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

Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Science is proliferated by what can be considered "blind-faith" by many. Science is only capable of categorizing, quantifying and observing things and/or processes. It is not able to understand them and thus is only able to create generalized theories of what is being categorized, quantified and observed.

As an example:

The sun as a thermo-nuclear chain reaction - theory
Macro Evolution - Theory
General Relativity - Theory
Physics in general - Theory
Stings/m-Branes - Theory

Science is nothing but theories that generally describe what the scientist observe.

As an example: No one can tell me what "electricity" is, not even a scientist. What is electricity? We can use it, generate it, store it, manipulate it; but NO ONE KNOWS "WHAT IT IS.

Scientist (and their lessor, uninformed minions known as skeptics/athiests) from all appearances and perspectives lack the ability, or capability, to think outside of their "faith" and blindly believe what ever theory Science presents to them is fact.

The truth is skeptics/athiests have just as much "faith & belief" that their beloved theories are "truth" as much as any fanatical muslim believes that if they strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a bunch of infidels that they will get harem of virgins to enjoy in their afterlife.

-Euclid

[edit on 3-1-2008 by euclid]

That is so hypocritical! Science is nothing but theories? we actually have evidence that has been proven time and again.
"blindly believing" is exactly how i would describe something as nonsensical as the bible and a god!
all i can say is
bible - theory
god - theory
creationism - theory
and not very good ones either!
and dont compare us to another religion - hardly see how that makes sense considering your arguement.

you can take all the building blocks of life and really do what you want with them. but to breathe life into them you will find it to be impossible. your example of ai with computers is nothng but imitation of human behavior. secret of life is as small as creating a cell wall that holds and posses the ability to know what to do with even the smallest of dna protons electrons. they have made break throughs with nano motors using cells but i think you will find they didnt create something. they simply found a reaction in them. they are trully trying to understand how it works not trying to create. cause trying to create life is impossible no matter home small or large. so higher powers must have been at work sometime or another. new species i dont think its possible. evolution if your right handed and you hurt your right hand. you learn to use your left. you didnt grow one you used what you already had. you go blind you learn to hear feel smell things better. you dont grow antennas and navigate by radar. evelution is adapting to enviroment and maximizing the usage of what god higher power creater gave you

reply to post by melatonin


Anyone chemist would know that 4Na + 4H20----> 4NaOH + 2H2. That’s not random chance that’s chemistry, science. It’s random chance (not science) that a dot the size of a period on this page exploded, creating the stars and all planets, creating all the chemicals on the earth from hydrogen, then these new elements got together in some soup, random chance brought them together to form some amino acids, then thousands of amino acids got together to form proteins, then these proteins created simple cells that are hundreds of times more complex than our most powerful super computers. On top of this, the DNA in this simple cell could fill textbooks full of instructions from DNA. This is what I mean by random chance and really wishful thinking.
Again for some cells to create the all of the oxygen in the atmosphere is based on theory. Why do I have to stick to biology? This thread is for evidence of creation which is any type of evidence including geology.
So you admit that you don’t know how cells developed. Then how is it a fact that they evolved? You say it could have happened under water or on land with the aid of UV rays. These are completely opposite. Until now you are just theorizing and not providing any scientific facts.
If you don’t believe the calculations you should do them for your self and prove the mathematicians wrong. For a simple protein to form from organic soup is extremely improbable.
Evolutionists claim that petrification takes millions of years. Petrified forests found are said to be 200-300 million of years old based on current conditions. What’s with the picture? If that telephone is truly petrified then that proves petrification can happen in short periods of time not millions of years.
The oldest tree is 10 000 years old you say? That’s still shows a young earth plus scientists can only assume each season represents one ring. Just like all your other examples of dating you assume the current living conditions are the same as the past. Cyclic reasoning is also used. A rock dated using potassium-argon gives different results then uranium-thorium-lead method. Then evolution scientists choose the date that would fit in best with the pre supposed evolutionary timeline and use it as proof. How can this possibly be accurate? This is not just with radiometric dating.
Of course if the earth cannot be billions of years old it means the Earth is young.


[edit on 3-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Anyone chemist would know that 4Na + 4H20----> 4NaOH + 2H2. That’s not random chance that’s chemistry, science. It’s random chance (not science) that a dot the size of a period on this page exploded etc etc

Well done. Yes, it's chemistry, and it's not random. And neither would be the processes leading to the first cells.

