Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

Creationism basically purports to have its own interpretation of science presumably with supporting evidence. And that would be essence of the debate - one view of science versus another.

but only one is verifiably scientifically correct. so it wouldnt be a debate at all. like texting lingo vs actual english.

But that's not what Creationists say. Their position on topics like fossil dating, radioactive decay, and the age of the Earth is that their interpretation is scientifically correct. Their literal interpretation of the Bible is supposed to be based on real science. Real science requires real evidence.

You need only read through the icr.org website to understand their "science".

Personal attacks, off topic comments, rudeness, bickering....

CEASE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are responsible for your own posts.

*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

Community Announcement re: Decorum

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Raggedyman
About as much as there is for evolution

Evolution is a fact. If you are unwilling to learn about it, thats fine. But dont spread lies.

Evolution is FACT.

The earth was flat once..... FACT?

Science changes it's mind time and time again.

[SNIPPED]

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
The earth was flat once..... FACT?

Science changes it's mind time and time again.

'Science' never concluded that the world was flat, your average ignorant short-haired ape on the other hand....

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Raggedyman
About as much as there is for evolution

Evolution is a fact. If you are unwilling to learn about it, thats fine. But dont spread lies.

Evolution is FACT.

The earth was flat once..... FACT?

Science changes it's mind time and time again.

but it has to have some damn good reasons for doing so. there are rigorous processes for these things. these processes didnt exist back when the earth was believed to be flat, but they do now, and thats why we are no longer as ignorant and continue to grow in our understanding and techniques every day. the scientists who develop this stuff are their own worst critics, remember. their work means more to them than it could ever mean to us.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
'Science' never concluded that the world was flat, your average ignorant short-haired ape on the other hand....

Actually Darwinists themselves fabricated the myth...

In fact, the flat earth story is a myth, propagated by academics in order to paint their adversaries falsely as fools. It’s a politically motivated lie—just like Global Warming theory.

The Flat Earth is a myth

Did you get that? The real reason why the "flat earth" myth persists is because of a deliberate and deceitful effort by Darwinists to propagate it in order to discredit Christians. The truth about the earth was known and accepted - until Darwinists set off on an anti-Christian propaganda campaign to muddy the waters. Long discredited myths (invented by Darwinists!) are trotted out as a matter of course.

The Recycling Of Anti Christian Mythology

But the story is totally false. It was pure fiction until it was turned into a phony historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it to slander Christians.

Matthew Paul Reves' Amazon review

The pseudo-historical propaganda of Draper and White has been thoroughly discredited by twentieth-century historians. Apparently, however, Graur doesn't read much history. Instead, he unknowingly caricatures critics of Darwinism on the basis of a myth that the Darwinists themselves fabricated.

Not The Flat Earth Myth Again!

The flat-earth myth...a very successful attempt to discredit creationists. To discredit their critics Darwinists needed support, and since the evidence for the creation of all life by natural means was non-existent then other means were sought. The few writings of those who claimed the Church suppressed science, especially the flat-earth claims, were exploited by the foes of creationism.

The flat-earth myth was created by intellectuals in their attempt to discredit Darwin sceptics. This ploy indicates the lack of persuasive scientific evidence for Darwinism that existed at that time in history. Darwinists, secularists and others saw the flat-earth myth as a ‘powerful weapon’ against sceptics.

The flat-earth myth and creationism

So where on earth did this idea that Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth come from? Apparently it originated in the mind of Washington Irving in an 1828 fictional book he wrote about Columbus. That the idea caught on in the minds of people is obvious but how did this fantasy get elevated to truth in the classroom? According to historian Jeffrey Russell it was a deliberate attempt by a few historians and academics of the day to discredit Christians who were resistant to the new evolutionary theories of Darwin.

The Flat Earth - A Lesson To Us All

The idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says.

Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?

Both J.B. Russell and Gould argue that Draper and White had an agenda to discredit Christians who opposed the then-new theories of Darwin as ‘flat earthers’. Nothing much has changed!

Flat earth myth

a reply to: Prezbo369

Magellan. Explorer/sailor shortly after "Columbus." 1522:

“The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.”


― Ferdinand Magellan

www.goodreads.com...

He said that in the 16th century.
The church = propaganda. The Bible = more propaganda.

a reply to: Murgatroid
No.
Wrong.

