Creation, where is the evidence? I see none.

Originally posted by ghost
Hold on! This sounds a Hell of a lot like an implied insault! If you want this to be a serious debate that will further the mission of ATS and not a contest of insualts and bitter personal attacks, I seriously suggest you quit with the bitter and degrading attak tactics. This is how "Flame Wars" get started! (Spelling Note: earth has an "R" in it! You come across as being much more credible if you spell basic word correctly)

Apologies st4god and others ..I was writing a response to you regarding evolutionary diversity [see 'fractel theory'- if someone else wants to take it up it is a goof point and explains diversity] but I got warned for this one line post in response to a hypocritical personal attack on someone else. Apparently personal attacks are actually aloud to an extent but one line responses are not as they detract from them topic.
I feel I have made a valuable contibution to this forum but won't return to it as hypocricey is rife and the rules only apply on someone's whim.

Sorry guys!

2nd. edit. It would be really REALLY helpful for ahem.. 'debate' if someone could at least post at least ONE piece of evidence FOR creation that completely debunks evolution.. this doesn't include rock formations that kinda resemble a boat.. or proven fraudulent fossils of dinosaur walking next to man. Something actually scientifically credible.. what? you can't? Thats because you know there isn't any. NONE.. because the bible is WRONG and was written at a time where most people couldn't even write. Why don't you accept this? Because there is an 'ew' factor in being related to an ape and you want to be special. If the moon threatened belief in god.. some of you lot would probably say thats a myth as well.. or blow it up to keep your illusions intact.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by riley]

it was only 500 years ago that we thought the world was flat. flat! just one outstretched piece of land and if you sailed too far you'd fall off the edge. flat!! just a couple hundred years ago, when people complained of headaches they didn't get an asprin, instead doctors would make cuts in the person head to allow the demons to escape... and we're supposed to believe stuff that people wrote down in a book around 2000 years ago??

Originally posted by shaunybaby
it was only 500 years ago that we thought the world was flat. flat! just one outstretched piece of land and if you sailed too far you'd fall off the edge. flat!! just a couple hundred years ago, when people complained of headaches they didn't get an asprin, instead doctors would make cuts in the person head to allow the demons to escape... and we're supposed to believe stuff that people wrote down in a book around 2000 years ago??

Well if you go for that! How about this:

Until 58 years Ago, Scientist were Sure that an aircraft could Never fly faster then the speed of sound. Every time An aircraft had ever approached the speed of sound, it would go out of control before breaking up in flight. ALL of the scientific Evidence up to that point proved that no aircraft could reach the speed of sound without going out of contron and breaking up in flight. Many Documented Cases of Aircraft breaking up in flight around 745 to760 mph exist from before 1947, so they had Evidence to Support their conclusion.

1947 was only 58 years Ago! Now you want US to Accept a theory from 1859 (146 Years Ago). Just because it hasn't been disproven, doesn't make it true! Hey, the argument works both ways!


DID YOU READ MY LAST POST?

I stated that I do believe Evolution IS Real (to a Degree)! My Second point was that I belive Evolution does exist. What I do NOT believe is that it was started by a chance event. I believe that Evolution is only one part of Intelligent Design. Life was design and Created by God! After it was Created, it sustaines itself through Evolution! Evolution is part of the process, but not the Begining!

IS THAT SO COMPLEX? Why do you seem to resent the possibilty that there is more to reality then you can measure with a ruler or explain with numbers!

Tim

Originally posted by ghost
1947 was only 58 years Ago! Now you want US to Accept a theory from 1859 (146 Years Ago). Just because it hasn't been disproven, doesn't make it true! Hey, the argument works both ways!

Actually, the argument doesn't work EITHER way because it employs logical fallacy in both cases.

Let's try and stick to the topic, which is, "Creation, where is the evidence? I see none." There is a lot of ammunition out there - try doing a google search for "evidence for creation..."

Zip

EDIT:

Check out the Creation Evidence Museum for an amusing explanation "for kids" about how we coexisted with dinosaurs.

