Scientific Evidence For Creation!!! Wow!

Originally posted by Nygdan


What did you find most convincing from it?

all of it-----ha ha ha ha

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I have yet to figure out how anyone can really assert that creationism and evolution are at odds with one another at all.

Because they are diametrically opposed. Creationism says that god created everything. Evolution says that organisms change naturally, without the need for input from god. Could god exist, and yet evolution happens naturally? Sure. But thats not what creationism states. Creationism states that god made these things, not that nature made them.

Now,I am not saying that the "great" flood did not occur. It undoubtedly did. I just question to what extent

I'm sorry but I don't understand this. The "great" flood is the biblical flood, from a bible story. It states that the entire earth, all the rises and mountain peaks, were covered with water, completely, and that this was caused by a tremendous deluge.
This story might have some real world basis, in so far as, destructive, but local, floods do occur and a story about them might be made into 'the whole world was flooded'. But in no case is the entire planet actually covered with water.

I, personally, would say that, if we coudl show that there was a tremendous deluge at some time in human history and that everything, everywhere, was flooded, that, while we might be able to find a scientific explanation for it, it might be time to take the bible more seriously, because all our scientific evidence states that there was no flood, and that such a thing isn't even scientifically possible, so that'd be pretty incredible.

the sentinel
sedimentary layering proves [the biblical flood]

Er, how? The fact that there isn't anything like a global flood sediment layer seems to completely refute the idea that there was a biblical flood. The fact that certain organisms and entire faunas are only found in certain sedimentary layers and that there is an overall organization to the fossil record also refutes the idea that everything died in some big 'ol flood.

i heard dr. carl baugh speak for six hour on creation evidence

So what?

.......it would be very hard to debunk him after hearing the details

Er, why do you think that? If that other page that we all just destroyed, including people who are variously skeptical of evolution and aren't 'hard core ultradarwinians', then why the heck would you think that after him blathering on for 6 hours that there'd be more people convinced? When this guy has a short webpage worth's of "evidence", there's a hell of a lot of huge errors. In 6 hours, imagine how many gross misinterpretations, incorrect representations, and even outright lies we might hear.

zenlover28
So who does Dr. Carl Baugh suggest created the creator?

I think that Baugh beleives the creator is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He's a biblical creationist.


Baugh is not a Dr., btw.
www.talkorigins.org...
Or, at most, he has an Honourary Doctorate in Theology from the "California Graduate School of Theology". An honourary degree is where, without registering as a student, or doing any coursework, a place decides to just give you a degree, cause they think you are a super guy or something. Also, that school above, they haven't actually confirmed that they gave it out to him, so he might not have it at all.
From that page, it can't even be said that Baugh has an undegraduate degree in any science

Also, for those who don't care about the law or science, there are co-religionists who think Baugh is less-than-reputable:
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by the_sentinal
if the flood was a localized event then how did noah's ark get on the top of mount ararat in turkey??

There is no ark on ararat. People say that there is, but no one has ever been able to find it. You linked to an article from 2004 that has some guy who's a 'christian activist' who says he has a sat photo that has something that looks like an ark. There is no photo supplied. The guy in the article didn't go to the supposed ark, nor get any photos of it up close, nor even bring any of it back, or, really, do anything.

Originally posted by Nygdan
[

I'm sorry but I don't understand this. The "great" flood is the biblical flood, from a bible story.

www.talkorigins.org...

i dont think that you want to understand any of this.... you are only interested in disproving it by any means nessesary...

Originally posted by zenlover28
I couldn't agree with you more, Speakeroftruth. Even if it did occur and could be proven to have occurred it would still lend no proof that there is a divine creator.

Well,don't get me wrong,I believe in a creator.I just think that the whole evolution Vs. creationism stuff is much ado about nothing.

Personally I believe localized flooding did occur that historically was recorded in the Bible. But, they probably thought the Earth in it's entirety pretty much included their geographical location.

Edited to say: Wow, Nygdan. Great job there!

[edit on 5-4-2006 by zenlover28]

Why do you feel that way speakeroftruth?

[edit on 5-4-2006 by zenlover28]

Originally posted by the_sentinal
if the flood was a localized event then how did noah's ark get on the top of mount ararat in turkey??

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Just because something is localized does not mean that it didn't occur over a large expanse of land. However, a "large expanse" does not constitue "ALL".

I always figured if there was any historical evidence of a real great flood, it would have been the flooding of the Mediterrian sea. If you remember, it was a dry bed at one point, which probably had people and settlements living on what would probably be a rich and fertile seabed. When the pennisula between Spain and morocco broke away, it would've rushed seawater into the dry lakebed, flooding it. I'm sure those that were there, if somehow survived, or were heading to the meditterrian sea, would think that the entire world was flooded.

Originally posted by zenlover28
Why do you feel that way speakeroftruth?

[edit on 5-4-2006 by zenlover28]

Well,as I said previously,even if evolution is true,it in no way disproves that there is a cretor.It doesn't.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I have yet to figure out how anyone can really assert that creationism and evolution are at odds with one another at all. It really doesn't matter if evolution is true in my opinion. Am I supposed to deduct that just because we originated from slime in the bottom of a stream that there is no creator?

You see, where people become confused is in the statement that we are in "God's image". What people need to realize is that that means we are in God's Spiritual image, not his physical image because God does not have a tangible image per se. Therefore, it really doesn't matter how the creative force brought us into being.Just know that it did and accept its ways.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Ya well the bible also says that woman was created from a rib that god took from adam which means he was not primordeal ooz.

Your theory is flawed.. sorry.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well,as I said previously,even if evolution is true,it in no way disproves that there is a cretor.It doesn't.

But, if you really get down to the nitty gritty of evolution, Speakeroftruth it would certainly disprove that God created man in his image. Now wouldn't it?

