How to prove creationism FAKE

This thread was created because of its counterpart "How to prove evolution FAKE". He is referring to the people that flat out dismiss evolution despite the mountains of evidence behind it. Race alone proves evolution, not to mention the dozen or so other hominid species that lived before and during humans reign. People like to pretend like the last 10,000 years of human history is all that existed, but humans go back 200,000, and hominids as whole go back 2.5 million years plus. What happened during that time? Why doesn't the bible mention all these other races of intelligent bipedal creatures and their civilizations? Creationism (the extreme literal version) proves itself fake when its proponents make outright false claims about science. No need to even say a word.

reply to post by Barcs


Well okay but evolution alone doesn't fit the bill either. If evolution could prove itself beyond a shadow of doubt there would be no arguments but it doesn't, it cannot, never has, never will. Evolution without creation is an absurdity and so is creation without evolution. What is even more absurd is that neither side will concede an inch.
Religion repels the one while atheism repels the other. You have to laugh.

Originally posted by Shema
reply to post by Barcs

 

Religion repels the one while atheism repels the other. You have to laugh.

Not really, that is just a false division both sides of the crazy train like to put forward. Both sides "win" arguments by the use of strawmen.
Creationists argue abiogenesis
Evolutionists argue evolition
The stupid goes both ways.
"Evolutionists think that there was nothing and then life came and turned into people"
"Creationists think god put everything on earth all at once"

reply to post by Barcs


I believe modern Homo Sapiens goes back 500,000 years...that alone disproves creationism, which says - what? All of Earth's history happened over the course of 6,000 years? Even if we give it breathing room and say 50,000 years. Doesn't add up. Sorry "God", but you gotta sell a better lie than that bucket of horse crap. You wouldn't last 10 seconds in a court room.

Originally posted by Shema
reply to post by Barcs

 

Well okay but evolution alone doesn't fit the bill either. If evolution could prove itself beyond a shadow of doubt there would be no arguments but it doesn't, it cannot, never has, never will. Evolution without creation is an absurdity and so is creation without evolution. What is even more absurd is that neither side will concede an inch.
Religion repels the one while atheism repels the other. You have to laugh.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. One can easily agree with evolution and still have faith in a creator / god / higher power. They are compatible unless you're a bible literalist. Saying it doesn't fit the bill is false. It is so obvious and apparent based on the evidence and has been proven in the scientific community. They might not know every single detail about evolution, but the process itself is observable and measurable and is NOT up for debate in the scientific community. The small details are what are being debated. Common ancestry is a slam dunk in the fossil record and in genetics. To suggest evolution requires creation is not even close to accurate. Thus far there is no link to a higher power or god, or any evidence to suggest a creator is required for evolution to take place. Sure, there could be one, but thus far natural explanations are the only objective evidence we have.

"Evolutionists think that there was nothing and then life came and turned into people"
"Creationists think god put everything on earth all at once"

What is an evolutionist? It's a false term made up by creationists to suggest that it requires faith. Try evolutionary biologist. You know, the people that actually study evolution and do experiments with the process. No, they don't automatically believe there was nothing and then life came. Suggesting that is absurd. They "believe" that life changes over time and adapts to the environment and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. There is no argument or debate. Creationists rely on faith, evolutionary biologists rely on scientific experiments. Tangible evidence vs a guess.

I was raised to believe in a creator, and all of the 6,000 years Mumbo Jumbo. Recently I sat back, and started to research Evolution to see if it was at all verifiable. It was mind blowing how much stuff I found, it wasn't at all the experience I thought it would be. Endogenous Retrovirus trials in different species, goose bumps, Reptilian similarities in a developing human embryo, and much much more, it hit me like a ton of bricks, evolution was real.

Now many people say that evolution is a cold dark way to live, in fact that has what I was taught to think, because they have nothing to live for. To that I say bah. It is so much more colorful, heck if you really think about every living thing on the planet is related, how is that not magnificent.

