Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

a reply to: Venkuish1

So that survey says 78% believe in creation or devine guidance. Your quote only states 22% are evolutionists.

Funny how you keep bringing in surveys that prove your op wrong.

The surveys are flawed in your assumption that they say anything about creationism being such a small percentage. Both show them in the majority. That along with the actual way the responses were categorized or questions asked was misleading at best.

And there you go again, evangelizing your flavor of science rather then discussing it.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: LSU2018

Scientific theory isn't the same as me having a theory of how my cat got stuck in a tree or something.

I know, I understand that possibly over 27 decades of research have gone into the scientific theory of evolution. What I don't believe, is that scientists have proven that a human can eventually evolve out of an organism that began as an amoeba. They haven't even scratched the surface of proving that. In my opinion, that's a lot of time wasted when they could have been living life and focusing on far more important things. Who really cares HOW we got here, it's not that serious.

It's not a matter of belief.
Beliefs exist when there is no evidence around like religious beliefs about creationism or even flat earth.

You can believe whatever you want but science is a process that doesn't deal with beliefs in the supernatural world and beliefs in general.

It's definitely about belief. You're sharing your belief that we evolved from single celled organisms and basing it on papers that a group of scientists said were true.

Obviously I can't believe whatever I want or I wouldn't be 12+ pages deep trying to explain to you why I don't believe in the theory of evolution.

I am not sharing a belief but simply stating facts. I know it's difficult for creationists to accept science and facts and that they struggle a lot with basic concepts but the problem is more serious than it seems. The educational system plays a very important role and it has failed students quite a lot.

Those aren't facts, lol

Yep we shouldn't be following the scientific developments but the online conspiracy theories and outdated archaic debunked worldviews. I don't know if it's going to work but let's try it.

Makes more sense than unproven theories.

Evolution is a scientific theory and it's a fact regardless of personal opinion.

There is an entire scientific field that works on evolution. I am sure that if you have the evidence you can write your scientific papers and disprove the 'massive deception' of evolution.

So you are saying the fact is evolution is a theory?

Cause you say evolution is a theory. But you also say fact. Can't be both.

So is evolution a theory?
A fact?
Or the fact that IT is a theory?

If you don't understand what is a scientific theory then you can look it up. Most of creationists don't but that not surprising. Here is a scientific publication that I have linked several times.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics.

First sentence of the abstract: evolution is both a fact and a theory.

If you don't understand it you can email the authors or look it up.

And none of that says anything about the why.

You are still failing to understand that belief or religion is answering the why and science is answering the how.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: Venkuish1

So that survey says 78% believe in creation or devine guidance. Your quote only states 22% are evolutionists.

Funny how you keep bringing in surveys that prove your op wrong.

The surveys are flawed in your assumption that they say anything about creationism being such a small percentage. Both show them in the majority. That along with the actual way the responses were categorized or questions asked was misleading at best.

And there you go again, evangelizing your flavor of science rather then discussing it.

The survey is very similar to another one I have linked in my OP and says precisely what I said.

37% don't accept evolution at all and believe in creationism

24% accept evolution but they believe it was guided by God. Something very different to the first category.

22% accepts evolution without any intervention.

OP is correct and the other survey I linked differentiates between these three groups just like I did.

news.gallup.com...

Title: 40% of Americans believe in creationism

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).

The author has it correct as it doesn't blend creationism with guided evolution. If you accept creationism then you can't accept evolution.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: LSU2018

Scientific theory isn't the same as me having a theory of how my cat got stuck in a tree or something.

I know, I understand that possibly over 27 decades of research have gone into the scientific theory of evolution. What I don't believe, is that scientists have proven that a human can eventually evolve out of an organism that began as an amoeba. They haven't even scratched the surface of proving that. In my opinion, that's a lot of time wasted when they could have been living life and focusing on far more important things. Who really cares HOW we got here, it's not that serious.

It's not a matter of belief.
Beliefs exist when there is no evidence around like religious beliefs about creationism or even flat earth.

You can believe whatever you want but science is a process that doesn't deal with beliefs in the supernatural world and beliefs in general.

It's definitely about belief. You're sharing your belief that we evolved from single celled organisms and basing it on papers that a group of scientists said were true.

Obviously I can't believe whatever I want or I wouldn't be 12+ pages deep trying to explain to you why I don't believe in the theory of evolution.

I am not sharing a belief but simply stating facts. I know it's difficult for creationists to accept science and facts and that they struggle a lot with basic concepts but the problem is more serious than it seems. The educational system plays a very important role and it has failed students quite a lot.

Those aren't facts, lol

Yep we shouldn't be following the scientific developments but the online conspiracy theories and outdated archaic debunked worldviews. I don't know if it's going to work but let's try it.

Makes more sense than unproven theories.

Evolution is a scientific theory and it's a fact regardless of personal opinion.

