Creation, where is the evidence? I see none.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
learn some respect and show yourself with a bit of decorum, right now you sound like an over-excited spoilt child.

I'll choose to ignore your Childish Attack!

i know darwin's ''theory'' is a theory. hence the words ''darwin's theory''. however, its no different to the creationist's theory of god created the universe and everything that lives within it. they are both theories that are likely to never be 100% agreed upon which one is right.

And yet, You preach it to the point of trying to discreadit thoes who don't agree with you! You acuse people of deliberly ignoring facts, and speading myths. Trying to insinuate that I "sound like an over-excited spoilt child." has nothing to do with facts. You have gone fron attacking theories to personal attacks! To me that doesn't seem very mature.

''in 2000 years we'll laugh at evolution?''... you mean just like we laugh at the concept of the ancient greek gods or beliefs that the earth was held up by an elephant or on atlas' shoulder? you talk about the flat earth like it was a blunder by science...i'm not sure you can't really blame the flat earth believe entirely on science.

if darwin's theory was thought to be just an imaginative theory of a genius then it would have been disproved by now. if anything there has never been more research in to darwin's idea. life 'just coming in to existence from nothing'... you seem to think that concept is absurd. yet, we are to believe that, with no evidence, a man and woman called adam and eve just 'came in to existence', with no 'real' explanation other than god spoke them in to existence.
[\quote]

The Idea behind my belief is that nothing happens by chance. This is a logical conclusion! Darwin's theory is like saying "one day it just happened by chance!" It's like suggesting the Great Parymid just dropped out of nowhere. Chance events don't happen, everything serves a purpose!

Originally posted by ghost
b]PS: Newton is a lot older than Darwin, and there is much more solid evidence to support his Theory of Gravity!)

what is that meant to prove? obviously there has been way more time to research in to newton's theory, hence why there would be more facts supporting it. darwin, being a younger theory, has not yet had enough time to be proven beyond doubt. however, it has had enough time to be disproven, yet it has not been.


[edit on 26-7-2005 by shaunybaby]

There are still things about Newton's Theory that haven't been proven! If you study it, you will see that scientists still can't explain why it works. My point is that you're taking everything as true and attacking others based on ideas that are NOT proven to hold any fact. Newton's theory has been revised and changed over time. without the time and research, how can you claime the Darwin is right?

Tim

I'll choose to ignore your Childish Attack!

i wasn't resorting to personal attacks, i was describing how you put yourself across on this forum. one source, one piece of evidence, from ww.godrules.org...and that to you is proof? does the moto 'deny ignorance' not apply to you?

And yet, You preach it to the point of trying to discreadit thoes who don't agree with you! You acuse people of deliberly ignoring facts, and speading myths. Trying to insinuate that I "sound like an over-excited spoilt child." has nothing to do with facts. You have gone fron attacking theories to personal attacks! To me that doesn't seem very mature.

''to me that doesn't seem very mature''...and this isn't a personal attack? you're insinuating i'm immature.

you just seem like you're here for an arguement...

There are still things about Newton's Theory that haven't been proven! If you study it, you will see that scientists still can't explain why it works. My point is that you're taking everything as true and attacking others based on ideas that are NOT proven to hold any fact. Newton's theory has been revised and changed over time. without the time and research, how can you claime the Darwin is right?

actually i'm sure it's always been called 'the theory of gravity', so it's not news to me.

There are still things about Newton's Theory that haven't been proven!

there are still things, many, many, many, things in the bible yet to be proven, yet people take it as the gospel truth and that's even older than newton... just thought i'd use an example of your argument.

i don't 'claim' darwin is right, i believe darwin is right, just like a christian believes jesus is the son of god. when i look around after reading points darwin made, i can also see that evolution is a logical explanation.

Ghost this thread was started in the hopes of keeping the debate to scientific fact.

That means something is testable and proven reliable as a scientific theory.

This does not mean there is no room for questions.

Evolution is testable, has been proven beyond standards held for felony criminal cases and is considered to be scientific fact. Not 100%, will never change fact. There is a difference.

I was hoping to see scientific proof or evidence for creation, not slamming of evolution, as there are countless threads to post evidence against evolution. If evolution is ever proven false it will still not add one evidence towards creationism, young or old earth.

Do you have any scientific evidence supporting creation?

Do you have any evidence for any theory other than evolution?