I am still somewhat an in the closet about all of this, because I know it would devastate all those close ones around me, but in time I will get the guts to reveal my new perspective. I just don't understand that with all of the information and resources that we have, why haven't more people been able to do what I have done, is it really that hard?

reply to post by Shema

If evolution could prove itself beyond a shadow of doubt there would be no arguments but it doesn't, it cannot, never has, never will.

No scientific theory is ever proven. Gravitational theory, heliocentric theory, atomic theory, germ theory, circuit theory... none proven. The only one people seem to like to draw attention to as being some kind of a special case when it clearly isn't is the theory of evolution. The phenomenon of evolution, like that of gravity or of the layout of our solar system or of atoms, is an observable one. And, regardless of how objectively evidenced a phenomenon is, there will always be naysayers. There are still people today who believe our planet to be flat. Does this mean it's not really an oblate spheroid, because someone happens to disagree? No, it just means that there will always be people who are willing to ignore the evidence.

reply to post by Khedwulf


I agree. People try to say that evolution without a creator is a pessimistic viewpoint and makes life purposeless, but I don't think that's true at all. At this point in time, humans are the pinnacle of 3 billion year process. We are the most successful species on the planet right now, and have out survived millions upon millions of other species to get where we are today and are hands down the smartest creature on the planet. That is HUGE, and is a much greater accomplishment than being thrown on this planet by a magical super powerful being. It gives life MUCH MORE meaning.

Here we go again.

For you and the other people who post things they heard, yet never took the time to find out the truth.
THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS HOW OLD THE EARTH IS!
In fact according to the Bible, the earth can be billions of years old.
But that's for another day when I feel like posting the same thing again for the 6,000th time (pun intended).

reply to post by GunzCoty


Correct, but people calculate the 6000 year thing by adding up the lineages in the bible, so it does have a biblical reference point. It also makes a boatload of assumptions, however and really only applies in the minds of the extreme literalists.

reply to post by Barcs


You can only try to backtrack to Adam.
The Bible makes it clear that Adam was immortal, that's why he was kicked out of the garden and the tree (or was it water?) of life was put under guard.

He did not name every animal, bang Eve, have kids and then sin all in one day.
And what of Lilith? If that is true (most likely is) then she had enough kids to kill 100 (or 1,000 can't remember) per day. Adam would of had to be with her for a very long time to have that many kids.

The world was full before, and had better technology than us, all lost to time and world ending events. The same would/could/may happen to us and in a few thousand years there will be little to no trace of us.

reply to post by Sublimecraft

Text Cain killed Abel, then asked to be marked so that he would not be killed by all the others. He also married. That is in the bible as well. Where did all of these folks come from that Cain was referring to?

@ Sublinecraft

Good question. Guess it depends upon which religion, if any, you come from. The Hebrew bible belongs to the Hebrews and not the Gentiles. The Gentiles simply borrowed the Hebrew bible, old testament, and liked it so well that they stole it and put it with their own Greek bible which is the new testament.

Some of the Hebrews (Jews of today) will insist that to understand much of Torah you must also include oral with written Torah. Oral Torah is available through the internet and not a big secret. As Cain was born so he had a twin sister and as Able was born so he too had a twin sister. The time came for these young people to procreate and in order to do this they must procreate among themselves as the seed of Adam. In all reality Adam was a tribal chief.

Able wanted Cain to mate with Able's twin and Able to mate with Cain's twin but Cain did not agree and rebelled.
Adam called upon his Creator God to settle the matter so that peace should be restored to the family. God then presented His decision in the following manner. Both boys would bring their sacrifice of choice to the alter of God and God would consume the offering that pleased Him and that ones offering that He consumed would be that ones choice in this matter. The sacrifice or blood letting was not incorporated into their way of life at this time. God would be the one who first taught the art of sacrifice. Cain brought fruit from the land and Able brought a choice selection from his flock of (we assume sheep). God choose the animal of Able as the most pleasing.