There is an entire scientific field that works on evolution. I am sure that if you have the evidence you can write your scientific papers and disprove the 'massive deception' of evolution.

So you are saying the fact is evolution is a theory?

Cause you say evolution is a theory. But you also say fact. Can't be both.

So is evolution a theory?
A fact?
Or the fact that IT is a theory?

If you don't understand what is a scientific theory then you can look it up. Most of creationists don't but that not surprising. Here is a scientific publication that I have linked several times.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics.

First sentence of the abstract: evolution is both a fact and a theory.

If you don't understand it you can email the authors or look it up.

And none of that says anything about the why.

You are still failing to understand that belief or religion is answering the why and science is answering the how.

If you read the publication it explains it very well but I suppose you don't read scientific publications and you have missed a lot back in school.

The first sentence of the abstract says; Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

If you don't understand I am afraid I can't do anything about it. You need a bit of reading. Religion doesn't answer the why. It just wants blind obedience and it aims for the control and manipulation of the masses.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
a reply to: Venkuish1

I believe your math is wrong....

37% of non evolution, and 24% of God-directed evolution is 61%.

And that's right in line with how many people worldwide believe in a God.

I don't see what's shocking about that.

My math is right. I don't know how did you get the idea I was wrong.

It's precisely what I have said in my OP

37% don't accept evolution at all
24% accept evolution but they attributed to supernatural intervention.... (bizarre)

It's really shocking that a large number of adults are at odds with basic science.

No, your topic title says 37% of Americans believe in creationism.

Yet 61% believe in creationism, based on the stats you posted in your op.

Technically, that makes creationism "fact" by consensus, even if it is fallacious.

And why you would argue about this basic math is beyond me. Your ego is really that inflated?

Hard to take you seriously when you don't know basic math...

Since you obviously don't understand what creationism is, and, based on your replies in this thread, you don't know what "fact" means, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling...

Oh, and by the way, evolution is not "fact." It's "theory," just like most of science.

Still waiting for you to tell us "who" disproved God.

This is precisely the title of the topic

37% of Americans believe in creationism and don't accept evolution at all.

24% accept evolution but attributed it to supernatural forces. That's very different from the above category.

The title of the article stands correct and the author of the original article has it correct. And the author of another article had it correct here

news.gallup.com...

'40% of Americans believe in creationism'

A similar poll from 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).

The author knows how to differentiate between creationism in it's pure form and evolution either guided or unguided. It's precisely what I said.



Scientific theory is something very different to scientific hypothesis or speculation and it looks like you don't really understand it just like the other creationists on this thread. Look it up: Scientific theory

And here is a peer reviewed scientific publication on the topic

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record. Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout the planet. Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution, both on short and long time scales, are observable facts.

First sentence: evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I mean it can email the authors and ask them for explanations.

Clearly you don't know what is a scientific theory but anyway in your question who has disproved God I don't think anyone made that claim here. All I and others said is there is no evidence for the existence of your supernatural being.

Amazing.

Now there's a distinction between "pure" creationism and "impure" creationism all because you don't know how to add.

Classic.

And YOU claimed God was "debunked."

Venkuish1

It's really worrying that a large number of adults in the US dismiss science altogether in favour of some debunked medieval view of the origin of humans.

I didn't say it was "my" creator. I didn't say ANYTHING about my beliefs. You assumed.

And I understand scientific theory just fine. You, on the other hand, clearly don't know what a theory is.

I don't care what some writer you're quoting says. Evolution is not fact. It is a theory.

Done with you. You refuse to have an honest discussion, and are seriously arguing against basic math because you simply can't admit you made a mistake and/or a clickbait title.

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: pennylane123
a reply to: Venkuish1

Just like you dismiss simulation theory,

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

I am glad you make that distinction....

Then you can honestly admit that Evolution is a theory. A theory written around what we see and think happened. Nothing is proven.

Nothing.

It's yobs like you that are making me question the logic of the earth being a sphere.

I think you misrepresented me...

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

That we live in a simulation is speculation and not a fact. Evolution on the other hand is a fact. It's also described as a scientific theory but I understand that you are not able to make the distinction between scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, speculation, and so on.

I haven't admitted anything, only stated facts. But every creationist in every thread around here makes exactly the same erroneous arguments.

You are not worth trying to have a logical conversation with.

As you know, we once were the center of the universe...oops, the sun....ooops, we are on the outskirts of the galaxy.

I wish more Christians had the faith in Christ, that you have in mortal man(scientists). This world would be a much kinder place.

It was false belief devoid of any facts propagated mainly by religious circles and the church.

Aristotle was a christian?
Was Galileo a Christian?

No. Those beliefs came from many places.

Scientists are not God. They make mistakes. They make bad decisions. They succumb to peer pressure. They will say their bias' do not play a part. But they do, you are proof.

