Evidence for creationism
- Thread starter Arakhor
- Start date
- Status
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I always wonder why people think this is even relevant. Science isn't religion, and Darwin wasn't a prophet, so it wouldn't make one shred of difference if it actually were true. It would just be a dumb thing that somebody said, and that's not exactly something which as ever been in short supply.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
I think Darwin's deathbed conversion is actually a rumor that was started by evangelicals. His children deny it anyway.
The sorts of people who say that seem to be incapable to conceiving of moral views without religion - "no morality without God", "science is a religion" etc. It saddens me that even in the 21st Century, we can't have a rational debate about science and religion without people resorting to "God says you're wrong".
GhostWriter16
Deity
Actually, this is true.
@Arakhor- Thought you might like to know that this pretty much happened to me Yesterday.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
No, even Answers in Genesis say you are wrong.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend
Murky
Deity
Why would Darwin reject his own discovery?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Actually, I was agreeing with Whiskey Lord, that it was true that the rumor was made up.
I don't claim to know where it was made up, but I don't believe its true.
Now, if you said Darwin didn't KNOW whether his theory was correct or not, and admitted it was just a theory, that is true.
Graceheart the Leopard
Resident Amur leopard
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 3,476
Just like how Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein admitted Gravity is just a theory?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
No, Darwin would not have "admitted" that, because he was a scientist, and so the phrase "just a theory" would be an absurdity in his eyes. "Theory", in science, does not mean "hypothesis", as it does in common use, but a hypothesis which is supported by a substantial body of evidence, that provides effective explanations for observations, and can be effectively used to make predictions. Einsteinian gravity is "just a theory", the existence of the atomic nucleus is "just a theory", the fact that the Earth orbits the sun is "just a theory". It is not the insight which you believe it to be.
20 pages later, still no solid evidence
I present you bacon, cause no animal would evolve to be that delicious.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that we would evolve to find a foodstuff rich in fat and protein delicious.
"negZero uses Anthropocentrism!
...
It's not very effective..."
Berzerker
Deity
Genesis
or, when God began establishing Heaven and Earth ---
the Earth existed in some other form before "creation" began. But it did exist... Under the water, and it was dark. The key here is the word "Earth", we aren't told what "Earth" is until verses 9 & 10 - its the name God gave the "dry land" revealed when the water was gathered together into "Seas". God did not create the water! This too is key, for many creation myths from around the world say the same thing - the "Earth" was submerged and was raised or brought up from below the waters.
Some mistake this "light" for the Big Bang, but Genesis is not talking about the universe. And the proof comes next...
The "Light" is called "Day" and the darkness is called "Night" - thats a spinning planet in close proximity to a star.
And there is our "Heaven"... Typically taken as "the sky" in general, Heaven was actually placed amidst the waters. What are these waters? God did not create them, they were here before God arrived on the scene, and so was the "Earth" in its submerged state. But the waters above may be the planets, the celestial rivers that flow across the sky each (day) night. Or, perhaps the planets are the "days" of creation. Earth is the 7th planet and "Heaven" was the 6th according to the Mesopotamian version of creation.
Earth is the dry land revealed by the receding waters, not this planet.
Young's Literal Translation
So what does science tell us? The world had oceans, or was possibly covered by water 4.4 bya (zircon crystals formed in shallow seas). While many astronomers etc believe the Earth was struck by a "Mars-sized object" perhaps 4.5 bya with some of the debris becoming our Moon, something happened ~4 bya that destroyed (re-melted?) the Earth's surface followed by "plate tectonics", life, and the formation of "land" at various "hotspots" and plate boundaries. The Moon was witness to this collision, the side facing the Earth at the time was plastered by debris creating the "maria" or "seas" - darker spots where lava flowed following this "late heavy bombardment" 4 bya...
Thats just the start, where was the Earth before these collisions? And how did the Earth form here with all this water? Is there some kind of "barrier" separating the celestial waters (planets?) of the solar system? Could a proto-Earth covered by water form further out where water vapor concentrated (and froze) early on...where it was dark?
or, when God began establishing Heaven and Earth ---
the Earth existed in some other form before "creation" began. But it did exist... Under the water, and it was dark. The key here is the word "Earth", we aren't told what "Earth" is until verses 9 & 10 - its the name God gave the "dry land" revealed when the water was gathered together into "Seas". God did not create the water! This too is key, for many creation myths from around the world say the same thing - the "Earth" was submerged and was raised or brought up from below the waters.
Some mistake this "light" for the Big Bang, but Genesis is not talking about the universe. And the proof comes next...
The "Light" is called "Day" and the darkness is called "Night" - thats a spinning planet in close proximity to a star.
And there is our "Heaven"... Typically taken as "the sky" in general, Heaven was actually placed amidst the waters. What are these waters? God did not create them, they were here before God arrived on the scene, and so was the "Earth" in its submerged state. But the waters above may be the planets, the celestial rivers that flow across the sky each (day) night. Or, perhaps the planets are the "days" of creation. Earth is the 7th planet and "Heaven" was the 6th according to the Mesopotamian version of creation.
Earth is the dry land revealed by the receding waters, not this planet.
