Show me infallible proof of creationism

reply to post by ufoptics


This video might help clarify the terminology .




Points made in the video.

Facts = confirmed observations.

Hypothesis =a testable statement

which you use to build a theory.

Theory = logical constructs of facts/ tested hypothesis / laws

All of which leads to the formation of explanations to understand the phenomenon.

reply to post by ufoptics


It was not meant to be rude. Your posts just show a lack of understanding in reference to scientific theory. I agree with the point that we don't know errr.... feces! What the human race knows about the universe compared to what is knowable is like comparing a drop of water to the Pacific ocean. All I am stating is that the theory of Evolution is the best theory available at this time to explain the observable data that we have. Science has theories, math has facts and religion has myths.

reply to post by Lasheic


If you don't understand my point of view, then I am sorry....you are the one lacking the education. I have made my comments in a very positive manner, not belittling anyone.

You on the other hand, very rude and by your ranting, very uneducated. I would have appreciated your opion and/or stance in the matter, but you never gave one. Looks like you overlooked that basic educated fact.

If you can't contribute to the thread positively, don't bother commenting....don't go away mad, just go away.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Ok, I agree with you there.....that was my whole point. Saying that we really don't know and all is just theory, most educated, but still only theory.
Whatever you apply it to you get the same....theory, myth or fact. At the end of the day, we really don't know.
Today's theory, may be tomorrows fact.....Yesterday's fact, maybe tomorrows theory......and so on with myth.
Not to be a killjoy, just trying to present another veiw.

reply to post by sobek52


1) Physical Science proof here: www.icr.org...

2) Earth Science proof here: www.icr.org...

3) Life Science proof here: www.icr.org...

I hope you enjoy these links in your research, thx for asking my friend...

OT

Edit to add:

Evidence against evolution:


There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.

Direct evidence for Creation:


The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past. The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose.

Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose. This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence.

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?

C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” addresses the possibilities of who Jesus could have been. He concludes that He couldn’t have just been a great moral teacher. He had to be the Son of God, a lunatic or the Devil. He certainly wasn’t a lunatic or the Devil so He had to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God and He said God created everything, then this is the very best direct evidence for creationism.

more: www.allaboutcreation.org...



[edit on 24-6-2009 by OldThinker]

reply to post by Whine Flu


And now for something completely different... I will "prove" the non-existence of God. Ok, God does not exist. There, it has been said, so it is true. I have uncreated the God that we created many eons ago. But yet it lingers, that pesky problem that we are arguing that God is true because just some dude said it... Seriously, if God does exist, then what a wonderful one to give us this much to ponder to infinite possibilities. Then again, if God does not, well, here we are wasting another night on ATS. But wait, then this isn't a waste, our mere existence is. Shoot, I forgot to not exist. Who allowed me to do that? Darn it all, this little life. Nothing really left to do but ponder that black abyss. Oh, but then we have that other problem of "black abyss" being impossible without "creation". I suppose I will move on to creating that blackness. Now then, I have finally achieved all of my goals to prove that there is no God. And in my godliness, I have proven that I am god and created a perfect Hell for myself. In a wonder of self contemplation, I imagine us on the stairs of something that looks big and important in Greece a few thousand years ago debating this. Hello, Plato, my name may be Socrates. Then again, they aren't real either.

Snarky? Maybe a little but no god will judge this today... Or maybe ever...

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Religion is just a manifestation of mankind to appease the (d)numb sheeple. In fact, i'll go out on a limb and say religious people are stupid...aahhh, i feel better now

Wow, I find it very difficult to believe that you would consider: Einstein, Newton, Da vinci, Franklin, Jefferson, and Misler stupid. You must have a phenomenal IQ to consider those people stupid.

I feel honored just to read your post knowing that.

What you have done is known as projection. It is an ego defense mechanism, commonly known as Freudian defense mechanisms. Projection is when you try to project your weaknesses or inferiority upon someone else in order to appease your ego of its own weakness. You actually just gave a text book example. Nicely done.

[edit on 6/24/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
Wow, I find it very difficult to believe that you would consider: Einstein, Newton, Da vinci, Franklin, Jefferson, and Misler stupid.

Thought I'd a few more to your fine point....Here www.godandscience.org... ...are over 25 quotes from respected scientist, who favor design...not time and chance...

Here's just a few...

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

reply to post by OldThinker


I got as far as the Earth being the center of the Universe part on icr.org and when I finally stopped laughing and I was able to clear the tears from my eyes....

