It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 15
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Scientific fact never changes but our knowledge of it is constantly changing. We repeatedly have to retract things believed for decades or even centuries. Einstein turned accepted physics on its head, new finds are debunk or adjust things once believed concerning evolution, and geology, astronomy, and archeology are always disproving things once believed about our planet and universe.

It's one of the reasons why I think the Bible is often (but not always) silent on scientific matters. Even if it talked about scientific matters to the sharpest detail, secular science would try to prove whatever was opposed to the Biblical account and dismiss evidence that verifies it. Some cases in point:

Pangaea was discovered by a 19th century Christian geologist. Even though he had undeniable evidence from the fossil record, because the separation of the continents was mentioned in the Bible, his work was dismissed in spite of his absolute proof. Then a secular scientist in the 20th century again theorized on the separation of Pangaea but tied it into evolution- his work was praised and accepted.

The Bible mentioned it first, a Christian scientist proved it later, but a secular scientist gets all the credit.

The creation of the Ural Mountains by tectonic plates crashing into one other as originally theorized by a Christian scientist was dismissed as nonsense. They were believed to have been created over millions of years a little at a time. Later this short creation was accepted once secular science made the claim in order to compliment their secular theories.

And don't even get me started on a world wide flood, the length and requirements for fossilization, some odd connections of the evolutionary chain, the appearance of modern flowers in the fossil records, and a list of contradictions that goes on and on.

I'll post digital pictures upon request, but the evolutionary charts I own from the 90's show the wolf being an immediate ancestor to the blue whale (WTF!?!) which developed into the bat (WTF!?!), then into a seal (WTF?), and a few changes down to produce the modern homosapien. If this isn't enough madness, it all supposedly happened in the same geological epoch. Yes, doubt is actually cast upon the precious evolutionist's fossil record.

Contrary to popular belief, a young earth was not taught by the early church fathers. They didn't quite believe the universe was billions of years old but they certainly didn't think it was only 4,000 years old either. According to the 6,000 year old earth theory (not necessarily even taught in the Bible), the earth would have only been about 4,000 years old when they were alive.

They too were dismissed by science. Then once the 6,000 year old earth theory (something I do not accept) was proposed in the 17th century by a priest, science again did a 180 and claimed our earth was much older. Just as the early church fathers believed all along.

Christian science can't win when those who claim to only take scientific evidence into consideration really mean they only take scientific evidence into consideration that might contradict the Bible in some way. This secular evidence is open to interpretation by their own admission and is constantly being debunked and redefined by their scientists.

Also, when many "transitional species" are later shown to be false identities, they stick by their "infallible science." Do I love science? Absolutely. Do I have faith in man's knowledge of it? Not always.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam are another two of my favorites. Darwin gets credit for proposing the theory all humans alive have two common ancestors. Apparently Adam and Eve were unheard of prior to Darwin. According to evolutionary science, M. Eve. and Y.C. Adam have been proven but evolution (in any attempt to debunk the Bible) claim these two lived thousands of years apart even though the genetic calculations have adjusted their origins ranging from over 1000,000 years ago to less than 10,000. Ergo, nothing is ever exact or known for sure.

Anything that remotely verifies the Biblical account is either dismissed or distorted to verify an evolutionary theory. It's enough to drive the pope insane. Well, not really because even he believes in theistic evolution.

If macroevolution had been taught in the Bible, Christians would have been laughed out of the scientific field years ago. But because it supposedly contradicts the Genesis account, anything is accepted even if it borders on the insane.

So to answer the question in the original author's post... Creationism or the Genesis account can never be affirmed by science when our evidence is constantly hijacked and twisted to conform to the theory of evolution. The irrefutable evidence proved by creationists (and I will admit some evidence is bogus- but not all of it) is often dismissed due to presuppositional bias. That is, until it is later confirmed and offered by a secular scientist to be tied into the theory of evolution.

