Creationist evidence...

[Skwim]

Believe first; then you will understand.

I assume this is only true if the believer believes as you believe.

 

[outhouse]

Evolutionists fit 'evidence' into preconceived notions. Namely that the physical is real (and/or objectively observable).

Pseudoscience is value judgment and hardly 'scientific.'

If what you say is true there would be a mountain of evidence to support your position.

instead its just the opposite, there is a mountain of evidence so much so fir evolution its not only not in dabate.

Its taught in every major university around the world

while creation is outlawed

 

[outhouse]

Believe first; then you will understand.

believe what????


sky daddy said "poof there it is" ???????????????????

 

[Acim]

If what you say is true there would be a mountain of evidence to support your position.

There is a mountain of evidence. IMO, it is not seen as admissible. The evidence is there, arguably 'all around.'

instead its just the opposite, there is a mountain of evidence so much so fir evolution its not only not in dabate.

the 'mountain of evidence fitting evolution' is my point. I thank you for making the point, while likely not acknowledging. Perhaps actively denying it.

Its taught in every major university around the world

Further makes the point I was raising. Again: Evolutionists fit 'evidence' into preconceived notions. Namely that the physical is real (and/or objectively observable).

while creation is outlawed

Creationism maybe. Creation is not.

But nice try.

 

[Acim]

I assume this is only true if the believer believes as you believe.

True, if axioms are accepted as given, and not to be debated (really).

I.E. - the physical world is self evident (equals axiom). Beliefs that follow from this axiom (which is a belief) will make understanding plausible. Believers will claim, "entirely reasonable." While not really wanting to look at the validity of the (original) axiom.

 

[outhouse]

There is a mountain of evidence. IMO, it is not seen as admissible. The evidence is there, arguably 'all around.'

the 'mountain of evidence fitting evolution' is my point. I thank you for making the point, while likely not acknowledging. Perhaps actively denying it.

would this be from a stance of severe ignorance on the subject???

Namely that the physical is real (and/or objectively observable).

double facepalm

Creationism maybe. Creation is not.

creationism is not even outlawed. you fell right in a trap and didnt know it.


creation is outlawed from public schools in the USA, not really outlawed.


have you ever wondered why we teach evolution as higher learning and outlaw creation so that we dont polute our childrens minds????????????



if you had a shred of evidence for creation then we could converse.

you cant even explain rationaly why we have the diverse amount of life on this planet we do without going right to magic, saying "poof their it is"

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Believe first; then you will understand.

That's backward. You should understand that something exists, then believe in it.

 

[Astrid000]

Here is another link to some other scientific accuracies of the bible.

The Bible's Amazing Scientific Accuracy

 

[Skwim]

Here is another link to some other scientific accuracies of the bible.

The Bible's Amazing Scientific Accuracy

"Accuracies"??? Have you read any of them? Most are either not accurate or so obvious as to be meaningless.

 

[Acim]

would this be from a stance of severe ignorance on the subject???

Nope.

creationism is not even outlawed. you fell right in a trap and didnt know it.

By saying "maybe?" Boy, you got me good.

creation is outlawed from public schools in the USA, not really outlawed.

Creation is not. You are setting yourself up in a trap, but feel free to cite sources that say "creation is outlawed." Until then, I'll be humored by the assertion of "severe ignorance on the subject" and how that could apply to the one who stated this.

have you ever wondered why we teach evolution as higher learning and outlaw creation so that we dont polute our childrens minds????????????

Yeah, we're doing a bang up job at not poising their minds (our minds).

Given the mountain of evidence for the physical, based on the preconceived notion that we are physical beings in a physical world, I do not wonder why we might teach something as obvious, and oblivious, as evolutionary theory.

if you had a shred of evidence for creation then we could converse.

I observe we can converse anyways. The search takes courage or fortitude or openness or ability to Reason by not relying on physical faculties to discover and discern evidence. Evidence on 'the other side' is infinitely grander / bigger (though that is value judgment) than the 'mountain of evidence' for the physical. It is very testable. Yet if caught up in the physical (drama) and desiring physical things / events / people, it can be, in my experience, testing or research that isn't all that desirable. Doesn't make it invalid, just akin to maintaining a position of 'severe ignorance on the subject.'

you cant even explain rationaly why we have the diverse amount of life on this planet we do without going right to magic, saying "poof their it is"

Why couldn't I use evolution theory as rational explanation for "life on this planet" (as we understand it)? I tell you, you (or we) can observe evidence for Creation within our Being, and still maintain what passes for rational beliefs in the physical. Just takes mental constructs of time, space and desire to burn our proverbial candle at both ends.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is a mountain of evidence. IMO, it is not seen as admissible. The evidence is there, arguably 'all around.'

Please provide objective empirical scientific evidence that leads to the natural conclusion of Biblical Literal Creationism.

