creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by jfj123
My favorite is the one where they say,
"after all, evolution is just a theory. Even scientists call it a theory".
By saying that, they are actually agreeing that evolution is a theory. So they are agreeing evolution is correct.

The reality is, they have no idea what a Scientific Theory is. Wouldn't you think that creationists would at least know the most basic information behind science if they were going to debunk it?????

Here's the definition of a scientific theory that apparently no creationists no about.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

So needless to say, every time I hear a creationist say that, I point and laugh

Nice straw man,, read your own logic and show me where they are agreeing it is correct. They are agreeing it is just a theory, nothing more. Where you impose their "real" grasp of the word then destroy them with their ignorance makes a clever mind reading parlor trick but it doesn't impress me.

To have someone tell me they know what some christian mean in the same sentence they attempt to prove they don't know what they are talking about is very funny indeed,, especially when it is YOU who is giving me a good laugh right now.

As your own definition offers no words to convey anything absolute, nothing to convey "bonafide fact" nothing to say it is "unequivocally proven" According to your own dichotomy of logic you are saying that because we say a "Truther" has a 911 theory we are admitting it is correct when it is "just" a theory. Unless you add another qualifier to make the verbal distinction that they agree to it's "correctness" , they are merely reminding you what it is.

You suggesting their is even room for such attempts to debunk it tells me your genuine interpretation for the intended message the Christian placed on the original phrase "it's just a theory" proves, that you not only knew what they were trying to convey but that you intentionally convoluted it to use in some sophomoric attempt to cast them as less intelligent. Are they that much a threat to your own intelligence that you have to force false intrepretations on them as presumptuous conclusions they know less about science then you?

Evolution has been debunked by people whose accomplishments and intelligence makes Dawkins look rather like an imbecile.


Believing in evolutions theory's so far out of the realm of possibility that it makes the belief in GOD easier to believe when comparing the two.

The atheists disdain of a science where prejudice is so clearly rejected the moment it is deemed creationism, isn't one of bad science, it is one of intolerance for what it might prove, not to mention what it has already debunked as Biobabble.

I'd be very surprised if evolution is still even taught ten years from now.

It's a joke

- Con


[edit on 5-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

no my favourite is when they get all mad and angry when backed into a corner! or should i say being offered a bite of the forbidden fruit

well seeing as you have knowledge of all these "all-knowing" ppl debunking evolution - please do share with us - because we have been shown no evidence to back up your belief at all

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
[The Big Bang has not been observed and proved scientifically as I pointed out. Do you agree it is a just a theory?

First you need to understand what a scientific theory is then you can answer the rest of your statement.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
There is a lot of evidence for creation but you are no opening up your eyes to see it. I'm trying to figure out what you believe first so I can help take the shades off.

What are some evidence? First i recommend you look up the definition of evidence.

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Before I answer this, do you agree that something created the world or do you still believe it created itself for no apparent reason?

First of all i never said it created itself (unlike your statement of god creating itself). Secondly if you read the previous posts you would notice that there's an 'unknown reason' and not no reason has been metioned a few times.

reply to post by mamasita


Do you believe something created life or life created itself for no apparent reason? This is what you need to ask yourself.

Originally posted by Clearskies
That and the fact that there is evidence for a World-wide flood in the sedimentary layer which runs through the whole earth.

Speaking as someone who grew up in the Canadian Shield, I`ve always had a little trouble with that oft-repeated claim. I don`t think I`d even seen sedimentary rock until I was 8 or 9 - it`s all igneous up there. Very little topsoil - it`s easy to find exposed rock (pink granite, where I grew up), and all of it bears glaciation scars.

Considering that the highest point in the Ontario portion of the shield is about 650m asl, which is considerably lower than a significant portion of the sedimentary-laden interior plains region, the idea that the sedimentary layer of rock stems from a global flood makes little sense - because it seems to have settled with little regard for physics. Or so it seems to me.

Mamasita,
Knowledge is not the forbidden fruit!
It WAS the knowledge of good and evil FROM Satan.
It's too late to undo Adam and Eve's HUGE Stumble!

You shall know the truth and the truth Shall set you free!!
(If you follow after Jesus)

Just put a coat on and go out and look at the stars for proof of the almighty!!!

Do believers even know what evidence/proof is? How many times have they misused it like the post above...
It's so stupid it's not funny.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

reply to post by vox2442


Yes, but the flood caused a HUGE change in the plates (possibly)
When some were forced together in the "breakup"
the sediment would have just slid to somewhere else, like the middle of the Canadian shield. Or the outside.

Originally posted by AncientVoid

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
[The Big Bang has not been observed and proved scientifically as I pointed out. Do you agree it is a just a theory?

First you need to understand what a scientific theory is then you can answer the rest of your statement.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
There is a lot of evidence for creation but you are no opening up your eyes to see it. I'm trying to figure out what you believe first so I can help take the shades off.

What are some evidence? First i recommend you look up the definition of evidence.

