Creation evidence

[Autodidact]

@Autodidact

Actually it does, as life had to of evolved from a starting point. And coming from the thinking that everything came from something else, there has to of been a start.
It would be no problem if you believe god started evolution, in which case god is the start.

No, it doesn't. That is, science does, but evolution doesn't. ToE isn't about that--that's an entirely different field. That would be like saying that Geology has to account for the origin of the universe. It doesn't--that's a different question altogether.

You could say the same thing about all the fakes attached to creationism.
As they too have nothing to do with the theory of creation science at all.

Wrong. Creationists, like you did in this thread, are still passing these fakes around. And there is no such thing as creation science.

Nope^^
How do you not know I'm a computer program that randomly researches, copies, ad-libs, and pastes.
Or maybe I exist in a dream by another person, as do you?

Not what I know, jonsul, what you are. You don't regard your own existence as a fact? Not mine--yours. You question whether you exist? Think hard before answering.

That's just pulling **** out of my ***, but the point is nothing can be proved to be a fact, at least not with science.

Nor does science attempt to do so, as several people have already explained to you. Proof is for math (and whiskey). Science is about evidence.

You can use it to support that I exist^^

Yup. I'm pretty sure you exist, but can't prove it. That's how science works.

If you had read all of the posts you would know that I was replying to someone who claimed it was proven.

Cite the post where someone said it was proven.

And I basically said the same thing your saying about science^^

I don't think so. I think that science is the best way we have to learn about the natural world, including living organisms, precisely because it works via evidence, and is always tentative.

*smacks face*
Because... that seems to have been an issue before. This ain't a debate thread^^

Sorry, you're in a debate forum.

Wait didn't you just go into a whole ramble about how nothing can be proven??

No, that's not what I said. What I said is, science doesn't proceed on proof; it proceeds on evidence.

I assume the same can be said about evolution considering science doesn't prove or disprove.

Science cannot prove, but it can disprove. Creationism in the sense of Young Earth, bible, flood, etc. has been disproven.

From what I presented above I suggest that you might have to learn about what your talking about.

I feel pretty confident in my understanding of ToE, having spent many hours studying and learning about it.

By the way, are you using TOE to say theory of evolution, or TOE the accepted abbreviation for the theory of everything?

Read my post. I'm using ToE as an abbreviation for Theory of Evolution. That's why I put in in parentheses after Theory of Evolution the first time I used it. This is a common abbreviation on the internet.

That's the only thing I know it abbreviates for???
And I do know what it claims and the evidence.

That's odd, because if so you would realize that nothing you mentioned here has anything to do with it.

 

[Autodidact]

It's an opinion really, but I see creationism as a science.

It isn't.

To me anything that tries to explain a subject using modern scientific methods is considered a science whether it has to do with religion or not.

It's not because it has to do with religion. It's because it doesn't use the scientific method.

Labeling something as not science solely on the reasons of it having ties to religion I think is close minded.

That's not why it's not science. In science, you start with facts, and build up to a tentative, revisable conclusion. Creationism starts with its conclusion, and then looks around for facts to bolster it.

 

[Jonsul]

You seem to understand little of what your talking about, no offence.
And you seem to be trying everything you can do to argue as much about anything as possible whether it's small, big, or nothing wrong at all.

It's not because it has to do with religion. It's because it doesn't use the scientific method.

That's not why it's not science. In science, you start with facts, and build up to a tentative, revisable conclusion. Creationism starts with its conclusion, and then looks around for facts to bolster it.

You should learn more about what your arguing about, you may know alot about evolution but you don't know enough about creationism to make statements like that. Back up your statements with sources if your going to say a conclusion like that. And yes creation science does use the scientific method.

And isn't that what alot of science does? "This thing is here, lets find out why it's here." or "I believe this is a logical explanation, I will set out to find evidence to support it"

No, it doesn't. That is, science does, but evolution doesn't. ToE isn't about that--that's an entirely different field. That would be like saying that Geology has to account for the origin of the universe. It doesn't--that's a different question altogether.

So you assume that life always existed? If each species evolves becoming better, going down the line there must be a basic beginning. Also Evolution studies the changes down the line and why those changes happen, it doesn't make sense why it should ignore the beginning changes and focus on the later ones.

Next I don't see why you'd try to compare Evolution to Geology as they're two very different things. Geology is a field of study, while Evolution is a theory within the Biology field. It doesn't make sense, it's like trying to compare Gravity with Astrology, they're two different things.

Wrong. Creationists, like you did in this thread, are still passing these fakes around. And there is no such thing as creation science.

