Evidence for creationism

[Berzerker]

Some people dont play nice, when I see them behave like jerks I dont play nice. And I'll call you out too, I made a bunch of posts dealing with the science and Genesis and you kept changing the goalposts. From evidence, to proof, to compelling evidence, and finally that smart azz request for the post I mentioned the scientific evidence behind Genesis. Thats when I stopped trying in this thread...

 

[Perfection]

Care to explain how to get from 4 females in the world in 8,000 BC to 140,000 in Egypt ALONE, who report extensively on other large peoples around them (Nubia, etc.), in only 4,500 years at most?

Come on Carlos, you're better then that.

If a population doubled every 100 years in 4500 years it would be 35 trillion times the initial population.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Some people dont play nice, when I see them behave like jerks I dont play nice. And I'll call you out too, I made a bunch of posts dealing with the science and Genesis and you kept changing the goalposts. From evidence, to proof, to compelling evidence, and finally that smart azz request for the post I mentioned the scientific evidence behind Genesis. Thats when I stopped trying in this thread...

Genesis is as much evidence for creation as the Odyssey is evidence for Sirens.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

What is my POV? You make accusations and runaway when asked to back them up, thats chickencrap.

Welcome to my ignore list, have fun talking to yourself.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

This is why I am a creationist

-the world is in the exact right place for life to exist, how did that happen by chance (some random explosion)

-even the seemingly simple organisms are complex, even prokariotic cells without a nucleas, how did life, which is so complex happen by chance?

-evolutionary arguments fail, just because there are similarities between creatures does not mean they evoled.
Macroevolution has very little to suport it, on the other hand Microevolution( which is what Darwin observed) has mountains of it and one would be ignorant to say it did not happen.

 

[PeteAtoms]

This is why I am a creationist

-the world is in the exact right place for life to exist, how did that happen by chance (some random explosion)

I would look up Douglas Adams 'Sentient Puddle' thought experiment. Plus the world is only 'right' for life now, because life evolved to the environment. If there is a dramatic climate or environmental change in generations to come, our world that is just right for life... won't be. But life will evolve and to those evolved species, that world will be right. The 'right' situation for life is from your perspective, not the perspective of future or past living organisms.

To those non-present lifeforms, their own alien world will be right for them, but would be lethal for us.

Macroevolution has very little to suport it, on the other hand Microevolution( which is what Darwin observed) has mountains of it and one would be ignorant to say it did not happen.

Macroevolution is Evolution is Microevolution is Evolution!

If you observe a rock fall from a tall building and only caught a glimpse of it, would you call the process you observed 'microgravity?' Would another observer that follows the rock all the way to the ground, be witnessing 'macrogravity?'

Is your fridge magnet a 'micromagnet' and different from larger industrial 'macromagnets?'

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Microevolution-changes within species, differnt than an Ape evolving into a man.

 

[Seon]

This is why I am a creationist

-the world is in the exact right place for life to exist, how did that happen by chance (some random explosion)

By that logic, nobody should win lotteries either, yet people do. That is because there are so many people buying lottery tickets every day.

And there are way more planets and stars than there are people on Earth. You do the math.

-even the seemingly simple organisms are complex, even prokariotic cells without a nucleas, how did life, which is so complex happen by chance?

Like this.

-evolutionary arguments fail, just because there are similarities between creatures does not mean they evoled.

...what?

Macroevolution has very little to suport it, on the other hand Microevolution( which is what Darwin observed) has mountains of it and one would be ignorant to say it did not happen.

Macroevolution is microevolution over a long period of time. Any evidence for microevolution is, in turn, evidence for macroevolution.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Microevolution-changes within species, differnt than an Ape evolving into a man.

or a bird evolving into a cardinal? Humans ARE apes.

 

[Atlas14]

This is why I am a creationist

-the world is in the exact right place for life to exist, how did that happen by chance (some random explosion)

Well think of how many other "unlucky" planets or sites in the universe there are. We are indeed lucky to be on the perfect site for life, that is why life was able to evolve from abiotic chemicals.

