Creationists, what is your case for proving creationism?

I think you need to define 'evidence'. A video of the creator building the universe could be attacked as phony. An eyewitness could be attacked as unreliable. Self-evident I don't believe will fly with you but if you look at an automobile you would never think it came about by chance molecular collision. Most man made things are obviously made by intelligent beings. Do we need evidence of Detroit to prove people make cars? Which, of course, are a zillion times less complicated than a human being.

Originally posted by dakota1s2
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.

Ah, the beauty of google, and youtube.

Interesting debate on the subject

reply to post by peaceonearth


A God who created our Universe would have to be very complex.
If one can believe that such a being 'simply exists', can't one also believe that our Universe, infinitely less complex than a Divine Creator, may also 'simply exist'?
The argument you presented is inherently flawed on several levels.
It assumes that energy requires intelligence to go 'boom'.
It assumes that we can accurately ponder something outside our realm (that is outside our Universe and outside the restrictions of time).
It assumes this energy is named "God".
It assumes the 1st law of thermodynamics must have always existed as such and that it applies not only to this Universe but whatever may lie beyond.

Dawkins?? Richard Dawkins??
Proof he cannot back up his theories.

Yes the beauty of Google and Youtube
[edit on 30-8-2009 by peaceonearth]

[edit on 30-8-2009 by peaceonearth]

You cannot separate religious overtones from creationism.

That said, I believe in evolution...As God created his universe to constantly change. It would be very boring if everything was always the same. Just remember that God gave us Reason not religion.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 30-8-2009 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by solomons path




Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate?
How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child?
Why does cross pollentation exist/work?
How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record?(Since Evolutionary Biology doesn't exist - they can't be transitional fossils right?)
How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding?

These should be simple enough . . .

If any creationist can explain these mechanisms with either theory or mathematics, I would be more inclined to believe.

Also . . . I will be disappointed to see any explinations that use the bible (or philosophy) as "proof" . . . since the bible is not a science book. Also would be disappointed to see any references to exposed charleton/con-man/felon Kent Hovind.

check out other videos by this same guy to find out more

Originally posted by Jim Scott


1. Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate? Mutation is a destructive force. A virus is arrested by a white blood cell because the wbc can connect with it. If it cannot, the virus is free to multiply. If, for example, you were a virus and you had two feet and two arms, you could link up with me, a wbc, because my two feet and two arms would grab yours. If, however, I could not link with you because you lost an arm, you would be free to multiply. Your loss of an arm is a mutation. It is not an improvement, but allows you to multiply.

2. How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child? Recessive genes. Science says we are all related if you go back about 1500 years. Hence, you have the genes of many ancestors. When you have children, you roll the DNA dice. What comes up is not always predictable. One fellow I knew had a recessive gene for a disease. So happened his wife did, too. Neither knew it, but their child was born with it.

3. Why does cross-pollination exist/work? Plants give life to their seed. The seed establishes that there will be cross-pollination.

4. How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record? The world had 70 phyla, now has 30. We are in a process of extinction, not evolution.

5. How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding? Prediction is not always occurring. Rather, one hopes for the proper outcome. Sometimes you don't get what you want.

So, how does any of this point to creationism. Seems like common sense answers to me. How was this proven to be so and how was the creator responsible? Also you, more than once, allude to de-evolution. Is this a tenant or law of creationism? Since created, the universe is in a state of decay? Leading to what? Why the opinion of decay, if the universe was created perfectly and the was no change (evolution means to change through growth; better is value judgement).

1. So, when this virus loses the arm and multiplies . . . It's not the genetic code of the creator that is passed on to the multitudes. It's the new imperfect code? Does the creator re-write this code or is it simply the duplication of the imperfect DNA? I thought creationism says that we were all made in our perfect forms (panda as pandas, virus as virus). If that's true, should each new virus be in the written in the creator's orignal code? I don't see how this points to a creator? How is this different than evolution? The virus changed (evolved) to take up a more advantagous position, within it's environment.

2. Actually, it's much further back than 1500 years. Some claim, through mitochondrial DNA, that we can trace back to a few thousand ancestors at 70000 yrs ago (Toba explosion).
Here
But, other geneticists say there is no evidence to support the claim that we can track back to any common ancestry.
Here

As for the gene explanation, still sounds like my understanding of evolutiion . . . What has the creator done to effect this outcome?

3. So how does this account for how we can manipulate breeds through the this method? Pandas can't mate with Apes. Oak trees don't mix with Pine trees. Why has the creator made it so flowering plants can cross-pollinate? Seeds ensure cross-pollination? Seems a bit simplistic and doesn't really explain the process. Is this natural occurance a perversion of creation?

4. So the fact the 99% of every species to ever populate the earth are now extinct explains "flawed" (transitional) fossils? How does this fatalistic view explain fossils like Archeopterix? How does creationism account for for the morphology between different taxa? Was the creator just randomly combining codes from different taxa like a chef would in the kitchen . . . just to see what would happen? And again, coupled with a the rarity of fossils, how does extinction explain changes in the fossil record?

5. If prediction wasn't always occuring how did we master animal husbandry? How have people become quite adept at getting what they want? It can be observed every day. If you want cows that produce a lot of milk, you breed them with other cows that produce a lot of milk. Over a couple generations, all your cows are producing a lot of milk. Sure there will be exceptions, but you can not breed them and will eventually be left with a population of cows who only produce a lot of milk. Humans have been perfecting this for about 7000 years or so. The creationist claim is that it has been based on hope? That we've just been lucky? I certainly don't see how this claim is testable at all.

To be honest they all sound like common sense evolution . . . if not truncated. How does any of this support the creationist hypothesis that life was created in it's perfect form? How does this support the ID hypothesis that an intelligent agent designed us to a specific form? How does any of this differ from evolution?

A fantastic Video

multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu...

Where did the information come from?

reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE

Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one. ~ Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion.