Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I've read evolution. It was part of the university courses I had to take. You can only show so much in evolution. Evolution is even being debated today amoung it's own...

No it's not...

LINK

Consensus amongst scientists is around 99%

Your post only shows that you believe the 1% who as of yet have yet to provide an evidence against evolution.

Its not but its 1%? lol Which is it? No, or 1%?

What evidence or proof do you have that creationism does not exist?

Remember.. same logic.

reply to post by theRhenn

Originally posted by theRhenn
I've read evolution.

Ok, this isn't a thread about evolution though. Look up at the title, it's about proving creationism/intelligent design.

It was part of the university courses I had to take. You can only show so much in evolution.

Yes, all you can show is biodiversity, which is all it claims to show...

Evolution is even being debated today amoung it's own...

There are more scientists named Steve (or some variation of that name) than there are scientists who reject evolution. It's not really a debate.

Again, what does this have to do with proving creationism?

By the same example, I could say that the proof is just as plain for creationism.

...no, you couldn't. Evolution doesn't have 'plain' proof. It has very complex and elaborate proof as well as simple proof. It also has 150 years of scientific inquiry backing it up.

The "God Code",

What "God Code"?

any organism, any single cell organism for that matter.

How is this proof of creationism? Simply saying "any organism" doesn't prove anything.

Everything is made up of atoms right?

Except atoms, those are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Which are in turn made up of various other subatomic particles.

Compile all those atoms to make an organism.

No, you just really need to compile carbon (one of the most common and the most reactive element in the universe) to make basic life.

"Organisms" weren't even the first forms of life. Proto-life consisted of self-replicating organic molecules.

Give that organism a function.

Organisms don't have functions beyond survive and reproduce.

Even DNA and RNA are pumped out for a purpose.

Yes...to replicate themselves.
But how does any of this prove creationism/ID?

Everything has what we call a central brain or central function...

Um..no...
Where is the 'central brain' or 'central function' of a potato?

Every single living organism. Every single thing has a specific purpose, and if you look at them under a microscope, they are fenominal, and if you could see them in their function, it's mindblowing.

...I have seen amoebas and various other microorganisms under microscopes....

But here's the crazy thing, you keep saying everything has a purpose as if it is a blatant and irrefutable fact....You haven't done anything to prove this silly statement.

Even if you could throw a stack of cards up in the air and they all fall perfectly, one on top of the other, you still had to have someone throw them up in the air in the first place.

Logical fallacy: False analogy.

If you had one grand designer, wouldnt he use the same program or code on all other life, or would you make it all diffrent?

...again, "if" isn't definitive proof, it's speculation. You're here to prove something.

And if you had one grand designer, by what mechanism did it create?

Why are their boundaries between species?

...genetics...

If Evolution is correct, everything is functioning towards a purpose, towards survival, why are their boundaries?

...because of genetics. If I take my reproductive cells and combine them with a gorilla's, they're not going to match up. We have different numbers of chromosomes. We have different pieces of code. The only way for things to match up is to stay in the same species.

Also, straw man, you're putting words in the mouth of a scientific theory....

Viri take over other cells to multiply and mutate, why cant anything else?

...because they're insanely simple and thus it doesn't require a lot of effort for that to happen. Horizontal gene transfer can only occur between incredibly simple species.

Why cant birds mutate and combine with other species like ducks and form a new species?

...well, because spontaneous mutation after birth tends to result in cancer. And combing DNA doesn't work between two complex species. It's very simple genetics.

So with the same concept, I can show that we were created, but some how my facts and your facts arnt the same?

...no, you can't. It's like claiming that evolution requires a crocodock. You're creating a straw man argument and then saying that dismantling it proves your point.

Here's something crazy: disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism

And you don't have any facts, you have conjectures and misunderstanding of science. Facts are something you can provide reference to, it's something I do often. In fact, I do it so much that some people complain that I do it.

What gives your facts credence over any other?

That they are facts while yours are conjecture. You have yet to present a single fact, merely conjectures based on a misunderstanding or ignorance of genetics.

You cant disprove either, by that logic. Or you could prove both.

Well, if we both had contradictory facts, you'd have point. But you haven't provided any facts

It's all relative to what a person believes.