Flat Earth comes from ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.

Google is your friend.

a reply to: Astyanax

Just to point out that my earlier post was actually a reply to Boadicea. I said:

In that case, I think one is entitled to ask: why are you on this thread expressing your opinion? What value could it possibly have to anyone, even to yourself?

a reply to: Murgatroid

The fact that all those links use the word "Darwinist" or "Darwinism" should be the first clue as to their bias. People with credibility and that understand that Evolutionary Theory has advanced far beyond Darwin's Origin of Species over the past 150 years. Like DNA research which Darwin didn't even know about at the time.

But then again, Creationist websites seem to be your go to source for everything so far.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm really not interested in your protestations. Your own posting behaviour refutes your claim of victimhood and proves the intellectual barrenness of the Creationist position by bringing no evidence to the discussion but only moans and groans.

You are dealing with people on this thread who already know well the hypocrisy of the Creationist position. You are fooling nobody but yourself and your fellow believers.

There is nothing further to discuss until you provide some evidence for us.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Prezbo369

Magellan. Explorer/sailor shortly after "Columbus." 1522:

“The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.”


― Ferdinand Magellan

www.goodreads.com...

He said that in the 16th century.
The church = propaganda. The Bible = more propaganda.

a reply to: Murgatroid
No.
Wrong.

Flat Earth comes from ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.

Google is your friend.

Okay, I admit I did not read the whole thread, but the earth flat? The bible indicated the earth was round many years even before Jesus!

"He [God] sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)

The bible has indicated scientific fact before even science discovered it. And now science wants to discredit it? How intellectually dishonest!

a reply to: TheChrome

That doesn't mean the bible new the earth was a sphere. That just means they thought it was round like a disc which would be normal since both the sun and moon are also round and were thought to be discs as well.

But even if they did mean sphere instead of disc, the book of Isaiah was written in the same period that Pythagoras is given credit for being the first to prove earth was a sphere. There was another Greek or Possibly Egyptian that allegedly might have known even before Pythagoras did depending upon the source. In either case when Isaiah wrote that, it was most likely already known and proven by actual experiment rather than divine wisdom.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TheChrome

That doesn't mean the bible new the earth was a sphere. That just means they thought it was round like a disc which would be normal since both the sun and moon are also round and were thought to be discs as well.

But even if they did mean sphere instead of disc, the book of Isaiah was written in the same period that Pythagoras is given credit for being the first to prove earth was a sphere. There was another Greek or Possibly Egyptian that allegedly might have known even before Pythagoras did depending upon the source. In either case when Isaiah wrote that, it was most likely already known and proven by actual experiment rather than divine wisdom.

Isaiah was said to live around the 8th century BC. Pythagoras was said to live around the 6th century BC. That would mean Isaiah existed before Pythagoras. Furthermore, a similar passage was written by Job, at (Job 26:10) who probably lived before the 20th century BC. If two sources of data exist, secular and biblical, can you conclusively say which came first? Many folks think the bible is an adaptation of Sumerian documents. Can it be proven that the inverse is not true? Think about it.

originally posted by: TheChrome

Isaiah was said to live around the 8th century BC. Pythagoras was said to live around the 6th century BC. That would mean Isaiah existed before Pythagoras. Furthermore, a similar passage was written by Job, at (Job 26:10) who probably lived before the 20th century BC. If two sources of data exist, secular and biblical, can you conclusively say which came first? Many folks think the bible is an adaptation of Sumerian documents. Can it be proven that the inverse is not true? Think about it.

Some scholars don't think the 8th Century is correct though. I've seen dates from other sources that have anything from 800-600. Plus they don't think it's written by the same person either but 3 people. In any case it still makes using that as proof pretty thin. The Bible isn't a book of Science and every time people try to twist it to be that they fail. The fact that it simply says the "Circular Earth" doesn't mean much. The sun is a circle, so is the moon and watching the sky you can see everything rotates around the earth so it's not hard to figure our the circular nature of it.

The Job passage you're talking about just talks of the horizon and I see nothing that says the earth is a sphere there. You're reaching and interpreting to make it say something similar.

