Scientific Evidence For Creation!!! Wow!

I don't think that I would agree with this statemen. Science should not have anything to say one way or the other about religion. Indeed there are many scientists who are faithful Christians, but in fact subscribe to the Theory of Evolution in its entirety.

If evolution is supposed to be another theory rather than Intelligent Design(which most religions profess). I do not see why science could be used to study evolution and not intelligent design.

I agree that there are many scientist that are faithful Christians and believe in the Evolution theory completely, and they could possibly be correct, I don't personally believe so, but I am not saying that I myself can disprove this theory myself. A Christian would study the Bible because it's the most authoritive book for Christianity itself, and based on the Bible, the world has not been here long enough to experience macroeveolution.

Evolution is a series of postulations, hypotheses, ideas that unify many disparate areas of biology and in fact, science in general. It's an inference that is used to describe the available data.

So you're saying that Evolution is simply a hypothesis which is basically Science itself. I apologize, I do not understand what you're trying to say.

Now this is just unreasonable. Evolution has 'few facts' supporting it, huh? Why has it prevailed as the predominant theory of biological origins for decades now? Could it be that scientists are aware of some 'facts' that you're not.

Perhaps you're one of those people for which no adequate level of evidence can exist to convince you of evolution.

I have yet to see real hard facts that prove evolution and disprove intelligent design. From what I see from evolutionist is that it has prevailed because the times we're living in. No one want's to follow a religion that has restrictive boundaries, and with science constantly improving, I must admit that the theory of evolution sounds very logical, but seems to fall short when asked to provide proof. Why is it that Scientology has prevailed so much? Is it possible because the way the society is today, or that Scientologist show real hard evidence to prove their theories?

I would say that I'm rather firm in what I believe because I have yet to find anything as logical as Christianity, but the fact that I'm replying to you, not being rude, and in no way trying to "convert you", I would say that I am speaking with a very open mind, just give me the proof.

What type of evidence are you looking for? For example we could point to conservation of both non-coding and coding DNA between chimps and humans suggestive of their common ancestry. In a similar vein, the location, organization, overall structure of genes when one compares chimps and humans are also suggestive of common descent.

Now... we certainly can't say this proves common descent, only that it is highly suggestive of it.

One could, and some do, argue that this is also indicative of common design. Perhaps this is so, but there's nothing in the actual scientific literature that states this, and there are known researchers doing science from that perspective.

You are correct in everything you said, but I just can't grasp firmly to evidence showing that humans and chimps are similar disproves creation. I also don't quite understand how we can come from one species of chimps that evolve, but the current species of chimps seem not to have evolved.

Okay... back at you then. What is the strongest evidence that the Earth's history is best described by the bible?

I would love to study a little more in depth because I can't jog my memory completly to give you everything that I have studied. If you wouldn't mind, I could take a little time to study and send you my findings in a u2u. And you could also do the same. I will post my studies on this thread in time as well.

thexsword, i'm not going to direct quote, but you did say that according to the bible the world hasn't been here long enough to experience macroevolution

where does the bible state the age of the planet earth?

I believe so madness. There is no specific verse that I know of that depicts the worlds exact age, but there are many reasons Biblically to believe the world is new or old. Science points toward a young earth. Out of the 96 dating methods that have been experimented with so far, 92 of them show evidence that the world is much younger than expected.

Go to the Grand Canyon and looks at the sedimentary layer of the flood. How was the canyon formed.

There is a flood account in most ancient civilations.............Ancient.......4000 plus years.

Originally posted by thexsword
If evolution is supposed to be another theory rather than Intelligent Design(which most religions profess). I do not see why science could be used to study evolution and not intelligent design.

Evolution isn't just "another theory" with respect to biological origins, it's THE theory. There is no dissent in the scientific literature as to whether or not evolution has occured. There is some debate re: the exact mechanism of biological evolution, but there is no disagreement that it has occured.