No, it's all relative to what the evidence provides.

It's like anything else. What says your ideas are more proof than another just because you can breed mice with x amount of spots, or eye colors.

...because that is an application of the predictions and evidence of evolution

Please, show me demonstrable results of creationism.

I would think that an all powerful being could write living computer code.

...and I would think an all-powerful kangaroo farted the universe into existence half an hour ago with all things in exactly the position that they are now to mess with us, but that idea is just an ridiculous as your statement if I cannot back it up. Which I can't.

And you have yet to back up (or even define) your claims.



A message to all creationists/intelligent design proponents:

Please define exactly what your position is before randomly spinning off into statements.

reply to post by theRhenn

Originally posted by theRhenn
Its not but its 1%? lol Which is it? No, or 1%?

It's 99.99999%

What evidence or proof do you have that creationism does not exist?

Um...that is not the burden of proof. In science (or any other logical discourse), the burden of proof is upon the claimant. There is ample evidence for evolution, there has yet to be a single shred of evidence presented for creationism.

Remember.. same logic.

No, you're not using logic. Evolution is a 150 year old scientific field that has hundreds of thousand and millions of pieces of research performed, papers published, studies carried out, and all of that has gone through the incredibly difficult rigor of the scientific method and peer review process.

Creationism has yet to make a single scientific claim or provide any evidence.

Originally posted by theRhenn
Its not but its 1%? lol Which is it? No, or 1%?

What evidence or proof do you have that creationism does not exist?

Remember.. same logic.

Like madness said, evolution isn't the topic of the thread as it concerns itself with biodiversity and NOT creation.

Anyway, even if you're a completely brainwashed fundamentalist...and you'd disregard all the hard evidence in the form of fossil records and DNA...and all you want is probabilities, you'd still vote in favor of evolution.

You're locked up in a vault, and there's a bomb in the room with you. The bomb expert you have on the phone tells you that you have to cut one of 2 wires. One is red, the other is green. He tells you that he's 99.9% certain you have to cut the red wire. According to your "logic", you're smile and happily cut the green wire instead. INSANITY!! You are so brainwashed, you're ignoring facts just because they disagree with your belief.

I know trying to reason with you is useless though, because that would require you to think logically and rationally...the very 2 things you ignore when you feel your belief is threatened.

reply to post by theRhenn

I've read evolution. It was part of the university courses I had to take.

What course would that have been? Three optional lectures for extra credit during your first term or semester?

fenominal

I'm guessing your major wasn't English, then.

Edit to add: just in case the above isn't perfectly clear: I don't believe your claim to have studied 'evolution'. Your post makes quite clear you know nothing about it and are simply parroting the usual creationist line.

Show us this proof you say is just as plain for creationism.

The field is still open to any proofs of creationism/intelligent design. Would anyone new like to take a stab where others have failed? Would anyone like to try again?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You put me on the spot with the size of the responce. Good man! Its been alot of years since i've seen such a debate! Sorry it's taken me a few days and some to get back to this as it requires a lil time This is a debate left to fires and wine/brandy heh! For both our sakes, I'll go short form if possible.

Ok, this isn't a thread about evolution though. Look up at the title, it's about proving creationism/intelligent design.

I was mearly responding to ....

I've tried asking creationists what their specific problem is with evolution, only to not get many direct answers and to have my explanations of the problems again get waved away.

I was mearly offering my perspective as a neutral Christian. At least as I can best describe myself. Heh, if I can at all. Your question for why I as a Christian have a problem with evolution. To me it doesnt hold water with my beliefs. I understand it can "possibly" have a place in my world if what I originaly believe is false. But only then can it exist, "possibly" as all things are possible. I dont discredit things that could possibly be true, i just dont pay heed to them untill I see something that "proves" it to me.