It is taught that a sacrifice would be to deprive your self of something of high value or the highest value. It was not regarded as though God wanted blood but only that God knew that Cain knowingly withheld a more valuable gift than that of Able. So God consumed Able's gift of sacrifice above Cain's gift and the matter was closed. Able would marry Cain's twin and Cain would marry Able's twin. This irritated Cain to the point that he killed his brother through anger.

Then the story thickens as God confronted Cain for the murder. At this time in the history of Adam there was no blood spilled upon the new creation to defile the land. It is taught that Cain did not realize what murder or loss of life was. Cain simply lost his temper and picked up a rock and beat his brother to death. It was not regarded as a premeditated murder or even that Cain understood what death or murder actually was. Law had not as yet been instituted in the lives of the people so in all reality Cain did not break any law. This is why Cain's life was not required by God. Now after this death of Able the entire picture changes. All of Adam's tribe knows how to murder from now on.

That is why a mark was put on Cain to protect him from future generations doing the same to him. This mark was now a warning from God that murder will not be tolerated among the people and that future murder would be dealt with severely. Cain then was sentenced to live in the earth and not among the tribal people.

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Hope this explains what some people believe. Not saying that we know the truth of the story but only that this is what we believe as to be concerning Cain and Able. It is also believed that Cain killed Able in the year 41 after the creation of Adam. Adam and Eve then waited 89 more years and sired Seth. So during those 89 years you can see that Cain had about three generations and many children in the earth ahead of brother Seth.

reply to post by Barcs

Text People like to pretend like the last 10,000 years of human history is all that existed, but humans go back 200,000, and hominids as whole go back 2.5 million years plus. What happened during that time? Why doesn't the bible mention all these other races of intelligent bipedal creatures and their civilizations? Creationism (the extreme literal version) proves itself fake when its proponents make outright false claims about science. No need to even say a word.

@ Barc

Hi Barc. You may be correct but then it is a matter of theology right? What I mean by that is that some people believe differently than you do. Not saying that you are wrong but only that we have to see things different because that is the way the mind works.

Now Barc you and I both know, regardless of our differences, that two and one half million years is an unprovable theory at the best. I just do not understand where anyone can spout these vast times as fact. Even two hundred thousand years is a vast amount of unprovable time.

The Hebrew literature does not go back that far simply because the Hebrew bible has a permanent or fixed time line of the Adamic civilization. If the Hebrews bounced all over the place pulling numbers out of the blue then they would not have a fixed time line. It could very well be that other civilizations were created before the Adamic civilization but those previous civilizations have nothing to say concerning this civilization that we have today.

I admit that I do not know the age of life and that DNA could very well entail other civilizations. After all we are all created from the same terrestrial substance but we may not all be from Adam. Simply because some of DNA matches other species is not provable that the patterns are the same at the beginning of those creations. You and i have blood but your blood may very well be a different type as mine is. That same process could very well apply to many other aspects of our bodies. Even though we may have the likeness of DNA proves nothing as to our true pattern.

As far as your two and one half million years is concerned, how can you state that without a time line of the beginning of the count? If the start of the count was one million years then you are a million and a half years off.count and that is the problem. There are all sorts of bogus books out there that one cannot agree with the other and schools of learning choose exactly what they want you to believe as fact. Compare the books of schools from even one term to another and see the vastness of change in schooling. You have bought into exactly what some religionistes have also bought into. A bible for every need and a science book for every need.

Adam and Eve are the time line of Adamic civilization of which we are today. The Hebrew outside books such as Midrash and Talmud are also consulted as being in line with the Jewish Time Line so as you can see that the Hebrews do have a count beginning and that if they stray from that count then they have shown that they are pulling numbers out of the sky. This differs from the Gentile religions who have thousands of commentaries and hundreds of authorizations of their hundreds more denominations that it becomes mind boggling to even sort out their facts of dates. Yet they all insist that they are correct and the other is wrong. Theoretical science is the same. They are many men with many different views and it depends upon exactly who you happen to believe. You buy the book and you believe what you are taught.