We can't win when the rules are always changing.

[edit on 1/8/2008 by AshleyD]




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


A few points to respond to:

The idea of Continental Drift had been postulated by people as early as Francis Bacon - he may have been the first to float the idea. Pangea was not postulated until the 20th Century by Alfred Wegener (sp?). I`m not sure whom you`re referring to with your 19th century claim, but I`d love to get a name on that.

I have no idea about Wegener`s religious convictions - and I posit that they don`t matter either way. Like all who entertained the idea before him, his impressive body of work was not discounted on the basis of religion but lack of an identifiable mechanism to support his hypothesis. IIRC he had more than a few supporters, but the scientific community at large was unwilling to grasp on to his hypothesis because he claimed that centrifugal force and inertia were responsible - something which was unacceptable at the time, and rightly so. Religion never entered into it.

His ideas were not abandoned as wholesale as you claim, however - with the seafloor exploration of the 1950`s and 60`s, his hypothesis was vindicated, and he became recognized as the father of the theory of continental drift, and one of the most important historical figures in geology. The fact that I remember all of this from a university lecture I had almost 20 years ago is proof of that, enough for me at least.

I`m not sure whom you`re referring to regarding the Ural mountains, but I`d be willing to bet that the reasons for their hypothesis being rejected was based on similar grounds - the mechanism for the hypothesis being flawed.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
The idea of Continental Drift had been postulated by people as early as Francis Bacon - he may have been the first to float the idea. Pangea was not postulated until the 20th Century by Alfred Wegener (sp?). I`m not sure whom you`re referring to with your 19th century claim, but I`d love to get a name on that.


I'm pretty sure Genesis was the very first to mention the idea (
) but the name of the Christian scientist who actually came up with evidence to support it from the fossil record in 1858 is Antonio Snider-Pellegrini.


I have no idea about Wegener`s religious convictions - and I posit that they don`t matter either way. Like all who entertained the idea before him, his impressive body of work was not discounted on the basis of religion but lack of an identifiable mechanism to support his hypothesis.


No, they don't really matter unless what you imply is true. A Christian scientist with proof is laughed out of the room, so to speak, while a secular scientist that throws an idea out there without hardcore evidence is accepted with open arms. Of course, this isn't exactly how it went for Wegener. He used the exact same evidence as Pellegrini to support this theory- the near identical fossil records across the continents. Yet, he is given the credit and the evidence of the Biblical account is instead meshed with evolution.


His ideas were not abandoned as wholesale as you claim, however - with the seafloor exploration of the 1950`s and 60`s, his hypothesis was vindicated, and he became recognized as the father of the theory of continental drift, and one of the most important historical figures in geology. The fact that I remember all of this from a university lecture I had almost 20 years ago is proof of that, enough for me at least.


Exactly. Wegener got all the credit. But I was talking about Pellegrini (the original evidence provider of Pangaea and continental drift) although Wegener is considered the hero. No, Wegener's claims were never "abandoned wholesale" as I was not referring to him. I never mentioned names so I can see how you assumed I was talking about Wegener. No, he is the one I was referring to who received the credit while Pellegrini was dismissed- with the exact same evidence.


It's a game of pick and choose.


I`m not sure whom you`re referring to regarding the Ural mountains, but I`d be willing to bet that the reasons for their hypothesis being rejected was based on similar grounds - the mechanism for the hypothesis being flawed.


You're very right- the two are related. The creation of the Ural mountains was believed by Christian scientists (before Wegener) to have been caused by the separation of Pangaea, the cataclysmic crashing of the continents into one another via tectonic plate movement, and is believed to have occurred as a side effect of the world wide flood mentioned in Genesis.

For years most evolutionists believed the range was formed over millions of years until the evidence was simply too great to dismiss. So, now many (still not all) evolutionists believe they were created by the separation of Pangaea and the continental drift while ignoring the main evidence which tied it all into the Biblical flood. More pick and choose.