*sigh*
We've been over this, I'm not advocating any of those. I just thought they were interesting.

You question whether you exist?

I question everything

I don't think so. I think that science is the best way we have to learn about the natural world, including living organisms, precisely because it works via evidence, and is always tentative.

I don't know why your mentioning this? I never said it wasn't

Cite the post where someone said it was proven.

Here you go

By that definition, there is no such thing as a fact. Evolution is as proven as gravity.

Breaking off from topic, isn't gravity physics, which has to do alot with mathematic formulas?

Science cannot prove, but it can disprove. Creationism in the sense of Young Earth, bible, flood, etc. has been disproven.

Hmm... how is it that it can't prove something exists yet can disprove something?
Again please give me a source before you make conclusions like that, you seem to be
doing what you said you don't like. Making a conclusion and then seeking evidence.

I feel pretty confident in my understanding of ToE

I'm sure that's true, and again I'm unsure why you bring this up, if you see you've been making statements not regarding evolution. I suggest you learn the same amount on both sides before making drastic conclusions like you've been doing.

Tell the truth, you don't know either what ToE says, or what the evidence for it is, do you?
Quote:

That's the only thing I know it abbreviates for???
And I do know what it claims and the evidence.
​

That's odd, because if so you would realize that nothing you mentioned here has anything to do with it.

You know what!
That's probably because this is a thread about creationism

 

[Autodidact]

You seem to understand little of what your talking about, no offence.

I'll consider the source.

And you seem to be trying everything you can do to argue as much about anything as possible whether it's small, big, or nothing wrong at all.

I value the truth.

You should learn more about what your arguing about, you may know alot about evolution but you don't know enough about creationism to make statements like that. Back up your statements with sources if your going to say a conclusion like that. And yes creation science does use the scientific method.

Believe me, there's almost nothing I don't know about creationism. Here's a statement of faith from the leading "creation science" organization, Answers in Genesis:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

These are articles of faith, that they take as true, and then seek evidence to confirm. That's the opposite of the scientific method.

And isn't that what alot of science does? "This thing is here, lets find out why it's here." or "I believe this is a logical explanation, I will set out to find evidence to support it"

That's where science starts. The difference is that science takes nothing (except its method) on faith. It is always open to any explanation being wrong, as well as right. "Creation science" is not open to being wrong, and so is not science.

So you assume that life always existed?

No, I assume it has nothing to do with evolution.

If each species evolves becoming better, going down the line there must be a basic beginning.

Species don't evolve to become better. Those that suit their environment survive and reproduce. As I pointed out earlier, you lack a basic understanding of what ToE is and says.

Also Evolution studies the changes down the line and why those changes happen, it doesn't make sense why it should ignore the beginning changes and focus on the later ones.

Because it's not a theory about that. It's a theory of how we get the diversity of species of organisms on earth. That's a lot, and quite enough for one theory. As I said, you don't know the first thing about ToE, not even what it's about and what it isn't about.

Next I don't see why you'd try to compare Evolution to Geology as they're two very different things. Geology is a field of study, while Evolution is a theory within the Biology field. It doesn't make sense, it's like trying to compare Gravity with Astrology, they're two different things.

O.K. plate tectonics doesn't have to grapple with the origin of the planet. They're two different questions. Get it?

*sigh*
We've been over this, I'm not advocating any of those. I just thought they were interesting.

Only if you think lies are interesting.

I question everything

If you don't exist, then who's doing the questioning?

Breaking off from topic, isn't gravity physics, which has to do alot with mathematic formulas?

All of science has a lot to do with mathematic formulas.

Hmm... how is it that it can't prove something exists yet can disprove something?

Because if a hypothesis generates predictions which are not confirmed, it's disproved. If it generates predictions which are confirmed, it's not proven, just (tentatively) confirmed.

Again please give me a source before you make conclusions like that, you seem to be
doing what you said you don't like. Making a conclusion and then seeking evidence.

Not a source--hundreds of sources. Each one is huge. Pick one. How about--the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Would you like the evidence on that?

I'm sure that's true, and again I'm unsure why you bring this up, if you see you've been making statements not regarding evolution. I suggest you learn the same amount on both sides before making drastic conclusions like you've been doing.

As I've said, I'm as familiar with creationism in its many and awful varieties as I am with evolution. For example, I've read all about the examples you started the thread with, and where and how each and every one of them was shown to be bogus, fraudulent lies. And I can give you the cites.

You know what!
That's probably because this is a thread about creationism

In that case, please define what you mean by "creationism."