[edit on 7/15/2005 by Zipdot]

my comment had nothing to do with what year we thought certain things. it was to do with how things were explained during the time period mentioned. 500 years ago when the world was flat, it was explained that it was flat basically because no one knew any different until it was sailed. a few hundred years ago when doctor cut in to people's heads to let demons out was also because they knew nothing else. when the bible was written those people also knew nothing else, and science wasn't even a factor. the same as 50ish years ago when people thought you couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound. try going back a bit further when cars first came in production, and people said you were crazy because if the body got up to 30mph it would disintigrate.

you totally missed what point i was making. when the bible was written there was no other way to explain everything, why we are here etc, so some people wrote some stuff, and some other people to control the masses put it alltogether. the point about darwin is that the bible was already around, almost every person at that time was a christian, but that didn't stop darwin thinking up his idea.

the bible is the flat earth. darwin is the spherical earth. once upon a time it was believe that the bible was right. however, over time we came to understand that the bible was wrong, the earth was spherical and that darwin was right.

we have photos of the moon and film taken of the landings, yet there are some say it was a hoax. we have photos from space of earth, yet there are people that still believe the earth is flat. so what kind of evidence does one need to prove something nowadays?

[edit on 15-7-2005 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by ghost
1947 was only 58 years Ago! Now you want US to Accept a theory from 1859 (146 Years Ago). Just because it hasn't been disproven, doesn't make it true! Hey, the argument works both ways!

Actually, the argument doesn't work EITHER way because it employs logical fallacy in both cases.
[edit on 7/15/2005 by Zipdot]

Help me out! Where the Logical Fallicy here? Lack of Proof doesn't make some thing false! Proof also doesn't make something true. Have you ever heard of someone being wrongly convicted? you need proof to convict someone!

What I do NOT believe is that it was started by a chance event.

And HOW can you possibly even remotly turn this Hypothesis into an actual Theory that can be Tested and accepted by critical Peer Review and Published in a reputable Scientific Journel? What you Creationist's are trying to do is push it as a theory when clearly it isn't at that stage yet(and probably never will be), how many papers have been published by Creastionist's? 1? 2? How many citations did it/they get? Compare to competing theories. I'm sure the Creationuts will eventually come up with competeting Special and General Relativity theories with their own Psueodscientific claptrap added in for good measure co-opting and taking credit for other peoples work in what is primarily a Church and State sponsored PR Campaign....

Enough to say that it isn't being taken serously within the Scientific community and probably never will!

EDIT1: Oh yeah when I say published I mean PUBLISHED in anything BUT a Philsophy journel

[edit on 15-7-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by ghost
Lack of Proof doesn't make some thing false! Proof also doesn't make something true. Have you ever heard of someone being wrongly convicted? you need proof to convict someone!

Great.. this is what some would change the science world into:
"Proof that the world is round? Doesn't mean it's true!! ..cross that out of the science text books.. kids don't need to be missled! Stars are actually distant suns? No thats silly. They are hanging from the sky to make it's pretty.. proof otherwise is probably wrong because actual proof proves nothing.. unless it has 'bible' written on it of course. Things were so great back when we KNEW how things worked.. every unanswered question could be answered with 'god dunnit'.. now we actually have to answer things for ourselves.. which makes it the work of the devil."

I don't like this 'proof' means nothing argument.. seems because creationalists [generally speaking I know you are an evolutionalist] don't actually HAVE any PROOF to support what they WANT to believe they try and cower out of providing it.. yet they still dismiss the THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence [after usually demanding it] that supports evolution without reason and without respect for the huge amount of work that went into obtaining and studying it.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
and we're supposed to believe stuff that people wrote down in a book around 2000 years ago??

Something's age has no logical bearing on its authenticity. One person will say, "it's so old! How can you believe such a dusty old piece of junk?" and another person will say "it's survived the test of time! Everything in the Bible is correct because it's so old!"

