Evidence for creationism

[Yeekim]

Incorrect. Abiogenesis can be falsified.

How would you do that?

 

[GhostWriter16]

There are only 2 (arguably 3) species of elephants alive today out of a total of 350 species that lived over the span of 50 million years from the Proboscidea order that God created.

So...shoddy workmanship...just liked making elephants, slightly different each time...whats the deal creationists?

They probably died out from temperature differences in the flood, as for "Millions of years" we give that about as much credibility as any other myth.

 

[Atlas14]

God said creation was good, not perfect

Yeah, but the success rate of his creation in the case of the elephant was terrible. Especially for a god that can create a universe. I wouldn't call that "good" creation success.

Plus, why such repetition? And why only slightly different each time? Looks dangerously close to the work of evolution.

@ Domination: Temperature differences?

 

[Miles Teg]

No, it was too much for Judah. God was with them, but they must have been in peace or something.

Read the context dude. It was war time, and that was land that God told them to go conquer, and later berated them for not conquering.

 

[Seon]

They probably died out from temperature differences in the flood, as for "Millions of years" we give that about as much credibility as any other myth.

Ten thousand biologists, meteorologists, geologists, and whatnot let out a massive groan and facepalmed.

Give me one, GOOD, proof that a massive flood even occurred.

I refuse to listen to any proof that is based on ancient tales of flood in different civilizations. The ancients certainly traveled the world even back then and may have brought their own mythologies to different parts of the world. For example, the myth of Noah's Ark is nothing more than a corruption of the original Sumerian Flood Legend.

Even if that is not the case, flood is a major disaster in almost every civilization. Therefore, it is not strange that stories of particularly devastating flood emerge from many different places and evantually be exaggerated to something akin to a global flood.

Altenatively, a volcanic eruption or a comet strike may have caused tsunamis, devastating the coastal landscape in a giant "flood." Although it would be the most impressive of the stories, it would certainly not be a "global" flood. Effects on biosphere outside the affected zone would be minimal.

 

[Earthling]

How would you do that?

To start (you'd have to cover a bit more for non-carbon based life, for instance), have an experiment showing that every molecule of anything that accrues, say, from x-1 to x number of carbon atoms spontaneously breaks down regardless of other chemical composition...

 

[JohnRM]

There is no evidence, because there is no God. Because there is no God, there was never any supernatural creation.

 

[Ajidica]

While I interpret most of it literally, there are those that don't. I think that you can have different beliefs and still be saved, though I don't think you can be saved if you don't believe Jesus is God or in his plan for salvation.

Why should Christianity be any more valid than any particular moral path?
Because the it is God's word? Then why not the Baghavad Gita where Krishna comes to Earth and has kings kill each other. (Or am I remembering the wrong Hindu epic?)
Remember: All regions fit fairly nicely into Hinduism!

 

[Bei1052]

Incorrect. Abiogenesis can be falsified.

I'm going to need explanation on this one.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Why should Christianity be any more valid than any particular moral path?
Because the it is God's word? Then why not the Baghavad Gita where Krishna comes to Earth and has kings kill each other. (Or am I remembering the wrong Hindu epic?)
Remember: All regions fit fairly nicely into Hinduism!

Simple. To a Christian (or Muslim, for that matter), that religion is the only correct path towards God. Asking a Christian why other religions aren't equally valid is like asking a race car driver why he doesn't ride a tricycle instead.

 

[emzie]

I'm going to need explanation on this one.

Theories dealing with abiogenesis are falsifiable. Abiogenesis itself is a concept which would be much harder to falsify. Granted I've racked my brains for a whole 20 seconds on this, but I'd think something inexplicably artificial would suffice -- possibly something the equivalent of showing irreducible complexity (which itself would instantly falsify natural selection).

 

[Agent327]

If something is artificial it has no bearing on either evolution or natural selection, which are biological processes.

Simple. To a Christian (or Muslim, for that matter), that religion is the only correct path towards God. Asking a Christian why other religions aren't equally valid is like asking a race car driver why he doesn't ride a tricycle instead.

Actually it´s more like asking a race car driver why he sticks to his particular type of race car.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually, it would be more like asking the race car driver why he prefers to be in first.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Because it means winning the race. Try to look at it from the POV of a believer.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, but it makes them irrelevant!

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the dangers of religion. The danger of making the important question irrelevant and slowing progression since forever and laughing all the way

Thanks for that mate. Excellent assist.

Except for the time lost thinking something was fact, when it wasnt due to faulty science.

Time spend discovering is time lost? Progress is wasted time?

Jeebus.

Science may not claim this, but certain people believe that about science. Many treat it more like a religion in a lot of aspects.

Then address and talk about certain people, not about a fault in science.

As I have said, I have had to deal with it. You can too from the opposite side of the coin.

Fair enough?

No. Not to both of us.

You do whatever you have to, my mistake here may have been that I had too high expectations. This little hell going atheist won't counter your derogatory sweeping remarks with derogatory sweeping remarks of my own with the sole reason being: "The other kids are doing it to" or "they started it". Turn the other cheek and all that shiz.

But I advice you to never complain about it again, as you have done in the past. Since I know you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.

Like so:

And making lite of peoples faith as believing in 'imaginary friends' is insulting.

Deal with it.

Fair enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY

These were excellent, thanks

 

[bathsheba666]

God said creation was good, not perfect

But given the other stuff in the bible, his judgement is notoriously flawed and inconsistent, so why bring this up?

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, but the success rate of his creation in the case of the elephant was terrible. Especially for a god that can create a universe. I wouldn't call that "good" creation success.

Bible doesn't say God created the universe

Plus, why such repetition? And why only slightly different each time? Looks dangerously close to the work of evolution.

I dont have a problem with evolution or creation

But given the other stuff in the bible, his judgement is notoriously flawed and inconsistent, so why bring this up?

combating ignorance

 

[Arakhor]

They probably died out from temperature differences in the flood, as for "Millions of years" we give that about as much credibility as any other myth.

No, you don't get to do that. You don't laugh at the entire body of science by calling it mythical and then casually replace them with more mythological story elements. Back up your statements or don't make them. Read the thread title again.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, you don't get to do that. You don't laugh at the entire body of science by calling it mythical and then casually replace them with more mythological story elements. Back up your statements or don't make them. Read the thread title again.

I agree.

People are asked to back up their claims, by you as well, and then thinking you can dismiss those claims by

but they must have been in peace or something.

They probably died out from temperature differences in the flood

is really subpar.

"must have been". Must have been because otherwise it would be detrimental to your argument. If you don't know, find out or accept you don't know.
"or something". Njjaahjnaajanajabnahaj
"probably". The only reason you use probably is not because you looked into the subject, you give no justification for that probability, you assert probability because you take the word of the Bible as true and only then start reasoning. In other words, you have reached the conclusion before you started on your path to reach a conclusion. The Bible is true because the Bible is true, the flood happened because it says so in the Bible are not accepted as valid argumentation.

"Because verifiable facts x, y and z show that there is a good chance they died from temperature differences in the flood" is the correct format. You'd have to prove there was a flood. You'd have to date the flood. You'd have to show that the changes in anatomy of those elephants could have happened (if you consider them part of microevolution), Or you'd have to show that previous to the flood our current day elephants where present then, and they just survived the temperature changes. You'd have to make a case to show us they probably died that way. Not: I really want it to be like this, so it probably is like this.

That's quackery.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, it would be more like asking the race car driver why he prefers to be in first.

How so?