When ID proponents actually do a little wet science and TEST their hypotheses, you can call it science, not before. In it's current state ID appears to be science-based apologetics.

I agree that there are many scientist that are faithful Christians and believe in the Evolution theory completely, and they could possibly be correct, I don't personally believe so, but I am not saying that I myself can disprove this theory myself. A Christian would study the Bible because it's the most authoritive book for Christianity itself, and based on the Bible, the world has not been here long enough to experience macroeveolution.

The Bible doesn't address the age of the Earth or Universe directly. Attempts to extract such information from the Bible that isn't there, and doesn't appear to have been intended for that purpose is misguided at best.

So you're saying that Evolution is simply a hypothesis which is basically Science itself. I apologize, I do not understand what you're trying to say.

No, I am saying that the theory of evolution is based on disparate lines of scientific evidence, observations, and facts. The idea unifies all of this disparate information into a coherent organized theory re: biological origins. IOW, it pulls together and appears to explain a lot of what science observes in a single unified idea.

I have yet to see real hard facts that prove evolution and disprove intelligent design.

ID can't be 'disproven.' Certain ideas in ID can be falsified for sure, but the idea an IDer exists as an ultimate first cause can't be disproven scientifically.

From what I see from evolutionist is that it has prevailed because the times we're living in. No one want's to follow a religion that has restrictive boundaries, and with science constantly improving,

Really? Wow... could've fooled me. Let's see, the world has about a billion catholics, about the same number of Muslims, another billion or so who classify themselves as 'Christian.' In fact a paltry 2.5% of worlds population call themselves athiests. This appears to argue against what you've stated above.

I must admit that the theory of evolution sounds very logical, but seems to fall short when asked to provide proof.

Again, what level of 'proof' are you looking for? If you're looking to see some sort of major change in morphology, or some change between 'kinds,' then you're likely to continue to be disappointed.

In any case, there seems to be some confusion re: evolution/ID.

Did you know that common descent, that is men from a primate ancestor, a shared ancestry between chimps and people, and in fact 'evolution' as it's commonly understood is compatbile with and accepted by the ID community?

Did you know that MJ Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box accepts common descent as it's postulated by the evolution community?

Why is it that Scientology has prevailed so much? Is it possible because the way the society is today, or that Scientologist show real hard evidence to prove their theories?

Depending on who you're going to believe, there are either 9 million or 200,000 scientologists in the world. If we use the larger number, that amounts to about 0.3% of the worlds population. And your statement re: scientologists 'proving' their theories seems to indicate that you don't know what scientology is.

continued....


[edit on 29-11-2006 by kallikak]

Originally posted by thexsword
I would say that I'm rather firm in what I believe because I have yet to find anything as logical as Christianity,

And you're perfectly free to believe this. But don't equate religious belief with scientific belief. Again, Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. As I mentioned, ID and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

The Bible doesn't speculate on the age of the Earth, and was not written as a science text, and consequently shouldn't be interpreted as one.

but the fact that I'm replying to you, not being rude, and in no way trying to "convert you", I would say that I am speaking with a very open mind, just give me the proof.

Well... you may not in fact need to convert me. Perhaps I am a Christian...
In any case, what is this 'proof' that you're looking for? What type of evidence would prove evolution to you?

In any case, I would like to turn the tables back on you: What is the 'proof' and 'evidence' you saw that inspired you to become a Christian? IOW, how was the life of Jesus, His death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection, including the atonement and His Divinity, proven to you?

You are correct in everything you said, but I just can't grasp firmly to evidence showing that humans and chimps are similar disproves creation.

It doesn't, and you shouldn't look at science and religion as competing. They may both be searches for the truth, but they are in fact searching for different varieties of truth. Science doesn't claim to be the only source of truth, and people shouldn't consider it as such. Again, science can not disprove the concept of God, or any other entity outside the realm of our physical, 4-dimensional world. Nor does it seek to.

I also don't quite understand how we can come from one species of chimps that evolve, but the current species of chimps seem not to have evolved.

