Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

You might be surprised by the outcome TzarChasm.

No offence mate, but i sincerely doubt that. We have heard ALL of the things you probably are going to say 1000 times before.
Do you not think that if there was ACTUAL proof it would be earth shattering news...instead of it being on a crappy forum, posted by one guy.

None taken my friend. It's going to be a friendly conversation among ATSer's from a different point of view. As for proof, I prefer to use the word evidence as it lend support to my argument that God is the originator (creator) of life.

Unfortunately due to my (present) work schedule, I'm only able to post the thread after the 24th. Hence my comments here are just dribs and drabs. Hopefully by then I can be fully engage in the discussion.

ciao.

In other words....you have nothing.

If you did, you would present it all.

If Our universe is 13,79 billion years old. What void was Our universe made up of 17 billion years ago?

If God is infinite why did he decide to make something only a few thousand years ago?

originally posted by: spy66

If Our universe is 13,79 billion years old. What void was Our universe made up of 17 billion years ago?

Nobody has any idea

Is it where gods are hanging out these days?

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2

Links are just to show that blue whales have been seen to mate in the wild.

Your links say such a sighting has never been documented. If you have any evidence to contradict that, post it. Nobody on this thread is going to believe a word of what you say without evidence now.

If you want to argue with that then I can't help you.

On the contrary, you've helped prove me right, destroyed your own credibility and scored another own goal against Creationism.

I should thank you, really. You've done my work for me.

(High King) Astyanax, I couldn't care less about Creationism or about winning. If you think you won, then more power to you and for that congratulations. But what I care most is the truth and the evidence that supports it. Hence like I said, I think I'll just create my own thread and present the evidence there, then have you or anyone else give your best to debunk it - that is show that the evidence for Creation or to be exact Biblical Creation is/are not factual, not logical nor even scientific. I'm sure with your super intellect and that as you said I "destroyed my own credibility" this will be a cake walk for you. But we'll have to see, but in meantime, you have the podium. bye.

that thread already exists, and you are in it, right now. many other similar versions of this thread also exist, some also with you in them, and the results are identical across the board:

Science = 1

Creationism = 0

but dont let that keep you from trying. just warn us first so we can have the snacks and drinks ready.

You might be surprised by the outcome TzarChasm.

No offence mate, but i sincerely doubt that. We have heard ALL of the things you probably are going to say 1000 times before.
Do you not think that if there was ACTUAL proof it would be earth shattering news...instead of it being on a crappy forum, posted by one guy.

None taken my friend. It's going to be a friendly conversation among ATSer's from a different point of view. As for proof, I prefer to use the word evidence as it lend support to my argument that God is the originator (creator) of life.

Unfortunately due to my (present) work schedule, I'm only able to post the thread after the 24th. Hence my comments here are just dribs and drabs. Hopefully by then I can be fully engage in the discussion.

ciao.

In other words....you have nothing.

If you did, you would present it all.

If Our universe is 13,79 billion years old. What void was Our universe made up of 17 billion years ago?

If God is infinite why did he decide to make something only a few thousand years ago?

Did God actually decide to make something only a few thousand years ago? You have to be prity religious to believe God did that.

What, where and when God decided...... and what we think God did are to different Things. That is why we have topics like this.

Only on fact is true. Our universe is either billions of years old or it is only a few thousand years old. It cant be both.

The other fact is.... religious believers have to.... even if they are wrong about the facts.....they are instructed by their Lord God to have faith in their understanding no matter how silly it is.

And if i am not mistaken Lord God is the fallen one. Lord God is not the true creator.
Lord God hijacked Gods creation in Genesis Chapter 2. And start to take Gods honor. And it is because of Lord God... peopel are way of track when it comes to creation.

originally posted by: r0xor
The evidence for creation is that the universe even exists to begin with; that a big bang even happened.

You can flip the logic because according to physics, # can't just spring out of thin air (in opposition to creationism).

