Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Gravity is both Law and Theory.

Gravity is always there and it always does the same thing, so math works with it. That is the Law part.

They don't know why gravity attracts or what the mechanism of gravity is. That is the reason it is a Theory.

Sigh...theory in the science world doesnt mean "theory". This is basic knowledge if you are going to argue this topic.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Gravity is both Law and Theory.

Gravity is always there and it always does the same thing, so math works with it. That is the Law part.

They don't know why gravity attracts or what the mechanism of gravity is. That is the reason it is a Theory.

Sigh...theory in the science world doesnt mean "theory". This is basic knowledge if you are going to argue this topic.

I think you misread his post? Maybe he didn't explain his position well.

Law is what a theory would have been proven over a period of time. It certainly isn't a proof but it's stronger than a theory.

I think you just misunderstood his post.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Gravity is both Law and Theory.

Gravity is always there and it always does the same thing, so math works with it. That is the Law part.

They don't know why gravity attracts or what the mechanism of gravity is. That is the reason it is a Theory.

Sigh...theory in the science world doesnt mean "theory". This is basic knowledge if you are going to argue this topic.

I think you misread his post? Maybe he didn't explain his position well.

Law is what a theory would have been proven over a period of time. It certainly isn't a proof but it's stronger than a theory.

I think you just misunderstood his post.

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.

a reply to: edmc^2

Idea or not - does INFINITY exist?

Simple Q.

superman exists as an idea, maybe we should start worshipping him instead?

jokes aside, i have already addressed your question and explained why its useless as "evidence" in this discussion. your refusal to accept that is, once again, neither our responsibility nor our sin. lets stick to falsifiable evidence shall we?

In other words, if Space is bounded, where then is the Universe expanding to?

come - enough with philosophy of "falsifiable evidence". Stick with science.

so far, our direct observations have been limited to the cosmic sphere in which we reside. that is to say, a fraction of the entire universe. what exists beyond that can only be speculated at, even by the brightest of current minds.

also, "falsifiable evidence" IS science. falsifiable evidence is what allows us to not only prove a hypothesis false, but prove it TRUE, if it is indeed true. otherwise, we are stuck with presumptions. such as yours.

and i think at this juncture we can conclude that neither you nor any other proponent of creationism possesses sufficient evidence to tip the scales. creationism remains a hypothesis, and not a very good one at that.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Even the sun orbits around the barycentre. It's just within the area of the sun. Again, whatever.

By definition they do revolve around the sun, unless you are looking at 3D view where they follow the sun around the milky way in a spiral pattern behind it. Barycenter is caused by the gravitational tug from the orbiter and the orbitee. It isn't a physical tangible thing. Of course they don't orbit a central point on the sun because the sun is moving. They do revolve around it, however, and this point can't really be denied.

People who want me to provide col hard evidence of "creationism" are crazy. You know I can't show to you data to prove intelligent design. I'm still waiting on cold hard evidence that we changed species (but lets not venture off in to macro vs micro)

Again, you are falling back on attacking evolution instead of providing evidence for creation as per the thread topic. There is another thread with evidence for evolution and it has quite a bit of evidence posted if you would like to address it, rather than just denying it without reason. It's the next highest thread in the section. Take a look if you are really interested in looking at the evidence.

In terms of theories being superseded over time... I'll do a bit of looking for you. It was merely a general topic that science is forever finding new information which supersedes and disproves our current beliefs. You asking me for specific examples doesn't cover up the fact that what I'm saying is true. And that YES in 150 years... Everything could have changed.

Why couldn't it? We might not even be here in 150 years (as a civilisation) so, that's a big change right there. I don't know why it was so laughable. Maybe is I had used the word ANYTHING rather than EVERYTHING I could have saved you what seems to be laughter at someone else.

I'm asking you for specific examples because I don't believe you and it sounds like your typical anti science rhetoric. Since the modern scientific method was implemented in the early 1900s, the amount of scientific theories that have been completely wrong is pretty much nill. I'm not saying it never happens, but it's very rare. Yes, science updates itself when new information comes out, and yes our understanding of things could drastically update in 150 years, but that doesn't mean evolution is wrong or that science is unreliable or that current theories will be ALL be falsified. You are guessing based on something that has never happened since the scientific method. Again, I'm not saying that it's all 100% correct, but the facts in which theories are based are slam dunks and will not change at this point.