 

[Jonsul]

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

'
This is a quote from Creation philosophy, and isn't representative of creation science. And in any case it doesn't say anything about creation science not using the the scientific method, so I'm unsure why your posting this.

"Creation science" is not open to being wrong, and so is not science.

Creation religion is not open to being wrong. Creation science is open to being wrong.

Species don't evolve to become better. Those that suit their environment survive and reproduce. As I pointed out earlier, you lack a basic understanding of what ToE is and says.

Which is just a longer explanation that says that those that suit their environment move on making their species better. They evolve to survive but in the end are made better.

O.K. plate tectonics doesn't have to grapple with the origin of the planet. They're two different questions. Get it?

Some scientists who study plate tectonics probably do grapple with how the plates were started and behaved on a young earth, to show how they came to be where they are now.

All of science has a lot to do with mathematic formulas.

Didn't we all just go through a thing to end up with mathematics can prove science can't. So I was saying how can something dealing in science be as proven as something dealing with mathematics.
Holy crap, talking about arguing just for the sake of arguing

Because if a hypothesis generates predictions which are not confirmed, it's disproved

No it is then unsupported, not disproved. That's why you hear "His predictions were not supported by the outcome."

Not a source--hundreds of sources. Each one is huge. Pick one. How about--the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Would you like the evidence on that?

Young earth Creationists believe that current dating systems are flawed, and they believe this because of many inconsistencies within the dating systems. I'll post a source in a sec, got family over.

As I've said, I'm as familiar with creationism in its many and awful varieties as I am with evolution.

It seems like your familiar with Creation religion not Creation Science.

In that case, please define what you mean by "creationism."

As in not Evolution...

This will probably be my last dealing with what you say, as nothing I say has any weight to you.
I could tell you that my grass is green outside and you'd try to argue about it.

To you I am only a liar, even though I have yet to make any claims or conclusions like you have.
You'd probably assume I am immoral and an adulterer as well, though you don't know me.

 

[fantome profane]

It's an opinion really, but I see creationism as a science. To me anything that tries to explain a subject using modern scientific methods is considered a science whether it has to do with religion or not. Labeling something as not science solely on the reasons of it having ties to religion I think is close minded.

But that is what you don’t seem to understand. The reason that Creationism is not considered science has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The religious aspect only becomes relevant when we are dealing with what can and cannot be taught in a public school, it’s a separation of church and state issue. But it has nothing to do with whether it is science or not.

The reason that Creationism is not considered a science is because it does not explain anything, it is not falsifiable, it does not make predictions, it does not expand our understanding, it does not open up new avenues for scientific research. Creationism is about using certain scientific terminology to make dogma seem like it is science.

A lot of critics of Creationism will say that it is religion. I don’t think it is religion. I think to imply that Creationism is religion does a disservice to religion. Creationism is not religion, it is pseudo-science.


BTW – ToE is a common abbreviation for Theory of Evolution. I realize in physics it is also used for Theory of Everything, but I think in most cases it is clear from the context what people are talking about. Evolution is not a theory of everything. As has already been pointed out to you it does not explain abiogenesis. And there are people like Ben Stein who honestly seems to think that a major flaw in the theory of evolution is that it doesn’t explain how gravity works. The theory of Evolution is not a theory of everything.

BTW, BTW is an abbreviation for by the way.

 

[camanintx]

It's an opinion really, but I see creationism as a science.

Then you should have no problem explaining it's hypothesis and what experiments have been done to confirm it. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.

 

[Magic Man]

For instance the unexplainable start of life. And the onward search for a missing link.
But like I said there are problems with the creation theory as well.

Again, this shows a lack of understanding on your part. Evolution is not meant to explain how life started, only how it evolved after it started. First, the missing link is not necessary. It would support the theory as more evidence, but they already have plenty of evidence that points to the process, which is why they have the scientific theory in the first place. You should read up on "missing links".

Some things, like I said the many fake or wrongly-interpreted missing links. I remember one case where a skeleton was found that was monkey like but had a human like hip bone. But then it was released that the hip bone was actually found 2 miles away from the other bones. I mean I can see how a hip bone can move that much over time, but I can't see why none of the other bones were moved that much as well. Especially since the hip bone is in the center surrounded by many other bones.

What's sad is that some scientists publish this as evidence when it's clearly a bone from another creature.
And more so with creationist scientists then any other, as fake evidence has really made creation seem like a joke.

[edit] I'll try to find a link to that one as well. But again it's been some time since I learned of it^^

I'll wait for the link. Anecdotal evidence doesn't really help here. Also, even if something like that occurred, why do you assume it was faked? The simpler explanation to me is that it was a simple mistake.