You do not have an open mind, you will believe what you are told because you will not think for yourself. I'll bet you don't even change your own blinker fluid because it is easier to have the shop do it. I mean after all, they are the experts, you aren't and blinker fluid is a real thing...a scientist (mechanic) said so.

In reality, from the tone of your replies, you are seriously questioning your beliefs. I will add you to my prayers, may you find the spiritual peace you are looking for.

Still false beliefs in the case of scientists who may have accepted the geocentric system. Now we have evidence about not being the center of the universe.

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

Excellent!! Bolding mine!

Then you, YES YOU, can solve this once and for all. YOU can end it for all time...

When you do, I will stream live on ATS, and admit you were right.

So, all you have to do is reproduce the big bang. Create all the life, and physics, etc. And, here is the catch, it has to able to self perpetuate and exist on it's on forever more.

Now, get to it, I can wait for you to reproduce it and prove us wrong. (re read what i highlighted in your reply)

CERN has been trying to reproduce the conditions of the first moments of our baby universe. Have you missed that out?

Well, according to your post:

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

And then I just bolded the word in your latest reply:

TRYING

So they have been trying to reproduce it, but they haven't.

So, therefore, from your posts and words, Evolution is not fact, it is theory. Because you have NOT been able to reproduce it yet.

CERN isn't dealing with evolution....
Is dealing with the universe, particles, and a number of other things.

My answer to your question about the big bang.

Clearly the universe and the earth were not created in six days or whatever the claims are. Do you see why these claims are debunked?

They just naturally fall apart because there is no evidence to support them.

I am sorry for the confusion, i thought evolution started when the process of creating everything began. Which you haven't been able to reproduce...therefore, you can't know if evolution is what happened.

And as to my bolding in your reply,

No, i do not see how the earth being created in six days has been debunked. I see where you don't believe it.

And I can see that CERN and man can't even START the process.

So yeah, my Creator can do it in 6 days...and your Gods can't even reproduce the beginning, much less finish the whole thing.

But there is no evidence of the creator to have been talking about and no evidence he create the universe. This is a religious belief.

It is claimed in the Bible the world was created in six days but that's false. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe around 13.8 billion years old.

You said your creator can do it in six days. But there is nothing to support this idea. On the contrary the six day creation has been debunked long time ago.

So where did you get 4.5 billion years? Rock that formed when Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 80's, carbon dates over 2 million years old....but we can definitely know when the rock formed. And that, my friend, is what is known as a fact. It is documented and provable.

So maybe your gods got the dating wrong.

I have answered this many times but it won't hurt if you get the facts for once more!

www.amnh.org...

Relying on interpretations of the Bible, most people in England believed that Earth was only about 6,000 years old—not nearly old enough for countless species to have evolved.

Today, we know from radiometric dating that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Had naturalists in the 1700s and 1800s known Earth's true age, early ideas about evolution might have been taken more seriously

The article is from the American Museum of National History.


And this one from the NASA website

When the solar system settled into its current layout about 4.5 billion years ago, Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun. Like its fellow terrestrial planets, Earth has a central core, a rocky mantle, and a solid crust.

science.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
a reply to: Venkuish1

I believe your math is wrong....

37% of non evolution, and 24% of God-directed evolution is 61%.

And that's right in line with how many people worldwide believe in a God.

I don't see what's shocking about that.

My math is right. I don't know how did you get the idea I was wrong.

It's precisely what I have said in my OP

37% don't accept evolution at all
24% accept evolution but they attributed to supernatural intervention.... (bizarre)

It's really shocking that a large number of adults are at odds with basic science.

No, your topic title says 37% of Americans believe in creationism.

Yet 61% believe in creationism, based on the stats you posted in your op.

Technically, that makes creationism "fact" by consensus, even if it is fallacious.

And why you would argue about this basic math is beyond me. Your ego is really that inflated?

Hard to take you seriously when you don't know basic math...

Since you obviously don't understand what creationism is, and, based on your replies in this thread, you don't know what "fact" means, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling...

Oh, and by the way, evolution is not "fact." It's "theory," just like most of science.

Still waiting for you to tell us "who" disproved God.

This is precisely the title of the topic

37% of Americans believe in creationism and don't accept evolution at all.

24% accept evolution but attributed it to supernatural forces. That's very different from the above category.

The title of the article stands correct and the author of the original article has it correct. And the author of another article had it correct here

news.gallup.com...

'40% of Americans believe in creationism'

A similar poll from 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).

The author knows how to differentiate between creationism in it's pure form and evolution either guided or unguided. It's precisely what I said.



Scientific theory is something very different to scientific hypothesis or speculation and it looks like you don't really understand it just like the other creationists on this thread. Look it up: Scientific theory

And here is a peer reviewed scientific publication on the topic

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record. Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout the planet. Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution, both on short and long time scales, are observable facts.

First sentence: evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I mean it can email the authors and ask them for explanations.