Genetic degeneration is also mentioned in the Bible. Even though it has been verified by science, the Bible is never given credit but instead the argument is that everyone can get something right every once in a while. We can't win. So, the proven concept of genetic degeneration is used to often explain why some species go extinct. Which of course is true. But again, it's all tied into the theory of evolution and never the Biblical principles.

This is why I gave up years ago providing evidence and instead resort to live and let live. If no one listened when Christian scientists had the physical evidence right there to verify their claims, there is no way anyone is going to listen to me when I cite evidence I've only seen in books. If the belief in sporadic evolution is what helps someone sleep at night then it's really not my business. I hope they can see my belief in God the same way. At least I try to only go where the evidence points.

[edit on 1/8/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Just a quick one, as I`m out the door to work...


The similarity between my source and yours is that they were both laughed out of the room at the time based on a lack of evidence of the mechanism behind their theories - one claiming the biblical flood, one claiming centrifugal force. Both also built on a substantial body of work before them - dating at least back to Bacon in the 17th century.

The claim as a whole was not vindicated until the mechanism could be identified and proven - and adding a religious element to that is obfuscation, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


Not necessarily. By your own admission in your previous comment his theory was ultimately accepted, he was given the credit, and basically deemed the father of geology and tectonic plates (poetically speaking). Also by your own admission, everyone knows of Wegener while Pellegrini and his research disappeared into oblivion. As for Bacon? No clue. But he most likely (in fact I bet the rent since paleontology and archaeology weren't even popularized as a science during his time) didn't have the evidence Weg and Pel had to back up their claims.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by vox2442
 


Not necessarily. By your own admission in your previous comment his theory was ultimately accepted, he was given the credit, and basically deemed the father of geology and tectonic plates (poetically speaking). Also by your own admission, everyone knows of Wegener while Pellegrini and his research disappeared into oblivion. As for Bacon? No clue. But he most likely (in fact I bet the rent since paleontology and archaeology weren't even popularized as a science during his time) didn't have the evidence Weg and Pel had to back up their claims.


If I may be so bold, your assertion that "everyone knows of Wegener" is bordering on the absurd - if you can poll a random sample of 1000 people on the street and get more than 1% knowing who he was, I`ll send you a bottle of sake. I`ve got a thing for the history of science - that`s my excuse for keeping that little tidbit of biographical information tucked away, rather than remembering my own phone number or where I left my car keys. Being known as a figurehead in Geology is hardly the pedestal you make it out to be.

Never having read Pellegrini, I can`t comment on his research - but the question I have is this: did Wegener reference him? Sitting here, several thousand miles from a library that would be likely to stock either, I suppose I`ll have to just keep on wondering. For taht matter, though, whom did Pellegrini reference?

I`m wondering because I have a very hard time believing that Wegener`s ideas appeared from a vacuum. As a contemporary, it`s quite likely that the influence was there. As to why one is remembered and one isn`t - that`s like asking why everyone remembers the Kingsmen, and no one remembers Richard Berry or Rockin Robin Roberts and the Fabulous Wailers. Yes, it`s a bit of a rip off, credit where it`s due and all, but to say it`s based on conspiracy is pushing things. Right time, right place, stirring up the right amount of controversy, and suddenly you`re ... the answer to a trivia question down at the pub.


Edit: here`s a link to a good timeline of the research on the topic: www.es.flinders.edu.au...


[edit on 8-1-2008 by vox2442]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Sorry Ashley,

Why do cacti only thrive in a desert environment? Why don't pine trees live in the desert? Why do penguins only hail from the South Pole?

What happened to the DoDo? (hint: it is not an imaginary creature, it was known to exist by people who wrote about it... scant two hundred years ago, or so...).

Why are marsupials only found on one continent? Why does life exist at the BOTTOM of the ocean, near volcanic vents, where there is no sunlight?