Well, if that's true, then why is there anything at all, such as matter, planets, stars, even the vacuum of space? Oh, the Big Bang you say. This happened, then that, over billions of years. Okay, I agree. But before that, how did the first matter ever form? It's not logically explainable, which is why the Big Bang theory even exists; which is why this thread exists.

So then, # can spontaneously form out of thin air through some complex process called the Big Bang, but God can't do it. If # can't be spontaneously created ever, then all matter which exists has always existed, for infinity.

Either something can come out of nothing, or it can't. If it can't, why does anything exist, ever? The space in which matter sits in the form of beings and objects, how did the space form. It always was there, infinity eons ago? Was it there before the "Big Bang"?

Interesting. We cam only base our arguements on the physical evidence available, and our level of understandment of the environment we live in. We are aware that a Big Bang did occur because the heat signatur of that explosion was discovered. As far as we know now, everything that physically exists today within the known universe, came from this explosion. The material ejected during this "expansion" , including it's speed, composition, and tempurature, eventually formed into what makes up the contents of the Universe today. I believe both camps aknowledge this currently as fact.

The blueprints for the formation of life, in my opinion, must have existed within the material that was ejected during the Big Bang. It was able to exist despite size, speed or tempurature conditions. We know that this material eventually spread out in all directions amongst the vastness of empty space, formed into base elements, formed into stars, which grouped themselves into galaxies. We currently know that hundreds of billions of galaxies exist.

It has become almost foolish amongst the scientific community to believe that life only exists on the planet Earth. I agree. I believe that life can form wherever the conditions exist for it too evolve. Remember, Earth had a vastly different atmospheric content when life is thought to have first come into existance here. It has evolved, despite mass extinctions, planatery wide geological changes, and asteroidal impacts. Evolution of life, once it has been created, is a fact, because the physical information we have gathered together proves it. How the blueprints of life are activated, be it on Earth, or any other planet, is an absolute unknown process to us. Pan spermia cannot be the ultimate answer in my opinion, ( although it makes sense that it could happen occasionally) because the basis for all life must trace back to the Big Bang, and that life material is everywhere.

We frankly don't know enough about the true environment we live in. Invisable forces are all around us. Some, we can detect, such as gravity. Others, such as Dark Energy, are barely out of of the theoretic world. We are just starting to grasp what the world of Quantim Physics is, and lets be frank, there is some bizarre elements there that are mindbending. There may be other realms (for lack of a better word) that exist since the beginning of time itself that we haven't a freaking clue about, including the spiritual. Perhaps one, more, or all of the environmental forces and conditions must be in place before life is created. We don't know as of yet, but I do predict that we shall eventually find the answer. When we do, I believe it will elevate us as a species.

After coming back and reading over the thread, I've found some excellent responses. Thankyou everyone who's participated. Here's what I've found to be the most common answer when I've posed the question in the op to people.. interestingly I had a visit from Jehovah's witnesses a few days after posting this thread, and they held the same opinion..

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: spygeek

I believe in creationism... I also believe in evolution as in integral part of the Creator's creation. I don't have any evidence, just a basic understanding that everything comes from somewhere, and that there are too many "accidents" and/or "coincidences" involved for life to be just another happy biological "accident" or "coincidence."

This is essentially an argument by assertion; ie "too many 'coincidences' and 'accidents' are required for life to evolve, thus it must have been created by an intelligent deity". Unfortunately this is not an argument at all, just an opinion. It is the scientific view, as many have pointed out, that life is inevitable in a universe with the fundamental physical laws of ours. Life isn't really a coincidence or accident at all, it's simply what you can expect to happen given the age and composition of the universe..

"This belief that Darwinian evolution is random is not merely false, it is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe. The most important ingredient is cumulative selection, which is quintessentially non-random." -Richard Dawkins

"Everything comes from somewhere, nothing comes from nothing", is another logical fallacy often used in this debate, besides the fact that there is no such thing as " nothing", it is also an argument from assertion based on an improper knowledge of working scientific theory..