Clearly you don't know what is a scientific theory but anyway in your question who has disproved God I don't think anyone made that claim here. All I and others said is there is no evidence for the existence of your supernatural being.

Amazing.

Now there's a distinction between "pure" creationism and "impure" creationism all because you don't know how to add.

Classic.

And YOU claimed God was "debunked."

Venkuish1

It's really worrying that a large number of adults in the US dismiss science altogether in favour of some debunked medieval view of the origin of humans.

I didn't say it was "my" creator. I didn't say ANYTHING about my beliefs. You assumed.

And I understand scientific theory just fine. You, on the other hand, clearly don't know what a theory is.

I don't care what some writer you're quoting says. Evolution is not fact. It is a theory.

Done with you. You refuse to have an honest discussion, and are seriously arguing against basic math because you simply can't admit you made a mistake and/or a clickbait title.

I am quite honest but you seem to be confusing creationism with guided evolution. That's two different things by definition. Those who accept creationism cannot accept evolution either guided or unguided.

I have linked many times another survey that backs up what I have said and was conducted back in 2019.

This is the survey

Title:40% of Americans believe in creationism

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%)

news.gallup.com...

Clearly the author differentiates between creationism and guided evolution and you can see it from the title and description. If you accept creationism you can't accept evolution (either guided or unguided).

The guided evolution comes as a result of the fact that many religious people do understand that evolution is true but they don't want to give up their God. It's that simple!

a reply to: Venkuish1

While playing a game on my phone, I have thought of another problem with your surveys. I had a survey on an add. No I did not answer it, at least not correctly.

All those surveys are of people that answer surveys. That is not, in my opinion, any accurate representation of any population being surveyed. Most people that are asked find surveys very annoying and refuse to answer them or just make up answers.

Please continue in your delusional belief that surveys are of any use as a means of gathering information. Have fun with that. I could care less about your surveys.

I see the red wall. You see the brick wall. We are both correct.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: Venkuish1

While playing a game on my phone, I have thought of another problem with your surveys. I had a survey on an add. No I did not answer it, at least not correctly.

All those surveys are of people that answer surveys. That is not, in my opinion, any accurate representation of any population being surveyed. Most people that are asked find surveys very annoying and refuse to answer them or just make up answers.

Please continue in your delusional belief that surveys are of any use as a means of gathering information. Have fun with that. I could care less about your surveys.

I see the red wall. You see the brick wall. We are both correct.

So now you have come the conclusion (rather late I would say) that surveys don't worth anything. How surprising!

Surveys don't worth anything and scientific publications are irrelevant and misleading... creationists argue.

Just as it is expected after all creationist arguments have failed.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: whereislogic

Great reply, I usually don't read the really long ones but you set it up perfectly. I couldn't agree more.

Lol, yeah, I started small. Just the 1 sentence with the link at first. My comments always grow after editing. I read it back, putting myself in the shoes of another (or several others with different viewpoints, or at least I try), then I always want to add more, I can't resist. And it grows almost everytime I read it back (also for correcting spelling errors).

Also, I use external sources a lot, when I mix up the order a lot, or want to add a few remarks, I don't always use an external box with the source. Lots of people that are regulars in this subforum should be familiar with the way things are phrased in most of the comment you responded to, just in a different order. And when I use the order of the article it's from, don't add too many remarks, I will often link the source. So with that in mind, I'll add the main source now that I used for that comment (so you don't get the impression that the best stuff in the comment comes from me, of course, when it's a quotation from Mein Kampf or someone else, the original source is already included):

Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

Which clarifies why the topic of fraud came up a couple of times in my comment. It's part of a series, the main topic of that magazine from that date. It's 5 pages long. The preceding page called "Fraud in Science​—Why It’s on the Increase" is also quite interesting (it doesn't get to the subject of evolution yet, but without naming and defining it, it does address the underlying religion of scientism, which lies at the basis of both the belief in and promotion of evolutionary myths and philosophical naturalism, which some people conflate with "science", and "methodological naturalism" with "the scientific method"; as if there's only one possible or proper method to discover new science/knowledge*).

*: there are many, I like the one Isaac Newton used, it works well when distinguishing fact from fiction, as described at 1 Thess 5:21:

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.”

Keep in mind, concerning the quotations below, that at the time of Newton, the term "natural philosophy" was used for what people nowadays call "science", and an argument can be made that the term "experimental philosophy" is what gave rise to "modern science" (were it not for the fact that so many ignored his warnings and advice below concerning experimental philosophy, as can be seen from the inclusion of hypotheses into "the scientific method" later on, even unverifiable hypotheses, or stories basically, unprovable myths, pseudoscience: string theory, M-theory, multiverse, evolutionary philosophies, Gould's punctuated equilibrium, chromosome #2 fusion myth and postdiction, etc.).