There used to be camels in North America...they are only known to have been here because of the fossils that remain. Speaking of North America, the SabreTooth used to be here too. Now, we have mountain lions, and cougars (oh, and kitty cats, but that is because Humans have intervened in their speciation...same with dogs). Oh! And humans have made the cow into a whole new species, as well. I nearly forgot to mention the Bison...nearly extinct, because of human activity, now thriving...because of humans.

But I have only provided examples of history dating back, oh, 20,000 years or so. A mere blip in the entire 'Lifespan' of Earth. Earth is 'only' about 4.5 billion years old, and since the Sun will continue to burn, largely unchanged, for another 4 or 5 billion years to come, the Earth is simply 'middle-aged'.

Back to the original point of this thread: Creationism, where is the proof? None. There is, in contrast, a plethora of evidence to support the science of cosmology, planetary formation, radio-carbon dating, fossilization and the simple geology of plate tectonics, observed and sustained by continued study. These that I have mentioned cross into many disciplines of science...no ONE science can provide the full picture, but working together peers can understand the contribution that each has to offer to piece together the picture.

On the other hand....creationism relies on the 'poof'! principle. OK, that was too simplistic. I understand that some 'creationists' subscribe to the notion that a 'Supreme Being' set the whole Universe in motion right from the start...pre-supposing that this 'Being' was sage enough to put all of the physics and natural laws that ensued in place sufficiently to achieve the outcome that we now experience. OK...why not believe in that? Seems to fit the observed Universe...and provides solace to those who wish to 'believe' in some sort of 'Creator'.

But others wish to subscribe to the 'other' idea, usually because of a dogged determination to cling to the 'inerrancy' of the Bible. Well, consider that the Bible was written by many hands, translated by many hands, and edited by many hands over the course of many centuries...it's a little like the game 'secret', where you whisper around the table and after about ten iterations it's completely different!!



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
If I may be so bold, your assertion that "everyone knows of Wegener" is bordering on the absurd - if you can poll a random sample of 1000 people on the street and get more than 1% knowing who he was, I`ll send you a bottle of sake.


I thought the use of hyperbole would be obvious. My mistake. Weg is the scientist known in scientific circles and taught in schools as being the one who presented the tectonic plates and separation of Pangaea. You yourself were aware of him. Two year olds, comatose individuals, animals, people who failed geology and biology in high school, the mentally handicapped, and possibly the criminally insane might not know who he is. Can I still have some sake, though?


Being known as a figurehead in Geology is hardly the pedestal you make it out to be.


Who are you to say? But your gripe is irrelevant as the heart of my point has nothing to do with a certain scientist getting the blue ribbon for discovery. By your other comments, I'm starting to get the impression you are the type that might concentrate a little too hard on semantics?


Never having read Pellegrini, I can`t comment on his research - but the question I have is this: did Wegener reference him? Sitting here, several thousand miles from a library that would be likely to stock either, I suppose I`ll have to just keep on wondering.


I wish I could answer but I don't know. Logic tells me he didn't put that's only speculation.


For taht matter, though, whom did Pellegrini reference?


How do you know he referenced anyone? As far as I know, he did not reference anyone.


I`m wondering because I have a very hard time believing that Wegener`s ideas appeared from a vacuum.


Pellegrini developed his theory after looking at the near match of European and American fossils. What inspired him or Wegener? Probably having two eyeballs that looked at a map to see that the continents could have fit together at one point.


As a contemporary, it`s quite likely that the influence was there. As to why one is remembered and one isn`t - that`s like asking why everyone remembers the Kingsmen, and no one remembers Richard Berry or Rockin Robin Roberts and the Fabulous Wailers.


Again, it's not about winning the Nobel Prize on a personal level. It's unfortunate for Pel but I'm not going to look up his family to offer my condolences. It is the principle behind the bias.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why do cacti only thrive in a desert environment? Why don't pine trees live in the desert? Why do penguins only hail from the South Pole?