Science is the same way. You find proof, then it becomes a fact. Evolution isnt fact to me. It's a theory simply because it doesnt fit into my 6000 year old earth beliefs. For every argument presented to me, I can have a counter argument. As long as a counter exists, I cant sway from the belief I feel is true. You could label me daft, but I've seen what evolution is about and to me and to many, it's just another possibility that goes against the grain so to speak. I'm not saying it didnt happen, I just havn't lived here for 4 billion years to have seen it myself. to believe it. I can say the same about my beliefs, but I can logicly see how everything came to be as it was written. Anyone could say that other civs existed before the hebrews, but the history book that I go by tells me, yes they did exist, but they existed side by side, with hebrew history, albeit nomadic, may have, and to me, did exist prior to. I also believe if you take a thousand years worth of generations, you will have millions of people. It's like starting at one and doubling your pennies every day for a month. You're going to have a million pennies. So all of it seems logical to me that time did exist as we know it, just prior to 6000 years. Every person is intitled to their beliefs. But enough about that.

...no, you couldn't. Evolution doesn't have 'plain' proof. It has very complex and elaborate proof as well as simple proof. It also has 150 years of scientific inquiry backing it up.

I could say the same thing. A Historical Bible, dead sea scrolls, archeology, faith healing, miracles... But, you have to be open to believing those things, just as I would have to be open to believe in evolution. Proof is relative in this way. It all boils down to what a person believes. If you take science for example. You can see the makup of atoms, molecules and what not. We can see that. That is proof to us. This is something that even Christans can believe. Combining gazillions of them together to make a living breathing, thinking, reasoning being has to offer some proof that a Creator existed. So the idea of proof is relative. I say we have proof, you say we do not that it's all hearsay. I say the same, because I've never seen a monkey turn into a man. If we have evolved, then why are monkeys still monkeys if we evolved from them? As the rest of the world, they would have been snuffed out. According to evolution, there was once a world of Dino. When all the Jim Morrisons died out, the lil mammal guys took over the food chain. So in this, we were not just monkeys, we were probably something more similar to a bat that eventually evolved into tree swingers. There way too much of a hole in the idea for me to accept it. According to evolution, and I hate to say this, but would gays and lesbians be a lifeform gone the other way? Too many of one gender so it makes other genders such? Where did this gene originate and why? Wouldnt it be an extinct species had it exist? Where did cancer come from? Was it a purposeful bug put into the system to thin us out? Something of natures crewel joke? There are too many things that I cant apply to evolution. I can see how genes interact and pair up. I can see the way the body works on such a small scale that it amaizes me that it works in the most intellegent ways. Evolution doesnt explain that spark of creation when a creature see's light, or thinks for the first time, or exists as even that simple spark of life.

See, I cant prove creation simply by offering the "blind faith" to you, or what I would believe as proof, but I can ask evolution how it can exist if my laws still apply. In that, I can disprove myself, but I can never offer you more than another subject from a diffrent pair of eyes. I cant tell you what makes me believe this way. I just do. It wasnt pounded in my head as a child. Well, kinda, but I did rebel in a sense, but not quite the way some do. I just looked at what I read from a deeper reason. I cant give you that reason if you dont accept the belief in life.. That one single spark.

What "God Code"?

You know.. the God Gene and Time Magazine

How is this proof of creationism? Simply saying "any organism" doesn't prove anything.

Any organism in the sense that on a molecular scale, we know how every cell acts. We understand how it pumps out "code" to other cells, to create one big breathing factory that is our bodies. We understand and map our own DNA, and now create an organism from nothing at all. (I'll have to get a link for that. It's pretty interesting stuff. I dont condone it by any means. But wow! Look what we can do!

Um..no...
Where is the 'central brain' or 'central function' of a potato?

on an atomic and molecular scale, yes. Dont read in too much, you'll loose yourself

But here's the crazy thing, you keep saying everything has a purpose as if it is a blatant and irrefutable fact....You haven't done anything to prove this silly statement.

Wiki - Cells

Some of the smaller building blocks in life. In everything living. Every one has an internal control system telling it what to do, how to act and react. Something pulls those strings to make everything alive, orderly. The proof I offer has been tried by religious fire for thousands of years of millions of people studying the history of the bible. Evolution existing in creation is as possible as creation existing in evolution. I just simply dont see enough evedence to show proof of it.

Look chum, lets agree to disagree. Evolotion at best, needs a creator to make every living fuction, from one single proten that spontaniously combusted into life one day, billions of years ago... Or any other space in time. There has to be a need for something to exist, otherwise its contridictory to science. There are too many mysteries even in science that has not been explained, and as of yet, cannot. Black holes, we know how they form, but we know nothing beyond the event horizon. The math goes off into infinity. Quantum mechanics. It's the grey zone of observation. Genetics itself. Why does it exist, what purpose. For me, it's my proof of GOD, for others, its proof of how the world just happened in such perfect order for all that we know to exist. My proof is older and has been more contemplated than yours, but you say it's not proof.