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” [happens all the time regarding the argument of induction concerning the existence of a Creator, the master engineer of the biomolecular machinery that makes up life.]

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

I bolded the word "other", as a reminder that if you use inductive reasoning correctly, it will lead to the discovery of certainties/facts/truths/realities. Don't believe those who say that Newton's law of gravity, or Newtonian physics, has been superseded, negated, changed, or proven inaccurate (or incomplete), by quantum physics or Einstein's discoveries concerning the subject of relativity. It hasn't. It's still a fact that gravity works that way. It has stood the test of time.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Religion doesn't answer the why. It just wants blind obedience and it aims for the control and manipulation of the masses.

So does the scientific establishment, it's hard to realized when you're part of the controlled and manipulated, religious people suffer the same difficulties. The control and manipulation have become scientific methods... You should be able to spot them when applied to the masses...

Does science answer the why of evolution? Or the how?

Why do trout eggs hatched under a specific electrostatic field, result in a trout species that's been extinct?
Why do electrostatic fields trigger drastic evolution in just one generation? And how?

No idea as to how and why... But the fact that it happens is there.. Science has no conclusive answers to the how's and why's of evolution, they have a theory that tries to make the facts fit... Those that vigorously belive that theory, are in the same mental spot as creationists.

a reply to: theatreboy

It is actually both a theory and a fact. In Science they mean the same thing. A theory is a collection of facts and scientific tests proving the theory.

Now having said that I will say that does not mean intelligent life was not involved in the process. To be honest you would not be able to tell. For example we created synthetic life in a lab that eats hydrocarbons. Made by us to clean up oil spills in the ocean. Now you would not be able to tell its artificial except they left a signature in the DNA code.


Had they not autographed it some one in the future would not be able to tell it was a synthetic lifeform. Because we used the same building blocks as all life we know of. So if mankind disappeared from Earth but leave behind new lifeforms they would seem totally normal.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Some historical information you'll have a hard time finding anymore in modern dictionaries, even those who claim to get into the etymology of the term "creationism" (etymology concerns the historical usage or meaning of a term).

Is there a distinction between “creation” and “creationism”? (Questions From Readers; 1986)

...

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) defines “creation” as “the act of creating,” and “creationism” as “a doctrine or theory of creation.” The same dictionary defines “ism” as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, system, or theory​—often used disparagingly.” [whereislogic: see, back then, 1971, they were still being somewhat honest about it. You won't find such a distinction nowadays though.]

In these 1980’s, “creationism” has become a true “ism” because of its adoption by political pressure groups, such as the Moral Majority. It is no longer a neutral term, but embodies extreme fundamentalist views of the Bible, such as the view that God created the earth and everything upon it in six days of 24 hours each. There are now more than 350 books in circulation setting out such “creationism” dogma. ...

For a more complete answer to the above question, please see the article entitled “Evolution, Creation, or Creationism​—Which Do You Believe?” ... [which I quoted from before].

Here's another one (note the date, making the term "creationism" more inclusive is really a recent development, as in the last few decades it has really gained traction, because most of those calling themselves "old earth creationists" don't mind their ideas being associated with the term "creationism", and who in the world listens to the only group out there who do have an issue with being associated with the term "creationism", a term that is not used in the Bible):

Creationism—Is It Scientific? (Awake!—1983)

...

What Is Creation Science?

Supporters of creationism wrote a definition that was incorporated in the Arkansas law and inserted in the judicial opinion. It includes the scientific evidence that there are limits to the changes within the kinds of living things that were originally created, and that mutations and natural selection do not suffice to change one species into another. It also asserts that the earth and everything that lives on it are the result of a recent act of creation, and that all the geologic strata with their fossils resulted from a single worldwide Flood. [keypoint]

The framers of the law were careful to omit any reference to God or the Bible, in order to avoid constitutional bars against teaching religion in the schools. However, their writings and the testimony given at Little Rock revealed that the creation and the Flood referred to are those described in the Bible book of Genesis. Furthermore, although the time of creation was not spelled out in the law, they acknowledged that “recent” means perhaps 6,000, in any case not more than 10,000, years ago.

Evolution’s Faults Shielded

Unfortunately for the creationists, their efforts in the trial to expose the weak points of evolution were frustrated. Such shortcomings have long been apparent to open-minded students. We mention them only briefly here.

The evidence from experiments on mutations was not emphasized in the trial. Overwhelmingly, the results of such research are that mutations lead only to degeneration of the genetic pattern, producing defective specimens. They do not create new organs or new functions. They never lead to new species. The facts are contrary to the evolution theory and support the corollary principle of creation, stated in Genesis, that every kind of plant or animal can produce only its own kind. But this strong argument was neglected.

Furthermore, the geological record does not contain the continuous gradation of fossils from one species to another, which Darwin’s theory would require. Rather, it shows that new species appear suddenly, in the sedimentary column, without any connection to older forms. Even the evolutionists are currently embroiled in arguments about a new theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which admits that the long search for missing links has failed.

