Creationism: where is the evidence? Seriously. No, really, where is it?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
From browsing on this board, I see a number of people who support creationism scoff evolution because of "lack of evidence." Fine. But, when people who support evolution give evidence, it's not paid any mind. Fine.

But, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence outside of the Bible for creationism. Not one.

So, the way I see it, creationism has only one source of evidence, while there's tons of evidence for evolution. Gee, which one would you support?

So, for you creationist people out there, give me evidence of creationism.
Besides the Bible.




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I agree with you. They tend to get down right angry if you even bring up the thought of questioning their "ONLY" source for information -- The Bible.

I find that having more than one reference source greatly improves the ability to support an argument. Though the bible has some good ideas and has a storyline that the layperson can follow, I find it more of a fable than the one and only source of knowlege.

But, the Catholic Church is the one deciding what stays in and what gets pulled out of the bible -- gnostic gospels for example. They don't conform to catholocism... so out it goes... same with evolution.... out the _...

[edit on 11-15-2005 by wetwarez]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Yeah, man, good points.

Look at us on this board here. Post something with only one source, and all the people who disagree with you attack the source for validity and you for only posting one source. That's IF they click the link


But, if you question someone on ONE source of info for creationism, it's a total 180. It turns into "we don't need no mo stinkin' proof." Double standard, if you ask me.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Well the creation prove that you will get from people that believe in it is occurs the bible.

The bible is the only prove of it.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well the creation prove that you will get from people that believe in it is occurs the bible.

The bible is the only prove of it.


But, can that be defined as proof? With as many times as it's been rewritten and reworded so the Papacy could "cannonize" what it deemed as the "gospel", how can anyone with more intelligence than a lemming use it as a viable reference?

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wetwarez
But, can that be defined as proof?


No it can not . . because it have not way that can be tested or observe, but you can never win when it comes to the minds of the faithful.

Because when it comes to the God of the bible his power can not be questioned.

As long as is people that believe in the bible creation myth that is all needed as prof, faith.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
From browsing on this board, I see a number of people who support creationism scoff evolution because of "lack of evidence." Fine. But, when people who support evolution give evidence, it's not paid any mind. Fine.


What evidence to support evolution, that contradicts creationism, are you speaking of...specifically. Not saying there isn't any but you made a pretty broad and somewhat generic statement. Evolution is a BIG theory with many competing hypotheses, if you like to discuss something specifically i, as a creationist, would be willing to do so.


But, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence outside of the Bible for creationism. Not one.


Well firstly creationism (from a Christian POV) is the belief that creation occurred as described in the book of Genesis, we then try and draw a correlation between our interpretation(not scientific) with current scientific knowledge. So if you're not willing to discuss what the bible has to say there's really no point in going any further, no? I'll agree that creationism is unscientific in the sense that it's based on an interpretation of a dead language that doesn't translate into english very well. And from a text that wasn't intended to be a "scientific" explaination of anything. For instance i don't think it should be any part of a science class, but this ain't a science class so if you'd like to discuss it, i'm certainly willing to. Although your post seems more like a (seemingly uninformed) anti-creationism rant than anything. But maybe i'm wrong ... it's got to happen sooner or later, it's just got to.



So, the way I see it, creationism has only one source of evidence, while there's tons of evidence for evolution. Gee, which one would you support?


Again you need to state a specific argument. Like creationism states this evolution states that. And their are some creationists who support both, believe it or not...it's a big tent. I'm not the 'type' who thinks belief in evolution is a sin nor am i offended that i may share a common ancestor with the great apes....i've even seen a biblically based argument for it. But that's not my belief and i'm of the opinion that the bible clearly states man was created seperately and that there is a 'kind barrier' and i can put up a decent scientific argument to support it. That is of course if i don't have to debate an actual scientist, who would probably find it rather easy to dismantle my argument. Not that i'm saying my position is weaker than their's but i won't win that debate...to be sure. It would take a creation scientist -vs- an evolutionary scientist...i'm just some hack with a computer and a membership to the world's greatest forum board.
That's more or less what creationism is, trying to make your interpretation of scripture fit with known scientific laws and principals.


I'd wager (based soley on your post here so no offense if i'm wrong) you have no more of a scientific background or knowledge of evolutionary science('s) than i do...and so long as Nygdan or Byrd (et al) don't see this thread anytime soon i got a chance. But those guys are a couple of creationist slayer's so if i see them a comin'....i'm a runnin', deal?


