Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

a reply to: Rexamus

Both picked up their ball and went home when challenged to back up their assertions (classic creationist tactic).

If you consider expecting people to back up their claims with evidence "trolling" then I'm not sure discussion forums are the place for you.

Now you're claiming the poor creationists making bogus claims are being "picked on"? Can you show me on the doll where the big, bad science touched you?

Are you yourself going to present any evidence as requested in the OP or would that be such a terrible thing to ask?

So, here we are, 5 pages in: lots of dodging and ducking from the creationist camp, ZERO evidence presented. Typical.

Whoa! This thread derailed quickly. I was almost afraid to offer a response as I feel I would be attacked for trying to answer the op... "Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us."

So w/o snarkiness or saying you are wrong (there is nothing wrong btw, you asked a question, not a statement), I will endevour to offer what I can.

It is true that there is a great multitude of evidence that supports evolution as is explained in the way we view something as fact (science).

But for creationism there is simply no evidence that follows the same belief pattern (science).

Esoteric messages from the minds of "enlightened" man is not what we would call absolute truth since it is not science.
There of course was a time that science had a different meaning, whereas creationism could be explained and believed as fact - to some.

As science grew, and no further hard evidence of a creator surfaced, we are now in the conundrum of a shift in the definition of a word, and that the new definition cannot support the esoteric.

We would simply now a days need some proof of creator and over rule science - be it aliens, be it angels, be it some god walks among us. Until this happens, creationism cannot be viewed as a possibility. So the word "faith" is our definition word for how creationism can be real. And so if a person's faith believes in creationism, it is in a different language and is misunderstood by science.

Now lets explore creationism a little futher.... while there is no evidence to support we were created, we can see that through science we are creating the future. Genetic manipulation of plants, animals by breeding, selective pollination, straight up gene splicing. Today's watermelon wasn't the same as 300 years ago, neither was corn, neither is that tiny toy poodle in women's hand-bags - such things as these didn't evolve, but were created by us with the understanding of science. We did not create something out of nothing, we merely made it different. But we are creating what will be here in the future. And if we happen to modify a microbe and plant it on mars to see if it grows, we would definitely be the creator, and in definition creationism would exist.

Short answer... we do not have proof of OUR own creation beginning if science is the language to describe it. There needs to be more proof in science.

originally posted by: Rexamus
What a troll. This question is fair enough and a good ATS topic, but Hyped, you came in here looking for an argument and someone to pick on. The two main contributors to this post on the side of intelligent design (Boadicea & CharlieSpeirs) have been very respectable and civil and honestly you've been nothing but a bully to them, trying to impose your opinion. And when they aren't accepted you throw a fit. It's been asked many times in this thread, what's it to you if these individual believe in a form of intelligent design? They aren't trying to cram it down your throat, so why are you doing exactly that all over this thread? Chill out "bro", it doesn't affect your life at all what these folks think, so maybe cut back on the attacks a little bit.

clearly, you havent yet visited the thread that inspired this one. you might have a little more understanding of the general impatience with which such members have been treated, as they have repeatedly and adamantly refused the very thing they keep asking for, and using that refusal as grounds for self-affirmation. highly illogical in light of the copious evidence and proofs that have been provided (and ignored) on a monthly basis for as long as ATS has been around.

have a look for yourself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but krazysh0t makes an excellent point, this thread is likely to end the same as every other on this exact subject: an unabashed stalemate. nothing new to see here.

a reply to: Xtrozero

a reply to: Barcs

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, it just gets old when folks constantly attack science and evolution, yet don't hold their own personal beliefs to the same standard and tell others that their worldview is fact. I'm not saying you have done this, but this is why the thread was created.

I never attacked evolution and I don't want to attack evolution. Thank God for evolution!!! As I said earlier, I believe in a combination of creationism and evolution. I have never claimed anything as fact -- exactly the opposite. Neither have I attacked anyone else for their opinion re evolution or creationism. I would have been quite happy to discuss it reasonably... but not to argue and be attacked, which is exactly what has happened. So my question to the OP was answered.

Fortunately, I have had other, very reasonable, very thoughtful, even very pleasant exchanges with others that disagree with me to one extent or another. So I try to keep it all in perspective. Flattering for some; not so flattering for others.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

but krazysh0t makes an excellent point, this thread is likely to end the same as every other on this exact subject: an unabashed stalemate. nothing new to see here.

Because it's a loaded thread subject, it asks for proof of something "we've" yet been able to definitively prove. If there's no God, I guess we'll all have to deal with it, lol, everyone dies, so they'll see .. or not see.

We can't even get human beings onto another planet in our solar system, yet we want to argue over the formation of the universe? lulz. Sure, I'm ignorant, but in this case .. so are all of you, Muahahaha!



So, you were saying.. on the topic of providing proof of the creation of the universe, etc?

a reply to: Phantom423

Maybe you can come up with 156,000+ research papers supporting Creationism.

Nope. Won't even try. I have no desire to convince you or anyone else of anything.

Once again, I invite you to debate. ]

No, thank you. I won't debate. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not up to the challenge, and I could not do the subject justice.

Inquiring minds would like to know the answers to these questions.

Who is going to give us proof? Please, we're all ears.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Boadicea

You seem to think that doubling down when your position is refuted constitutes a "discussion". Don't be so ridiculous.

No more than you seem to think that doubling down on your browbeating when your demands are rejected constitutes a "discussion." Don't be so ridiculous.

I tell you what: instead of continually dragging the thread off-topic, why don't you contribute to the "discussion" by posting some evidence to support your position?