Thanks for the responce. Offer up a logical request instead of asking me to explain what I feel no one human being could possess. It's as the lessons in life of all the worlds generations. You ask for proof of creation, everything around you including you is that proof. Delve into the deeper mysteries of chemistry and biology, thats proof if I've ever seen any. Perfection is proof of a flawless world. That world must surely have a creator. Its the resedence that cause the chaos. Life is the only thing in all the universe that doesnt have a set future unless manipulated by life itself.

Good luck with evolution my friend.


ooops left some junk edits

reply to post by theRhenn


Sorry, I've been busy and didn't remember this thread. Here goes.

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You put me on the spot with the size of the responce. Good man! Its been alot of years since i've seen such a debate!

Sorry it's taken me a few days and some to get back to this as it requires a lil time

This is a debate left to fires and wine/brandy heh! For both our sakes, I'll go short form if possible.

Ok.

Ok, this isn't a thread about evolution though. Look up at the title, it's about proving creationism/intelligent design.

I was mearly responding to ....

I've tried asking creationists what their specific problem is with evolution, only to not get many direct answers and to have my explanations of the problems again get waved away.

I was mearly offering my perspective as a neutral Christian. At least as I can best describe myself. Heh, if I can at all.

Alright. But I've actually opened up another thread titled "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!" to address problems with evolution (if any exist).

Your question for why I as a Christian have a problem with evolution.

Nope, not a question for this thread. Please, direct that to other threads, check in my profile if you can't find them in O&C.

To me it doesnt hold water with my beliefs.

So your beliefs are foundational upon a creation myth that you are avoiding the challenge to prove?

And your beliefs are more important than reality?

I understand it can "possibly" have a place in my world if what I originaly believe is false.

Only if you believe that falsifying a single, tiny segment of your religious belief is the most important factor.

But only then can it exist, "possibly" as all things are possible. I dont discredit things that could possibly be true, i just dont pay heed to them untill I see something that "proves" it to me.

...well, check out "Evolution: PROVE IT!"
There's plenty of proof on there.

Science is the same way. You find proof, then it becomes a fact. Evolution isnt fact to me.

Well,...crazy thing is that science isn't dependent upon you. It's dependent upon evidence. Evidence has spoken, it's true.

It's a theory simply because it doesnt fit into my 6000 year old earth beliefs.

Ok, please prove these beliefs. It's sort of why I started this thread.

For every argument presented to me, I can have a counter argument.

An ignorant, nonfactual, or logically fallacious counterargument most likely. Again, if you want to discuss evolution in this manner please go to "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!".

As long as a counter exists, I cant sway from the belief I feel is true.

Whether or not you 'feel' it has no bearing on its validity.
Please, PROVE IT!

You could label me daft, but I've seen what evolution is about and to me and to many, it's just another possibility that goes against the grain so to speak.

Again, not the topic of this thread. Here, let me be helpful and throw out a link to the appropriate thread for that discussion.

I'm not saying it didnt happen, I just havn't lived here for 4 billion years to have seen it myself. to believe it.

Well, you haven't lived for 6000 years either, yet you take that as truth on your personal bias.

I can say the same about my beliefs, but I can logicly see how everything came to be as it was written.

So plants come before the sun?

Again, if there's something logical about creation, PROVE IT!
It's the point of this cursed thread.

Anyone could say that other civs existed before the hebrews, but the history book that I go by tells me, yes they did exist, but they existed side by side, with hebrew history, albeit nomadic, may have, and to me, did exist prior to.

And there are things that existed more than 6000 years ago. Hell, I've seen them, touched them. I live in a country filled with them.

I also believe if you take a thousand years worth of generations, you will have millions of people.

Not unless you have modern medical technology and modern agriculture....again, please provide evidence rather than conjecture.

It's like starting at one and doubling your pennies every day for a month. You're going to have a million pennies. So all of it seems logical to me that time did exist as we know it, just prior to 6000 years.