As pointed out by fockewulf190 in his informative post, "We are aware that a Big Bang did occur because the heat signatur of that explosion was discovered. As far as we know now, everything that physically exists today within the known universe, came from this explosion. The material ejected during this "expansion" , including it's speed, composition, and tempurature, eventually formed into what makes up the contents of the Universe today."

The counter argument is often composed of "so what somewhere did the big bang come from?", but this is not only moving the goalposts from the creation or evolution of life through divine intervention or abiogenesis to the origin of the universe itself, it also is an argument from assertion and again tied up with the initial argument of "everything is too complex to not have been created".

I don't have to completely understand it to know that it is. I don't know how electricity works, but I know that it is. I don't understand exactly how weather happens, but I know that it does. Much the same way no one really understands exactly how/why evolution occurs.

Aside from the point that we do pretty much know exactly how evolution occurs, and that the "why" is superficial..

Do you know enough about "creation" to know that it was created? Can the same principle of "evolution occurs whether you understand it or not" be applied to creationism? I'm not so sure it can. You can observe electricity, the weather, and evolution working and know that they do without an understanding of the minutiae, but until we can observe the creation of new life we cannot say it was divinely created with the same certainty.. We know it is entirely possible for abiogenesis to occur, we cannot say the same of creationism.

Here's my question: Why do you care what I believe? How is it any skin off your back if I believe in creationism? I don't care why you believe in evolution but not creationism. Neither one of us can unequivocally prove either creationism or evolution. So what's the point? (Other than to poke and provoke those who do believe of course).

We can and have unequivocally proven that evolution occurs, and that abiogenesis is possible, we cannot as yet say the same for creationism.. Aside from that, I am just interested in learning what other people believe and why they believe what they do.. I enjoy a good debate, and I appreciate a well thought out counter argument..

I am seriously asking. Why do you care? Should I just dismiss such questions as an effort to poke and provoke those who dare to believe differently than you? Or is there a practical purpose for your question?

I care because I do. I am interested in what my fellow man thinks, and why he thinks it. It would be foolish to go through life knowing nothing of other people's beliefs and ideas, never understanding my neighbours' point of view and remaining ignorant of the nature of humanity outside my little life.

I do indeed ask these questions with the intention to poke people and provoke informed discussion, that is the purpose of this thread, along with a desire to learn and increase my practical knowledge of humanity and what makes it tick.. I also care very strongly about whether my fellow humans' beliefs are based in sound logic and critical thinking. If our younger generations are being taught unscientific or illogical ideas as absolute truth, it does not bode well for our evolution as a species. I care that humanity has and continues to make the same mistakes over and over again as if there would ever be a different outcome, and i care that our children and their children not only learn the true value of objective reasoning and the questioning of authority, but also the value of scientific understanding and what it means to our true place in the universe. I sense a level of defensiveness in this last bit of your reply and I have become acquainted with it quite a bit when asking creationists what proof they have to support the claim outside a bible or creation myth.

“I am against creationism being taught in schools because there is empirical evidence that it is a silly notion... I am passionately concerned about the rise in pseudo-science; in beliefs in alternative medicine; in creationism. The idea that somehow it is based on logic, on rational arguments, but it's not. It doesn't stand up to empirical evidence.
I will be vocal on issues where religion impacts on people's lives in a way that I don't agree with – if, for instance, in faith schools some of the teaching of religion suggests the children might have homophobic views or views that are intolerant towards other belief systems." -Jim Al-Khalili

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction." -Judith Hayes

"Our own genomes carry the story of evolution, written in DNA, the language of molecular genetics, and the narrative is unmistakable." -Kenneth R. Miller

"It is an extremely common question, if we are descended from apes why haven’t all the apes turned into humans? We are all cousins. We are not descended from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and humans are descended from a common ancestor who lived about 6 million years ago. It would be a bit like saying, if Americans come from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?" -Richard Dawkins

Science’s capacity, without equal, is to remove, as far as possible, our own urges to delude ourselves.