Creationists, what is your case for proving creationism?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
This is a topic for those creationists on here who believe that creationism is just as scientifically valid as evolution.

As per the title, without referring to the theory of evolution or any religious text, please can you set out your scientific hypothesis, along with the relevant supporting evidence, as to how life on Earth came to be?




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Well for me the way I have always looked at the two is that everything was created and then evolved. I dont know how to explain this or why but this is how I see things. I mean doesnt something have to be created first to evolve? Like I said it's just my own opinion and I have nothing to back it up, it's just my theory.
S&F



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I think that our biggest evidence is "where did it all start"?

I dont mean earth or even life on earth, i'm talking about the whole universe. Something had to have brought the universe into exsistence and it was not evolution.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
I think that our biggest evidence is "where did it all start"?

I dont mean earth or even life on earth, i'm talking about the whole universe. Something had to have brought the universe into exsistence and it was not evolution.


What was before god?

This argument doesn't work as no one knows what was before the big bang just as no one knows where god came from and what was before he was.

Lets continue.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
No way to "prove" creationism. My opinion is evolution cannot take into account the complexity of our universe. The eye for example, or maybe the human brain. NO way could evolution account for what it took to create(evolve) the complexity of the eye. And as noted evolution, is just a theory.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
I think that our biggest evidence is "where did it all start"?


That's not evidence though, that's a question. I could just as easily say that everything is cyclical and therefore there is no start. However me saying that doesn't make it so.


I dont mean earth or even life on earth, i'm talking about the whole universe. Something had to have brought the universe into exsistence and it was not evolution.


Again, even if we consider evolution to be false and take it out of the picture that in itself does not constitute evidence for any other explanation.

Edit - Ok, people keep talking about evolution. Evolution has no place in this thread, there is no need to talk about it whether you agree with it or not. All that is required is for those who believe creationism is a science to evidence this claim.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
For me its when i thought about the 4 dimensions: Height, Length, Width and Energy.

If you draw up the three dimensions Height, Length and Width. Where would you have to put in the Energy and Matter?

Then think about how would it get there?

Then think about what the three dimensions of space are. Are they related to energy and matter?

It cant be if science is always talking about expansion.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I look at the universe as an fish tank.
First some one build the fish tank, then the 'creator' of the fish tank 'put' in what him/they want in it !!

Sounds stupid, but, the wormholes are used by some one to come here and make changes and rebuild things....


Or, it is all just an chaos smacking together some thing we look upon as 'intelligence' ..



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
This is my humble opinion.

What is my case for proving it? Faith.

Because science and scientists' alike, all throughout history can not explain why things happen. They put a label on a phenomenon and say its a true theory. Prove me wrong.

Thats the problem. We can't explain it, so we label it and its right? Wrong.

Example: We can't see what holds the planets in orbit, we can only conclude that its an event beyond logic. Giving it a name, gravity. So therefore, its not a God thing at all. We gave it a name, no God needed.

See my point? Basically, science was created to prove the non-existance of God. We don't need the presence of God to explain anything.
Why? I have no clue.

Creationism is exactly that. An -ism. A theory.

I don't believe in labels. God is before and after. Period. Creator of all things. I don't need an explanation. He started this, He will end it.

Now flame on, flamers.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Ohh, so now, just because humans 'label' it, it is not by god ??
What if that is how it happens? they tow the planets to their desired orbit and leave it there..

There are new things the scientists are wrong about alot lately, so they are basing their speculations that may be wrong from the start, and that creates a long chain of errors and faults in the 'understanding' of things !!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


we wouldnt use scientific hypothesis to prove a point because as we know science cant prove anything can it, it doesnt have all of the answers, its constantly changes, yet the book that has been brought from god has all of the answers,and thats are proof not to mention the qurran stated there was seven layers in the atmosphere several thousand years ago which science just discovered, just take the knowledge from the bible and the qurran we know its accurate no need to check it. ehhh



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


I think you misunderstood me. I think that we label things according to what we think it is. Not saying we are right or wrong.

Thats the problem. We don't know if its right, we just think that it is.

Has nothing to do with God.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Look around the world is just too beautiful for it to have happend out of nowhere. Everything is so perfectly designed that it had to be the work of a Creator.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I appreciate people giving their beliefs but as interesting as they are it’s not what I’m asking for.

In essence what I want is a “theory of creation”. Saying “I believe that there must have been a creator” or “its faith” isn’t good enough, what is your evidence, that’s what I’m asking for.

Many times I have read on here that creationism is scientifically valid. This is supposed to be a chance for those people to provide the evidence for this.

If it’s just faith, or you accept there is no evidence then this thread isn’t for you.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
the qurran stated there was seven layers in the atmosphere several thousand years ago which science just discovered, just take the knowledge from the bible and the qurran we know its accurate no need to check it. ehhh



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
The only evidence that I can give is the notion that everything is in perfect balance. With outer space, if you look around, there is calm, and chaos.

Harmony. The notion of perfection is evidence enough for me to believe creationism. Look around. Well, look around at nature. It is perfect, down to the smallest neurons, and sub-particles. Everything is controlled by some force, or some energy. Thats the Creator.

Better?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
The only evidence that I can give is the notion that everything is in perfect balance. With outer space, if you look around, there is calm, and chaos.

Harmony. The notion of perfection is evidence enough for me to believe creationism. Look around. Well, look around at nature. It is perfect, down to the smallest neurons, and sub-particles. Everything is controlled by some force, or some energy. Thats the Creator.

Better?


well that seems to be better but there is the holy spirit and god so just some energy wont do its god is the creator, holy spirit is his active force but thats a different topic.


i gave him proof in the post above this one. their is only one way they would have known about the seven layers in the atmosphere that is; god or one of his angels. no other explanation for it is their obcourse he will ignore that information asking for proof but that is the proof.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Ok this is very interesting as it has been pointed out that religious texts are not allowed and scientific proof is needed to justify the belief.? Is that what you want us to do? Provide a theory of creationism and then back it up with scientific proof or provide a plausible theory?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 




Everything is related to zero = Nothing

In other words existence / zero.

Zero is what makes everything change no matter what it is.

Zero cant ever become -1 or 1 it will always be 0. But Zero will always try and change -1 and 1 to = 0
-1 cant change 0 to become anything ever.
1 cant change 0 to become anything ever.

If zero exists who put in the - and the + ?

Did + and - always exist?

Prove it


Question what is the difference between + and - and where would you find 0 ?

If you have + and - you have to have 0.

So a absolute vacuum must exist.

This is the proof that you need to figure out that 0 came first and that + and - was created.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


I know. I didn't want to bring up religious texts again. I like your posts. I fully agree.

Trust me, the ultimate evidence is found through God.
I guess the OP is looking for evidence that without some form of text, can't be given.

But then again, neither can evolution.





top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join