 

[Autodidact]

'
This is a quote from Creation philosophy, and isn't representative of creation science. And in any case it doesn't say anything about creation science not using the the scientific method, so I'm unsure why your posting this.

It's a statement of belief from the leading "creation science" website. Every one of them has something of the sort. The scientific method means (among other things) that you don't start with any preconceived beliefs. To the extent that you do, you're not doing science.

Creation religion is not open to being wrong. Creation science is open to being wrong.

There's no such thing as "creation science" then. No creationist (in the sense of Young Earth Creationist, [YEC]) is open to the possibility that the Bible is not literally correct regarding scientific questions. Therefore, under your definition, there is no such thing as creation science.

Which is just a longer explanation that says that those that suit their environment move on making their species better. They evolve to survive but in the end are made better.

Not better in any absolute sense, just more fitted to their current environment.

Some scientists who study plate tectonics probably do grapple with how the plates were started and behaved on a young earth, to show how they came to be where they are now.

But that's as far back as they go in that particular theory. They don't have to cover how the earth formed out of gases, because that's not part of plate tectonics--that's a separate question. In the same way, abiogenesis (the origin of the first living things) is not part of ToE. ToE covers everything after that.

Didn't we all just go through a thing to end up with mathematics can prove science can't. So I was saying how can something dealing in science be as proven as something dealing with mathematics.

Math is part of science. You still need observed data, hypotheses, and predictions.

Holy crap, talking about arguing just for the sake of arguing

Feel free to stop any time.

No it is then unsupported, not disproved. That's why you hear "His predictions were not supported by the outcome."

No, it's disproved. If my hypothesis predicts that X happens, and it doesn't, my hypothesis is disproved, and must be modified or discarded. Every scientist takes this risk. It is part of what keeps them honest. No creationist does, and they're not. This is called "falsifiability" and is a crucial part of the scientific method.

Young earth Creationists believe that current dating systems are flawed, and they believe this because of many inconsistencies within the dating systems. I'll post a source in a sec, got family over.

No, in fact all current dating systems, from radiometric dating to counting tree rings, yield consistent results. YECs reject them all only because they yield a different result from what they believe the Bible says.

It seems like your familiar with Creation religion not Creation Science.

There is no such thing as creation science. I'm very familiar with the lying hucksters who promote something they call creation science.

As in not Evolution...

Could you be more specific? "Creationism" can mean anything from a religious belief that God made the world, which is entirely consistent with ToE, to a specific purportedly scientific assertion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, there was a flood around 6000 years ago that covered the entire earth, etc. Which version are you discussing? The first is not science, and is not falsifiable. The second purports to be, is falsifiable, and has been falsified. So it's science only in the sense of bad science.

This will probably be my last dealing with what you say, as nothing I say has any weight to you.
I could tell you that my grass is green outside and you'd try to argue about it.

Suit yourself.

To you I am only a liar, even though I have yet to make any claims or conclusions like you have.

You started out by posting a slew of lies, stating that you didn't want to debate them, and then claiming you only posted them because they're "interesting." That post in itself was one of the most dishonest ones I've seen here at RF.

You'd probably assume I am immoral and an adulterer as well, though you don't know me.

No, I have no idea. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions about other people. I'm only responding to what you've actually done right here at RF.

 

[Autodidact]

So, Jonsul, I asked you to choose a specific part of the creationism/evolution controversy for me to demonstrate that creationism has been disproved, and suggested the age of the earth. Does that suit you? May I bring forth the overwhelming evidence as to the age of the earth?

 

[Magic Man]

It's an opinion really, but I see creationism as a science.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's a dishonest way of looking at it. Science involves the scientific method and scientific evidence. Creationism involves neither thing. It is an idea thought up and based on an old book. We have no evidence for it.

Creationism is a possibility. It could be the reason for everything existing. However, it is in no way science.

To me anything that tries to explain a subject using modern scientific methods is considered a science whether it has to do with religion or not.

Yes, as you said, anything that uses scientific methods. That's where creationism fails as a science.

Labeling something as not science solely on the reasons of it having ties to religion I think is close minded.
I mentioned before the video "creation in the symphony" it goes through much of the theories and tests done by creationists to explain creation. It is a little dated though, but it's really interesting.

Things aren't labelled "not science" because they have ties to religion. They are labelled such because they don't follow the rules of science, as I explained above. If someone comes up with a hypothesis, gathers evidence and does research, concludes that their hypothesis was accurate, and then has many other people also do tests and check their work and come to the same conclusion, then it can be considered science. Intelligent design and creationism don't do that. They come up with the hypothesis, and try to prove it with evidence which doesn't exist. It should be the other way around. You should find the evidence, and then figure out what it's telling you, which is how evolution was decided upon.