How do you know that cosmic inflation was a random event? Maybe it's a consequence of some other aspect of nature.

Why do I have to stick to biology? This thread is for evidence of creation which is any type of evidence including geology.

Mainly it was a comment to say that whether oxygen was present or not in the atmosphere wouldn't negate evolutionary biology or abiogenesis.

So you admit that you don’t know how cells developed. Then how is it a fact that they evolved? You say it could have happened under water or on land with the aid of UV rays. These are completely opposite. Until now you are just theorizing and not providing any scientific facts.

Of course we don't know all. We leave such omniscience to those who know the mind and actions of god-like things. By a lot of study and refusing to make premature ideologically driven conclusions, we will probably figure it out. We have lots of ideas, indeed, I posted a recent find about RNA and proteins in another thread.

But I already know that when we do find the evidence, you wouldn't accept it. You've made your conclusion.

If you don’t believe the calculations you should do them for your self and prove the mathematicians wrong. For a simple protein to form from organic soup is extremely improbable.

Show it to be. Don't just assert it. You did this earlier as well.

If that telephone is truly petrified then that proves petrification can happen in short periods of time not millions of years.

Rather than petrified, you are really talking about 'polystrate' trees, trees in the geological strata that appear to cross strata. That is a polystrate telephone pole. Cool isn't it?

The oldest tree is 10 000 years old you say? That’s still shows a young earth plus scientists can only assume each season represents one ring.

Well, I'm really sorry. At this point we have none which are older that can provide the data we need. That is the lower limit. We then use other techniques. Like most creationists, you have to deny sooooooooo much science to prop up your little book of stories, it's all rather sad really.

Just like all your other examples of dating you assume the current living conditions are the same as the past.

No, we don't. Like most creationists you have made your conclusion before even assessing the evidence.

This is not just with radiometric dating.
Of course if the earth cannot be billions of years old it means the Earth is young.

But the evidence suggests it is billions of years old.

Roger Wiens, a christian physicist, has an article just for you. Enjoy.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

Ah...I was going to get in on this, but I may as well make my own thread sometime...There are ways for Christians like myself to discuss these things without circular reasoning...and current science isn't set in stone, so we really shouldn't put all of our eggs into the basket of science.

Theory: well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
Hypothesis: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

Evolution is a hypothesis, among many other claims...thus, we could say that Creationism is another hypothesis, as is the Indian belief that the world sits upon a giant elephant.

reply to post by euclid


Am I the only one amused by the irony of the user name chosen by this member?

Someone named 'Euclid should at least understand the difference between a 'hypothesis' and a 'theory'. Please, perhaps someone more conversant would care to elaborate?

Thanks

[text]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by joesomebody
Theory: well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world

Sounds like evolution to me



[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by joesomebody


joe, welcome...

You posted while I was typing...no, evolution is NOT a hypothesis, sorry. By your analogy, gravity would be considered a hypothesis.

But thanks for your opinion. And, as I think has been pointed out earlier, being a Christian does not necessitate being a 'Creationist'. Neither do Hindus believe the Earth is on the back of a turtle...

...or a pachyderm, or any other current creature known in the 20,000 years, or so, of modern human development...

[added text]


[edit on 3-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Honestly, though, science is no more credible than religion in many ways. Religion deals with the spiritual and what is observed through the soul. Science is only for things that are qualitative and quantitative, and observed physically.

The old cliché "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Comes to mind.

To a reasonable person, the answer would be "Yes, of course it makes a sound!" That is faith. Faith is what I have in Jesus. Your faith is in science. I personally think that science (real science...not hypothesized information and theories) is simply the study of God's creation and how it works.

reply to post by joesomebody


joe,

I admit I am somewhat amused by your assertion that 'someone' like you could start a thread of their own and avoid 'circular reasoning'. Umm, that's sort of what Creationists and their new cousins, 'Intelligent Design' proponents do when faced with irrefutable evidence that contradicts pet 'hypotheses'.

You pointed it out, quite plainly up above, with 'tree in the forest' adage.

First you point to 'reasonable' people agreeing there is a sound, then you said that there is only a sound if you have faith...I can only spin my head around once to follow that circle of 'reason'...