Really, OT, that site just makes facts up. Not one single astronomer or astrophysist has ever said (in modern times) that the Earth is at the center of the Universe. We, just like everything else in it, are moving away from the center where the Big Bang occurred. Given that point one was just plain made up to fit the Creationist agenda, no need to delve further in that fantasy. NEXT!

Simply the fact that we exist is enough proof. Until our source is found and scientifically cataloged, we were created. Not the other way around.

Whether there was evolution after that first spark of life is another box of cheerios.

I know I am the result of creation as I have no other explanation.

Those whose lives conflict, somehow, with basic tenants of morality work extra hard to bash belief, creation and truth with the most intricate scientific puzzles and compelling theories. Don't be fodder to that. Just simply know that our origin is no mistake or anomaly. The universe makes NO mistakes.

We are here and a proud result of creation by a(n) architect(s) with a great sense of humor.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Not one single astronomer or astrophysist has ever said (in modern times) that the Earth is at the center of the Universe.

??????

"Center of the universe"

What does this mean? to you?


OT

Specifically what are you laughing at? Reference please, ok?

PS: The NEXT comment is juvenile, btw...

reply to post by OldThinker


These articles have titles such as "All Life Systems Were Created by God", "Man Was Created by God", and "Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms".

We don't need to read them to dismiss them. Why? The first two I mention operate on the assumption that God exists. There is no proof for this. The second states something which is false. We have many "transitional" forms in the fossil record.

These articles don't even have proof. They just make claims.

Originally posted by Chemley
reply to post by Whine Flu

 

And now for something completely different... I will "prove" the non-existence of God. Ok, God does not exist. There, it has been said, so it is true. I have uncreated the God that we created many eons ago. But yet it lingers, that pesky problem that we are arguing that God is true because just some dude said it... Seriously, if God does exist, then what a wonderful one to give us this much to ponder to infinite possibilities. Then again, if God does not, well, here we are wasting another night on ATS. But wait, then this isn't a waste, our mere existence is. Shoot, I forgot to not exist. Who allowed me to do that? Darn it all, this little life. Nothing really left to do but ponder that black abyss. Oh, but then we have that other problem of "black abyss" being impossible without "creation". I suppose I will move on to creating that blackness. Now then, I have finally achieved all of my goals to prove that there is no God. And in my godliness, I have proven that I am god and created a perfect Hell for myself. In a wonder of self contemplation, I imagine us on the stairs of something that looks big and important in Greece a few thousand years ago debating this. Hello, Plato, my name may be Socrates. Then again, they aren't real either.

Snarky? Maybe a little but no god will judge this today... Or maybe ever...

Now here's the part that you weren't expecting - I created you and you created me.

Originally posted by PieKeeper

We don't need to read them to dismiss them.

Freethinker, huh

Oh well, I'll stick with Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse

Time will tell, right

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


You didn't read the rest of that paragraph. When the very title makes a claim that cannot be proven or isn't true, then what do you think the article holds? It's like reading the World Weekly News.

"Oh wow, Bat Boy lives in a beach house?"

You don't have to read it to know it's ridiculous.

I actually did read those articles, and they are actually ridiculous. I could never have guessed. I probably should have read the title.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by PieKeeper]

reply to post by PieKeeper


Glad you read them, which part is "ridiculous"?

OT

Science is like a five-year old with a scribbled crayon drawing. If another five-year old walks up to him/her and says "I've seen Da Vinci's works and they blow your works out of the water", chances are that the first five year old will be so impressed and confident in his/her own drawing that he/she will fail to recognize the existence or superiority of the works of Da Vinci.

Little does the first five year old know that he/she is merely attempting to imitate and comprehend the greatness of the likes of Da Vinci. He/she's just so proud and confident that his/her ignorance and ultimately primitive ways are invisible to him/ her. The first five year old is so arrogant and self-confident that it does not realize that its exploits are influenced by the works of Da Vinci in one way or another.

Mankind has come a long way in understanding the universe, but we certainly have much longer to go.

Science has a scribbled crayon drawing of how it all works. My opinion is that it's foolish to place your faith in something that will almost inevitably be a nearly completely different picture in 200 years time.

As a Christian, I am of the belief that we are the works of a Da Vinci on the universal scale. We are the works of God, and I am of the belief that this “Da Vinci”, God, has spoken to us both literally and metaphorically.

To ask why there isn't what you would consider "proof" of creationism is to ask for god to be put in a box.

Think about it. If god has unlimited power, how can we be certain that we weren't created yesterday? A god of infinite power could make it all seem real. He could give us memories, bodies, friends and family, and an unshakeable belief that we've had relatively lengthy stays on Earth.