Except that you aren't giving anything logical, you're just assuming. There isn't any mathematical structure or any accounting for high levels of infant mortality, low levels of access to food, high death rates from disease and injury, or anything else that would utterly destroy that argument.

Pennies don't age, pennies don't get injured, pennies don't die in the womb, pennies don't die shortly after birth, pennies don't starve, etc.

Every person is intitled to their beliefs. But enough about that.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs are equal.

...no, you couldn't. Evolution doesn't have 'plain' proof. It has very complex and elaborate proof as well as simple proof. It also has 150 years of scientific inquiry backing it up.

I could say the same thing.

No, you couldn't.

And again, not the thread for evolution. I already provided the right link for that one.

A Historical Bible,

The Bible is not historical. Please, provide evidence that it is.

dead sea scrolls,

Are the oldest version of parts of the Bible that we have...and they're not all that old.

archeology,

Doesn't support the Bible and definitely doesn't support the 6000 year old Earth belief.

faith healing,

Is unproven. Unless you can show evidence of it.

miracles...

Also unproven, unless you can show evidence for it.

But, you have to be open to believing those things, just as I would have to be open to believe in evolution.

I'm open to believe in anything, but I'm not going to accept them without evidence. I can provide evidence for evolution. I can prove a lot of evidence for it. Some of that evidence is here, but that is hardly a definitive list.

Proof is relative in this way.

No, it really isn't. If proof were relative we wouldn't have science and we definitely wouldn't be able to argue about this electronically incredibly long distances.

It all boils down to what a person believes.

No, it really doesn't.
Evidence is objective, belief is subjective. You have no evidence, I have evidence

If you take science for example. You can see the makup of atoms, molecules and what not. We can see that. That is proof to us.

And there's just as much evidence in support of evolution and in contradiction of the 6000 year old Earth, you just ignore it.

This is something that even Christans can believe. Combining gazillions of them together to make a living breathing, thinking, reasoning being has to offer some proof that a Creator existed.

....how?
How is it proof that a "Creator" existed? And why are you capitalizing an improper noun? Oh, it's because it's your "Creator" and not a Hindu one.

So the idea of proof is relative.

No, no it isn't. A hundred times no.

I say we have proof, you say we do not that it's all hearsay.

You say you have proof, but you do not provide it. Hence I say it is hearsay. I want to see it. This thread is over 640 posts long without any proof of creationism being put forward.

I say the same, because I've never seen a monkey turn into a man.

*headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk*

Ok, I must remain calm....
Before I begin, follow the above link to the proper threads for discussion of evolution.

Ok.
Ok, so. Evolution is a species level phenomenon that operates over generations, not within lifespans. A monkey turning into a man would actually disprove evolution, as it would be a massive genetic change within an individual rather than over a period of several generations within a lineage.

If we have evolved, then why are monkeys still monkeys if we evolved from them?

*headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk*

Ok, calming down.

1: We didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.
2: Because they survive and reproduce. Species change, even if they are similar over many generations.

As the rest of the world, they would have been snuffed out.

Nope. There are still sharks. Sure, not the same sharks, but sharks.

According to evolution, there was once a world of Dino. When all the Jim Morrisons died out, the lil mammal guys took over the food chain.

...no...
See, this is why I can't take creationists seriously 90% of the time. You say you have all of these arguments against evolution when they're all based on your personal ignorance of the subject of evolution!

And dinosaurs didn't die out so much as they changed. We have enough evidence to show that dinosaurs have modern descendants, we call them birds.

So in this, we were not just monkeys, we were probably something more similar to a bat that eventually evolved into tree swingers.

...argument from ignorance of evolution...the phylogeny of mammals doesn't include such a change.
Also, what does any of this do to prove creationism?

There way too much of a hole in the idea for me to accept it.

...of course there's a hole in it, you just made it up from your ignorance of the topic at hand. Please, research evolution before you actually attempt to refute it. And refute it in the appropriate threads. This is a thread for people to attempt to prove creationism.

According to evolution, and I hate to say this, but would gays and lesbians be a lifeform gone the other way?

Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom.

Too many of one gender so it makes other genders such? Where did this gene originate and why?

...mutation.

Again, how does any of this address the title of this thread?

Wouldnt it be an extinct species had it exist?