Er... Ok. I could say God designed it that way and put the penguins there. I'm pretty sure you saw this coming. However we can get scientific. Pine trees do sometimes grow in the desert (I live in the desert and we have pine trees). There are also penguins that live in tropic and subtropic regions. Yes, it surprised me, too. Look it up. I just learned that a few weeks ago from my son that enjoys telling me the little oddities he learns.


What happened to the DoDo? (hint: it is not an imaginary creature, it was known to exist by people who wrote about it... scant two hundred years ago, or so...).


I never claimed they didn't exist. Almost everyone knows they existed but not everyone knows, as you said, they recently went extinct. But why are you using an argument I've never denied, refuted, tried to explain, or even mentioned?


Why are marsupials only found on one continent? Why does life exist at the BOTTOM of the ocean, near volcanic vents, where there is no sunlight?


Marsupials do not only exist on one continent. My turn. Questions for you.

How does it go from a wolf (land animal) to a blue whale (sea) to a bat (land) to a seal (sea) to a kangaroo (land). etc. Again, I'd be happy to show my evolutionary charts that show this exact immediate sequence from the 1990's. But don't worry about answering it- the charts have already been redone after the error was realized. It also mentions Pangaea separating 570 millions years ago but now we are believed to have separated 250 million years ago. As soon as they realize a lot more of erosion should have occurred, they will probably change the date again.

Most "missing links" to humans were later proven to be false and transitional fossils were proven to be cases of mistaken identity. If they can quit changing their minds and making so many mistakes, I might be able to take them seriously as a whole. Instead, there is simply too many goofs made that are later retracted again and again. Not because they made an honest mistake but because they hastily threw the evidence together to support their hypothesis and were later proven wrong.

And I'm going to leave the rest of your evolutionary arguments alone for now because they are redundant. Genetic degeneration? Yes. Genetic mutations and adaptations? Yes. This is verifiable (and also mentioned in the Bible but I'm leaving that alone for now). Macroevolution of one species over time into a new species? Not remotely. It's pseudo science as far as I'm concerned because too many errors are occurring and their scholarship methods are junk. As they say, I'm not buying it.


Creationism, where is the proof? None.


Exactly. As I said many, many times. You cannot prove a divine act. Can Biblical accounts and science in Genesis be verified? Yes. Can I provide evidence the Christian God exists? Absolutely. Do I know for certain how or why He did the creation process like He did? Nope. He didn't seem all concerned with giving us the Bible in the form of a scientific almanac and I already explained my reasons as to why I feel He didn't.


There is, in contrast, a plethora of evidence to support the science of cosmology, planetary formation, radio-carbon dating, fossilization and the simple geology of plate tectonics, observed and sustained by continued study.


Yes, and wait 100 years for many of these things to be readjusted once again. Tectonic plates? Discovered by a Christian but his theory was dismissed until a secular scientist came along and said the same thing. Fossilization? There is so much evidence to refute the timing and methods claimed for the formation of fossils that I'd crash the server of ATS explaining it. RC dating? You do know the system often returns many incorrect readings, correct? But secular scientists swear it is valid... for them.

Then when some wood obviously part of a man made object was found on Mt. Ararat possibly from Noah's ark, it was carbon dated to the precise time many Christian scientists beleive the flood occurred. What were they told? That carbon dating wasn't always reliable. Enough said. Pick and choose.


These that I have mentioned cross into many disciplines of science...no ONE science can provide the full picture, but working together peers can understand the contribution that each has to offer to piece together the picture.


Look into what it takes for new evidence to be "canonized" into evolutionary science. The standard might surprise you. I don't want to ruin the surprise but I just found out the other day how these scientists come to an agreement. Hint: It is somewhat along the lines of the Jesus Seminar and their use of colored beads to vote on a decision. I don't take the Jesus Seminar seriously either.