Evolution is testable, has been proven beyond standards held for felony criminal cases and is considered to be scientific fact. Not 100%, will never change fact. There is a difference.

If your going to state something like that, then expect it to be challenged.
Example:
Evolution vs God.

Where did God come from?
What life evolve from?
Show me.

We both run into dead ends.
Evolution (i have been told) does not deal with where life came from. Evolution begins in the middle of the movie. No origins of life. No origins of planet. So...evolution is your god.


Take away all your fantasy ideas about changing life and such, and hand all the evidence dug up out of the earth over to the creation side, and you have your case. Fossils, the history, it all matches up. That is solid observable evidence.
in order to view it, you have to remove your own preconceived ideas first.

Originally posted by jake1997

We both run into dead ends.
Evolution (i have been told) does not deal with where life came from. Evolution begins in the middle of the movie. No origins of life. No origins of planet. So...evolution is your god.

Evolution does not expain those things to me, so how is it my god? I don't go to my local biology temple and worship darwin every sunday.

I think that the model proposed by modern science is the most accurate view of the universe we have right now. It makes no statements about god either way, so you could in fact be religious and accept science.

If you have fossil evidence that points towards creation I would love to see it.

Any evidence you have for creation would be greatly appreciated.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by LeftBehind]

I cant beleive this thread is still going!


I tend to agree the argument is of little point myself. "life" needs no explainations, its beauty and complexity speaks volumes for its self.
Enjoy it, marvel at it, partake in it, but dont argue about it, its short!

it comes down to the fact that is no hardcore scientific proof or plain and simple proof for creationist theory. what it comes down to is blind faith, and that alone. we don't even believe most eye witness statements that we hear today, taking for example the shooting of the brazilian man, people say maximum there were 5 shots, when we find out there were actually 8. they're certainly not lying on purpose but goes to show human error and judgement is very flawed. even though we know this, christians take the bible as the 100% gospel truth, when all it is is 'apparent' eye witness statements of people that lived up 2000/3000 years ago.

faith is just a long shot gamble at the end of the day. with no facts or evidence means it's an even longer shot. i wouldn't put my money on it.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by jake1997

We both run into dead ends.
Evolution (i have been told) does not deal with where life came from. Evolution begins in the middle of the movie. No origins of life. No origins of planet. So...evolution is your god.

Evolution does not expain those things to me, so how is it my god? I don't go to my local biology temple and worship darwin every sunday.

I think that the model proposed by modern science is the most accurate view of the universe we have right now. It makes no statements about god either way, so you could in fact be religious and accept science.

If you have fossil evidence that points towards creation I would love to see it.

Any evidence you have for creation would be greatly appreciated.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by LeftBehind]

Evolution, it is without beginning and without end. The model is based on a series of assumptions that can never be proven. Like the Ark of the Covenant, the missing links (millions of them) will not be found.

Read my sig

It's great that you feel that way about evolution Jake.

Now do you have anything to add to the topic, which is proof for creation?

Evolution is one observed proccess in science, is inertia my god too?

You said earlier that you had some evidence, do you? Please post it to advance our knowledge.

Originally posted by Rren

Zipdot
.... Genesis 1:5 divides a day into "evening" and "morning" when there is no sun to mark the division or the difference.

I'm not sure why you think that "..there is no sun...", the heaven(that's the 'stuff' that formed the first stars) is created first ie, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." and Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. So i guess my question is why do you feel that there is no Sun in Gen.1:5?

Primarily because in Genesis 1:14-18, God creates the Sun and Moon.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.

I think we can all agree that Genesis 1:14 comes after Genesis 1:5 - that the third day comes well after the first day. You see in Genesis 1:16 that this is the time at which he creates stars as well. Perhaps a team of noted Rabbis can tell me how I can read this differently and I'll realize that the sun and moon and stars were created on day 1, but that's contrary to a literal, chronologically sound reading of the story of Genesis.

Originally posted by Rren
As for light coming after creation event(Big Bang) as in Gen1:1 heaven created, but light was created in Gen1:3. The Big Bang was not very big and there was no bang, also there wasn't any light.

from: www.big-bang-theory.com...
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. ....

So light(visable atleast) came after the creation event(big bang) fits both science and creationism.

Absolutely not. The Big Bang and the creation of space and time are contemporary to the parallel result of creation of light and energy. Remember that the Bang happened at the speed of light, and that matter and energy are convertable.