 

[Agnostic75]

The evidence against creationism far outweighs the evidence against evolution. Consider the following:

1. A website at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation shows that 99.86% of U.S. earth and life scientists accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. It is quite interesting that the website also shows that women, people who do not finish high school, and people who make less than $20,000 a year are generally more likely to be creationists.

2. Belief in creationism is usually accompanied with the beliefs that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. The vast majority of scientists do not believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. Regarding the global flood, the issue of the sorting of fossils and sediments alone easily discredits the global flood theory. Regarding the issue of the age of the earth, young earth proponents cannot adequately use science to explain why multiple, independent dating methods generally agree that the earth is old

3. Belief in creationism if often accompanied with the belief that God inspired and preserved the original Bible free of errors except for obvious copyist and scribal errors. Such a belief is widely rejected by Bible scholars, including lots of conservative Christian scholars. The fact that the Bible contains some interpolations is so well-known among Bible scholars that only a Bible scholar who relies entirely upon faith will believe that God inspired and preserved the originals free of errors except for obvious copyist and scribal errors. If faith is the only issue, then one worldview is as good as another, and no discussions of evidence would be productive.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......evolution apparently can't account for all the.......fossils and their locations.

Please explain what you mean.

If you are partly referring to marine fossils that are found at the tops of tall mountains, consider the following:

CC364: Marine fossils on mountains

Claim CC364:

Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood.

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 203.

Response:

Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:

1. Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

2. In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1999)

3. Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.


References:

1. Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The upwardly mobile fossils of Leonardo's living earth. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, pp. 17-44.

Such being the case, it would actually be quite surprising if marine fossils "were not" found at the tops of tall mountains, but some gullible, misinformed Christians still use marine fossils at the tops of tall mountains as evidence for a global flood.

 

[Acim]

Please provide objective empirical scientific evidence that leads to the natural conclusion of Biblical Literal Creationism.

I can't even do that with existence of the physical world. How you think I'll do it with a book's creation story that I don't take literally and have refuted numerous times (based on spiritual understanding)?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Please provide objective empirical scientific evidence that leads to the natural conclusion of Biblical Literal Creationism.

I can't even do that with existence of the physical world. How you think I'll do it with a book's creation story that I don't take literally and have refuted numerous times (based on spiritual understanding)?

My apologies.

Please provide objective empirical scientific evidence that leads to the natural conclusion of you flavor of creation.

 

[idav]

The evidence against creationism far outweighs the evidence against evolution. Consider the following:

1. A website at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation shows that 99.86% of U.S. earth and life scientists accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. It is quite interesting that the website also shows that women, people who do not finish high school, and people who make less than $20,000 a year are generally more likely to be creationists.

2. Belief in creationism is usually accompanied with the beliefs that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. The vast majority of scientists do not believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. Regarding the global flood, the issue of the sorting of fossils and sediments alone easily discredits the global flood theory. Regarding the issue of the age of the earth, young earth proponents cannot adequately use science to explain why multiple, independent dating methods generally agree that the earth is old

3. Belief in creationism if often accompanied with the belief that God inspired and preserved the original Bible free of errors except for obvious copyist and scribal errors. Such a belief is widely rejected by Bible scholars, including lots of conservative Christian scholars. The fact that the Bible contains some interpolations is so well-known among Bible scholars that only a Bible scholar who relies entirely upon faith will believe that God inspired and preserved the originals free of errors except for obvious copyist and scribal errors. If faith is the only issue, then one worldview is as good as another, and no discussions of evidence would be productive.

Interesting stats. Unfortunately the US is behind the curve in catching up to knowing more about evolution. Even the Miss USA contestants didn't know much about it. The winner ended up being only one of the two contestants that believe in evolution and a number of contestants defended creationism during the questions. I know the US education is bad but thats pretty ridiculous.

 

[Acim]

My apologies.

Please provide objective empirical scientific evidence that leads to the natural conclusion of you flavor of creation.

That I exist.

That "now" exists.

Again, using objective empirical scientific evidence I don't believe I (or anyone) can provide conclusive evidence that physical reality exists.

 

[outhouse]

That I exist.

That "now" exists.

Again, using objective empirical scientific evidence I don't believe I (or anyone) can provide conclusive evidence that physical reality exists.

no excuse for saying sky daddy said "poof" there it is.


there is a mountain of evidence that shows no such magical event ever took place.

so now religions have moved the goal post to ID which also failed.





There is no evidence of creation, nor will there ever be any beyond imagination

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Creationism needs no evidence, as it is a position based on appealing to emotion, not intellect.

 

[Acim]

there is a mountain of evidence that shows no such magical event ever took place.

Show me this mountain of evidence for the physical please.

To be objective, you may not use anything that asks me to see myself as in a body, for that surely would be a bias.

I wish you luck.