Creationist evidence...

[Acim]

Oh / okay

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Ok, I am an ardent Darwinian. Evolution is fact. But this constant creationism is something I know little about, simply because I find it so ridiculous I can't be bothered to check it out.
So, to all creationists, please gather as much evidence for your beliefs as you can posssibly find and as much evidence against evolution, and put it here.
This is different from the Creationists Please Provide Evidence thread. This thread is a personal plea to creationists to convince me that the whole thing is not ridiculous. Also, it is different in the sense that, if you are religious, give me evidence as to why your religion's interpretation or rejection of evolution is correct.
Also, as a side-note, if good evidence is provided, I will take religion and creationism seriously and look into converting to one which fits my views.
Thank you.

All I can say is who started the first wave of energy? Or the first wave of consciousness? There has to be a source in the beginning. Go back to the source and there you will find your evidence for creationism.

I personally think this universe is a combination of creationism by God and also guided by him which gives evidence to evolution.

 

[Esgard]

evulation dosnt real it only theory but admit i had to google it but wy do wee need evulation when we got gods to make the world and stuff. oh ya greek mythology has kind of evulation gods did evulation to but not that kind you r talkin about but this prooves greek mythology bcuz they showed evulation before it evn was thout about bi darwkins or what ever and did nt richard darwins say evulation created earth or whatever lolz so basiclaly it is a relligon too and it no beter than other hundred relligons lolz just to inclood darwins theory on evulation did nt have prof that the fosssils were nt just other animals bcuz what if nendegrains were just animals that not descovered and we finded fossils of them i think it bettr theory then dawkins bcuz howw wud humans change in to other animals lolz only gods do

 

[JustWondering2]

DUD,

Is your spelling really that bad or are you trying to do this like a text mesg?

ROFLMAO

 

[tumbleweed41]

evulation dosnt real it only theory but admit i had to google it but wy do wee need evulation when we got gods to make the world and stuff. oh ya greek mythology has kind of evulation gods did evulation to but not that kind you r talkin about but this prooves greek mythology bcuz they showed evulation before it evn was thout about bi darwkins or what ever and did nt richard darwins say evulation created earth or whatever lolz so basiclaly it is a relligon too and it no beter than other hundred relligons lolz just to inclood darwins theory on evulation did nt have prof that the fosssils were nt just other animals bcuz what if nendegrains were just animals that not descovered and we finded fossils of them i think it bettr theory then dawkins bcuz howw wud humans change in to other animals lolz only gods do

 

[adi2d]

evulation dosnt real it only theory but admit i had to google it but wy do wee need evulation when we got gods to make the world and stuff. oh ya greek mythology has kind of evulation gods did evulation to but not that kind you r talkin about but this prooves greek mythology bcuz they showed evulation before it evn was thout about bi darwkins or what ever and did nt richard darwins say evulation created earth or whatever lolz so basiclaly it is a relligon too and it no beter than other hundred relligons lolz just to inclood darwins theory on evulation did nt have prof that the fosssils were nt just other animals bcuz what if nendegrains were just animals that not descovered and we finded fossils of them i think it bettr theory then dawkins bcuz howw wud humans change in to other animals lolz only gods do

Now I don't care who you are or which side you're on. THAT'S FUNNY

 

[tumbleweed41]

All I can say is who started the first wave of energy? ...

Cause in not shown to be necessary.

 

[Esgard]

can u prove that big bang made earth?

 

[Acim]

Yes. I'll demonstrate a big bang event tonight. It won't last long and hopefully you'll be around to witness it for the .00000000008 seconds that will provide undeniable proof. But this is clearly a testable theory, and therefore scientific fact. Not an assumption.

 

[painted wolf]

can u prove that big bang made earth?

No, because the big bang didn't make the Earth.

Planets form via an accumulation of materials from a planetary disk.... the big bang was the start of the universe, the first expansion of matter out of energy.

The most important part of science is learning to ask the right questions.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

I thought it was the first expansion of energy out of matter.

Man, I gotta go back to school.

 

[painted wolf]

Hey I'm a biologist, not a physicist, cut me some slack...
But as I understand it, it's the expansion of matter out of the "something" that was the start of the universe.

Either way the point remains... it' didn't create the Earth.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

Either way the point remains... it' didn't create the Earth.

So, there is a gap then.

I say FSM created Earth, and is only logical conclusion given the (lack of) evidence.

 

[painted wolf]

Except that you forgot I mentioned planetary formation already.

But if you want to keep poeing have fun.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

I thought it was the first expansion of energy out of matter.

Man, I gotta go back to school.

Yes you do.
Matter came from energy.

 

[Acim]

Yes you do.
Matter came from energy.