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by ghost
1947 was only 58 years Ago! Now you want US to Accept a theory from 1859 (146 Years Ago). Just because it hasn't been disproven, doesn't make it true! Hey, the argument works both ways!

Originally posted by Zipdot
Actually, the argument doesn't work EITHER way because it employs logical fallacy in both cases.

Help me out! Where the Logical Fallicy here? Lack of Proof doesn't make some thing false! Proof also doesn't make something true. Have you ever heard of someone being wrongly convicted? you need proof to convict someone!

You twisted two things into one - first, you two were talking about the consequences of age and the bearing that age has had on reason, and then you added the non-sequitir "Just because it hasn't been disproven, doesn't make it true!"

Age has no automatic direct or implied bearing on authenticity or correctness. It has no causal relationship with "validity".

Furthermore, the opposite of your "proof" assertion is true - something that is proven to be true can be held to be true. A false conviction is not a good example to argue against this, because prosecution only requires something to be true beyond a "reasonable doubt" in a dozen individuals' fallible minds. Moreover, by virtue of the discovery of a person's innocence, the conviction is not held to be true, so no laws of reason are violated here. If a person signs a confession and pleads "not guilty," then the prosecution will still need more convincing evidence than a confession alone to persuade a jury to convict. In this manner, a conviction does not convey a statement of "absolute" guilt.

It can be argued that nothing in the universe is absolute, including truth, but the semantics of such an argument preclude rational assertions that suffice "for all intents and purposes." For instance, I could murder somebody and then plead not guilty seven years later based on the fact that I am merely a collective of cells and tissues and when the murder occured 7 years ago, not one single cell or tissue of the person that committed the crime has survived in my body, therefore, it was technically not I who committed the crime. This is just one of many examples I could think of to disprove "absoluteness".

Zip


[edit on 7/15/2005 by Zipdot]

im not with or against a god, but heres my two cents.

we have to challage our beliefs in order to further ourselfs as an intellegent society. weather or not evolution is right is not what must be focused on. what must be focused on is proving all things wrong in a scientific manner before u can say that religion is the way. once the theories of begining of life is beyond a doubt discredited and scientifically proved inaccurate then we move on from there. maybe find new theories or sumthing but we must challage our beliefs to further intellegence.

also why wasnt the guy on the first page addressed. no1 sed his info was faulty or wrong yet no1 really even sed anything about him, yet he wrote very much about the scientific approach of things. yet i dont think it had any real way of PROVING creation by an intelligent being it did have sum interesting facts if they are true.

Uh grimreaper. Are you talking about expert999?

If so, then yes his ideas have been adressed, not only that but his whole argument was copied and pasted from Kent Hovind's website. Kent Hovind is not a credible source.

Expert999 was banned for his behavior.

Nothing he says counts as evidence, it was all Hovind's opinions. What he said actually proves the diversity of nature brought about by natural selection and evolution.

my point about those dates in the threads above was as follows:

1948ish - we thought we couldn't fly at the speed of sound, it was thought to be impossible, however, today we know we can.

not sure about the date - when automobiles were first made people thought that if the body reached 30mph it would disintergrate.

1400-1500ish - the earth was thought to be flat, until we started venturing out and found this not to be true.

1800s - to cure headaches doctors made cuts in to a person's head, to realise the demons, we know they are not actually demons, and this operation isn't available on the NHS.

using this ideology we can say:

1000 BC - 100 AD (approximately) - the bible was written, however we now know it is untrue as darwin found out about evolution and natural selection, which led to other things. my point is at one point in time we thought one thing, yet as time went on, that 'thing' wasn't true, and we found out what was true. earth being flat, finding out it was spherical, is no different to having the bible and then finding out about evolution.

Life was design and Created by God! After it was Created, it sustaines itself through Evolution! Evolution is part of the process, but not the Begining!