-even the seemingly simple organisms are complex, even prokariotic cells without a nucleas, how did life, which is so complex happen by chance?

It didn't happen over night. It took billions of years after earth even formed for the first signs of pre-biotic chemical evolution and long after that, biotic evolution to occur.

-evolutionary arguments fail, just because there are similarities between creatures does not mean they evoled.
Macroevolution has very little to suport it, on the other hand Microevolution( which is what Darwin observed) has mountains of it and one would be ignorant to say it did not happen.

Have you studied the theory on a non-elementary level? I'm being serious and not trying to be insulting in any way.

Between radiometric dating, the fossil record, orientation of Earth's strata, population genetics, molecular genetics, and other biological principles to support the theory, I'd say macroevolution has a pretty solid foundation.

 

[Seon]

I would look up Douglas Adams 'Sentient Puddle' thought experiment. Plus the world is only 'right' for life now, because life evolved to the environment. If there is a dramatic climate or environmental change in generations to come, our world that is just right for life... won't be. But life will evolve and to those evolved species, that world will be right. The 'right' situation for life is from your perspective, not the perspective of future or past living organisms.

I <3 you.

Quoted here for truth.

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Microevolution-changes within species, differnt than an Ape evolving into a man.

How do you think these microevolutionary changes appear in the context of a larger time scale? Macro.

Or do you also reject the idea of processes observed today likely have been going on well into the past and into the future?

(there is a geological term for that, forget it though).

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

my science textbook gives a fake argument of "there are similarities between species" as poof

 

[Berzerker]

Genesis is as much evidence for creation as the Odyssey is evidence for Sirens.

Genesis describes a dark water covered world before "creation" followed by a spinning world in close proximity to a star with plate tectonics building the continents and the appearance of life. How does the science challenge that?

Welcome to my ignore list, have fun talking to yourself.

make accusations and runaway instead of backing them up

 

[Arakhor]

Your science textbook either gives you a lot better argument that just that, you are deliberately misrepresenting it or your textbook is a pile of foecal matter and needs to be replaced.

 

[Seon]

my science textbook gives a fake argument of "there are similarities between species" as poof

I must laugh first.

my science textbook gives a fake argument of "there are similarities between species" as poof

Your arguement grows less concise and eloquent as time goes on! Are you saying that you looked through the science textbook and saw that one of the proof of evolution was that there were similiarities between species, and disagreed with it?

Now how does that even disprove evolution partly?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Genesis describes a dark water covered world before "creation" followed by a spinning world in close proximity to a star with plate tectonics building the continents and the appearance of life. How does the science challenge that?

You're reading that into the text. It's not really there.

 

[Seon]

Genesis describes a dark water covered world before "creation" followed by a spinning world in close proximity to a star with plate tectonics building the continents and the appearance of life. How does the science challenge that?

The world was never water covered.

The continents never came out of water..

The bugs came before animals, unlike what Genesis says.

The moon came before the plants, unlike what the Genesis says.

Now you must admit that the Genesis, and in extension the bible, is imperfect.

make accusations and runaway instead of backing them up

We backed it up many times.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

my textbook went on about adaptations, and embryo similarity as proof

 

[Tacitusitis]

It's just my opinion Methos and Kiwitt but I think you two're being very contradictory in this thread. The Bible is wrong but we can learn from it? The Book of Mormon was forged but it still deserves respect?

Look, if something is wrong, THROW IT AWAY. I don't care if people have been venerating it for thousands of years.

Nobody needs to pretend to have a shred of respect for the Bible. The Bible's cosmology is from start to finish laughably wrong. There are no moral lessons in the Bible that can't be duplicated by half-assedly-decent parenting. Mormonism is creepy and lame and I can say that because one of my ancestors invented the whole "pretending to get carved messages from God" racket.