Originally posted by Seede
Now Barc you and I both know, regardless of our differences, that two and one half million years is an unprovable theory at the best. I just do not understand where anyone can spout these vast times as fact. Even two hundred thousand years is a vast amount of unprovable time.

What do you mean, "unprovable at best"? We can date the rocks we get these fossils and bones from. Sure we can't prove EXACTLY how old they are because we don't have absolute knowledge about every creature to ever live on the planet, but the dating methods have around a 1% error margin, which isn't that high. If you wish to claim the dating methods used by science are fake or inaccurate, you'd need to present evidence of that. And no, they don't claim humans are exactly 200,000 years old. They say "at least".

As far as your two and one half million years is concerned, how can you state that without a time line of the beginning of the count? If the start of the count was one million years then you are a million and a half years off.count and that is the problem.

We date organisms based on the oldest found fossil. A species could always be older than the estimate because we don't have full knowledge, but it definitely can't be younger since we already found one going back further. If it was originally 1 million years, it was because the oldest hominid fossil we had at the time was one million years. This is why they always use the phrase "at least xxxx years old". Dates can often get pushed back but they never move forward. That's how dating works.

There are all sorts of bogus books out there that one cannot agree with the other and schools of learning choose exactly what they want you to believe as fact. Compare the books of schools from even one term to another and see the vastness of change in schooling. You have bought into exactly what some religionistes have also bought into. A bible for every need and a science book for every need.

Do you have examples of the aforementioned books? Where do they just choose to believe things as facts that aren't backed by science? Science evolves as new knowledge is a available. Things are constantly changing, and evolving in science, so it makes sense to change the text books as we learn more. Would you prefer that they never changed and still had 1850 science material, like the archaic outdated bible?

Adam and Eve are the time line of Adamic civilization of which we are today. The Hebrew outside books such as Midrash and Talmud are also consulted as being in line with the Jewish Time Line so as you can see that the Hebrews do have a count beginning and that if they stray from that count then they have shown that they are pulling numbers out of the sky. This differs from the Gentile religions who have thousands of commentaries and hundreds of authorizations of their hundreds more denominations that it becomes mind boggling to even sort out their facts of dates. Yet they all insist that they are correct and the other is wrong. Theoretical science is the same. They are many men with many different views and it depends upon exactly who you happen to believe. You buy the book and you believe what you are taught.

Science and religion are not the same. One is based on facts and repeated experiments. One is a guess that was written by man thousands of years ago to reflect the belief system at the time. I don't understand the need to lump them together as if they are on equal footing when that isn't even close to the case.

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
Okay, I want to look at this from the creationist point of view. The Earth was created 6,000 years ago. On the sixth day of creation, Adam and Eve were brought into existence. From these two individuals we have all of mankind. So, exactly which race were Adam and Eve?

When we look at the world today, how many different races do we have that are visibly and genetically different? There are Caucasian, African, Middle Eastern, Indian, Asian, Polynesian, Native American and many others. If everyone is descended from two individuals, how do we have such a wide diversity of people? Since evolution or 'change over time' does not exist, were there more than one set of Adam and Eve, one for each race?

Just explain how this is not change over time happening within our own species.

A couple of things to help understand what scripture reveals to be true.

1. The Earth is NOT 6000 years old, the current version of it is; is was recreated 6000 years ago in order to support the creation of mankind upon it. Before the events of Genesis 2 begin the Earth was created innitially when the universe was; several billions of years ago, as a result of a war among the spiritual realm leading up to Genesis 2, the orignal Earth was destroyed and no life lived upon it (ELE). God had to recreate the Earth in order for mankind to be placed upon it to live a physical existance. So yes, this current version of the Earth is only 600 years old, but the celestial body of this planet is far older according to scripture.

2. Eve was created (not born of man) by God, in her where the genetic material for the races of men, she did not have the limited genetic code her children did, regarding the developement of ovums in her uterus.