...homosexuals aren't a species.

Where did cancer come from?

Cancer is something that results from bad copying of DNA between cells. It happens on the organism level.

Was it a purposeful bug put into the system to thin us out? Something of natures crewel joke?

No, it's a sign that biological processes aren't perfect.

There are too many things that I cant apply to evolution.

Because you clearly do not understand biology or evolutionary theory.

I can see how genes interact and pair up.

How does that point to creationism?

I can see the way the body works on such a small scale that it amaizes me that it works in the most intellegent ways.

So your personal incredulity means evolution cannot be real and therefore creationism? That's not a logical argument.

Evolution doesnt explain that spark of creation when a creature see's light, or thinks for the first time, or exists as even that simple spark of life.

...evolution explains biodiversity. That's all the theory does. That's all it has ever done.

See, I cant prove creation simply by offering the "blind faith" to you, or what I would believe as proof,

Well, I don't accept blind faith. But I could look at proof.

but I can ask evolution how it can exist if my laws still apply.

Well, you can fabricate all the 'laws' you want, they'll still be fabrications.

In that, I can disprove myself, but I can never offer you more than another subject from a diffrent pair of eyes. I cant tell you what makes me believe this way. I just do.

And I don't because it's a baseless assumption rather than science. And clearly your rejection of the alternative is based on ignorance.

It wasnt pounded in my head as a child. Well, kinda, but I did rebel in a sense, but not quite the way some do. I just looked at what I read from a deeper reason. I cant give you that reason if you dont accept the belief in life.. That one single spark.

...again, this doesn't state anything. Life isn't a 'single spark'. Life is something that's even difficult to define.

What "God Code"?

You know.. the God Gene

It's criticized in the link you provide

PZ Meyers says it best within that criticism.

t's a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.'

and Time Magazine

Time magazine is hardly a scientific publication.

How is this proof of creationism? Simply saying "any organism" doesn't prove anything.

Any organism in the sense that on a molecular scale, we know how every cell acts.

I'm sorry, but a lot of cells behave differently....and how does that prove creationism?

We understand how it pumps out "code" to other cells, to create one big breathing factory that is our bodies.

Yes, very simple self-replicating code. But again, how is this proof of creationism?

We understand and map our own DNA, and now create an organism from nothing at all. (I'll have to get a link for that. It's pretty interesting stuff. I dont condone it by any means. But wow! Look what we can do!

Once more, how does this prove creationism?

Um..no...
Where is the 'central brain' or 'central function' of a potato?

on an atomic and molecular scale, yes. Dont read in too much, you'll loose yourself

...I didn't ask a yes or no question. I asked where the 'central brain' or 'central function' of a potato was, there's no answer. On an atomic structure it's made of carbon, hydrogen, water, some phosphorous etc. No central brain, no function.

But here's the crazy thing, you keep saying everything has a purpose as if it is a blatant and irrefutable fact....You haven't done anything to prove this silly statement.

Wiki - Cells

...ok, where's the purpose? Please, provide a purpose, not a link to a wikipedia article on 'cells'.

Some of the smaller building blocks in life. In everything living. Every one has an internal control system telling it what to do, how to act and react. Something pulls those strings to make everything alive, orderly.

Again, where's the purpose?

The proof I offer has been tried by religious fire for thousands of years of millions of people studying the history of the bible.

...by people who accept the Bible. The people who study the Bible without accepting it as fact in the first place are quick to reject it as silly nonsense. Look at the story of creation in the Bible and it has all sorts of things that go directly against reality as we know it.

Evolution existing in creation is as possible as creation existing in evolution. I just simply dont see enough evedence to show proof of it.

...and I can provide it but you won't accept it.

Look chum, lets agree to disagree.

Nope. Won't. I can't let this sort of ignorance perpetuate itself.

Evolotion at best, needs a creator to make every living fuction, from one single proten that spontaniously combusted into life one day, billions of years ago... Or any other space in time.

No, a thousand times no it doesn't. Evolution can exist in a purely materialistic world. You have not provided any evidence that it requires divine intervention.

There has to be a need for something to exist, otherwise its contridictory to science.

No, there really doesn't. Saying 'There has to be a need for something to exist' doesn't make it true.
Things exist. We know they exist. They don't need a purpose. Nothing in science says there has to be a need.