Originally posted by Rren
If GOD says it's gonnan take faith to believe and He will not lie then it's gonna take faith and therefore it's unprovable. So science not only says it cannot prove GOD exists but my faith tells me the same....but if i'm to believe that the Bible is GOD's word, which i do, then it has to be true and therefore science cannot prove it false(yeah my head hurts too).

Science doesn't "say" much because science is not a speaking entity. As for your following comment, yes, I am quite familiar that the Bible, in "Steal This Book" fashion, basically states "This Book is True."

Originally posted by Rren
So that's what Creationism is to me(science/observation will/should not contradict His word), and i can accept that in its purest form it's unscientific, 'cause in the end science cannot prove GOD spoke these things into existence...but it also cannot prove that it's just some sort of random happy accident, IMO. And we most certainly can be mistaken in our interpretation of Scripture as much as any scientist can be mistaken in his/her interpretation of the data.

So your primary concern is misinterpreting the words within the Bible - giving no thought to the possibility that the Bible is fraudulent?

As for observations and proof of this "random happy accident" that you speak of (which I think is a dire mischaracterization), I would say that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably not a monkey. The universe walks like it's expanding from a singularity and quacks like it's expanding from a singularity. We observe these things (the walk, the quack) about this duck.

Originally posted by Rren
Here's a link that goes into greater detail on your questions(certainly better than i can do):godandscience.org... use the search feature, all of your questions are addressed. Specifically regarding light before stars or Earth before the Sun, here's a link: www.godandscience.org....

I am familiar with this website, and I am familiar with the convoluted apologetic explanations regarding Biblical inconsitency. I have trouble digesting these explanations. In short, I Don't Buy It. Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by Rren
Due to the circumstantial and subjective nature of the questions and answers i should probably quit here and direct you to some "experts" on such things(linquistics, history, etc...), perhaps you'll allow for the possiblility that it's possible that GOD exists and the Bible is His word.

It's not about me. I think that critical people in general need more to go on than a mere possiblity.

Originally posted by Rren
That's all i would ask from you, keep your heart and mind open. It's my humble opinion that GOD could care less whether or not you believe in evolution, young Earth, old Earth, etc....just know/have faith that GOD loves you, GOD has a plan for you/all. Follow his commandments(certainly we can agree the world would be a better place if we did, no?). Follow the teachings of Jesus(again if we all did as Jesus did, would not the world be a better place)?

This place isn't so bad. At least we don't stone people to death as part of our judicial practices. I will go ahead and disagree with you here. Following most of the laws of the civilized world is superior to strictly following the Bible's laws. While the Bible will tell you what to do if you blind your slave or knock out his tooth, American justice extends relief to victims in more practical ways.

"“And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake” (Exodus 21:26-27)."

Originally posted by Rren
After all our science and our creationism are probably tragically flawed and lacking. Do you think 1000 years from now science will look back and laugh at our "understanding" of the nature, size, age of the universe and life? But it's my contention that a future creationist will be able to 'plug-in' the Bible to the new data just as we do today and just as they did when they thought the Earth was the center of the Universe and flat.

No, I don't think that in 1,000 years scientists will laugh at our stupidity. They will respect these past few centuries as an age of intelligence. Science, by definition, corrects its imperfections and flaws continually. (Remember the scientific method? If the science is bad, we go back to the drawing board.)

Yes, perhaps in 1,000 years, the Juedo-Christian Bible may still be around, and people will still provide excuses and explanations for the imperfections of those words that they unexplainably hold to be their God's words.

Originally posted by Rren

Zipdot
From the perspective of evolutionary contradiction, the Bible tells us that insects and reptiles came after whales and birds. Plants were developed before there was a light source to power the process of photosynthesis - evolution says that this is backwards.

Here's a great link that addresses this question and many others: Contradictions and False Teachings in the Bible? hits on all the "favorites" like, flat Earth, rabbits chewing cud, Sun revolving around the Earth, etc.....please give it a read. And plants before light has already been addressed...hopefully

Rest assured, again, I am exceedingly familiar with Christian apologetic literature. Nothing new here.

Originally posted by Rren

Zipdot
I'm gonna pause for now, because it's getting late, but I think it's pretty clear that the Bible and science are not the best of friends, with or without regard to evolution and abiogenesis.