My point is that to ask for proof of creation by an all-powerful god other than creation itself is a contradictory request.

We are the proof. The universe is proof. Any proof would have to be made by god. If it is made by god, then it is part of creation, and thus creation itself is the proof. Artists provide proof that they created a work by signing it. Who's to say that god's signature isn't right in front of us? Who's to say that his signature isn't all or part of us? An all powerful god wouldn't be so limited as to put a big signature on the universe in any language or symbols understandable to mankind.

The choice is ultimately ours. We can choose to place all of our faith in the crayon drawing made by a society still plagued by corruption, disease, violence, and the like, or we can place our faith in the idea that the quests of science are all to understand the incalculably complex works of God, the artist above all others. The one who made what science has only begun to work out.

There’s so much about “denying ignorance” here. To deny ignorance, we must first accept its presence. Science seeks to deny ignorance by studying the universe. Science, however, is based on the very idea that we are ignorant and need to become more knowledgeable. If science forgets that we are still ignorant and tries to pass off its theories as facts, then it has failed itself.

Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t embrace ignorance. That’s a dangerous path and I’m the first to admit that many of my religion have gone along such a path with many grave consequences for both themselves and others. Nevertheless, we should never forget to deny ignorance under the assumption that we are still ignorant.

I support science. I see it as a quest to comprehend something that is nevertheless beautiful and complex beyond comprehension. I, by the same token, strongly support god, who created that which science attempts to comprehend. Science becomes dangerous when seen as an absolutely factual body of information that is a substitute for spirituality. Religion becomes dangerous when its followers try to justify the suppression of attempts at understanding creation.

When science believes in god as the source of all of its ventures and religion believes in science as a legitimate quest to understand the beauty of gods work, a wonderful symbiotic relationship happens.

For now, science still consists of five year olds with crayon drawings. We’ve placed them on our refrigerators to display them proudly. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, though. Our drawings may be the latest and greatest of what we’ve done, but they’re still nowhere near Da Vinci’s. Science’s complexity is more than trumped by the complexity of God’s work.

So let humanity be cautious with its pride and not make the mistake of pretending that our latest drawings won’t look like junk later down the line. Let’s deny ignorance with the knowledge that we still don’t know most of what there is to know. And, in our pursuit to understand the universe, let’s avoid becoming cold and failing to realize the beauty that it holds and its unimaginable complexity. Let’s never cease to recognize and be awed by what lies within and all around us.

And, if you hold the beliefs that I do, let us never forget that we are and are studying something designed by God.

I believe that we are all five year olds with drawings. The difference is that a Da Vinci (God) came and graced some of the drawings now known as religions whereas Science is drawn purely by man in an attempt to understand and replicate what some do and some do not realize was created by God.

Originally posted by sobek52
What good is disproving evolution if you dont bother to support your own claims? pretty close to saying -I DONT KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED BUT IT ISN'T THIS THEORY THAT HAS PROOF!!!-

Right now there are only two options that I know of: Creation and evolution. If those are the only two options then disproving evolution WILL prove creation. Think about it really hard. I'll try to explain it this way. A crime was committed. You have only 2 people who could have done it. You have absolutely undeniable proof that either Erik or James committed this crime. You prove that Erik didn't do it (iron-clad alibi) so your perpetrator is James. I know CI doesn't work that way but I'm just trying to explain why I believe you are wrong about this.

With all due respect, you couldn't understand elektrik's post (which I thought was pretty clear) so you might have trouble with this one.

Electriczombie, evolutionists like doing that (trying to ridicule the "no transitional forms" argument), but it is seriously damning evidence against your belief.

The other problem I have with evolutionists is that many of them throw all creationists into the Christian box and their "proof against creationism" is pretty much a diatribe against Christianity/Abrahamic religions.

I'm anti-evolution and anti-Biblical Christianity.

reply to post by OldThinker


www.icr.org...
www.icr.org...
www.icr.org...

These first 3 links of information don't contain proof, nor prove anything. They are just claims.


www.allaboutcreation.org...

"Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. " - We have transitional fossils.

"The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution..." - Micro and Macro are part of the same process, if one exists, then so does the other.

"However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, " - Astronomers have detected RNA in clouds of cosmic dust.

"Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose." - And he himself comes from where?



www.godandscience.org...

When people are confronted with a question they do not know the answer to, they turn to a god to explain it. This has been done for hundreds of years, so it is not something new. It does not prove that a god exists, and it does not prove that the universe was created by a god. God is merely a scapegoat.


This is why these articles are ridiculous. Not one of these articles presented proof.