3. After the flood, Noah and his three sons and their wives were all that existed on Earth, Noah's son Ham was married to a dark woman (Naamah) and fathered the dark races after the flood (Cush, Canaan etc.), Japhath was married to an asiatic woman and fathered the asian races, and Seth was married to a light woman and fathered the white races. After 3 generations the world was created as 70 distict genetic races (70 great grandchildren of Noah), it was during this generation that the tower of Babel was destroyed and the 70 nations of peoples were dispursed around the world, into 70 different languages which served to seperate the genetic variations according to God's will through communication.

4. Also it is believed that genetic mutation could also have been used naturally to create beautiful variation among the species, according to God's will.

Look into radio carbon dating and why it is not a reliable form of dating materials found. These things I bring up are not without physical data to back up, if you remove the theory from the findings.

God Bless,

Originally posted by Barcs

What do you mean, "unprovable at best"? We can date the rocks we get these fossils and bones from. Sure we can't prove EXACTLY how old they are because we don't have absolute knowledge about every creature to ever live on the planet, but the dating methods have around a 1% error margin, which isn't that high. If you wish to claim the dating methods used by science are fake or inaccurate, you'd need to present evidence of that. And no, they don't claim humans are exactly 200,000 years old. They say "at least".

We date organisms based on the oldest found fossil. A species could always be older than the estimate because we don't have full knowledge, but it definitely can't be younger since we already found one going back further. If it was originally 1 million years, it was because the oldest hominid fossil we had at the time was one million years. This is why they always use the phrase "at least xxxx years old". Dates can often get pushed back but they never move forward. That's how dating works.

"Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.



While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.



Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.



The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic."

www.essortment.com... - SOURCE

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

Fail.

Radiocarbon dating isn't used to date fossils. Or rocks. Or any non carbonaceous material.

Try again.

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld


I wonder if selective breeding is understood,

I know personally two men, they're old friends of the family, The oldest one is light skinned you'd think he was from europe, the second man is dark skinned he looks as if he was from egypt or india.
They're both brothers same mother and father, but two different skin colors.
Their sons take after their fathers. the sons of the light skin man are lights skinned and their sons as well.
The sons of the darker man also take after their own father, though a little lighter due to their mom.and the grandsons lighter due to their moms as well.

they're Hispanic *mexican immigrants, who are descendants from spanish immigrants* not mestizo or any native from mexico. so how did that happen.....MAGIC!!!

no, human DNA has the potential for all the different skin colors and other features.
of course the more mixed you are the higher the potential for a more varied offspring.

try breeding pigeons or chickens and then pics a specific trait, then build up on that trait and you'll understand how we get blacks, asians, caucasians and the whole mix in between.

if you don't get it then, try this trick:
run real fast towards a cement wall,
then lower your head, and don't stop.
*i cannot be held liable for damages obtained*

if that doesn't work read up on genetics and the hovind theory. unless you're just trolling and don't care to actually come to the truth.

reply to post by iterationzero


You shouldn't bad mouth radioactive dating, thats how i found out my book *how to program C++ in 15 days* is a time traveler from the past. It's over 20,000 years old give or take a few days. the chicken i ate yesterday is ancient also.

science, it's a search for the truth, not denying it.

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
Okay, I want to look at this from the creationist point of view. The Earth was created 6,000 years ago. On the sixth day of creation, Adam and Eve were brought into existence. From these two individuals we have all of mankind. So, exactly which race were Adam and Eve?

When we look at the world today, how many different races do we have that are visibly and genetically different? There are Caucasian, African, Middle Eastern, Indian, Asian, Polynesian, Native American and many others. If everyone is descended from two individuals, how do we have such a wide diversity of people? Since evolution or 'change over time' does not exist, were there more than one set of Adam and Eve, one for each race?

Just explain how this is not change over time happening within our own species.

How does evolution explain it.
Christians dont deny adaptation. Most deny that a puddle of water and mud sparked life and eventually the many human races all evolved from that puddle of mud.

Micro evolution is Repeatable Testable and Observable. It doesnt show a frog birthing a cat though.

I would think Adam and Eve were Chinese. Just a guess.