On the other hand....creationism relies on the 'poof'! principle. OK, that was too simplistic. I understand that some 'creationists' subscribe to the notion that a 'Supreme Being' set the whole Universe in motion right from the start...


No, it wasn't too simplistic. That is pretty much exactly what Genesis says happened. Again, God has validated Himself to us in many other ways. If I cannot provide evidence for a divine creation, I'm not going to dismiss it due to His impeccable track record. Man on the other hand has been proven wrong repeatedly as the ages go by.


But others wish to subscribe to the 'other' idea, usually because of a dogged determination to cling to the 'inerrancy' of the Bible.


I made a gag post just the other day about this. It concerns the theory of theistic evolution. See: Here.


[edit on 1/9/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Ok that arguement didnt work to well. First of all lets look at how we present evidence in a court of law - rule no. 1 it cant b hear say so there fore you have no evidence. how can you believe in something that has no evidence?
yes the whale did evolve from a mammal from the wolf family. we know this because we have physical evidence of it ie bones - how can you refute that?!
maybe christians being dismissed just proves how unreliable they are when it comes to history.
yes of course we change the story of evolution as we make more discoveries and learn more about the tree of life - that happens when you make more discoveries - we never said we know 100% how everything works. we are constantly learning new things about how life evolved, but at least we all stick to the same story.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


hahaha are you kidding me? where the evidence points to? you have been following this thread havent you? there is NO evidence to support creationism! there are plenty of threads providing evidence of evolution but not one scrap to support that we were magically created.
if thats your belief thats fine as long as you dont hurt anyone thats your choice but this thread is to provide evidence to support your belief. NOT ONE shred of proof has been brought up. now where does the evidence point to? oh wait you need evidence in the first place for it to point somewhere!



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
ah the age old Evolution Vs Intelligent Design debate where shall I begin? well let me start with my own view on the subject. I believe in a higher power. I believe that higher power created everything. I also believe that the aforementioned higher power created everything to procreate and evolve.

Just for a moment suppose that the higher power that created life just started it out as the primordial ooze? Why do Intelligent Design arguments always seem to bring one to the assumption that humans were always humans?

How about the idea that the one that created everything made this earth with the specific design to make it so that all things on the earth evolve grow and change over time and environmental conditions?

Just the spark of life is in my opinion the missing element. The unknown quantity. What made that first amino acid bond with that protein to create the first single celled organism? And if that organism obviously asexual in reproductive aspects merged with more and more complicated protein chains then perhaps that is the start the Adam if you will of life as we know it on this planet.

I believe in god, don't get me wrong, but I also believe that god created the rules to live by. What I mean by that is that god created the desire, will and ability for the first single celled organism to split and go on from there eventually through random mutation and environmental conditions to create all the billions of different species on this one small insignificant planet in the corner of the galaxy.

Intelligent design and Evolution can flow on the same path. It can be attributed to god being a chemist. As for the alien genesis theory I am still out of the office on that one.

Don't have to be so myopic people. Both sides could be right in a way. Just wrong in others. From my experience the truth is always somewhere in the middle.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
yes the whale did evolve from a mammal from the wolf family. we know this because we have physical evidence of it ie bones - how can you refute that?!


I don't have to refute it. Evolutionists did it for me when they discovered their transitional fossils weren't what they thought they were. If this "physical evidence" has been retracted by the ones who presented it in the first place, I'm supposed to still believe it anyways? I don't have enough faith for that. And don't get me started on the blue whale transforming into the bat through natural selection.


where the evidence points to? you have been following this thread havent you? there is NO evidence to support creationism!


Hon, it might be you that hasn't been following this thread because I have stated several times there can be no evidence to support a divine act like creationism. Glad we agree.


now where does the evidence point to? oh wait you need evidence in the first place for it to point somewhere!


The study of apologetics is the evidence I'm referring to. So, there may not be evidence for creation but there is evidence of God in other areas. Because He has validated Himself through other methods, I believe what He said in areas I cannot validate. Creationism is one of them.