I'm can't say for sure that it's not implying a sphere earth. But it certainly doesn't say it's a sphere. It says circle or round. Not the same thing and being that it still wasn't proven round until some Greeks proved it around that same time, I think you're reaching still.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: TheChrome

Isaiah was said to live around the 8th century BC. Pythagoras was said to live around the 6th century BC. That would mean Isaiah existed before Pythagoras. Furthermore, a similar passage was written by Job, at (Job 26:10) who probably lived before the 20th century BC. If two sources of data exist, secular and biblical, can you conclusively say which came first? Many folks think the bible is an adaptation of Sumerian documents. Can it be proven that the inverse is not true? Think about it.

Some scholars don't think the 8th Century is correct though. I've seen dates from other sources that have anything from 800-600. Plus they don't think it's written by the same person either but 3 people. In any case it still makes using that as proof pretty thin. The Bible isn't a book of Science and every time people try to twist it to be that they fail. The fact that it simply says the "Circular Earth" doesn't mean much. The sun is a circle, so is the moon and watching the sky you can see everything rotates around the earth so it's not hard to figure our the circular nature of it.

The Job passage you're talking about just talks of the horizon and I see nothing that says the earth is a sphere there. You're reaching and interpreting to make it say something similar.

I'm can't say for sure that it's not implying a sphere earth. But it certainly doesn't say it's a sphere. It says circle or round. Not the same thing and being that it still wasn't proven round until some Greeks proved it around that same time, I think you're reaching still.

I understand. In English the translation does not always reflect the Hebrew connotation. (Job 26:10) in Hebrew: He encircled a boundary on the face of the water, until the ending of light with darkness.

Horizon is not really the connotation, encircled is.

www.chabad.org...

You are right, the bible is not a book of science. It is meant to be a guide to give us the information we need. However it is in harmony with science.

As I said in another thread, most people do not read the bible since it is 1500+ pages long. Imagine if it was longer! Imagine if it contained all kinds of scientific data. Would people read it?

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

The bible is the perfect size, covering science, history, morals, and the future. Any bigger it would be too much!

funny, scientists (and their religiously fanatic followers) say there is no "creator", but in the same time they are trying so hard to do the same (to create life, albeit still unsuccessfully)...

hence, logic dictates that you need a creator to make something alive, and scientists are still not intelligent enough to do so

hilarious

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
funny, scientists (and their religiously fanatic followers) say there is no "creator", but in the same time they are trying so hard to do the same (to create life, albeit still unsuccessfully)...

hence, logic dictates that you need a creator to make something alive, and scientists are still not intelligent enough to do so

hilarious

Credible scientists aren't claiming "No Creator" in the way you're describing. They simply have no evidence for a Creator and so they don't claim one. Being that Creationists are the one's who claim a creator it is actually their job to show evidence for it, not the scientists. If you had some evidence to show them they'd review it, but it's not their job to go look for it.

The supernatural won't be proven with science since science deals with what is natural.

You were Created by your Father and your Mother.

Some religions ignore one of those two.

Think about it.

a reply to: TheChrome

a CIRCLE is a one-dimensional shape. like this: o

an ORB or GLOBE is like a bubble.

The Bible saying the "circle of the earth" does not indicate they knew it was a globe.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Raggedyman
About as much as there is for evolution

Evolution is a fact. If you are unwilling to learn about it, thats fine. But dont spread lies.

Evolution is FACT.

The earth was flat once..... FACT?

Science changes it's mind time and time again.

but it has to have some damn good reasons for doing so. there are rigorous processes for these things. these processes didnt exist back when the earth was believed to be flat, but they do now, and thats why we are no longer as ignorant and continue to grow in our understanding and techniques every day. the scientists who develop this stuff are their own worst critics, remember. their work means more to them than it could ever mean to us.

Science catches itself out and disproves theories constantly. Theories that were once believed to be true based on Science became redundant due to new findings. How anyone can take science as the cold hard fact and believe nothing outside of science is beyond me. It's made fantastic progress and will continue to do so. But in this time, the progress it makes will remove much of our current understanding of the world. Why on earth Evolution is the cold hard truth just because current science "claims" to support this (even then, it's touch and go) is crazy!

I think we'll all one day find Evolution is part of a huge puzzle not the whole answer.

I hate using the word "science" as it is such a broad term but you get me.