Edited to say that I forgot about your previous post regarding us being created in God's spiritual image. So what I said previously in this is null and void.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by zenlover28]

besides theology dr. baugh also has these degree's which make him more crediable than Nygdan would like to admit

Doctor of Philosophy in Education
(1989, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)


Masters in Archaeology
(1984, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)


Bachelor of Arts
(1961, Burton College)


why does this thread seem to make people angry???

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

Originally posted by the_sentinal


why does this thread seem to make people angry???

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

Because it is full of misinformation.

Originally posted by the_sentinal
i dont think that you want to understand any of this.... you are only interested in disproving it by any means nessesary...

Rather it seems like you are more than willing to accept really bad information merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.

besides theology dr. baugh also has these degree's which make him more crediable than

You know, I went through the page you presented, and you ignored the ones that I brought up, inparticualr the ones about this guys 'degrees'. Some of the colleges you've listed there don't even exist. Perhaps you should try looking at the evidence rather than accepting the stuff you a priori want to beleive. Also, why is your faith so weak that it requires the backing of 'sciencey sounding stuff'???

speaker of truth
,even if evolution is true,it in no way disproves that there is a cretor.It doesn't.

Definitely. Science can not and never will disprove god. Science basically explains how the universe operates without reference to god, not that god doesn't exist.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

.

Definitely. Science can not and never will disprove god. Science basically explains how the universe operates without reference to god, not that god doesn't exist.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Nygdan] yes but why can't science prove there is god... my faith is not weak and i'm not using science to back up my belief... i just think that this makes alot of sense alot more than evolution does


That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.


Newton’s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is!’ he exclaimed. ‘Who made it?’ Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ‘Nobody.’


Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’ ‘You must think I am a fool!’ the visitor retorted heatedly, ‘Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.’


Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’

Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ‘The Truth: God or evolution?’ by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)







[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

Originally posted by the_sentinal
besides theology dr. baugh also has these degree's which make him more crediable than Nygdan would like to admit

Doctor of Philosophy in Education
(1989, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)


Masters in Archaeology
(1984, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)

Sentinal, Please google "Pacific College of Graduate Studies"

Bachelor of Arts
(1961, Burton College)

Even if this college is legit, how does a bachelor of arts qualify him to speak on evolution.

Just so you know in contrast to Baugh's two confirmed fake degrees, and one of questionable value to the topic at hand, Nygdan has a BS in Biology, and another in Geology, which, based on your educational criteria would appear to make him a better resource than 'Dr.' Baugh.

why does this thread seem to make people angry???

Most likely because people have answered these claims 100's of times here before. Also because misrepresenting scientific evidence tends to piss people who are scientists and people who follow science, off. Finally, those on this board who question evolutionary theories and take the discipline seriously don't need another person from 'their' side misrepresenting data, knocking down strawmen, and ignoring things that don't fit their world view. It's bad for the movement.

I would suggest reading the vast number of threads that already exist on these topics here at ATS, as a starting point. If your questions aren't adequately addressed, start a thread, otherwise, expect people to be hostile.

Originally posted by the_sentinal
yes but why can't science prove there is god...

Science deals with things that are observable and testable, ie: things that are a physical reality. For the most part, unless you're a mormon, God isn't a physical reality. There's no reason to assume that god manifests any quantifiable, measurable or predictable properties. Not that God doesn't exist, just that we can't confirm this via the scientific method.

my faith is not weak and i'm not using science to back up my belief... i just think that this makes alot of sense alot more than evolution does

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. You may wish to frequent sites that have an air of respectability. Try this one, a decent OEC resource run by a legitimate scientist with real credentials. You may also wish to check out Walt Brown's site, a YECist, but a good guy nonetheless. Finally, I would suggest checking out this site, a good resource that a good Christian friend of mine likes to reference.

That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
[snip]
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’

This is a logical fallacy referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundiam, in this case Newton's level of genius isn't correlated to his belief in God. Please quote Newton as an expert in matters of Physics, not theology.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by the_sentinal
besides theology dr. baugh also has these degree's which make him more crediable than Nygdan would like to admit

Doctor of Philosophy in Education
(1989, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)


Masters in Archaeology
(1984, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)

Sentinal, Please google "Pacific College of Graduate Studies"

Bachelor of Arts
(1961, Burton College)

Even if this college is legit, how does a bachelor of arts qualify him to speak on evolution.

[misrepresenting scientific evidence tends to piss people who are scientists and people who follow science, off. Finally, those on this board who question evolutionary theories and take the discipline seriously don't need another person from 'their' side misrepresenting data, knocking down strawmen, and ignoring things that don't fit their world view. It's bad for the movement.

if this man is misrepresenting scientific evidence then prove it ...just you telling me that he is.... isnt good enough i have an open mind... i'll apoligize if i'm wrong but nygdan didnt reveal any of his external sources except one so .......excuse me if i don't fit into your movement!!!

Originally posted by NephraTari

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I have yet to figure out how anyone can really assert that creationism and evolution are at odds with one another at all. It really doesn't matter if evolution is true in my opinion. Am I supposed to deduct that just because we originated from slime in the bottom of a stream that there is no creator?

You see, where people become confused is in the statement that we are in "God's image". What people need to realize is that that means we are in God's Spiritual image, not his physical image because God does not have a tangible image per se. Therefore, it really doesn't matter how the creative force brought us into being.Just know that it did and accept its ways.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Ya well the bible also says that woman was created from a rib that god took from adam which means he was not primordeal ooz.

Your theory is flawed.. sorry.

Well, it comes back to what one wishes to believe. If one wishes to take a literal stance on Genesis rather than a symbolic one, then,yeah, the theory of evolution presents a problem for cretionism. Otherwise, I don't see a reason for the hoopla.