creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?

reply to post by mamasita

---

The only proof they show is the bible. Unfortunantly many creationists use the bible as a historical journal, and obviously evolution isnt explained anywhere in the book, so thats why they believe god created everything. Being an atheist I just cant see any plausibilty, due to lack of proof

So up with Evolution

The same is the case for evolution if you ask me. Where's the evidence?

''I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

reply to post by abovetech

---

What about mutation, inherited traits, and natural selection. Surely these are proof alone.

"Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:

Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. "

Sounds like the evolution of modern man to me, where the more dominant species survives, adapting to its surrounding while the less advanced species evidently ceases to exist.

And the only reason Darwin had a problem with his theory, is because it conflicted with his religious beliefs, so it was hard for him to come up with a fullproof explanation

reply to post by OzWeatherman

---

Please cite just one example where mutation in a species has been of benefit(the mutation produce a weak offspring which dies off). There has never been a case where the mutation was a positive thing. Natural selection and inherited traits aren't proof of macroevolution.
The offspring are still the same species. There is no evidence of a species evolving into another. The laws of Thermodynamics and entropy show that things do not go from the simple to the complex, but rather the other way around. These are but a few holes in the macroevolution theory.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

I was trying to think of a way to put that,

EXACTLY!

Where it belongs. In labs and journals. Where you'll have difficulty finding it presented correctly is on creationist websites. But you might find use of dishonest tactics, such as quotemining.



Quotemine!



Quotemine!

[edit on 30-12-2007 by melatonin]

Just one? That's easy...


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

More readily consumed here.


See how quickly these threads turn to creationists dissing evolution? They have nothing but vacuous wishful-thinking.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

---

Could you cite an example in say a Mammal, Reptile, Fish, Bird, etc.. where a mutation has been a good thing?

I just did.

Here's another:


content.nejm.org...

ABE: and just to consolidate the point, here's another:



The next step is that you now admit that there are such mutations.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

---

You've just proven that some people have stronger bones than others,
AND that genes are involved.
God gave everyone genes..........

Is that it? Is that the best answer you have?

Is your god like some magical genetic engineer who places mutations in new babies genomes? Maybe you could ask him to lay off the negative mutations?

Or does the devil do them?

The point of this thread is that you should be presenting evidence for creationism, but you appear to have none. So I guess the second best option is to attempt to discredit something you have little knowledge of. Cool.

ABE: within 3 posts this thread turned to attacking evolution. Is creationism so obsolete and vacuous?

ABE2: Just a reminder of the original post topic:



Shall we try again?


[edit on 30-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

---

That and the fact that there is evidence for a World-wide flood in the sedimentary layer which runs through the whole earth.
And the living species we have today which were supposed to be extinct.
That caelacanth and the horshoe crab which is almost exactly like a trilobite.
Also, that there are accurate descriptions of dinosaurs by cave dwellers here



[edit on 30-12-2007 by Clearskies]

That's more appropriate. Well done.

I'll let others respond first. I'm busy for a while, so thank you for your patience.

Also

Humans and dinosaurs together

As well as;
Giants
And Men of Renown.

OH! Sorry! On that giants page, click on the left in the index on Giant Pics!!!!






[edit on 30-12-2007 by Clearskies]

I wandered in to one of those friendly atheists threads the otherday and was met with the usual vitriol and condescending sarcasm. I was able to draw many of the similaritites between Dawkins and Jesus.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I read much of Dawkins work too, actually I read more of his then creationisms. I am no differen't then Richard however. Dawkins resists ANY science that purports to have the slightest suggestion that the universe, time, space etc came from anything more then happenstance.

His reason "of course" is that ther is no proof. Where Creationism predicament being that because Theirs IS the genuine article and the ONLY way to prove something that HAD to exist outside of space and time is another universe or universes all toghether, another dimension a infinite place where time doesn't exist and knowledge is so far beyond our own it is pointeless to try and articulate an illustration or analogy as ther is no frame of referance in a finite existence that would give it justice.

The ironic thing is that it would TAKE a GOD having all the attributes described in the Bible to even consider that from his place he created matter from nothingness. If Dawkins can come up with something better,, well actually he tried and stephen hawkings SMASHED that theory to hell. The Bible even explains this by saying the "detected and undetected" parts of the universe. A place HE is where we cannot be and that he will NOT be tempted to prove himself.

Many believers of God as the creator, resist anything less then at least having a mind to utter the shortest word in the english language to at least get things started or moving. OZ says he isn't satisfied with Biblical accounts of life and the universe etc. I would agree that the bible main impetus isn't to prove where we came from but where we are going.

It does that by explaining that GOD created EVERYTHING and Everything that was created was created by GOD. This is the book of genesis.