I'm in and out alot today and currently working on something else right now. So if i don't get back to you immediately that's why, but i promise i will answer any questions you may have, as best as i can, and just as soon as i can.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by Rren]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
you have no more of a scientific background or knowledge of evolutionary science('s) than i do...and so long as Nygdan or Byrd (et al) don't see this thread anytime soon i got a chance. But those guys are a couple of creationist slayer's so if i see them a comin'....i'm a runnin', deal?


I wasn't going to respond to this thread but....

Well Rren, you know I wouldn't describe myself as a creationist (I prefer Objective Origins Philosopher
) per se, but I'm here for you.... we'll see if I can't help keep the playing field at angle that approaches level.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by mattison0922]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by mattison0922]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   


OK, Rren, I'll lob one at you...

You say there's a kind barrier, right? I take it this means that kind can only make kind, right?

Then please explain to me this: we have dogs.

This is just one example, but please, explain how dogs came to be on this earth. This means domestic dogs, Canis domesticus. So much for that lack of a scientific background
...I'll give you more of my limited knowledge later.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Isn't creation based on a 6,000 year old earth? So that right there makes it false. Only idiots think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the rest of us have an education past the 3rd grade. ANyone know of the KT Barrier? The sediment of rock that appears at the time the dinosaurs went extinct? It is high in some material not commonly found on Earth, but found alot in astroids, supporting the Asteroid vs Earth theory of why dino's went bye bye. Anyways, it is about 60million+ years old, that right there is what, 10,000 times older then the idiots who say the Earth is 6,000 years old?(Ha I did the math in my head then checked it on a calculator and it was right!)



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by UfoofU
Isn't creation based on a 6,000 year old earth? So that right there makes it false. Only idiots think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the rest of us have an education past the 3rd grade. ANyone know of the KT Barrier? The sediment of rock that appears at the time the dinosaurs went extinct? It is high in some material not commonly found on Earth, but found alot in astroids, supporting the Asteroid vs Earth theory of why dino's went bye bye. Anyways, it is about 60million+ years old, that right there is what, 10,000 times older then the idiots who say the Earth is 6,000 years old?(Ha I did the math in my head then checked it on a calculator and it was right!)


Only completely uninformed individuals make statements like this. First of all, at the very least the creationist credo is based on something... whether or not you think the bible is correct is not the point here, but that is the basis for their beleif. Oh and by the way - the



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka


OK, Rren, I'll lob one at you...

You say there's a kind barrier, right? I take it this means that kind can only make kind, right?

Then please explain to me this: we have dogs.

This is just one example, but please, explain how dogs came to be on this earth. This means domestic dogs, Canis domesticus. So much for that lack of a scientific background
...I'll give you more of my limited knowledge later.


I don't know Rren, this one looks pretty tough... Can you handle it or should I touch base with some of my colleauges??



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by truthseeka

OK, Rren, I'll lob one at you...

You say there's a kind barrier, right? I take it this means that kind can only make kind, right?


Yes and yes.


.... we have dogs.


Correct again...that's three for three. You just may be smarter than i was giving you credit for.


This is just one example, but please, explain how dogs came to be on this earth. This means domestic dogs, Canis domesticus.


Evrything i've read suggests that modern dogs came from east Asian wolves (about) 15,000 years ago.


"Canis sp. was parent to Canis lupus, the wolf; and the wolf was probably parent to the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, the first large creature who would live with men. "Today the wolf's closest relatives are the domestic dog, the dingo, the coyote and the jackal." Of Wolves and Men, Barry Holstun Lopez, Scribners, ISBN 0-684-15624-5



"Canis familiaris is the scientific name for the domesticated dog. He belongs to the same genus as the wolf, Canis lupus. Scientists, after many years of controversy, now agree that wolves were domesticated about 12,000 years ago by various Indian tribes throughout the world". Leader of The Pack, Shaping Dog Instincts Through Pack Training, Nathan B. Childs, Pack Publishing, ISBN 0-9616304-1-8



They are all members of the same kind/genus...whichever you prefer sir. "Domesticus" is still Canis lupus...nothing at odds with creationism there. Did i miss something or just misunderstand your question? If you're asking, do i think dogs and wolves share a common ancestry, then yes i do. If you're asking, do i think dogs and butterflies share a common ancestry, then no i don't.





So much for that lack of a scientific background...I'll give you more of my limited knowledge later.


Well i'm giddy with anticipation. And my comment, as i stated, was based on your opening post which contained no specific argument...and was beyond vague if you were actually wanting to start a discussion. The entire thing was tantamount to: "Creationism is Stupid". Which is all well and good, but we have a Rant section over in BTS where you can let it all out. I assumed because you didn't actually make an argument to support your rhetoric, that you didn't have one, no offense (see it quite often around here). I would still like to hear it....assuming of course that, "where do dogs come from" wasn't it.


originally posted by UfoofU
Isn't creation based on a 6,000 year old earth? So that right there makes it false.