Why would a god do that?

the idea of creation that everything was created then as it is now and has not changed. evolution does not fit in with creation or god. its the hopeless atempts of christians trying to fit science in to their religion, because science has shown the religious ideas to be wrong. however the idelogy of some christians is that if we tie in these things with god then we can still believe in him. hence, evolution or saying we coexisted with dinosaurs.

"Proof" of Creation(ism) in a truely scientific sense is not possible however a logical argument can be made IMO. The debate usually arises due to a contradiction between a scientific theory or hypothesis and an interpretation of Holy Scripture(s). For example with regards to evolution:

The Bible tells us, we think, in Genesis 24-25 that species were created seperately.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The key word for most Creationists in those verses is "kind". Implying seperate creations of species, instead off all plant and animal life on the Earth evolving from a single cell as is the currently accepted theory of evolution. Now we(Creationists) are not talking about the Finch and its' "better beak", (flu) virus "improvements" etc, etc.... but instead the idea that fish becomes man over a few million/billion years (over-simplified i know). We believe that that the evidence does not support this hypothesis of Evolutionary Theory.

Here's a relevant quote from: www.trueorigin.org...

In any event, the morphological changes and variations that are observed in modern populations certainly do not justify the conclusion of universal common ancestry. They are fully compatible with the claim that multiple lineages were created independently and endowed with a degree of genetic adaptability. In fact, the experimental data suggest that there are natural limits to the extent to which species can change.

..but as some have already stated here, this is not an evidence for/against evolution thread. I thought it would be a good idea to explain the biggest 'bone' of contention between Creationism(old-Earth) and Evolutionary Theory(macro). Granted the "young-Earther's" have many more conflicts with mainstream science, but i'm not one so i'm Str8.

So.. as to evidence for Creation.. i'm not quite sure what you would find acceptable. Creationism requires use of the Bible, and that is not proof for anyone other than believers. And also because the translations/interpretations of Scripture are very subjective, add to that the Scriptures were not intended to be a scientific book. Although as a believer i do believe that the Bible is GOD's true and living word. Any contradictions or perceived falsehoods are either misunderstood(taken out of context) or mistranslated from the original text IMHO. Although i believe these "errors" are rare and of no consequence to salvation, which at the end of the day is what really matters anyway.

Ok with all that being said i'll give it a go, perhaps lay a better foundation for the debate. Usually the "evolution is bunk" type threads are started with a question or observation which seems to contradict accepted ideas, giving atleast a starting point for discussion. So i'll give a brief example of Creationism from my perspective as an old-Earther which IMO is the literal translation of the original text where as a young-Earther, IMO, is a literal reading of the KJV. But that's neither here nor there as far as this discussion goes.

Here goes nothin' (all verses C&P from: www.biblegateway.com...)
Genesis 1:2
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

-"Without form, and void" seems to me to be an accurate depiction of the Earth soon after its creation or formation if you prefer. And does not contradict currently accepted ideas of how the Earth formed.

-next is "darkness was upon the face of the deep", you may ask why was the Earth dark? God tells us in Job 38: 4-9

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements, since you know? Or who stretched the line on it? "On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? "Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band,

Seems to say the Earth was dark because it was covered by a thick cloud layer. So as a creationist i turn to science to see if my interpretation "fits the facts" so to speak.
And low and behold it does.

from: www.reasons.org...
The Genesis 1:2 description of the earth’s primordial conditions finds remarkable agreement with the scientific description of the earth’s initial conditions. The interplanetary debris of the early solar system and thick primordial atmosphere of early Earth would keep sunlight from reaching its surface.15 Darkness would, indeed, be pervasive on the planet. While scientists debate the mechanism and timing for the formation of the earth’s oceans, consensus holds that continents did not exist when the earth formed. Early in its history Earth was, indeed, a water world.16 From the time of its formation (approximately 4.55 billion years ago) until 3.5 billion years ago, the earth experienced numerous collisions that would have rendered the earth a desolate planet largely unsuitable for life.