I didn't say that because of faith the sound was there...I said that the belief that it creates sound is faith.

We can conclude that science has become a religion in itself.

You have faith in science and not a creator. I have faith in a creator, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit...three in one and one in three...

There have been many crazy scientific claims that have been disproven. So far, nobody has really disproved anything in the Christian Bible. I know you will come up with all sorts of arguments to this, but science (real science) actually goes hand in hand with the Bible.

reply to post by melatonin


I don’t know that cosmic evolution is a random event. It’s possible that nature had somehow caused it but there is no proof. Science has to be proved before it is considered fact so until there is proof you are theorizing. Maybe aliens caused it to explode, who knows? Until there is proof keep dreaming. Why are you denying that evolution is based on chance? Even Dawkins in the God Delusion generally stated for atheists to embrace the amazing chance of life. You’re the first evolutionist I’ve seen deny the chance involved. The improbability has been proved over and over by mathematicians and scientists alike both creationist and evolutionist. You are denying a scientific and mathematical fact.
When you find evidence that the Big Bang happened and that proteins formed from soup and that we came from cells let me know and I’ll accept evolution. Right now it is either random chance or God. I choose God.
You know which calculations I’m talking about. Books have been written about the improbability of an amino acid let alone a protein forming from soup. But here’s some proof from a simple search on google. www.asa3.org...
Here’s some assumptions made for radiometric dating:

(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.

Good one but if this Roger Wiens was really Christian he would believe the Bible and believe in creation. The Bible is historically accurate. He says nothing new besides existing evolutionist arguments.

reply to post by melatonin

Here’s something about the polystrate trees to help you understand what I'm trying to say:

Creationists believe that rock strata were laid down in rapid succession, rather than over millions of years of time, they assert this because polystrate fossil trees are found to cross numerous different layers of strata: See Rupke, Berg, Morris, and Oard refs below. Also because such trees are found both in and around coals seams throughout the world, they believe that this is evidence for the Biblical flood described in Genesis: See "Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood" ref. below.
Two of the reasons Creationists assert that massive amounts of strata must have been laid down rapidly is the fact that polystrate fossil trees are found crossing numerous layers of strata: including sandstone, shale, clay, and even coal seams; another is because some of the "layers" are the size of Texas.
They also assert this because of the absence of any visible sign of roots in the majority of these trees, and because the trees that do possess roots are almost always truncated. In addition, the stigmaria roots that are sometimes found attached to these type of trees are very commonly missing their rootlets. Stigmaria roots get their name from the fact that they often possess scar marks left behind from the missing (or broken off) rootlets. Stigmaria roots are also usually fragmented and not attached to a tree. Lesquereax described 30-foot thick deposits containing broken up stigmaria roots in Pennsylvania, and said that the strata containing them had no upright fossil trees at all. His conclusion was that they had to have been broken off and redeposited. In addition, most of the rootlets found in the coal strata are buried individually, (i.e. apart from being attached to larger roots or trees).
Only 1 out of 50 such fossil trees possesses both roots and rootlets. This figure is the result of counting the number of trees that were missing their roots as recorded by Dawson in his book, Acadian Geolody. Falcon-Lang also came up with about the same figure. See Berg, Randy S., "The Fossil Forests of Nova Scotia" Parts one and two.
One of the rare trees that did have both roots and rootlets is discussed in detail in Part Two of the above referenced article. The author concluded that it also was probably not in situ because it was filled with white sandstone, while none of the surrounding sediments that buried it, or that were above it were white sandstone, and because other trees in this section were said by Brown to be buried obliquely to the horizontal strata.
Leo Lesquereux said that: "Fragments of Stigmaria, trunks, branches and leaves, are generally found embedded in every kind of compound, clay, shales, sandstone, coal, even limestone, in Carboniferous strata ... They are always in large proportion, far above that of any other remains of coal plants..."
For these and other reasons, creationists argue that virtually none of the upright trees that are buried in the coal strata are in situ.

reply to post by joesomebody


Well, back to the original poster, the 'OP' of this thread. Where is the proof?

And, actually, there are numerous contradictions in the 'Christian Bible', as you call it. Even Genesis has two conflicting stories...and exactly which 'Bible' do you wish to cite? There are so many variations, so many different translations and interpretations...so many, many phrases and 'quotes' taken out of context, while others that are contradictory are ignored...