Well......you say tomato, i say toe-ma-toe.*

Round and round we go...eh. I know/accept that none of this is proof of creation, in a truely scientific sense, for the non-believer but i hope i've been helpful. And just one last link pertaining to the topic at hand, scientific proof of creation i'd put forth-Biblical Creationary Model for the Universe and Life on Earth

by Rich Deem
A common complaint of atheists is that creationists attack standard models of evolution, but provide no viable alternate model. The purpose of this page is to provide just that - a creationary, scientific model for the universe and life within it. The writings of the Bible provide enough information to form a thorough and complete creationary model for the reality of the universe and human existence. This model has predictive value and can be tested against the known physical characteristics of the universe and life on Earth.

*P.S. i don't say "toe-ma-toe", and can't say i've ever met anyone who does. But you catch my drift i'm sure.

Hehe, thanks for the links. I have a friend who says "toe-mah-toe." We try and get him to say it as often as possible, without letting him on. *Snicker*.

Zip

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's great that you feel that way about evolution Jake.

Now do you have anything to add to the topic, which is proof for creation?

Evolution is one observed proccess in science, is inertia my god too?

You said earlier that you had some evidence, do you? Please post it to advance our knowledge.

You have it already.

Fossils, layered earth, divided continents that use to be one continent...recorded history that starts with the bibles chronology

Originally posted by jake1997

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's great that you feel that way about evolution Jake.

Now do you have anything to add to the topic, which is proof for creation?

Evolution is one observed proccess in science, is inertia my god too?

You said earlier that you had some evidence, do you? Please post it to advance our knowledge.

You have it already.

Fossils, layered earth, divided continents that use to be one continent...recorded history that starts with the bibles chronology

Sorry, but recorded history does not start with the bible.

Originally posted by ghost
Oh, BTW: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory! Nothing More, It's is still a theory, if you like it or not!

agreed, the THEORY of evolution is just that, a THEORY...

Originally posted by ghost PS: Newton is a lot older than Darwin, and there is much more solid evidence to support his Theory of Gravity!

NO!!!...there is one HELL of alot less (and i CAN'T stress this enough, one HELL!!! of alot LESS!!) evidence supporting newtons theory of gravity, than darwins THEORY of evolution...

you seem to be having a problem differentiating between THEORY, and FACT...

the THEORY of gravity, is just that....a THEORY....

now, let me explain...we KNOW gravity happens, therefore gravity is a fact...
the THEORY of gravity tries to explain HOW gravity works, and HOW gravity does what it does...

its the exact same thing with the theory of evolution...

we KNOW evolution happens, (ie: we KNOW that populations of organisms adapt to thier environment) therefore, we KNOW that evolution is a FACT...

the THEORY of evolution tries to explain HOW evolution works, and HOW evolution does what it does...

the FACT of evolution has never been in question, the HOW, on the other hand, has, and will continue to be in question for some time to come i'm sure.

Sorry, but recorded history does not start with the bible

I said that wrong.

The timing. Approx 3000 BC. Roughly the time of the flood.

Originally posted by Urn
now, let me explain...we KNOW gravity happens, therefore gravity is a fact...
the THEORY of gravity tries to explain HOW gravity works, and HOW gravity does what it does...

its the exact same thing with the theory of evolution...

we KNOW evolution happens, (ie: we KNOW that populations of organisms adapt to thier environment) therefore, we KNOW that evolution is a FACT...

the THEORY of evolution tries to explain HOW evolution works, and HOW evolution does what it does...

the FACT of evolution has never been in question, the HOW, on the other hand, has, and will continue to be in question for some time to come i'm sure.

well said Urn.

Originally posted by jake1997
I said that wrong.

The timing. Approx 3000 BC. Roughly the time of the flood.

wrong. our history goes way further back than 3000 BC. if you want me to post any facts or evidence then i will. it's a laughable concept to think that the entire history of the universe, earth and humans goes back to 3000 BC.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ghost this thread was started in the hopes of keeping the debate to scientific fact.Do you have any scientific evidence supporting creation?Do you have any evidence for any theory other than evolution?

Strange! I lay the evidence I have found on the table, along with an explaination of the conclusions that can be drawn from it. Then You Attack me for sharing. And, Now your asking if I have any evidence?

Please tell me how insualting someone is Scientific!

I provided Scientific evidence of Supernatural Forces at work in our world, and there ability to affect the physical environment on July 1st. If we know for a fact that supernatural forces exist and can have dramatic effects on the environment around them, is it beyond reason to believe that these forces could also create some or most of the things in our environment?

