Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: Barcs

There are several models that are supported by evidence and members of the scientific community.

Models for creation? Please do tell.

The big bang is not considered by all to be the definitive theory.

Popular opinion is irrelevant when discussing science.

I have read all about the big bang theory and the evidence is fairly flimsy in places and scientists admit this.

Usually when somebody says this, it means they have read "all about the big bang" on a creationist propaganda site, rather than reading scientific research papers and studies about it.

Can you please list which evidence is flimsy? I've heard this claim numerous times, and each time it is folks appealing to what science hasn't yet figured out (ie what caused the big bang). BB theory doesn't claim to know the cause, it claims to know that all the visible energy and matter in the universe was condensed together and then expanded. Can you make an argument that doesn't involve inserting god into the areas that science admits are unknown? That is what the "god of the gaps" argument is, and it doesn't apply to the big bang theory because the theory explains what the evidence shows, it doesn't insert a complete guess in the parts we don't.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

ok giblet what makes a "fact" oh right it needs these things:

fact : In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.”

observe it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

a reply to: edmc^2

If I were a gambling man (and I am) I would bet the farm that the new thread you create will have all the same ol' tireless long debunked arguments against evolution that you have posted in the past, but by all means if you enjoy getting debunked over and over and over, then that's perfectly fine. Some people like self inflicted pain, I don't judge them.

originally posted by: flanimal4114
a reply to: 3danimator2014

ok giblet what makes a "fact" oh right it needs these things:

fact : In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.”

observe it.

Let's look at this statement.

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.

Genetic mutations = Observed in real time and proven
Natural selection = Observed in real time and proven

Therefor.

Evolution as a process = Observed in real time and proven

The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis explains this fact and how the process works.

So, unless you are suggesting that genetic mutations do not exist or that better adapted species aren't favored for survival over others, you aren't saying anything.

It's the same with the theory of gravity. We don't know everything about it, but we know for an absolute fact that it is a real phenomenon. It can be measured and observed just like genetic mutations and natural selection. The theory tries to explain the mechanisms behind gravity and how it works. The Law of gravity explains the exact measurements and calculations.

You may want to do some reading and brush up on your scientific terminology, because if you don't understand those basic things, you'll never get anywhere in a discussion about evolution or any scientific topic for that matter.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

If I were a gambling man (and I am) I would bet the farm that the new thread you create will have all the same ol' tireless long debunked arguments against evolution that you have posted in the past, but by all means if you enjoy getting debunked over and over and over, then that's perfectly fine. Some people like self inflicted pain, I don't judge them.

of course in your mind it's bunk and debunked but the fact is you never debunked it. The discussion just merely took a long pause. In any case, this thread doesn't serve my purpose since I don't subscribe to creationism as coined and defined by Atheist and Evolutionist - a God of the Gaps.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

You might be surprised by the outcome TzarChasm.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

You might be surprised by the outcome TzarChasm.

No offence mate, but i sincerely doubt that. We have heard ALL of the things you probably are going to say 1000 times before.
Do you not think that if there was ACTUAL proof it would be earth shattering news...instead of it being on a crappy forum, posted by one guy.

originally posted by: SGTkilt

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Im not calling you a liar. I believe you truely belive that he turned up etc...but i dont belive that that is what really heppened. Why would god show up at your house and not interevene to save that poor 3 year old who drowned? Doesnt make sense.

This is a question I have asked myself MANY times over the years.

I don't know the answer but I have a few clues to suggest why it happened to me...

When this happened I was an atheist but for the previous 2 years I was a sailor on a Navy ship.

Someone on that ship (USS Valdez) had been leaving small chick tracts in the crews lounge.

Every day as I would pass through this area I would pick some of them up and read them.

Also during this time another sailor left a bible behind in the 'Combat Information Center' and I started reading it.

Somewhere in scripture it mentions Gods word will not return void.

It also talks about asking, seeking, and knocking.

There must have been some kind of spiritual principal going on that caused it to happen.

And about that poor 3 year old who drowned...

In heaven, children are there, all the ones who died young, in childbirth, or were aborted.
Link

Oh, i see. So its ok, if children horribly with illness or deformities before they die...because they are goign to heaven! Phew! Lucky them! Thank you god for creating that worm/parasite/virus!

Your god is a sick, twisted, incomptetent fool...and deserves NO adulation. Fortunately, he doesnt exist

I wonder....why "fortunately" he doesn't exist you say? What if he did exist? And don't answer well he doesn't so doesn't matter does it. I mean hypothetically. God existed. What does that mean for your life?

I have no idea since i never thought for a second that he did.

if he did then i would either worship him blindly or be openly disgusted with his "work". Who knows....