Young's Literal Translation
So what does science tell us? The world had oceans, or was possibly covered by water 4.4 bya (zircon crystals formed in shallow seas). While many astronomers etc believe the Earth was struck by a "Mars-sized object" perhaps 4.5 bya with some of the debris becoming our Moon, something happened ~4 bya that destroyed (re-melted?) the Earth's surface followed by "plate tectonics", life, and the formation of "land" at various "hotspots" and plate boundaries. The Moon was witness to this collision, the side facing the Earth at the time was plastered by debris creating the "maria" or "seas" - darker spots where lava flowed following this "late heavy bombardment" 4 bya...
Thats just the start, where was the Earth before these collisions? And how did the Earth form here with all this water? Is there some kind of "barrier" separating the celestial waters (planets?) of the solar system? Could a proto-Earth covered by water form further out where water vapor concentrated (and froze) early on...where it was dark?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Credit to God for creating Heavens and Earth in the Dark.
Couple of minusses for being a show-off. No reason to take such risks with creation.
Couple of minusses for being a show-off. No reason to take such risks with creation.
Berzerker
Deity
the "light" came before Heaven and Earth
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Oh I see, preparing the Heavens and Earth. Is he seasoning them?
Good point about indications that Earth already existed under the water.
Good point about indications that Earth already existed under the water.
Haseri
Emperor
The Earth formed from swirling chunks of rock and debris in the proto-planetary disc.
It didn't. Millions of years of bombardments from comets covered in ice, melted in to water vapour thanks to the atmosphere being created by volcanic eruptions.
Only the atmospheres of planets, and the hard vacuum of space. Plus really long distances.
Could do, but we would have found it by now.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
I guess this is an appropriate place to ask.
At one time I used to be really good at science, which is now probably impossible to believe. When I was at school the only people that liked me happened to be Christian, and since then they're about the only social contact I ever have. Since then it seems much that I learnt in science is in fact wrong, and that the Bible is in fact scientifically accurate. Some of these people are university educated. The theory of evolution and the timescales of the Universe and the Earth are two things they say science got wrong.
They give several reasons why you have to be an idiot to think evolution is right, and that anything that proves evolution is a hoax.
The first example they give is the supposed idea that man is descended from apes. They say that according to evolution, that an ape decided one day that it wanted to straighten it's back, and that it eventually after doing that turned into a man, then laugh at how absurd the idea is. If there is any fossil evidence, they say it's a hoax, because the Piltdown Man is a hoax.
Another one they say is that one animal one day decided to lengthen it's neck, and so one day it turned into a giraffe.
Another example they give to how evolution is false is the bee orchid, a plant that fools bees into thinking it's another bee so it can spread it's pollen. What they say is that the plant has no brain, and it cannot think, so how can it know what a bee wants and therefore know it should look like a bee to attract bees?
A fourth example they give is penguins. They say that the fact that penguins live in such an extreme environment as Antarctica show what it's impossible for any creature to adapt to such a condition, and therefore it must have been designed.
One other thing they say, which applies to all animals, is "Why would an animal want to change when it's perfectly happy the way it is?"
At one time I thought evolution is true, and I would give dog breeds as an example. I would say that all dog breeds are descended from wolves, and that man found traits in the wolves they wanted and mated them, and that slowly over time all the modern breeds of dogs came about. They say that's complete nonsense, saying at first that it's man made, so it doesn't count, and then that dogs were designed by God to be that way.
At one time I used to be really good at science, which is now probably impossible to believe. When I was at school the only people that liked me happened to be Christian, and since then they're about the only social contact I ever have. Since then it seems much that I learnt in science is in fact wrong, and that the Bible is in fact scientifically accurate. Some of these people are university educated. The theory of evolution and the timescales of the Universe and the Earth are two things they say science got wrong.
They give several reasons why you have to be an idiot to think evolution is right, and that anything that proves evolution is a hoax.
The first example they give is the supposed idea that man is descended from apes. They say that according to evolution, that an ape decided one day that it wanted to straighten it's back, and that it eventually after doing that turned into a man, then laugh at how absurd the idea is. If there is any fossil evidence, they say it's a hoax, because the Piltdown Man is a hoax.
Another one they say is that one animal one day decided to lengthen it's neck, and so one day it turned into a giraffe.
Another example they give to how evolution is false is the bee orchid, a plant that fools bees into thinking it's another bee so it can spread it's pollen. What they say is that the plant has no brain, and it cannot think, so how can it know what a bee wants and therefore know it should look like a bee to attract bees?
A fourth example they give is penguins. They say that the fact that penguins live in such an extreme environment as Antarctica show what it's impossible for any creature to adapt to such a condition, and therefore it must have been designed.
One other thing they say, which applies to all animals, is "Why would an animal want to change when it's perfectly happy the way it is?"
At one time I thought evolution is true, and I would give dog breeds as an example. I would say that all dog breeds are descended from wolves, and that man found traits in the wolves they wanted and mated them, and that slowly over time all the modern breeds of dogs came about. They say that's complete nonsense, saying at first that it's man made, so it doesn't count, and then that dogs were designed by God to be that way.
- Status