The sudden appearance of new species is really strong evidence for creation and against evolution. But it was not a factor in the trial. Why did the creationists not use it to advantage? They could not because they do not associate different geologic strata with different epochs of creation, but profess that they were all formed at the same time, when Noah’s Flood subsided. Being fettered by this non-Biblical doctrine, the creationists could use the fossil evidence only to tear down evolution. But they were reminded that it was not evolution that was on trial; it was creationism.

Creationism’s Faults Exposed

It was this aspect of the creationists’ thesis, tied to their doctrine of recent creation, that got the spotlight in the trial and in the news about it. Their teaching that the earth and even the universe are less than 10,000 years old contradicts all the findings of modern science. They are so far out of step that they invite ridicule from scientists.

Geologists can point to their measurements of geologic processes that extend far beyond that narrow time frame. Ocean sediments have accumulated over far more than 10,000 years. The time to build mountains and wear them down is measured in millions of years. For continents to drift apart and form oceans takes hundreds of millions of years. To say that all of this goes back only 10,000 years is simply absurd in the eyes of geologists.

Astronomers are equally outraged. They are accustomed to think not only of planetary cycles that take days or years but also of long aeons of time for stars and galaxies to form. They deal with such vast distances that even light, traveling at 186,000 miles (300,000 km) a second, takes billions of years to reach their telescopes. They estimate the distance to the Magellanic Clouds in the southern skies, our nearest neighboring galaxy, to be over 100,000 light-years. If this were created only 10,000 years ago, as the creationists hold, we would still be waiting 90,000 years for the first glimmer of light from it to reach us. In the northern hemisphere, on a dark night good eyes can make out the Andromeda nebula, the light of which takes 1,500,000 years to reach us. Obviously it must have been there longer than that. No wonder the American Astronomical Society went on record in January with a resolution applauding the Arkansas decision.

Physicists also protest that it is impossible to squeeze their studies into a time span of a mere 10,000 years. They point to radioactive elements like uranium and thorium that have lives measured in billions of years. The accumulation of distinctive isotopes of lead, which are the end products of radioactive decay, shows that some of the oldest rocks in the earth’s crust must have lain undisturbed for as much as 3 or 4 billion years. And their interpretation of the red-shifted light from distant galaxies, out at the edge of the visible universe, sets its beginning from 10 to 20 billion years ago.

Is This Science?

...

Speaking of dinosaurs, where do they fit into the creationists’ scheme of things? In their view, human beings and dinosaurs and every other kind of animal, extinct or extant, lived on earth at the same time before the Flood. They were all swept away together in a grand mélange by the Floodwaters. How, then, do they account for the orderly sequence of fossils in sedimentary rocks, starting with simple[r] forms of life in the lower strata and followed by increasingly diverse and complex creatures in higher strata? They can only offer a set of implausible and contradictory theories as to how all kinds of plants and animals could have been sorted out of the potpourri of carcasses and laid down in separate layers.

...

edit on 29-2-2024 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: theatreboy

... For example we created synthetic life in a lab that eats hydrocarbons. ...

In order to get people to believe that "life" has been created by humans in a lab, a common tactic is to convince people that we do not know the meaning of the term "life" (or the Craig Venter tactic when he claimed he had created synthetic life, spin being involved, which I won't go into now). As mentioned before, but worth repeating now:

Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic.

And when there is little to no ambiguity, create some. We haven't even gotten close to creating "life" in a lab, as the term used to be used, before there where people with a motive to make the term ambiguous, moving their goalposts to their starting line. (if we're talking American Football)

...

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

Still at the starting line in 2024 as well.

Source: Question 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

Here's James Tour addressing the question if life has been created in a lab (notice how he goes along with the created supposed ambiguity concerning the term "life" in his commentary, hook, line and sinker; 2nd question at 1:30, note what he says about defining "life" just before 3:00; it's not that difficult to define "life", see last video for an example):

In the video below he addresses a news article in Science magazine entitled "Biologists create the most lifelike artificial cells yet" at 24:20 (another joke):

A definition of "life" (or "alive") that works for me (after 1:00), I'm sure there are other ways to put it, or perhaps also more subjects that can be added, but that doesn't make the term "life" as ambiguous as those who want to make claims about creating the most "lifelike artificial cells yet" and 'life being created in a lab' would like it to be; in the words of James Tour: "not even close").

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
In order to get people to believe that "life" has been created by humans in a lab, a common tactic is to convince people that we do not know the meaning of the term "life" (or the Craig Venter tactic when he claimed he had created synthetic life, spin being involved, which I won't go into now).

I will go into it now (since it seems from the terminology that dragonridr may have been referring to it, or something similar):

That's what spin looks like. The video from Brian Keating's channel called "Craig Venter: Did He Make Life In The Lab?" uses the following description:

"It may sound like science fiction, but it's true. Biologists are already creating synthetic life from scratch."