Remember upgrading our understanding about something, doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It just means there is more involved that we originally observed. Theories are updated. Much like how Newton's laws were appended on by Einstein's relativity. Newton's laws weren't wrong, they just didn't tell the whole story.

originally posted by: TheChrome
I have to correct you. It is the Law of gravity. Laws can be proven. A theory, has not reached Law status yet, and thus is subject to debate, AKA evolution which is a theory and not a Law.

Um, usually when you correct somebody, it means that your information is accurate. But you are completely wrong here, yet again. Would it kill you to research or look up things before spouting them off as facts?

For the last time:

Theories do NOT become laws when proven!

LAWS are calculations and measurements of things that cannot change without the variables themselves changing

It's beyond me why people who attack science don't even understand the basic terminology.

I just realized I'm 4 pages behind and this has already been addressed and debunked by others so I apologize for repeating the obvious.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false.

Every fossil pulled out of the earth could falsify evolution, yet out of the millions found not a single one has been in the wrong layer or out of place. Evolution is falsifiable, but it has never actually been falsified because every new piece of evidence we find confirms the previous findings rather than conflicts. I'll chalk this up as ignorance of scientific terminology AGAIN. Please research what you are talking about.

Last I check, you claimed me to be scientifically illiterate, which is not the case since I have been loaded up on scientific education my entire life.

FYI, engineering isn't science. It may be based on math and science, but you aren't doing experiments or researching things. You are using advanced math to design things. They are completely different and you have already proven to be scientifically illiterate by not understanding the very basic terminology in science like theory, law, fact, falsifiable and hypothesis.

Creation will never be proven to atheists, since atheists will never accept the authenticity of the bible. Evolution will never be proven to creationists, since the evidence scientists provide are very flimsy. This subject should be dropped. I hold that the tie breaker is prophecy.

No. it's because creationism has no physical evidence, while evolution has TONS of solid valid evidence. Again, there is an evidence for evolution thread. You are welcome to go there and dispute the evidence. LMAO at tie breakers based on assumption. One has mountains of objective evidence, one has NONE. There is no tie breaker and creation isn't mutually exclusive to evolution. They could both be right, but evolution is based on cold hard fact.

I think it is haughty, arrogant, and selfish of those who think life formed by chance.

LMAO! How is it arrogant in the least? This is what I don't get about religious folks. They act like they are being humble when they are actively going out of their way to attack science and deny facts. How is it arrogant to think life started by chance? I just don't see how your assertion equals your conclusion. It is WAY more arrogant to claim that you were specifically designed in the image of an all powerful god. You've gotta be kidding me claiming arrogance for understanding scientific research instead of blindly attacking it while knowing NOTHING about it. Sorry but based on your post history in this thread that is downright hypocritical.

originally posted by: edmc^2
more evidence in favor of abiogenesis, hah! You can't even explain the very foundation of abiogenesis. Now you're claiming there's "more evidence in favor of abiogenesis".

Like I said, abiogenesis has been partially duplicated in a lab. Which part of creation has? Yes, there is more evidence of abiogenesis than creation for that fact alone. Your alleged evidence all requires assumptions which makes it NOT evidence.

As to "Nobody believes spontaneous generation" - you're wrong. Absolutely completely wrong.

Spontaneous Generation (SG) = Abiogenesis. they are one and the same. Only slight difference is one is older than the other. You're just in denial because SG has been a disaster from the very beginning.

Here, let me show you:

Your source supported my side, not yours.

en.wikipedia.org...

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species.

Abiogenesis does not postulate that flies or maggots can spontaneously form from meat or dead flesh. It postulates how the FIRST life could have arisen on early planet earth from it's basic components. Do some research.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
more evidence in favor of abiogenesis, hah! You can't even explain the very foundation of abiogenesis. Now you're claiming there's "more evidence in favor of abiogenesis".

Like I said, abiogenesis has been partially duplicated in a lab. Which part of creation has? Yes, there is more evidence of abiogenesis than creation for that fact alone. Your alleged evidence all requires assumptions which makes it NOT evidence.