I'm not a "young earther", so although i am a Creationist i do not believe the Earth is only (about) 6k years old nor do i believe it was created in 6 literal days. I do know alot of their theories and can probably answer any questions you may have about it, but a YECist could do a better job i'm sure. To be honest there isn't a passage anywhere in the Bible that states the earth/universe is X years old. YECists take the lineages in Genesis (ya know all the "begats") run the numbers backwords and add six days to that...that's more-or-less where the 6k number comes from.

Here's a good bible based and science based "Old Earth" theory.


www.answersincreation.org...

Conclusion
By examining science and Scripture, you can come to the conclusion that God created the universe over billions of years, and you can still believe the creation account found in Genesis Chapter One.


Also here is good argument for a, biblically based, old Earth.

Creation Study Committee Report

The Framework Interpretation
Description
There are a number of versions of the Framework interpretation. Here we discuss the position which has arguably influenced the PCA most, that of Meredith G. Kline and Mark D. Futato. [96] In Genesis 1:1-2:3:
Exegesis indicates that the scheme of the creation week itself is a poetic figure and that the several pictures of creation history are set within the six work-day frames not chronologically but topically. In distinguishing simple description and poetic figure from what is definitively conceptual the only ultimate guide, here as always, is comparison with the rest of Scripture. [97]
In other words, the distinctive feature of the Framework interpretation is its understanding of the week (not the days as such) as a metaphor. [98] Moses used the metaphor of a week to narrate God's acts of creation. Thus God's supernatural creative words or fiats are real and historical, but the exact timing is left unspecified.
Why the week then? Moses intended to show Israel God's call to Adam to imitate Him in work, with the promise of entering His Sabbath rest. God's week is a model, analogous to Israel's week. The events are grouped in two triads of days. Days 1-3 (creation's kingdoms) are paralleled by Days 4-6 (creation's kings). Adam is king of the earth and God is King of Creation. [99]




Only idiots think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the rest of us have an education past the 3rd grade.


That's pretty harsh and i know a few "young earthers", who are well educated, that would disagree with you. But you're correct that in order to accept the young earth hypothesis we would have to "re-write" ALOT of science...most geology, alot of physics and just about everything cosmology has ever come up with...imo anyways.


ANyone know of the KT Barrier? The sediment of rock that appears at the time the dinosaurs went extinct? It is high in some material not commonly found on Earth, but found alot in astroids, supporting the Asteroid vs Earth theory of why dino's went bye bye. Anyways, it is about 60million+ years old, that right there is what, 10,000 times older then the idiots who say the Earth is 6,000 years old?(Ha I did the math in my head then checked it on a calculator and it was right!)


They (YECists) would argue that the radiometric dating technique used to date the "KT boundary" is flawed....which is really a rather exhaustive argument that never seems to go anywhere or ever reach a compromise (use the ATS search feature you'll find a few threads where young earthers make the case for "flawed dating methods").




originally posted by mattison0922
I don't know Rren, this one looks pretty tough... Can you handle it or should I touch base with some of my colleauges??


I'm not 100% sure what his question was, as it pertains to contradictions between evolution and creation anyway...but how'd i do.
I'll be back later tonight to see


(edit)My spelling is almost as bad as my grammar.




[edit on 16-11-2005 by Rren]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UfoofU
Isn't creation based on a 6,000 year old earth?


Is something call young earthers and old earthers, they do have the same believes of the bible and the creation myth but they disagree on the age of the earth.

Old earthers see the earth as much older but still trace man kind between 6 to 10 thousand years giving room as why dinosaurs may not have been sharing the earth with man.

So you are right if you are talking about the young earthers, but it will seem wrong if you are talking about old earthers.

Now having a faith base believe do not make people Idiots but they are very convinced by their faith that what they believe is true.

I am not familiar with the KT Barrier but I guess you are relating to dinosaur extinction.

But I am familiar with various theories as how dinosaurs may have gone bye bye.

You may find interesting that many hard core young earth creationist believe that dinosaurs cohabited with ancient humans is some good examples of it and perhaps that is why they base their understanding of it.

The 6- million plus is just one of the many ages that the earth has been given too but many of these theories are also base on what many others theories tell of the age of the universe.

Doing math is good but what is better is to get yourself informed on some of the most common theories of the age of the earth and make you own conclusions depending of your believes and the prof that many of them give.

You don't need to be an expert of have a degree on science to understand many of them.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
You say there's a kind barrier, right? I take it this means that kind can only make kind, right?

Then please explain to me this: we have dogs.


Doggies and wolfies can breed together and their offspring are fertile.