I'm sure you can see where this is going, and as i stated earlier it's subjective and for most non-believers it's not proof of creation. Never-the-less here's some predictions of the Biblical Origins Model from the last link above(highly recommend reading it).

Some Predictions Made by the Biblical Origin-of-life Scenario
-Life appeared early in Earth’s history.
-Life appeared under harsh conditions.
-Life miraculously persisted under harsh conditions.
-Life arose quickly.
-Life in its minimal form is complex.

The link then goes on to show how this model fits in with current data(again admittedly subjective). Perhaps you could give me an example of something in the biblical creation account which contradicts accepted scientific theory. Remember i'm not a young-Earther so i can't defend their belief(s). But if your looking for a formula or theory to prove either a)GOD exists or b)GOD is the creator as depicted in the Bible, i can't give you that and IMO nobody can..it's gonna take faith brothers and sisters. The best i can do is show science doesn't disprove either one and before we know it we'll be dancing in circles.

Nice post, rren. I'll give it a go.

Science and the Bible conflict in many meaningful and important ways. In Genesis I, the Earth is created before light and stars, for instance. Science tells us that light itself predates the Earth and that many stars are much older than the Earth.

On a more foundational level, science tells us that we need a source of light to produce the effect of lighting. Genesis 1:5 divides a day into "evening" and "morning" when there is no sun to mark the division or the difference.

From the perspective of evolutionary contradiction, the Bible tells us that insects and reptiles came after whales and birds. Plants were developed before there was a light source to power the process of photosynthesis - evolution says that this is backwards.

In Genesis 1:30, we're told that every beast, bird, and creeping thing is made vegetarian. Science tells us that megalodon sharks did not simply eat plants.

Genesis 7:11 says that rain occured when God opened the "windows of heaven." Science tells us that rain is a result of other factors.

I'm gonna pause for now, because it's getting late, but I think it's pretty clear that the Bible and science are not the best of friends, with or without regard to evolution and abiogenesis.

Zip

Originally posted by ghost
Well if you go for that! How about this:

Until 58 years Ago, Scientist were Sure that an aircraft could Never fly faster then the speed of sound. Every time An aircraft had ever approached the speed of sound, it would go out of control before breaking up in flight. ALL of the scientific Evidence up to that point proved that no aircraft could reach the speed of sound without going out of contron and breaking up in flight. Many Documented Cases of Aircraft breaking up in flight around 745 to760 mph exist from before 1947, so they had Evidence to Support their conclusion.

That is a lie. No serious scientist was sure that no aircraft could ever fly faster than the speed of sound. Why else would they try to break the sound barrier? The German V-2 missile by the way went several times the speed of sound, which demonstrated to scientists that there were aerodynamic shapes that allowed a large body to travel over the speed of sound. Your argument is completely bogus.

well apparently when motocars were first made people thought if the body got up to 30mph you would disintergrate, obviously now we know this isn't true.
the world was thought to be flat, yet now we know this not to be true.

i think this is very logically way of looking at the bible and darwin. when the bible was written and put together it was thought to be true. however, darwin found that it wasnot, just the way sailors found the earth wasnot flat.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
well apparently when motocars were first made people thought if the body got up to 30mph you would disintergrate, obviously now we know this isn't true.

Trains were already moving faster than that. It may have been for a short while a popular rather than scientific belief that the human body couldn't withstand high speeds (far more than 30 mph) when motocars were getting ever faster.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the world was thought to be flat, yet now we know this not to be true.

That was during a long time in western history more a religiously motivated position than a scientifically motivated one. The Greek scientist Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference of the earth as a reasonable approximation of the actual value, more than two thousand years ago.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Simon666]

wel lthe majority of the belief was that the earth was flat. this is why when people first set sail around the world they thought they'd never return.

not sure about the car thing but i know i heard it somewhere, maybe it was closer to 40 or 50 mph, however, perhaps the trains at that time were slower.

still the point im making is that throughout history we've thought 'one thing' then over time that 'one thing' has been seen to be wrong and we've come up with the right answer. much like with religion and darwin.