As to "Nobody believes spontaneous generation" - you're wrong. Absolutely completely wrong.

Spontaneous Generation (SG) = Abiogenesis. they are one and the same. Only slight difference is one is older than the other. You're just in denial because SG has been a disaster from the very beginning.

Here, let me show you:

Your source supported my side, not yours.

en.wikipedia.org...

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species.

Abiogenesis does not postulate that flies or maggots can spontaneously form from meat or dead flesh. It postulates how the FIRST life could have arisen on early planet earth from it's basic components. Do some research.

Like I said, abiogenesis has been partially duplicated in a lab.

this bit is quite amusing: "Partially Duplicated". Duplicated from what? Aren't you supposed to present your evidence of life emerging from nothing then from non-living into a living cell?

Yet you claim:

... Yes, there is more evidence of abiogenesis than creation for that fact alone. Your alleged evidence all requires assumptions which makes it NOT evidence.

Hah! your evidence doesn't even come close to it. It's all assumption. In fact you don't even have a foundation from which to establish your hypothesis from.



As for C R E A T I O N - absolutely! There's more evidence of it. More than you can count. Problem is you don't want to see them.

One of of which I've already shared and mentioned. One that you or any of your colleague can't or unwilling to refute!

a reply to: Barcs

Yet many believe evolution is the whole story? I never attacks evolution by its definition. I think it holds some merit and does a good job in trying to explain where we came from. I just don't think it's the entire story.. by a long shot. And what we know now could very well be extremely different in years to come.

I've read the thread and I watched a video of a salamander turning in to a different....... species of salamander.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

Species is an arbitrary human construct. It's not a "thing". Creationists never seem capable of explaining exactly what stops genetic differences from accumulating past this arbitrary point. It's like saying "I believe cars can travel, but not beyond Arizona" when Arizona itself is an arbitrary human construct.

But anyway, all of this is off-topic.

19 pages in and nothing: Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

I would settle for people at least knowing the proper terminology and the concepts about evolution, but time and time again in these threads many of the same people who claim it is bogus show us they haven't grasped those.

They don't need to believe it, it would just be nice if they could discuss it properly.


It is a scientific theory that has been backed up with evidence and the strongest scientific theory we have ATM.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Oops. You are right. I think I have had a bit too much to drink last night lol. Even science teachers have fallen into the same mistake.

originally posted by: edmc^2
this bit is quite amusing: "Partially Duplicated". Duplicated from what? Aren't you supposed to present your evidence of life emerging from nothing then from non-living into a living cell?

I'm not claiming life emerged from nothing. That is a childish argument that only creationists think but it isn't what the hypothesis states.

Hah! your evidence doesn't even come close to it. It's all assumption. In fact you don't even have a foundation from which to establish your hypothesis from.

Flat out lie. Experiments have shown parts of the process. It's not my problem that you don't get it. Again, where is the evidence for creation? Even if abiogenesis has just 1 tiny piece of evidence supporting it, it is WAY more than creation because creation has ZERO. This thread isn't about abiogenesis or evolution, where is your direct objective tangible evidence of god or creator?

As for C R E A T I O N - absolutely! There's more evidence of it. More than you can count. Problem is you don't want to see them.

None of the "evidence" is objective. It is ALL subjective, hence no tangible evidence. Sorry that you don't like this, but it's a fact. Appealing to complexity is not evidence. Attacking evolution or abiogenesis is not evidence of creation. I already explained why your "life only comes from life" analogy is bogus.

One of of which I've already shared and mentioned. One that you or any of your colleague can't or unwilling to refute!

You posted objective evidence of god? Where?

a reply to: Barcs

As Barcs has said. Science may not have the whole picture yet on how life started, we may even just have a scrap. But that scrap may as well be volumes of encyclopedias compared to the nothing, zero, nada that creationism has.

Science is working towards the solution..Just because it doesnt have it yet is no reason to migrate towards magic.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
a reply to: Barcs

Yet many believe evolution is the whole story? I never attacks evolution by its definition. I think it holds some merit and does a good job in trying to explain where we came from. I just don't think it's the entire story.. by a long shot. And what we know now could very well be extremely different in years to come.