Zip



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I seen this on a car bumper sticker recently and i think it sum's it up pretty well

Evolution is a fact God is a theory

Truthfully it amuses me to see the arguement about this in America even the catholic church has recently endorsed evolution.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
How can you ask a person to answer a question and then, at the same time, strip that person of the foundations that their argument is built upon. You, "Give me proof of evolution without the aid of science." So, what's first? First we must define this very fluid and, more often than not, misused word.

Evolution means, "A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another."

Now, here is a question, "If evolution is true then how did it start?" Was it the "Big Bang" that started the evolutionary process? Or, is there a supernateral answer for evolution or creationism? And last but not least, Is there a scientific answer?

Before answering any of the above questions you must see how Religion and science can not be combined to get an answer for how the world was created. The world "evolution" it self has nothing to do with a grand architect or creator, of anykind. It simply means that "Sample A" lives for "X" amount of years and then accidently turns into "Sample A prime"
And also, when G-d to created the world and everything in it He did so without evolution PERIOD. If you would like a further discussion on this then Please E-Mail me Bakerstone16@hotmail.com

Now, to answering the questions. (-trumpet noises- Dum Dum Duumm)

1.) The Big Bang Theory-(In brief)

part 1
there is nothing in all of existence PERIOD.(if there was then how did it get there? By G-d Maybe!!!!)

part2
Now. wait, there is something, and wait again, there seems to be two somethings. They're headed right for each other.... BOOOOOMMM.... They hit and what do you know EARTH has been created.

part3
molecules and so forth just happen to spontaneously appear on Earth.

part4
these molecules then happen to gain more complex DNA combinations out of thin air. (how can something gain anything from nothing? CAN'T HAPPEN!)

part5
Now look, we have ape like creatures. WOW

part6
ohh, these ape like creatures are... are ... are, looking like a man like being, even more amazing.

part7
now look, what do we have now? MAN, Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even though this theory means that everything that has ever happened is an accident, lets suppose that it means that there is order.

if so, then it would make sense to say that the weaker molecules dies and only the strong survive. It would also be logical to say that we can use accurate methods to date such things. For instance Carbon dating, it's only accurate up to around 6000 years, because of the halflife of carbon that can be traced in a fossil. But what about those things that are over 6000 years old how could we date these things? I know, lets try Radioactive dating, its fairly accurate. It is normally only off by about + or - 150 million years. Ohh... Ohh... Ohh.. how about just leaving the dating alone and trying to find better ways of proving evolution? Okay, but how you might ask? First find an evolutionary chart of man, then carefully study each peice of the chart, from the earliest of apes to modern man. then, find a sample of each. WHAT YOU SAY YOU CAN'T? That's outrageous. what can you not find. You can't find the missing link? Oh that's okay we can overlook that tiny bit of information.(G-d must have forgotten to create that part of the chart, blame Him)

Now, another very important contradiction found in the theory of evolution is this. In the beggining nothing existed. then, nothing created the astroides that created Earth. Basically, it was all an accident, but once the earth is created then scientists decide that there must be order now to the evolution. And order implies that someone must sustain it. for example, the gravitational pull of Earth, why does it not just stop working,and why is there a constant for gravitation pull, why can scientist find reaccuring numbers through out the world and it's surroundings like the natural log e. while all at the same time claiming that evolution is an accident and not ordered?

I'm am tired but I plan to finish this another time.. Till then have fun and Praise G-d.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

originally posted by mattison0922
I don't know Rren, this one looks pretty tough... Can you handle it or should I touch base with some of my colleauges??


I'm not 100% sure what his question was, as it pertains to contradictions between evolution and creation anyway...but how'd i do.
I'll be back later tonight to see

Couldn't have said it better.... I hope you detected the sarcasm in my original post.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I dunno about you, but I personally think current biological experiments are kind of evidence for creationism. We can clone sheep etc.. maybe one day, we'll actually create one from scratch? Or even create a new animal!



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bakerstone18
For instance Carbon dating, it's only accurate up to around 6000 years, because of the halflife of carbon that can be traced in a fossil. But what about those things that are over 6000 years old how could we date these things? I know, lets try Radioactive dating, its fairly accurate. It is normally only off by about + or - 150 million years.

Carbon dating IS a form of radioactive dating. While not necessarily my personal opinion, Carbon Dating is considered to be accurate to about 57300 years, or approximately 10 half lives. There are a variety of radioactive dating methods that appear to correlate quite nicely with each other. There are also other non-radioactive methods that seem to correlate quite nicely with the radioactive dates. Now... simple corelations don't make something a fact, but certainly support the hypotheses of a world older than 1000's of years.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join