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Before I answer this, do you agree that something created the world or do you still believe it created itself for no apparent reason?

First of all i never said it created itself (unlike your statement of god creating itself). Secondly if you read the previous posts you would notice that there's an 'unknown reason' and not no reason has been metioned a few times.

I understand what a theory is. The Big Bang is a theory. You have to realize that theories have to be observed and tested through scentific method for them to be considered scienctific facts. The Big Bang has definitely not been observed and it is impossible to test. So yes i agree it is a scientific theory not a scientific fact.
Evolution states that the universe created itself. Ex, the singularity exploded for some reason and now we have the universe. According to evolution, something did not cause it to explode. If it is unknown why it exploded, then it is unknown if it did explode and then it is unknown if life started because of it. So you believe in a theory that is based on the unknown? Because that's what it sounds like.

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
reply to post by melatonin

 

My point was not to say ‘we don’t know’ if it was random chance, my point was to say random chance is the driving force of evolution until you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.
of course life is a random chance - it was random that we are at the right distance from the sun to keep warm random chance we have jupiter in the way to block us from meteorites and astroids and random chance that life was sparked.

Very wishful theory. Ask any mathematician what the chances are.

the chances are actually quite likely considering the size of the universe and the amount of suns able to provide life.

If I blended a frog up and left it outside somewhere so it can be hit by radiation, the sun, lightning or however evolution explains it, for billions of years would it turn into a frog? No because it’s impossible.

of course the frog wouldnt evolve - its dead!

That is my point, dead things can't form life. And yet you argue that chemical soup (dead) can form a simple cell (alive). The blended frog is much more probable to form life than chemical soup as stated in the theory of evolution because you already have proteins.

it has been proven - in the right conditions to be done - scientist have done this many times - dont know why i keep having to say this - are you purposely ignoring this information?

There is a lot of evidence for creation but you are no opening up your eyes to see it.

THEN WHERE IS IT?!!!!

reply to post by mamasita


I think he/she is ignoring most things.

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
So you believe in a theory that is based on the unknown? Because that's what it sounds like.

....

Lets say someone builds a house. We know how it's built etc. Now tell me how in the world does where the person come from have to do with how it got built? This is exactly what your doing, trying to relate un-related stuff.

Creationism is a 'theory' (not scientific one) THAT IS BASED ON NOTHING.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
reply to post by mamasita

 

Do you believe something created life or life created itself for no apparent reason? This is what you need to ask yourself.

Well obviously i believe something created life because life cant create itself if its not already created. this is the definition of life according to dictionary.com - the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
now what we believe created life doesnt fit in the definition of life - its more the force of life.
now can i ask you how god was created?

Originally posted by Clearskies
Mamasita,
Knowledge is not the forbidden fruit!
It WAS the knowledge of good and evil FROM Satan.
It's too late to undo Adam and Eve's HUGE Stumble!

You shall know the truth and the truth Shall set you free!!
(If you follow after Jesus)

Just put a coat on and go out and look at the stars for proof of the almighty!!!

it was knowledge plain and simple - good or evil.
how do the stars prove god - i think it completely contradicts god and proves the size of the universe and the possibility of more life out there.

reply to post by mamasita


lol you should have seen his answer when i asked him/her that. Hopefully it's the same one

Edit: This relates to how god is created question you asked.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

reply to post by AncientVoid

You think that this world just grew here magically?

If we were stupid about house construction, we might think that carpenter ants had built it, or it grew off a tree, but we are more sophisticated than that.

However we are still learning about the cosmos, magnetic fields, zero-point energy, etc....., so we shouldn't assume no 'architect'.

Originally posted by Clearskies
You think that this world just grew here magically?

It's not magic, we can see the process.
I guess magically appearing here is a much better answer eh?

Originally posted by Clearskies
However we are still learning about the cosmos, magnetic fields, zero-point energy, etc....., so we shouldn't assume no 'architect'.

Hmm lets see, we shouldn't assume no 'architect' yet assume there is one and build a religion out of it and start converting everyone? Sounds logically.

The Big Bang is the process which the universe is created and people are aruging it didn't exist, not wheater 'god' created it or not. 'God' creating the Big Bang is another subject.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

reply to post by mamasita

Have you ever heard of the constellations?
I know you have.
Well, they map out the entire gospel!

The Bible in The Constellations

There's a Lot more than that.

Originally posted by mamasita

There is a lot of evidence for creation but you are no opening up your eyes to see it.

THEN WHERE IS IT?!!!!

Much evidence has already been posted. Evolutionists have been posting evidence for years and most of the world doesn't believe it because they have contradicting evidence. What seems as evidence to some is not to others.
Anyways, just believing that something caused the universe to be made (most of the world) is evidence because your alternative is that the universe created itself for no apparent reason.

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


.....!?

Wow that statement is so screwed up.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

reply to post by AncientVoid


You believe what the state church of 'science' tells you about THE BEGINNING?
Will they be there if you die???
NO. Jesus will.