Again, I do believe in degenerative changes, mutations, and differences among similar species but I do not believe in macroevolution. Darwin predicted there would be hundreds of transitional fossils discovered in the fossil record that would unequivocally prove macroevolution. Only a few "transitional fossils" have been found and even evolutionary science cannot agree on them. They are considered questionable. I do not accept questions open to interpretation as science.

I hope we can agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Wow!

Created out of nothing? Every thing under the Sun, to steal a phrase already coined.

Marsupials only on one continent. Life on the bottom of the ocean, anaerobic and completely alien to anything we would ever see here 'topside'. Thousands and thousands of different species of cockroaches?? To what end? (Not to mention the incredibly huge diverse populations of other insects, all specialised to their individual niches).

I could go on, but there is no need. Billions and billions of years have transpired...diversity is inevitable given the timespan involved.

Why no pine trees in the Sahara? Or cacti in Siberia? No camels in North or South America? (Actually, an early ancestor of camel used to exist on those continents...how's that for an amazing fossil find?).

Not every fossil has been discovered to date, and don't expect to find a perfect 'transitional' record...it is just not feasible, nor is it necessary to ascertain the likely progression as species change. It is a subtle process.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Wow!

Created out of nothing?


Wow! That sounds really familiar. Oh yes, it's because evolutionists basically believe the same thing.


Marsupials only on one continent.


I assure you- they do not only live on one continent. Look it up. But if they lived on one or all seven, this does not disprove God.


Life on the bottom of the ocean, anaerobic and completely alien to anything we would ever see here 'topside'.


Yes. God is indeed creative. See? Still no proof God does not exist.


Thousands and thousands of different species of cockroaches?? To what end? (Not to mention the incredibly huge diverse populations of other insects, all specialised to their individual niches).


Hey, God did say to be fruitful and multiply, after all. Christians also believe in cellular mutations so what's your point?


Why no pine trees in the Sahara? Or cacti in Siberia? No camels in North or South America? (Actually, an early ancestor of camel used to exist on those continents...how's that for an amazing fossil find?).


Cool. God designed it that way.

Is this logic maddening enough for you? Maybe. But nothing disproves God.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


You see, you fell for it. This thread is not trying to disprove God. It is asking for EVIDENCE that creationism is real.

You can have your God, or Buddha, Vishnu or Allah, if you wish. That is not an argument for this thread. It is the simple claim of EVERYTHING having been 'created' in one fell swoop as a 'fait accompli' at a certain instant point at some time in the past. ALL of what we see, everything, just for us...a measly little bunch of hairless apes on an insignificant planet in the outer third of an arm of a Spiral Galaxy (insignificant as well) out of BILLIONS of other galaxies? That, my friend, is the ultimate in hubris.

Your 'faith' in some magical creator isn't at issue here...it is the concept of rational thinking and using evidentiary observations, sound principles, versus a blanket 'belief' that has no evidence whatsoever. That is the issue.

Humans used to believe in multiple gods. Some civilizations believed the Sun was a god. These 'faiths' were the consequence of imagination, not demonstrable and repeatable findings...

Faiths, and god beliefs, belong in one place...in our own heads. TO each his/her own. An attempt to impose one's belief system on another is a travesty...and usually terrible consequences ensue.

(edit to add...besides Australia, please tell me where other marsupials exist...)

Oh, I know! You're going to point to the 'opossum'...not to be confused with its cousin the 'possum'...problem is, the possum is not native to the Americas. In fact, what we have here in North America called the opossum is a distant relative of the original, from Australia. Species are able to migrate, after all...look at how Humans spread far and wide over the millenia.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 12-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is asking for EVIDENCE that creationism is real.