See, the way I remember it... it was energy from matter.

But thanks for the correction.

I now feel complete.

 

[Gunfingers]

It's an irrelevant distinction. Matter is a type of energy.

 

[Acim]

Ha! I was only partially ignorant.

 

[gnostic]

Not to mention the flood evidence found worldwide...evolution apparently can't account for all the found fossils and their locations.

It is true that there are evidences of flood, here and there, throughout the world.

What there is, apart from literary evidences found in ancient mythological and religious texts, there is no evidence of global flood.

Regional and localized floods occurred all the time. The Nile valley (and Nile Delta), and the Mesopotamian flood basins have annual inundations, but none of them indicate everything.

The Biblical Deluge indicate one flood that destroyed everything and everyone (except those in the Ark) at particular time. However, nothing of the sort happen.

And Noah's Flood was more likely a borrowed myth from the ancient Babylonian myth. We know that Babylonian myths are well known in the Near East, because fragmented clay tablets of the story of Gilgamesh can be found in far west as the Hittite kingdom, Ugarit (in Syria), Megiddo, and Amarna (Egypt), all of which dated in the 2nd millennium BCE. The Babylonian myth of the Flood were named Atrahasis (in the Old Babylonian period), Uta-napishti or Uta-napishtim (Middle and Late periods). Whatever his name may be, the Akkadian-Babylonian borrowed the myths from the Sumerians, where he was known as Ziusudra. It is Sumer, where the hero and the Ark originated from.

There are no evidences of Hebrew writing before the 10th century BCE.

 

[Astrid000]

Unfortunately, none of their so called "evidence" leads to the logical conclusion of Creationism.
The scientific method looks at where the all of the evidence leads.
Creationists hand pick their evidence to fit preconceived notions of Creationism.
That is in no way scientific.
That is pseudoscience.

Now I think you need to wait on here, Tumbleweed. Evolutionists also pick and choose what they accept after formalizing theories to address what is found that is unpredicted. For example there are ERV's that are found in non human primates and not humans and others that are not found in the region expected and these need explanations, theories and asssumptions for ERVs to be used as evidence for common descent. etc...

It is also a little unfair to expect that a whole theory can be explained in a post. These kinds of topics come out in books. Points about the topic come out in papers.

I think the best any creationist can do in a forum is take one or a few points at a time.

I've played this elsewhere. Let's take the creationist assertion that mankind was created and there are no intermediate forms to any common ancestor as a creationst would say. Let's see what the evidence suggests for some creationists.

If I were to tell you that most if not all of your Homo Erectus fossils are simply varieties of apes, that would be seen as evidence for creation, rather than TOE.

Eragaster, Rudolfensis, Turkana boy and other Erectus, homo habilis are all apes.

Here is a couple of demos....

The Evolution of Early Man

Rudolfensis is likewise and ape, as demonstrated in the reconstruction in the link below.
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

As you can see from the pictures these reconstructions resemble apes more than they do humans. To say they are apes is no more far fetched than suggesting these are apes turning human. These skulls are more continuous with an ape that a human. Teeth and jaws change as a result of diet, yet the resemblance is more connected with an ape and way outside human variation seen today.

Juvenille Orang
Lowland Gorilla


I suggest that your homo erectus fossils are mostly a species of ape that shows huge sexual dimorphism as many apes do. Fossils though said to be complete are often found in pieces over years eg Turkana Boy. The initial creation of apes may not have resembled todays varieties but they were apes, none the less. Some researchers have spoken to the huge sexual dimorphism that has become apparent in Homo Erectus after new discoveries.

New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo

Therefore to say the fossil evidence in relation to mankind demonstrates a variety of apes and the sudden appearance of mankind is just one example of evidence that supports creation.

If the fossil looks like an ape is most likely an ape.
If the fossil looks like a squirell .....
Plesiadapis

....it is more likely to be a squirell-like creature, than an ape/human ancestor and so on and so forth with many of evolutionary intermediates, common ancestors , which are few if existent at all, and sister species.

This example is based on alternative theories on the data produced by the fossil evidence and can easily be reinterpreted to support creation. This is one example of many in relation to the fossil evidence. Refutes to dating methods and other forms of dating methods, refutes to genomic evidence and support for creation can only be looked at one example at a time. There are way too many points to address what the various creationists see as evidence for their version of creationism in a single post. Creationists, not unlike evolutionists, will debate each other to uphold their version of any creation point as the most convincing.

Earths special address is of course another point that supports and intelligent hand, as I have spoken to.

As much of the evidence for TOE and creation is speculative and theoretical, the debate often hangs on facing off one theory against another, adnauseum. Or ripping each other to threads will little result. Much is about interpretation of the evidence.