Well... it's not from one species of chimps... simply from one species of non-human primate. Chimps and humans are thought to be descendants of that one species of non-human primate.

With respect to chimps not evolving, I'm not sure what you mean... Chimps are not an ancient specie per se... they are relatively recent.

Perhaps you're referring to the spotty fossil record re: non-human primates... I can agree about this... and I'm even likely to speculate that this is due to human bias... scientists wanting to find human relatives, not gorilla and ape relatives, but I've never heard this 'chimps haven't changed' take before.

I would love to study a little more in depth because I can't jog my memory completly to give you everything that I have studied. If you wouldn't mind, I could take a little time to study and send you my findings in a u2u. And you could also do the same. I will post my studies on this thread in time as well.

Take whatever time you need.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by kallikak]

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Go to the Grand Canyon and looks at the sedimentary layer of the flood. How was the canyon formed.

There is a flood account in most ancient civilations.............Ancient.......4000 plus years.

I'm not sure if this a plug for the Creation or evolution side of things. In any case, I've been to the GC... been there lots of times in fact.... Did the Rim-to-Rim run about 5 years back. Spectacular indeed.

There are a couple of different theories re: the formation of the GC. Obviously the most well accepted is that the Colorado has carved it out over millions of years.

Indeed there are the flood theories, and I must admit to being intrigued by the theories re: the draining of Hopi Lake (?). I'm no geologist, but I can see it being plausible, but even if the GC were formed via a flood, and subsequent catastrophic event, it in no ways confirms the Noachian flood of the Bible.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Go to the Grand Canyon and looks at the sedimentary layer of the flood. How was the canyon formed.

There is a flood account in most ancient civilations.............Ancient.......4000 plus years.

the canyon was formed by gradual errosion over millions of years...
maybe by tectonic activity

and a single cataclismic flood wouldn't cause the level of sedimentation found at the canyon
and it sure as hell wouldn't create a massive canyon

Originally posted by thexsword
I believe so madness. There is no specific verse that I know of that depicts the worlds exact age, but there are many reasons Biblically to believe the world is new or old. Science points toward a young earth. Out of the 96 dating methods that have been experimented with so far, 92 of them show evidence that the world is much younger than expected.

i'd like to see your evidence on this

all dating methods i've seen put the earth at 3-4 billion years old, and i've looked into this a lot

so from what i gather science points towards an incredibly old earth

You can't win people's hearts by force feeding them. They have to eat for themselves.

Evolution is a welcomed fact/theory because religion has failed the masses.
It's better to be independent and free than to be a slave to strict rules handed out by hypocrites?

Maybe it's organized religion who is guilty and has given God a bad name.

God does not want to be discovered by people because there is no doubt of his existence. He desires faith and love.

A child learns a lesson best by example, but faith in a parent's counsel will make for a protection.
The lesson about not touching a hot stove burner comes to mind. The child can just believe the parent, that it's bad to touch the stove, or the child can just ignore the command by touching the stove and then deal with the consequences later.

Here are the reasons why things don't make sense between a believer and a non-believer.

John 6:44
"No man can come to me (Jesus), except the Father which hath sent me draw him..."
God motivates certain individuals to search him out.

Matthew 11:25
"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

God would allow something to seem one way but when fact it's really another. He doesn't like the haughty. If this thread is being over run by ridiculers, then wipe the dust off your feet and move along.

Why throw pearls before swine? (Mathew 7:6)

By the way I'm not a creationist. I do not believe the earth was created in seven literal days (24 hours each). I believe the creation days were epochs of great length, possibly spanning millions of years. It's just those years from Adam till now that I take literal.

Originally posted by lostinspace
God does not want to be discovered by people because there is no doubt of his existence. He desires faith and love.

i agreed with many of your points until that right there

the problem is that there is a lot of doubt, hundreds of millions of humans doubt the existence of god (one being right here)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by lostinspace
God does not want to be discovered by people because there is no doubt of his existence. He desires faith and love.

i agreed with many of your points until that right there

the problem is that there is a lot of doubt, hundreds of millions of humans doubt the existence of god (one being right here)

You don't find God seeking why he isn't, you find Him seeking why he is.