Again, more ignorance

There are too many mysteries even in science that has not been explained, and as of yet, cannot.

Yes, science is all about works in progress.

Black holes, we know how they form, but we know nothing beyond the event horizon. The math goes off into infinity. Quantum mechanics. It's the grey zone of observation.

Citationless ramblings the prove an ignorance of science.

Genetics itself. Why does it exist, what purpose.

...genetics? Genetics exist because the compounds formed together. Now, some scientists think that genetic information was the precursor to life while others think that proto-life existed without genetic function. But we're not 100% sure.

And again, you've yet to provide a single piece of evidence that 'purpose' is required.

For me, it's my proof of GOD, for others, its proof of how the world just happened in such perfect order for all that we know to exist.

...so your proof is....a god of the gaps argument. We don't know, therefore god. good to know.

My proof is older and has been more contemplated than yours, but you say it's not proof.

It is not proof, it's ignorance. It's purely ignorance. We are ignorant of something, therefore god.

You proof is older, sure, and it has been contemplated and rejected many times over. Therefore, not good enough.

Offer up a logical request instead of asking me to explain what I feel no one human being could possess.

I did offer up a lot of logical requests. You've yet to provide anything logical.

And again, explain it. If no one human being could possess the explanation, look for the works of many.

It's as the lessons in life of all the worlds generations. You ask for proof of creation, everything around you including you is that proof.

...no, it isn't. The universe is proof of the universe and all of the things we've found in science are explanations of that universe. Please demonstrate to me how any of that proves creationism.

Delve into the deeper mysteries of chemistry and biology, thats proof if I've ever seen any.

....you clearly haven't delved into chemistry or biology. Hell, you parroted the ignorant line about monkeys. You clearly don't know the first things about biology or chemistry as you've demonstrated for all to see.

Perfection is proof of a flawless world. That world must surely have a creator.

Nothing in our universe is perfect or flawless. And again, please provide demonstrable evidence that the creator must exist.

Its the resedence that cause the chaos. Life is the only thing in all the universe that doesnt have a set future unless manipulated by life itself.

...again, more illogical ramblings without evidence or facts.

Good luck with evolution my friend.

...I don't need luck. I'd suggest you try reading on it, as you clearly are ignorant of even the most basic premises of evolution.

Oops, posted this in the wrong thread. I would however like to bump this thread with yet another call for creationists to actually try and prove their position to me.

I'm up to the possibility that you're right, so long as you can prove it.

A call once more, evolution deniers/creationists, please back up your claims that creationism is a valid scientific theory with evidence that proves that you have a theory. I'm not even asking for you to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm asking you to provide a level of evidence that would bump your ideas to competing with the naturalistic ones.

Wow I can not believe it. Why do I think, this is honest to goodness, real life, commercial for beer?

Less filling

Tastes great

P.S. (laughing uncontrollably in the corner)

reply to post by Ubeen


Hey look, a silly troll comment that acts as if the attempts of creationists to have a narrow, purely religious view taught in schools without scientific rigor isn't an important issue.

Bumping this thread again, as there seem to be plenty of creationists out there still thinking that the ol' "If I disprove evolution, creationism is right!" argument stands. It doesn't. You have to prove your claim separately and then explain how it explains the phenomenon better than any present established theories that explain those phenomeon.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Let me make up my own theory of evolution in order to refute it,,,bbl

im back

if the evolution is true, why don't we see flies turning into humans, wouldn't that disprove evolution?

besides, things are so pretty

this is why the flying spaghetti monster exist, and the proof for it exist because i believe it

am i religious yet?

Originally posted by uva3021

if the evolution is true, why don't we see flies turning into humans, wouldn't that disprove evolution?

I've seen better than that.
While I was driving the other day I turned into a side street.
And I've seen a man turn into a pub.
And granny turned and turned in a evolving door! By the time she'd finished evolving her knees had stopped working and she couldn't advance any further as an unsupported biped.

Come on guys, this isn't the improv

Seriously, when are the creationists going to step up and provide some actual evidence for their theory? I mean, if it's so obviously true...why would they need to just take dishonest pot-shots at evolution?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The theory of evolution has been taught for yonks without the need of any law to enable its teaching.
Along with any other important, observable physical phenomena, good science teachers want to help students understand it.