I believe this entire thread is a spin off of the thread "Evolution, where is the evidence? I see none." Might be wrong but I think so. Again, I say, no one can prove [or disprove for that matter] a divine act that no one witnessed. We accept it because evolutionary science is not as flawless as we are expected to believe and because God has validated Himself through other ways. Here's some good links to cast down on some evolutionary theories: Oops #1, Oops #2.


planet in the outer third of an arm of a Spiral Galaxy (insignificant as well) out of BILLIONS of other galaxies?


Off topic (sort of) but check into what evolutionists refer to as "the winding-up dilemma" of the Spiral galaxy. Every few years science tries to explain it but the new theory is always later debunked.


That, my friend, is the ultimate in hubris.


I could reverse this and get theological but I'll refrain.


Your 'faith' in some magical creator isn't at issue here...it is the concept of rational thinking and using evidentiary observations, sound principles, versus a blanket 'belief' that has no evidence whatsoever. That is the issue.


Hon, the evidence changes, then changes back, is accepted, later denied, new evidence debunks old evidence, etc. to infinity. That's not science. That's a guessing game. Again, look into what it takes for evidence to be canonized into evolutionary science. It's silliness. As for Jesus being the proverbial Santa Claus that all the little children are waiting for on Christmas morning, I beg to differ. But that's neither here nor there at the moment.


(edit to add...besides Australia, please tell me where other marsupials exist...)


North and South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Evolutionists believe they crossed "land bridges" before the separation of Pangaea was complete. Since the "dividing of the earth" is mentioned after Noah's flood, I believe they traveled to these continents before the earth divided. Later, genetic mutations and adaptations caused the differences in species as well as extinctions.


Oh, I know! You're going to point to the 'opossum'...not to be confused with its cousin the 'possum'...problem is, the possum is not native to the Americas. In fact, what we have here in North America called the opossum is a distant relative of the original, from Australia. Species are able to migrate, after all...look at how Humans spread far and wide over the millenia.


I get a little high when people preempt my argument and turn out to be absolutely wrong. Does that make me evil? But no, I took a brief look here. Pay special attention to "it was once thought," "some believe," "it's possible," "theory," etc. This is science? They even think marsupials lived in Antarctica at one time. Wake me up when they know something for sure.


[edit on 1/12/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 


Creationism (note that it is an "ism" and not a theory) is a quite effective attack on the increasingly dogmatic acceptance of the THEORY of evolution. TO the extent that, for whatever motivation, it is a thought experiment poking holes in accepted (and often poorly understood and explained) scientific theory it is as valuable to evolution theory as any other critic.

Where it tries the scientology type trick of proceeding from its valid criticisms of evolution theory's proof to go "and so you must now stop thinking and obey our version of the bible teachings" is where it is so utterly non-rational that it shouldn't even be debated as an alternative to evolution theory in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I believe this entire thread is a spin off of the thread "Evolution, where is the evidence? I see none." Might be wrong but I think so. Again, I say, no one can prove [or disprove for that matter] a divine act that no one witnessed. We accept it because evolutionary science is not as flawless as we are expected to believe and because God has validated Himself through other ways. Here's some good links to cast down on some evolutionary theories: Oops #1, Oops #2.


Can you people stop posting about evolution!? Jezz...
If you want to post about it, then post it in a evolution thread.
Even if all the evidence and evolution is wrong, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE UNIVERSE MAGICALY CAME OUT FROM SOMEONE"S ARSE.

You accept this because evolution or our knownledge of it isn't perfect?
Why don't you accept the Earth is flat while your at it.

Stop posting about evolution.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
Can you people stop posting about evolution!? Jezz...


I'd be happy to! As soon as people quit asking me questions that tie into evolution while expecting an answer.


You accept this because evolution or our knownledge of it isn't perfect?
Why don't you accept the Earth is flat while your at it.


Because that can be proven based on unchanging evidence...
And we aren't told every few years that the prior evidence was incorrect...
By the same people who told us it was correct the week before...


[edit on 1/12/2008 by AshleyD]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join