideas the way science does, they will get the same respect. Then they are surprised when everyone who knows anything about actual real science points and laughs at them.