If there was any proof of creationism or I.D., there would be no need for a law to facilitate its teaching.

Ok, I'll bite.

But first, you have to give a coherent, clear, and scientific explanation for the following scripture.

Wisdom of Solomon, Apocrypha (KJV) Chapter 7:17-21

17: For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:
18: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:
19: The circuits of years, and the positions of stars:
20: The natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts: the violence of winds, and the reasonings of men: the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots:
21: And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know.

First and foremost, you must completely discredit that the sun has a differential rotation. Because, after all, it is mentioned in the Bible. The literal, word for word, description is that the sun rotates, but has an altered rotation.


How in the heck would King Solomon have known that? Even when King James ordered the scriptures to be translated into English ... SOHO didn't exist. Well, telescopes maybe ... but there were no imaging devices available at the time to measure the sun's differential rotation.

Do I need to remind you that it was "science" that declared the earth was flat, not the Bible. The Bible states that the earth was round.


When you have explained to me how it is King Solomon had a secret SOHO observatory he carried around under his tunic, then maybe you can argue against irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer

What a clever idea. Find a phrase in the Bible, misinterpret it in an attempt to prove the writer had uncanny knowledge of science, draw the conclusion from this that "Solomon had a secret SOHO observatory he carried around under his tunic", and state that the only way to prove this wrong is to prove the sun does not have a differential rotation!

Did you think this one up for yourself, or get it from some creationist site?

You do realise, I hope, that Wisdom of Solomon was not written by Solomon?

Wisdom of Solomon 10

After considering various scholarly positions on key issues concerning the Wisdom of
Solomon, I have concluded that the book was most likely composed in Greek by an unknown
Alexandrian Jew. Pseudo-Solomon’s work may be dated to any time in the early Roman era,
namely, from 30 B.C. to A.D. 41, but this dating is ultimately uncertain.

The phrase, "the alterations of the turning of the sun" (Wisdom 7:18) is referring to the apparent changing movement of the sun as it circles the earth and causes the changes in seasons as its orbit moves from one hemisphere to the other. At least that's what the bible describes.

From Rabbinical scriptures:

Berakoth 59b

Our Rabbis taught: He who sees the sun at its turning point,3 the moon in its power,4 the planets in their orbits,5 and the signs of the zodiac in their orderly progress,6 should say: Blessed be He who has wrought the work of creation. And when [does this happen]?7 — Abaye said: Every twenty-eight years when the cycle8 begins again and the Nisan [Spring] equinox falls in Saturn on the evening of Tuesday,9 going into Wednesday.

(The following note is based on material supplied by the late Dr. W. M. Feldman, M.D., B.S., F.R.C.P., F.R.A.S., F.R.S. (Edin.), shortly before his death on July 1st, 1939.)

3)# In its apparent motion in the ecliptic, the sun has four ‘turning points’ which mark the beginnings of the four respective seasons. These points are generically referred to as the tekufoth (sing. tekufah). They are: the two equinoctial points when the sun crosses the equator at the beginning of spring and autumn respectively, and ‘turns’ from one side of the equator to the other; and the two solstices, when the sun is at its maximum distance, or declination, from the equator, at one or other side of it, at the beginning of summer and winter respectively, and instead of progressively increasing its declination it ‘turns’ to decrease it progressively. (It may be mentioned that the term ‘tekufah’ is also used not only for the beginning of a season but for the whole of the season itself.)

The translation of Wisdom 7:18 you use is unique to the King James version, which, although grand and poetic, is not always as accurate as it could be.
Other translations make the meaning much clearer.

Wisdom 7:18

1769 King James Version
The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:

(New Revised Standard w/ Apocrypha)
the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons,

New American Bible
The beginning and the end and the midpoint of times, the changes in the sun's course and the variations of the seasons.

Douay Rheims Bible
The beginning, and ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of seasons,

All this verse proves is that the author believed the sun circled the earth in a varying orbit.

How very clever, claim the Wisdom of Solomon was mistransliterated by someone other than Solomon (and they, indeed, HAD to mistranslate).

Yeah, I get it.

It happened by "magic".