Creationism, as the OP posited, has no basis in demonstrable fact, only in faith. The ad hominum argument that science relies on faith is patently in error. Science is not about faith...because, as you said, when a hypothesis is found to be faulty, science will seek to modify and further understand whatever concept is currently being studied.

To further your 'tree in the forest' analogy, here's one: God is in the details. Well, I will submit, that there may, indeed, be a 'hand' of some sort...and that is a bif 'IF'!!...to have set this Universe on its course some 15 billion years ago, I will not be so arrogant as to suppose that we humans are some exquisite 'Divine' creation. WE wrote the Bible...it is a collection of tales handed down orally, of fables and allegories repeated for generations, until the invention of codified writing. THEN, these stories were copied, sometimes re-interpreted according to the psyche of the era, and THEN certain passages and stories were used in politically motivated ways.

Remember, for thousands of years, only the elite, the 'priests' and other 'clergy' were allowed to learn to read. The masses were told what to think, and were only told what the powers (churches) wanted them to know. This is not an indictment of Christianity, mind you. It has gone on for ages, well before the birth of Christ...it is an indication of the Human capacity to deceive, and the Human desire to control and maintain power over others.

Since we are on a thread discussing 'Creationism', I think I am safely on-topic when I write this -- lest we forget history, Jesus was prophesied to be the next King of the Jews...

So, in essence, Christianity was a New Religion (2000 yrs ago). But, then it splintered into...let's see, I've lost count by now...dozens of sects?

You see, it is all about politics, in the end. The 'Haves', and the "Have Nots". Before you sling your arrows, and mount a Crusade...I must say for the record, I am not Jewish, so please do not jump to that conclusion based on what I've written. Suppose the best way to describe my thoughts would be...anti-religion. Blind 'Faith' is detrimental to the advancement of Man. Reasoning and logic are better survival skills. We seem to have lost that in the haze of 'Religion' through the centuries...blind faith is equal to relinquishing control over your own fate.

Learning, knowledge, and understanding of how things actually are provide far more substance and comfort than 'hoping' in a Supernatural Being to come in and exert some external force.

What actually gets confused, in these discussions, is the dichotomy between 'religion' and 'spirituality'. My conclusions, over the years, is that an organized 'religion' may guide one to a spiritual path, but usually the 'pomp and circumstance', (or the politics) blur the way. We are best, as Humans, when we decide for ourselves, rather than following the other sheep.

(Why to some Pastors refer to their congregation as a 'flock'?)???

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
I don’t know that cosmic evolution is a random event. It’s possible that nature had somehow caused it but there is no proof. Science has to be proved before it is considered fact so until there is proof you are theorizing. Maybe aliens caused it to explode, who knows? Until there is proof keep dreaming.

OK, that sounds good, actually. So the best we can say is 'we don't know'.

I'm sure it is not random that stars and planets form. It probably is random that they have formed in particular places etc. So, in essence, there are natural 'laws' that determine many of the processes underlying the universe.

So, if we want to raise ideas about what led to this situation, then we are truly in the region of hypothesis. String theory provides some possible ideas (although I'm one of those who suggests it is not a theory, but hypothesis).

Why are you denying that evolution is based on chance? Even Dawkins in the God Delusion generally stated for atheists to embrace the amazing chance of life. You’re the first evolutionist I’ve seen deny the chance involved. The improbability has been proved over and over by mathematicians and scientists alike both creationist and evolutionist. You are denying a scientific and mathematical fact.

I never said that chance wasn't involved, I said that it is not solely random chance. It has both random and non-random characteristics. Mutations are random to the fitness needs of an organism, but the selection of beneficial traits is not random. The changes in the environment that underpin natural selection are also pretty much random to the needs of the organism. Thus, the mechanisms that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs can be considered essentially random to the organism, but the survival of some species would have been not so random.

So, it's not solely random, but it has some random characteristics. For example, if we could go back and run the universe from the first organisms to today multiple times, I doubt we'd find any two overall outcomes to be identical.

When you find evidence that the Big Bang happened

We have that already.

and that proteins formed from soup and that we came from cells let me know and I’ll accept evolution. Right now it is either random chance or God. I choose God.