The problem they have with dating things is that they are always wrong.

Originally the earth was supposed to be somewhere around 10-20million years. The age of the earth has changed dozens of times and they keep making it older. And yet much evidence points to a young earth.

no evidence indicates a young earth. this is because the earth isn't young.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Nygdan]

What evidence proves the earth to be old?

Like I said, out of the 96 developed dating systems, only 4 point to an old earth. Many of them are wrong anyway. In Wyoming they found a billion year old snail based on carbon dating, which is clearly impossible.

Originally posted by thexsword
What evidence proves the earth to be old?

talkorigins.org...
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.[...]If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects.

In Wyoming they found a billion year old snail based on carbon dating, which is clearly impossible.

If you use a ruler wrong, you'll get the wrong result. That doesn't mean rulers don't work.

Originally posted by thexsword
What evidence proves the earth to be old?

Like I said, out of the 96 developed dating systems, only 4 point to an old earth. Many of them are wrong anyway. In Wyoming they found a billion year old snail based on carbon dating, which is clearly impossible.

what methods?
where is the citation for this claim?

if there were 92 dating systems that were credible and retestable the scientific community would have no choice but to say the earth is young

however, they don't, so i call shenanigans

How old are the human bones compared with the dinosuar bones?

If of different ages then its not that far fetched that erosion took place on the ground revealing the dino bones and then by chance somebody died around them.

If the bones at all are more then 6000 years old then what would be called the literal story of genisis did not happen.

And if somebody finds a dinosuar bone that is relitively new (and not millions of years old) then it is evidence that dinosuars still have existed rather recently.

And likewise if human bones are as old and found around dino bones then that is proof that humans and dinosuars have existed togeather (be it millions to thousands of years) doesn't prove much byond that the traditional timeline of life is a bit off in some respects.

Whatever evidience shows, just is, and disproves whatever nonsense people do belive.

There isn't enough water on earth to flood the world if th ice caps were to melt. One theory is that if a comet hit earth the size of Nova scotai then it could flood the planet but it would also kill most life by impact. If there was a global flood then the water dissolved in the air would be enogh to drown noah in one breath. Also the west was not discovered yet so he couldn't get two of all animals. Plus if he could get all the animals it could take him 500+ to get them and another 500+ to make the boat. Also the gene pool for the animals would be messed up and they would all have gene mutations. Plus the waight of the boat and wood would make it buckle under stress and tear itself apart.

I've just read a book called The G.O.D. Experiments by Gary E. Schwartz, PH. D. Schwartz is a scientist that is exploring scientific evidence of God and creationism, not specifically Christian concepts of God and Creationism, just God and creationism in general. He writes "G.O.D" not "God" to denote a Guiding, Organizing, Designing process that he believes to be present in the universe.

While I do not agree with everything in the book, it is a great read and does seem to indicate that there is a power greater than that possessed by human kind, therefore, a Higher Power. The experiments carried out by Schwartz are scientifically sound although I need to put more thought into the interpretation of his data before I go any farther.

Whether or not you are Christian or believe in a God, the book is an interesting read that I would recommend for anyone interested in whether or not there might be scientific proof for creationism.


Edit - my apologies if someone else has already posted info about Schwartz's work, I admitedly have not read the entire thread.

[edit on 12/22/06 by wellwhatnow]

In the Garden of Eden there was a talking snake.

I'd like to see that Mr. I wrote a book about G.O.D and not God, scientifically prove a talking snake.

The fact that Adam was able to see the light from the stars straight away, which should have taken billions of years to reach him and make them visible. There's no scientific explanation of that.

So I'm unsure how you can say you can scientifically prove creation?

Exactly what methods is he using to prove things like talking snakes and light that should take billions of years to reach earth, yet Adam was able to see it instantly.