"im going to upload the videos of the ufos i took soon"
"im going to upload the evidence i have for chemtrails as soon as i get home"
"Im going to post all the documents i have that shows hollow earth exists"
"im going to start a thread and show my evidence for creationism"

yep...we heard all these lines and more and are still waiting for them

originally posted by: edmc^2
of course in your mind it's bunk and debunked but the fact is you never debunked it. The discussion just merely took a long pause. In any case, this thread doesn't serve my purpose since I don't subscribe to creationism as coined and defined by Atheist and Evolutionist - a God of the Gaps.

So you have something new to bring to the table this time before you disappear into the woodworks for another 3-4 months? By all means, present it. Arguing out of ignorance is a very ineffective form of argument. You have posted many false claims about evolution in the past that were debunked by actual science, so I'm interested if you have something new. If it's the same ol' tireless claims based on ignorance and lack of understanding of science I really don't want to hear it.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

You might be surprised by the outcome TzarChasm.

No offence mate, but i sincerely doubt that. We have heard ALL of the things you probably are going to say 1000 times before.
Do you not think that if there was ACTUAL proof it would be earth shattering news...instead of it being on a crappy forum, posted by one guy.

None taken my friend. It's going to be a friendly conversation among ATSer's from a different point of view. As for proof, I prefer to use the word evidence as it lend support to my argument that God is the originator (creator) of life.

Unfortunately due to my (present) work schedule, I'm only able to post the thread after the 24th. Hence my comments here are just dribs and drabs. Hopefully by then I can be fully engage in the discussion.

ciao.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

You might be surprised by the outcome TzarChasm.

No offence mate, but i sincerely doubt that. We have heard ALL of the things you probably are going to say 1000 times before.
Do you not think that if there was ACTUAL proof it would be earth shattering news...instead of it being on a crappy forum, posted by one guy.

None taken my friend. It's going to be a friendly conversation among ATSer's from a different point of view. As for proof, I prefer to use the word evidence as it lend support to my argument that God is the originator (creator) of life.

Unfortunately due to my (present) work schedule, I'm only able to post the thread after the 24th. Hence my comments here are just dribs and drabs. Hopefully by then I can be fully engage in the discussion.

ciao.

In other words....you have nothing.

If you did, you would present it all.

I fell in love with the theory of evolution from the first time I heard it. I never really have gone to church, and my mom's a scientist, so I've never had anybody in my life to preach to me and brainwash me with an ideology. In college I would noticed people getting really heated on both sides of the debate. I got in on the fun. Guess what tribe I was in.
Let me bring something to your attention. Because I really didn't have an emotional attachment to either ideology growing up, I was better at most at arguing my points. When they got mad and shouted, I was cool, calm and collected, and able to still beat them down with facts. I persuaded a lot of people. I took a sick joy, out of convincing people that there was no god.
But the truth is evolution is a flawed theory too, that's why it will never be a law. it can not ever become a scientific law, because the theory would have to break scientific laws, that we can prove at anytime any day. do you want an Example? How about the laws of thermodynamics. Things don't get better with age, and life can only come from life. That's two scientific laws the theory of evolution has to break to be true. There are other scientific laws the theory would have to bend to be a reality too. You go find them.
The Cambridge explosion is also a thorn in evolutions ass to. Basically it says overnight eighty percent of all the different body types on earth appeared over night.(no evidence of them evolving just showing up out of nowhere.) on a time line, not literally overnight. Don't get your panties in a bunch. You can say, what about that other twenty percent. I would say it's really hard for a fossil to come into being, but doesn't that make the other eighty percent that did fossilize... I hate to say it , but a miracle.
If you look even closer though, you will see that only theories support the theory of evolution. Example, Soup theory. This says with the right mix of heat and other variables that protein can be created, which is all true. The problem with this is the same process that creates peptides also destroys them. if you wanted to ask a statistics major what the odds of one protein coming into being without any outside help, he would tell you that the process would be improbable. If you don't know, in statistics if something is improbable, that means it can't happen.
a little side note your body is made of fifty thousand different proteins. This means no life should be here or anywhere. How did all these different little pieces of building block come into being? They are not living so you can't say they evolved. There is only conclusion you can come to, and that is that they were made. Who made them?
If we are following the scientific process I have proved to you with out a shadow of a doubt that Evolution is just a theory, and will never be a law. If you are still in denial, lets talk about gators and cockroaches. We know they've been around millions of years and not one evolutionary change. When and how does this mechanism of evolution turn on. The theory only brings more questions not answers.
I want you to know I never found religion but there is evidence that creationism is the law. With the law of thermodynamics and statistics backing it. read back through this note if you didn't catch that.
The simplest way I can break it down is with the chicken egg paradox. Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Of coarse the chicken right? Who would have fertilized the egg? But, if the egg came first, somebody would have had to have created a fertilized chicken egg for something to hatch out. but if the chicken came first The species would have died right there millions of years ago. Because not one mammal reptile bird or fish can produce asexually. Two chickens had to have been created at the same time for us to have chickens today.
but there's more. if evolutions is the mechanism to which that chicken came into being, then the process of evolution would be the spark of creationism, even though scientific laws prove evolution can never be more than theory. But the ultimate paradox is: which ever ideology is true (either God created the beautiful world and animals, Or evolution created it.) Either way there was a lot of creating going on. Some how.