The Bible corroborates its assertions using "prophesy" . As much as I agree that Dawkins, is very smart, he is handicapped by his own affirmations to his Atheism. Resistance to even consider that when the universe began, Information HAD to have already existed. Information is that language, code or signal that must have a mind to not only encode a message but something has to have mind to understand it. Having said that, The idea that when the universe started,

SOMETHING had to say "GO"

Having quoted Dawkins here, neither he, nor any materialist has ever provided any scientific (i.e. empirical, testable, falsifiable) explanation for the origin of information. NONE ZIP ZILCH

Then, something had to know what comes next when it gets that information. Dawkins has written an essay called the problem of information where he still uses that same explanation that natural selection has always done this and makes some disparging remarks about flat earthers etc. He usually does that when he has painted himself in a corner by other greater minds then his.

Then he starts using words like "perhaps" and clever rationale that some things he simply can't prove because he can't go back in time to find it.

The Reknowned astro physicist Stephen Hawking has proven Dawkins evolution couldn't POSSIBLY use natural selection and get us where we are now. The laws of thermo dynamics all the way to string theory and the latest discoveries of DNA have proven a mind made these things because ONLY a mind could concieve of language or the coded alphabet that DNA can create living things with. This discovery and several other posed to dawkins had him stumped. Later he wrote the "problem with information" Of all the books Dawkins has written, all the essays, that one was the most abysmal failure I couldn't understand why he just didn't give up and admit it. THIS AIN'T NO ACCIDENT.

I have my own resistance to any suggestion that we came from nothing and are an aimless shapeless mass of undulating flesh which evolve via natural selection. The very word "selection" as in Natural Selection implies choices or options requiring a mind to select, but this is the billions of years of trial and error selection till oneday something works. Every once in a mega billion years a Random Mutation comes along to add another species.

So DNA has been downplayed by the atheists as merely a molecule and that what it does is "not big deal". He explains in on his website that he was "set up" again by those insufferable Christians and it was his anger that made him unable to answer a question regarding DNA that TO THIS DAY he only looks like his whole world is about to come crashing down. You see Dawkins HATES US, albeit he wouild deny it but just this past week his website groupies have attacked FAITH itself for killing Benazir Bhutto.

Royal Truman exposes Darwins problem again. www.trueorigin.org... and this time much better explanation to the REAL problem of information is given while seeing Dawkins Natural Selection in the way he explains it that if it were true even THAT would prove God because Evolution would eventually create God. If you google every reference and rebuttal to this article on the internet, you'll discover that not one person has ever supplied a scientific response to the questions raised to Dawkins and even I thought the essay he DID finally write was a "perhaps" this may have that blah blah.,
No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information.

Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism. Dawkins has been asked if he met Jesus and was shown supernatural signs and wonders ,, Dawkins would STILL rather be an athesit even IF he KNEW who GOD is.



- Con

[edit on 30-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Clearskies

---

so, let me ask you a question....if i was walking in a muddy part of north dakota where footprints of dinosaurs are exposed and i happen to step in a footprint of a dinosaur and i leave a human footprint in it. would some one be able to come back o say in a million years and say that i walked at the same time that a dinosaur walked?.... and let me ask you this...during the time that you assign the 2 prints, were there no other large amphibians walking around at that time?... and finally, since scienctific peer review is so brutal, there should be an astounding amount of mea culpas going around in the archeological world.

Oh now now, I just left a thread by the athesist was more like a trap lol. That's the point though Mel,, we dis eachother. Now you know, when we first became aware of eachother? We or,, I really didn't like you at all.

I have seen you mmm I guess "evolve" into a much better writer with much more patience and less sarcasm then ,, say mad is. I have a lot of respect for you AND Major. That thread antichrist I think says it best that this issue will always be an issue until we accept that we have a lot to learn and that seeing the best side of you, the best side of me isn't contingent on my knowing about that or you about God. I am certain you make a much better freind then you do my adversary.

Whether you believe in God or I in evolution,, has nothing to do with that.

These debates will go on even after the 911 truthers finally have all been sent to belleview .

reply to post by melatonin

---

we really, really need to get you an official badge or something for stamping out quotmining

---

anyway, as has been said, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the creationist hypothesis.

hehe umm that isn't too far off.





Ok,, now so I don't waste time hearing that over and over what IS evidence ,, or what do you think creationism is about?

I am NOT going to prove GOD exists if that's what you meant.

so if that is what it is about Ill pass.





Debunking evolution? mmmm nooo evolutions negative mutations.

Just this part I have issue with

www.trueorigin.org...






[edit on 30-12-2007 by Conspiriology]