"Hype out of the wazoo" as James Tour would say, especially the addition of "from scratch". Talk about spin. And now for the usual contradiction (see 1 Tim 6:20):

But of course, never ask Brian Keating to change his description (even though they speak to eachother from time to time even in youtube Q&A interviews, and they've both graduated from the same university). So honest this Craig Venter fella, ahum. And which significant factual discovery has he made in the last 30 years that warrants his federal research grants* for studying the origin of life by chance and only the forces of nature (no intelligent interference allowed)? Is he even working on that subject? Has he ever worked on that subject? (*: the money he gets from various sources is probably not for studying that subject in the first place, but then of what use is his research? Especially when people keep bringing it up when the subject of the origin of life comes up. Or the subject of the creation of life. Could there be a motive for phrasing it as 'creating artificial life'? You don't have to use that verb to describe your research, unless you don't mind some people getting the wrong impression how relevant this research is to the subject of the creation of life and phrasing things the way Brian Keating did in the video description quoted earlier.)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

...

Creationism—Is It Scientific? (Awake!—1983)

...

... How, then, do they account for the orderly sequence of fossils in sedimentary rocks, starting with simple[r] forms of life in the lower strata and followed by increasingly diverse and complex creatures in higher strata? ...

Even though I tried to correct that sentence by adding an "r" to it, it may still give the wrong impression if you put it like that (the key point is actually that diversity increases, according to the order things were created described in Genesis ch. 1, plants and trees first in "the third day"; which aren't much simpler than dinosaurs for example, if "simpler" is an appropiate term at all). I think the writer was just relaying the argument the evolutionists would make in that trial. Cause the following was already known in the 80's by the same source:

Letting the Fossil Record Speak (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?; 1985)

...

Life Appears Suddenly

Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states: “Sometime in the first billion years, life appeared on the earth’s surface. Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms.” From this description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow evolution from the first “simple” life forms to complex ones. Yet, the same book says: “The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”⁠16

Also, can those first types of life truly be described as “simple”? “Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks,” says Evolution From Space, “fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.”⁠17

From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? “The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,” says Jastrow.⁠18 Instead, he states: “The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”⁠19

Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. A View of Life describes it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.” Snails, sponges, starfish, lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: “Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.”⁠20

Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”⁠21 Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.⁠22

Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained. “Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add: “Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.”⁠23

These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”⁠24

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”⁠25

Continued Sudden Appearances, Little Change

...

All this raises...

QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

At least you can say that one-celled prokaryotic creatures (bacteria) are relatively "simpler" than multi-cellular eukaryotic creatures; but that's about it. I don't know if you can call a small fish "simpler" than a huge dinosaur. Sure, it's "smaller", but that's about the limit of what I would say about it in the context of the idea of "progressive evolution from simple to complex" (quoting Zoologist Harold Coffin there at the end). It is this whole idea that was supposed to make Darwin's speculations sound more plausible, more scientific, to improve 'sales'. But we don't see it (in the fossil record), especially in light of the latest factual discoveries in the field of molecular biology. I'm not buying into it, and no Gould, you can't fix the problem with coming up with a new term, "punctuated equilibrium", as if the idea of gradual evolution is no longer important to making evolutionary philosophies sound more plausible, and then still calling it "evolution". The evidence from the fossil record conforms with the creation account in Genesis, not evolution, gradual or otherwise. Way to ignore where the evidence leads by clinging on to a failed idea/philosophy.

a reply to: Station27

I've heard the same thing, and as a Baptist myself, I know that there's no time mentioned in Genesis other than "in the beginning". Could be hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of years old, possibly even older. Hell I think humans and dinosaurs both roamed the Earth millions of years ago.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well I was attempting to defend creationism by showing that we can manipulate life. Now you want to argue what is artificial lifeforms.

We have at this point created artificial genomes meaning using chemicals in a lab we created a DNA strand that can reproduce on its own. Yes we still use things like a cell membrane in the process. Again no need to reinvent the wheel if you already have one. For example I can build a car I can design it spec it have engine block made choose who makes the carburetor etc. Then laser out parts from sheet metal and I have a one of a kind car. Did I create a new car yes did I have to go and make each individual nut and bolt no.

What your doing is moving the goal posts to the impossible extreme. scientists have achieved the unthinkable by creating a synthetic chromosome from scratch for the very first time. They designed with the aid of a computer what they wanted their lifeform to look like. Just as you can spec out a car we can now spec out a lifeform. Just like the car I don't have to make every nut and bolt that is a waste of effort and money on something that already costs millions.

click here

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: randomuser2034

What is scientifically accurate?
That the planet and its inhabitants were created in six days or all the other claims made about life, different species, the planet and the 'heavens'...

Many Christians don't even accept the claims made in the Bible just like another poster who has replied to me in the last page.