 

[painted wolf]

Jonsul-

The theory/hypotesis that deals with how live arose is called Abiogenesis. Evolution deals with how life adapted to the environment and didn't dissappear once it appeared.

here is a really nice video on some recent research done to explore and evidence how Abiogenesis would have happened.
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

The reason Creationism isn't thought of as science is they don't actually do any science. Science requires not only the formation of a hypothesis, but testing that hypothesis as well. How can you test for god?
Thus far creation 'scientists' have yet to perform any experiments make any testable predictions that have produced anything like the prediction or indeed form any cognizant ideas that are not simply rehashing old arguments.

I personally would love to see Creationists do some actual science... It would give us something to actually discuss. Thus far, however, I've been disappointed.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

There is a valid question in there, though. At what point does abiogenesis stop and evolution begin? Where is the dividing line we call "life?"

 

[fantome profane]

As in not Evolution...

And this is the major problem with talking about “creation science” as if it were an alternative to the theory of evolution. It is one thing to criticize the theory of evolution, scientific theories should be criticized. No idea in science is above criticism. I only wish that creationists would do a much better job at criticizing evolution. The criticisms they usually offer are pathetically weak.

But criticism of one theory does not magically create another theory. And creationists simply do not have an alternative theory to explain the diversity of life. I realize this might be hard for you to believe at first, but think about it. Pick a species, any species. Lets say for example the Kola Bear (it doesn’t matter what species you choose). Now tell me what is the creationist theory for how the Kola Bear came to be? Now I know you are going to say that “goddidit”, but that is not what I am asking. I am asking for a hypothesis for how the Koala Bear came into existence. The theory of evolution provides a wonderful elegant explanation for how species like the Koala Bear came to be. Creationists have nothing.

 

[fantome profane]

There is a valid question in there, though. At what point does abiogenesis stop and evolution begin? Where is the dividing line we call "life?"

For the purpose of the theory of evolution, any randomly varying self replicating molecule that can then be subjected to non random selection.

I realize this definition is lacking for any philosophical/spiritual/religious purpose, but in terms of distinguishing evolution from abiogenesis it suffices.

 

[painted wolf]

There is a valid question in there, though. At what point does abiogenesis stop and evolution begin? Where is the dividing line we call "life?"

Absolutely valid.

Abiogenesis is a chemical process, evolution is a selective process. Evolution would start when two or more of these proto-cells compete with one another for resources and one of them 'wins' due to a heritable advantage.
"Life" isn't actually needed per-say for this part. Indeed the modern definition of life may be too stringent to cover the earliest organisms.

There would be long fuzzy period where these things would be pushing the envelope of what we think life is.

Much like feathered dinosaurs blur the line between dinosaur and bird to the point of uselessness. These early cells may blurr the line between life and non-life. We will only know more as we do more experiments in this area.

wa:do

*ps: I know its not very clear but I hope it helps.

 

[Storm]

For the purpose of the theory of evolution, any randomly varying self replicating molecule that can then be subjected to non random selection.

I realize this definition is lacking for any philosophical/spiritual/religious purpose, but in terms of distinguishing evolution from abiogenesis it suffices.

That's all I was looking for. Thank you, FP.

I would have thought it had something to do with the five universal traits of life (can't remember the proper tem atm, sorry), but ok.

 

[Storm]

Absolutely valid.

Abiogenesis is a chemical process, evolution is a selective process. Evolution would start when two or more of these proto-cells compete with one another for resources and one of them 'wins' due to a heritable advantage.
"Life" isn't actually needed per-say for this part. Indeed the modern definition of life may be too stringent to cover the earliest organisms.

There would be long fuzzy period where these things would be pushing the envelope of what we think life is.

Much like feathered dinosaurs blur the line between dinosaur and bird to the point of uselessness. These early cells may blurr the line between life and non-life. We will only know more as we do more experiments in this area.

wa:do

*ps: I know its not very clear but I hope it helps.

ugh, conflicting answers. Well, no offense to our dear fantome, I'm going to go with painted wolf, as she seems to be rather expert.

 

[painted wolf]

Seven key features of life. (source: Biology 7th ed. Campbell/Reece)

Order
Evolutionary Adaptation
Response to the Environment
Regulation
Energy Processing
Reproduction
Growth and Development

wa:do

 

[Storm]

Wow, my Life Science class sucked. We were taught that there were only 5, and one of them was the need for water. Damn Texas public schools.....