Again, it depends how you mean random. I tend to think that life in this universe was pretty much a given with the right conditions, but only time will tell (we need to study elsewhere in the universe). If you really mean that evolution was undirected, then I happen to think that was most likely the case.

We already have evidence that the building blocks of life are found in many places, not just on the earth. So we have a few holes to fill. I wait for the evidence to come in, you stuff a god in the gap.

In essence, god = don't know.

You know which calculations I’m talking about. Books have been written about the improbability of an amino acid let alone a protein forming from soup. But here’s some proof from a simple search on google. www.asa3.org...

I'm not sure that link actually supports your position. It appears to be stating that such probability arguments tend to be naff.

This illustrates what I have been trying to say about the phase
space of DNA systems. The problem is not as simple as is
often presented in our arguments against evolution.

Basically the problem is that such arguments show a very poor understanding of evolution. I'll focus on this for you next if you like. What I need you to do is present a normal argument for this idea. The one you have so far isn't, it is actually saying that the arguments are rubbish and simplistic.

Here’s some assumptions made for radiometric dating:

And they mostly hold or can be assessed for each sample. The validity of radiodating has been repeatedly shown, but, again, you have to discard it to prop up your little book. You have the conclusion already, if the evidence says otherwise, it must be wrong because it's all in your little book, and that has to be right, heh.

Good one but if this Roger Wiens was really Christian he would believe the Bible and believe in creation. The Bible is historically accurate. He says nothing new besides existing evolutionist arguments.

So, anyone who doesn't take a fundamentalist approach to the bible is not a real christian. Since when did you determine who is and is not a christian?

The bible is far from completely historically accurate, it isn't even internally consistent. But that's another thread.

..................

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Here’s something about the polystrate trees to help you understand what I'm trying to say

Aye, creationists say and believe a lot. Just above that section of the wiki is the accepted scientific position, it was solved in the 19th century. We already have very good ideas how polystrate trees are formed, we have even seen it happening with telephone poles.

museum.gov.ns.ca...

There is no evidence of your flood, that's why science ignores it. In strata that were supposedly laid down by this magical flood, we have entire ecosystems. So unless your flood stopped for a million years repeatedly to allow such systems to develop, and then carry on, it is just another creationist fantasy.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by melatonin]

I don't see why evolution and creationism can't co-exist. Is it not possible for evolution itself to be intelligently designed? The question is, who or what is the designer? Is the universe itself intelligent? Is the designer some extra-terrestrial biological entity? Are we the designers? what came first, the body or the mind/soul?

Just because the bible may be incorrect does not prove creationism does not exist, at least a nonstandard view anyway. All it proves is that man is fallable and does not have a correct definition of a creator.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by curiousbeliever]

Originally posted by curiousbeliever
Just because the bible may be incorrect does not prove creationism does not exist, at least a nonstandard view anyway.

Now, if you can only get that over to ppk, heh. Many, many people are theistic evolutionists, so I agree that it needn't be one or t'other.

Doesn't float my boat, of course, but it works for the more reality-based theists.

The National Academy of Sciences has just published a book concerning evolution, creationism, and religion. I suggest all of you read it as it is an excellent review of the facts that should be the ground rules for any discussion. It is not prejudicial against any religion or philosophy and you can read it online for free. Here is the link:

www.nap.edu...

I really hate to bring this up, it is scatological...but it is, in fact, truth. 'Everyone poops'!

So, if a 'Creator', who is perfect, could not 'create' an organism (or several million organisms) that cannot excrete waste in a way as well as most plants...I mean, if this 'Creator' invented plants, and everything else...(put your thinking logically hats on here)...then why do we have to excrete fluids and solids?

I am sorry, it is an uncomfortable subject to some, but is is the truth.

Just to add another uncomfortable fact...the human penis serves a dual purpose...what kind of 'Intelligent Design' concept would THAT have come from?? Seriously, we talk about silly stuff, and forget about what we have in OUR OWN BODIES!!

So, Creationists...please tell us how we are so well designed.........

reply to post by weedwhacker


Because the 0ne true creat0r G0d, created the circle 0f life.

You hunt a fish, you prepare the fish, you eat the fish, you use the fish for energy, and the particles of fish that your body was not designed to use are then expelled, and given to other life forms that use the particles of fish we do not. That includes plants, and other entities.

Give away that of which you do not need. 0NE man's trash is another man's treasure.