Creationism theory or story?

Theory

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

Creationism is literally the exact opposite of this. It has no evidence, only claims. Creationist use claims based off of theories that actual, hard working scientists construct. You have to prove yourself first before you can disprove something else.


Evolution is completely observable, despite the dogma that creationists circulate throughout these forums.


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...
Coevolution


What observable evidence does a creationist have?

both.

Neither.

reply to post by Tony4211


It's very real, and most definitely includes evolution in some form.

The Genesis version is the kind of history summed up into one sentence and then twisted to suit. So that then becomes a story too...

OK, it's both.

Read the Ancient Sumerian writings. Or the Epic of Atra-hasis.

reply to post by avatar01


How so? A theory is backed by scientific evidence and creationism has none.

reply to post by DanteMustDie


What is it?

What observable evidence does a creationist have?

The answer is none.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.
We take a position of faith which for a believer is evidence of things unseen. If God left proof of creation, tell me would faith be required? No. Having faith in something is believing it is true because the source said it was true. Not by the source proving it is true.

reply to post by micmerci


Faith... no evidence... creationism.... false... sorry Thank you for helping me out!

reply to post by Tony4211


I am not trying to prove anything. You either have faith in God or you do not. It is very simple.

reply to post by micmerci


This thread is about displaying observable evidence for Creationism. Not your personal belief in a supernatural god.

reply to post by Tony4211


I would say it's a theory based solely on a bunch of stories, making it a very scientifically unreliable theory. The inflation and evolutionary theories have scientific evidence backing them, creationism has some old books of magical stories.

Tough choice, huh?

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by micmerci

 

This thread is about displaying observable evidence for Creationism. Not your personal belief in a supernatural god.

OK then I will condense my answer so that it will be understandable at a fifth grade reading level. A creationist cannot display observable evidence for creationism.

reply to post by micmerci


Very well. You have no business posting if you are not going to contribute to the original post.

reply to post by Tony4211


I think I contributed an answer to the question that you posed.

reply to post by micmerci


My question was: What observable evidence does a creationist have?

and you said, as expected:

What observable evidence does a creationist have?

The answer is none.

What is the contribution? Your lack of evidence? The point of this thread is to show that a creationist has no right to say evolution is wrong because they have no observable evidence (which it obviously does), while at the same time itself has no observable evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by micmerci

 

My question was: What observable evidence does a creationist have?

and you said, as expected:

What observable evidence does a creationist have?

The answer is none.

What is the contribution? Your lack of evidence?

I hardly believe that you expected my response to be that a creationist does not have observable evidence for creation! I think it more likely that you expected some half cocked pseudoscience fundamental Christian attempt at "proving" creation.
Tell me, why would you expect a response from a christian to be that we have no observable evidence to support our stance?
What creationists do have are evidences that serve to refute the Evolutionist stance, not evidence of creation .

Is that a little better?

What is the contribution? Your lack of evidence?

Both!

First of all, why does it have to be one or the other? Second, Physics, string theory etc.. can only be calculated to a certain point. Many die-hard physicist will tell you that they believe in a spiritual aspect. For beyond their calculations...they just don't know. Possibly our feeble minds cannot comprehend the intricacies. Perhaps if there is no word for it...we do not know it.

Next let's look at Darwinism. Evolution by derivation and survival of the fittest. It's all good and well...on every single species except man...it doesn't apply!

reply to post by Tony4211


Tell me something OP. Have you personally run all of the proper experiments, and kept proper notes? Have you personally observed evolution in process? And are you a peer-reviewed scientist capable of making these studies on your own?

OR. Have you just read and studied the books, and became convinced the evidence presented to you was the truth of how our species came to be?

Because if it is the latter, then you are living by faith that the evidence presented to you is honest, truthful, factual, and repeatable. And those who presented this evidence to you are beyond reproach.

I am neither a creationist, nor a christian. And although I don't completely discount evolution, I don't take it as gospel either. But even if I did, it would have to be by faith, since I haven't run all the experiments myself. Nor would I understand how for that matter.

reply to post by Klassified


Well stated! I think that is the main difference between most creationists and evolutionists. Creationists are willing to admit that it boils down to faith. That is the point I was trying to make to the OP but I think he was just looking for a fight.

reply to post by blazenresearcher

First of all, why does it have to be one or the other?

Because, a theory has truth to it and is widely accepted in the scientific community. It has been peer-reviewed by many different scientists so biased opinions do not overrule. A story, or religion, is based off of a set beliefs.

Many die-hard physicist will tell you that they believe in a spiritual aspect.

Spirituality does not mean close to god. Physicists become spiritual because of their knowledge of nature. Does that mean that all physicists are atheists? No Does that mean that those that believe in god are correct? No, because they still have no observable evidence.

on every single species except man...it doesn't apply!

How do you come to this conclusion? Are you 100 percent certain of that claim, or are you just perpetuating lies you hear? Just because there are gaps in the species leading up to us, does not prove it's non-existence. At one point in time they could not link whales with their four-legged ancestors, yet now they can.