a reply to: spygeek

originally posted by: irishcigano
I fell in love with the theory of evolution from the first time I heard it.... I took a sick joy, out of convincing people that there was no god.

No offense, but nobody falls in love with a scientific theory. People that argue for it today, argue because of the evidence and because of the ignorance being spewed against it, not because they love it or have blind faith/ emotional attachment. This makes me extremely skeptical of your claims of arguing atheism and getting some sick joy out of it. I'm not buying that for a second. Your arguments below show that you have not been properly educated on evolution.

But the truth is evolution is a flawed theory too, that's why it will never be a law.

Where did you learn about evolution? You claimed you fell in love with it, but you don't even understand that scientific theories NEVER become laws. Theories and laws are 2 different things in science.

it can not ever become a scientific law, because the theory would have to break scientific laws, that we can prove at anytime any day. do you want an Example? How about the laws of thermodynamics. Things don't get better with age, and life can only come from life. That's two scientific laws the theory of evolution has to break to be true. There are other scientific laws the theory would have to bend to be a reality too. You go find them.

It seems like you were very poorly educated about the theory of evolution, because it doesn't have anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics since earth is not a closed or isolated system. "Life can only come from life" is not a scientific law. You made that one up. We don't know that one for sure, so calling it a scientific law is completely disingenuous.

The Cambridge explosion is also a thorn in evolutions ass to. Basically it says overnight eighty percent of all the different body types on earth appeared over night.

You mean the Cambrian explosion? 20-60 million years is not overnight or even close to it. It doesn't counter evolution in the least. Or maybe you can prove it does, instead of relying on sweeping generalizations.

If you look even closer though, you will see that only theories support the theory of evolution. Example, Soup theory.

There is no such thing as Soup Theory. You made it up. AGAIN. Abiogenesis hypothesis is not a theory and has nothing to do with evolution. Scientific theories are well substantiated explanations for facts. You might want to re-learn everything you think you learned about science because your school did a terrible job.

This says with the right mix of heat and other variables that protein can be created, which is all true. The problem with this is the same process that creates peptides also destroys them. if you wanted to ask a statistics major what the odds of one protein coming into being without any outside help, he would tell you that the process would be improbable. If you don't know, in statistics if something is improbable, that means it can't happen.

Improbable does not mean impossible. Nice try.

a little side note your body is made of fifty thousand different proteins. This means no life should be here or anywhere.

Oh, that's what that means, eh? Yeah sorry. You were never an evolution supporter. You aren't even aware of the facts of evolution, although it makes for a nice story being the guy that rebels against the system. Don't quit your day job, nobody's buying it.

originally posted by: spygeek
Inspired by an identically titled thread of the opposite position.

Seriously, is there any non biblical evidence in support of creationism?

No there is not. There are reams of speculative arguments people who claim that evolution must be wrong and ergo creationism. As far as evidence, all creationists do is claim that the evidence for evolution isn't evidence.

The lack of evidence is why I can't even begin to take this wild dogma seriously.

22 pages in and still nothing.

I recommend having this video on loop as background music when reading this thread:

a reply to: GetHyped

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

You might be surprised by the outcome TzarChasm.

No offence mate, but i sincerely doubt that. We have heard ALL of the things you probably are going to say 1000 times before.
Do you not think that if there was ACTUAL proof it would be earth shattering news...instead of it being on a crappy forum, posted by one guy.

None taken my friend. It's going to be a friendly conversation among ATSer's from a different point of view. As for proof, I prefer to use the word evidence as it lend support to my argument that God is the originator (creator) of life.

Unfortunately due to my (present) work schedule, I'm only able to post the thread after the 24th. Hence my comments here are just dribs and drabs. Hopefully by then I can be fully engage in the discussion.

ciao.

In other words....you have nothing.

If you did, you would present it all.

If Our universe is 13,79 billion years old. What void was Our universe made up of 17 billion years ago?