I tell you what: instead of continually dragging the thread off-topic, why don't you stop addressing me?

a reply to: Boadicea

i have a particular distaste for those who like to fuse creationism with evolution. my reasoning is quite simple: in such cases, creationism uses evolution the way a floundering child uses flotation devices to remain afloat in water. because thats the only way their hypothesis of creationism can function, by propping itself up with the credibility of other unrelated theories. "to make up for what my hypothesis lacks in terms of actual evidence, Im going to stuff its gaping holes with all the work YOU did and all the evidence YOU acquired to support an ACTUAL theory. And then im going to call mine fact."

its unethical and downright disgusting. if you are going to favor creationism, do it on your own steam. leave legitimate science out of it until science legitimately supports it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
because thats the only way their hypothesis of creationism can function, by propping itself up with the credibility of other unrelated theories. "to make up for what my hypothesis lacks in terms of actual evidence, Im going to stuff its gaping holes with all the work YOU did and all the evidence YOU acquired to support an ACTUAL theory.

its unethical and downright disgusting. if you are going to favor creationism, do it on your own steam.

I agree, that's why I'm a Deistic Evolutionist.

en.wikipedia.org...
Deistic evolution is a position in the origins debate which involves accepting the scientific evidence for evolution and age of the universe whilst advocating the view that a deistic God created the universe but has not interfered since.

But Jesus Christ didn't know any better because he was just a human being.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Boadicea

i have a particular distaste for those who like to fuse creationism with evolution. my reasoning is quite simple: in such cases, creationism uses evolution the way a floundering child uses flotation devices to remain afloat in water. because thats the only way their hypothesis of creationism can function, by propping itself up with the credibility of other unrelated theories.

I can see where that could be the case for some people, as do you obviously. But it certainly isn't true for all people, as you obviously do not see. Just as science has made mistakes and been corrected, grown and evolved, so has faith -- so must faith. I can have faith in a Creator... in an intelligent design... in something bigger than all of us that I cannot define, and also understand that the Bible was written by fallible beings just doing their best to convey the unknowable. As we know better, we do better. True science can only benefit my understanding of spirit and the Creator and all creation.

"to make up for what my hypothesis lacks in terms of actual evidence, Im going to stuff its gaping holes with all the work YOU did and all the evidence YOU acquired to support an ACTUAL theory. And then im going to call mine fact."

I really don't even know what to say to that. Whatever the truth is, it is everyone's truth.

its unethical and downright disgusting. if you are going to favor creationism, do it on your own steam. leave legitimate science out of it until science legitimately supports it.

Wow. I find it far more unethical and downright disgusting that some would withhold truth or deny information to anyone as if they have more right to it than others. Sorry, that's not how it works. You gotta share. Nor are you the final authority on creationism or... well... anything.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So the irreducible complexity is now mathematical? Having been unceremoniously evicted from the realms of the physical, is poor old intelligent design now seeking refuge in the abstract realms of mathematics?

The premise of the first article you posted can be summed up as follows: the consistency of mathematics shows the universe is designed, or at least self-designed.

Einstein held rather similar views. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is only 'evidence' if you are predisposed to look at it as such. There's no link between personal conceptions of the Creator and the possible source of order in the universe. If this sort of thing appeals to you, the Gnostic conception of creation as an 'emanation' will serve you better than any concept of a personal God, and the pantheism of Spinoza will serve you better still — just as it served Einstein.

The second link you posted is just rubbish, I'm afraid.

By the way GetHyped, the article you linked in your first post isn't a reply to what CharlieSpeirs posted.

a reply to: Boadicea

Here's my question: Why do you care what I believe?

I don't, and neither does the OP.

Unfortunately, religious people aren't content to let it be at that. They want to tell us (and our children) that we are wrong and they are right. Don't forget that this thread is a response to one by another member demanding proof of evolution.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

How is a DNA coding study not scientific?

When it is performed by a couple of sensation-seeking academics in Kazakhstan and referenced in Evolution News, an antiscientific creationist web site.

a reply to: GetHyped

That blogger is an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST.

And rather a famous one.

But you don't need to be P.Z. Myers to see why the Kazakh's paper is nonsense.

originally posted by: Astyanax

The premise of the first article you posted can be summed up as follows: the consistency of mathematics shows the universe is designed, or at least self-designed.

I'm pretty sure even being "self-designed" would not qualify for Creationism. Self Designed would fit current cosmological theory and Evolution all the way.

For Creationism to be valid, by the definition given by most Creationists, there would have to be a creator who was first and then the creation.

Would you agree???

originally posted by: THEatsking
Creationism is to be taught in religious classes alongside other stories from the bible. It has nothing to do with Science, and therefore it is idiotic to teach alongside scientific theories.

FYI: neither does Darwinism...

There are so many holes in it that it clearly becomes obvious what the real "faith" is...

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific." Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

a reply to: mOjOm

Self Designed would fit current cosmological theory and Evolution all the way.

Indeed it would, and that is precisely how I choose to interpret matters.

What theory of Creationism do the Creationists here at ATS choose anyway??? Because I've heard a few versions.

1. That Everything was created long ago and then Evolved to what it is now.

2. That Everything was created roughly 6000 years ago and everything was created the same as it is now.
(This is the Young Earth version where Dino bones are just a trick by the devil and anything going back more than 6000 years is fake or wrong.)

3. That Everything was created long ago but was created the same as they are now.(This is the version where Dino's are real and we rode them or something like that, but they've all died out now. I think that's how it goes.)

Those are the versions I've heard. Feel free to add to the list.