There are no heavens by the way.
The works wasn't created in six days. These are false and debunked religious beliefs.

I debunked everything you just said in my post above. You didn't even take the time to give it a cursory glance. As your question was already answered before you asked.

And that is how sincere you are.

The world wasn't created in six days... That's what we mean a debunked claim.

Evidence?

2nd

Evidence for what?

The world wasn't created in six days together with its inhabitants (humans and animals). By world we mean earth and the 'heavens'

What evidence is there the world was created in six days. Who believes in these stories in the 21st century??

Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Universe 13.8 billion years old. Did you miss your science lessons at school or you didn't attend at all?

You think that just because the Earth and universe are that old that they couldn't have been created in 6 days?

What do you think happens to you after you die?

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: pennylane123
a reply to: Venkuish1

Just like you dismiss simulation theory,

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

I am glad you make that distinction....

Then you can honestly admit that Evolution is a theory. A theory written around what we see and think happened. Nothing is proven.

Nothing.

It's yobs like you that are making me question the logic of the earth being a sphere.

I think you misrepresented me...

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

That we live in a simulation is speculation and not a fact. Evolution on the other hand is a fact. It's also described as a scientific theory but I understand that you are not able to make the distinction between scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, speculation, and so on.

I haven't admitted anything, only stated facts. But every creationist in every thread around here makes exactly the same erroneous arguments.

You are not worth trying to have a logical conversation with.

As you know, we once were the center of the universe...oops, the sun....ooops, we are on the outskirts of the galaxy.

I wish more Christians had the faith in Christ, that you have in mortal man(scientists). This world would be a much kinder place.

It was false belief devoid of any facts propagated mainly by religious circles and the church.

Aristotle was a christian?
Was Galileo a Christian?

No. Those beliefs came from many places.

Scientists are not God. They make mistakes. They make bad decisions. They succumb to peer pressure. They will say their bias' do not play a part. But they do, you are proof.

You do not have an open mind, you will believe what you are told because you will not think for yourself. I'll bet you don't even change your own blinker fluid because it is easier to have the shop do it. I mean after all, they are the experts, you aren't and blinker fluid is a real thing...a scientist (mechanic) said so.

In reality, from the tone of your replies, you are seriously questioning your beliefs. I will add you to my prayers, may you find the spiritual peace you are looking for.

Still false beliefs in the case of scientists who may have accepted the geocentric system. Now we have evidence about not being the center of the universe.

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

Excellent!! Bolding mine!

Then you, YES YOU, can solve this once and for all. YOU can end it for all time...

When you do, I will stream live on ATS, and admit you were right.

So, all you have to do is reproduce the big bang. Create all the life, and physics, etc. And, here is the catch, it has to able to self perpetuate and exist on it's on forever more.

Now, get to it, I can wait for you to reproduce it and prove us wrong. (re read what i highlighted in your reply)

CERN has been trying to reproduce the conditions of the first moments of our baby universe. Have you missed that out?

Well, according to your post:

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

And then I just bolded the word in your latest reply:

TRYING

So they have been trying to reproduce it, but they haven't.

So, therefore, from your posts and words, Evolution is not fact, it is theory. Because you have NOT been able to reproduce it yet.

CERN isn't dealing with evolution....
Is dealing with the universe, particles, and a number of other things.

My answer to your question about the big bang.

Clearly the universe and the earth were not created in six days or whatever the claims are. Do you see why these claims are debunked?

They just naturally fall apart because there is no evidence to support them.

I am sorry for the confusion, i thought evolution started when the process of creating everything began. Which you haven't been able to reproduce...therefore, you can't know if evolution is what happened.

And as to my bolding in your reply,

No, i do not see how the earth being created in six days has been debunked. I see where you don't believe it.

And I can see that CERN and man can't even START the process.

So yeah, my Creator can do it in 6 days...and your Gods can't even reproduce the beginning, much less finish the whole thing.

But there is no evidence of the creator to have been talking about and no evidence he create the universe. This is a religious belief.

It is claimed in the Bible the world was created in six days but that's false. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe around 13.8 billion years old.

You said your creator can do it in six days. But there is nothing to support this idea. On the contrary the six day creation has been debunked long time ago.

And there is no evidence nothing existed and then 2 things collided and created everything, either. Actually, intellectually those events in that order make no sense.

You don't make much sense in this post.

The religious claim in the Bible is false. The world wasn't created in six days. Start with this basis information and then we can discuss other things. You seem confused.

science.nasa.gov...#:~:text=When%20the%20solar%20system%20settled,third%20planet%20from%20the%20Sun.

When the solar system settled into its current layout about 4.5 billion years ago, Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun. Like its fellow terrestrial planets, Earth has a central core, a rocky mantle, and a solid crust.

Do you honestly think gravity pulled in swirling gas and dust to make the Earth?