I've read the thread and I watched a video of a salamander turning in to a different....... species of salamander.

Obviously you didn't understand any of the evidence if you think evolution would work any other way. You expect a salamander to change into a bird in just one speciation event?

You really don't think that genetic mutations can accumulate? Grim's analogy with the car driving past Arizona is dead on.

Nobody says it is the whole story, it's just the only "story" backed by evidence. I think it's perfectly compatible with creation, it's just the fundamentalists like the preacher above that deny it because they interpret the bible literally. To me, claiming that god couldn't create evolution or design an evolving species is limiting god. I see no reason why both couldn't be true. It's still a basic fact that there is no objective evidence of god.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
I think it holds some merit...

Of course it HAS to or else people would all catch on to the scam.

One has to remember that good disinfo agents always mix good info in with the bad.

In order for Darwinism to work, it MUST contain some elements of truth, just like any other disinformation operation.

The MSM contains some truth as well, I still won't go near it with someone else's ten foot pole...

The most effective deception is truth combined with a lie.

That's why it's called rat poison for the soul...

It's also called confirmation bias.

Most people "trust" evolution because it sometimes tells them what they already believe.

Remember, the most effective lie is the half-truth, because in part it can be defended with incontestable logic. It was prolific occult author and demonic 33rd degree Freemason Manly P. Hall who said that. He is absolutely correct! Satan knows that the most effective deception is one in which there is truth combined with a lie, so that the truth masquerades the lie.

Satan's Greatest Weapon

a reply to: Murgatroid

So you pretty much believe everything ever is a conspiracy EXCEPT creationism of all things?

Why not hold that to the same standard you hold everything else? Why not post dozens of quote mines and personal opinions of ex-religious people? Why not post the dozens of intentional hoaxes perpetuated by the church over the years? Stuff like that makes you disbelieve science, so why not creationism? Why are your standards different for creationism than they are for everything else that you think is a lie? I am genuinely curious here.

a reply to: Barcs

Actually I HAVE posted dozens of opinions of ex-religious people, probably more closer to several hundred.

One example from last year:

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: BlackArrow
This has nothing to do with religion...

Religion is nothing but more lies and hidden agendas like I mentioned above.

The demonic and religion both have a common source.

This is why they are BOTH are surrounded by nothing but lies and deception.

By studying those who have escaped the belly of the beast, this becomes very apparent: Ex-nun Charlotte Keckler, former Catholic priests Richard Bennett, Malachi Martin, and Jeremiah J. Crowley, Leo H. Lehmann, Kamal Saleem , Linda Laine, Naeem Fazal, etc.

In fact I believe I even used the same "rat poison for the soul" analogy with them.

I also hold religion to the same standard as evolution simply because I am 100% convinced they come from the same source.

The agenda for both is identical as well.

Concerning the intentional hoaxes perpetuated by the church...

I posted in another thread not 10 minutes ago about the fact that it's common knowledge among satanists that the church has been infiltrated.

You've probably seen posts I've written on this before, there are quite a few in fact.

Why are your standards different for creationism than they are for everything else that you think is a lie?

Imagine for just a second that God shows up at your house one day out of the blue and makes it VERY clear that he is alive and well...

This is exactly what happened to me back in 1979.

And that was just one experience of many.

I can 100% guarantee that if this ever happens to you, it will radically affect everything you believe about spiritual matters.

One's beliefs cannot remain the same once they experience some thing this profound.

I was an atheist when this happened BTW.

Now you mentioned that you were genuinely curious which I find pretty fascinating.

How often do you we someone on ATS say "hey buddy, why the hell do you believe that stuff?"

Not very often which is something that has always bothered me.

Bottom line is that you have earned my respect by saying what you really think...

If this post seems a little short on explanations it's simply because I have to run out the door in a minute.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I appreciate the honesty. I haven't seen many of your posts, usually I only catch the anti evolution jabs since I mostly follow the O&C section, so I was curious about that. Thanks for explaining it for me. I don't agree with your view about science and evolution, but I'm not really expecting that to change. At least I can see where you are coming from now.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Don't believe a word of it.