On July 15th, I pointed out that things in the Physical Envionment need a define beginnging point. I also pointed out that all Ideas need revision as our understanding changes.

July 26th, I showed you a scientific experiment that attemped to Prove that Darwin's clamed starting point for evolution doesn't work. By showing a major flaw in Darwin's Theory, I rasied a reasonable doubt. I had Simon666 tell me that the documented Experiment was "a pile of crap from a biased and unscientific source" and that I don't have a clue what the word Proof means.

Also on July 26th, I raised the issue of scientific standerds of proof and pointed out that by scientific standards neither Theory has really been prooven or disproven! I also pointed out that the counter evidence you had been attacking me with is based on a basic Logical Fallicy. If you want a true scientific debate, you need to address the logical fallicy of you argument. If you see a logical fallicy in my argument, please tell me what it is! A valid debate needs to avoid logical fallicies on both sides. (I wasn't insaulting you, believe it or not, I was actually helping you develop a better argument by pointing out a mistake!) FOr this friendly tip, shaunybaby told me:

learn some respect and show yourself with a bit of decorum, right now you sound like an over-excited spoilt child.

That sound kind of insualting, doesn't it?

On July 26, I defended myself and pointed out that people take Dawin's theory as truth, even though it isn't proven. I also pointed out that science often needs revision. My point is that Darwin was accepted as fact before we had all the facts (many of which we still don't have). You can't say something is a fact if it isn't. This thread seems to be arguing that Creationism is impossible Because Evolution is a proven Fact! You can't claim something as a fact is it hasn't been proven!

Urn pointed out that Evolution happens, but we don't really know how or why! However, back on the 15th of July, I proposed the idea that evolution is affected not only by the environment, but by supernatural forces. Seeing how I had provided Physical Evidence for the Exitence of Supernatural Forces back on July 1st, it is perfectly logical to draw this kind of a connection.

I gave you the evidence I could come up with, People not only attacked the evidence(which I expected), but they attacked me on a personal level for sharing it. I've given you what I have! What are you asking me for? Creationism can be tested in parts. For Example: You can test for and prove the existance of Supernatural Forces, you can test the ability of these force to affect the environment. Although it sound odd, you can test the basic theory behind Intelligent Design:

In theory, Intelligent Design is based on the Idea that an intelligent force can manipulate the design and development of a living organism through external intervention.

It's easy to prove this is possible! Think about how Genetic Engineering work. Don't we manipulate DNA in labs to chance the way things develop and grow? What proof is there that supernatural forces can't do the same thing?

Tim

[edit on 28-7-2005 by ghost]

What I love is I tell christians

"Fine, evolution is wrong, it is just a theory. But so is gravity, so to prove all theories wrong you should jump off the Empire State Building or some other tall tower to prove that god, and not gravity, is right."

Yet do I see millions of christians jumping off building? No. So obviously they agree with the theory of gravity and evolution. WOuld love to see that one the news, piles of bodies just getting taller and taller as millions of idiots try to prove all theories wrong because god is right. Bet the national IQ would increase 20 points.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
What I love is I tell christians

"Fine, evolution is wrong, it is just a theory. But so is gravity, so to prove all theories wrong you should jump off the Empire State Building or some other tall tower to prove that god, and not gravity, is right."

Yet do I see millions of christians jumping off building? No. So obviously they agree with the theory of gravity and evolution. WOuld love to see that one the news, piles of bodies just getting taller and taller as millions of idiots try to prove all theories wrong because god is right. Bet the national IQ would increase 20 points.

Translation: "I build strawmen and knock them down"

Horray for you.

Now try this

You drop a rock off a tall building and it falls because of gravity
Gravity is law
You drop a rock off a tall building a billion billion trillion times, and it does not evolve into a single cell life form. You cannot get life from non .

Evolution is not law. Not even theory. Just fantasy

[edit on 28-7-2005 by jake1997]

Originally posted by jake1997
You cannot get life from non .

Evolution is not law. Not even theory. Just fantasy

[edit on 28-7-2005 by jake1997]

Yet somehow God created Adam from the "dust of the earth".
Yeah thats not a leap....

your right, life cant come from rocks. But it cant be created from originally nonorganic matter. You should read up on the Miller-Urey experiment. For a quick summary, they were to scientist who by recreating the atmosphere of early earth managed to get organic material from nonorganic material.