Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

[Ceridwen018]

Every evolution v. creationsim thread in all of these forums runs along the same format--evolutionists present their evidence, and creationists try to present evidence to prove them wrong. I have never seen a creationist independently provide evidence FOR their own theory, but only against the theory they disagree with.

So, now's your chance!! This thread shouldn't turn into a debate until a little ways down the road, in my opinion. I want all the creationists out there to have their chance to post their reasons for why they subscribe to the theory they do. I am very interested to learm exactly what kind of science is behind all of this.

Post away!!

 

[Mister Emu]

There is no scientific evidence for a God because it falls outside the field of science. Science deals with the material and testable and thus disregards the immaterial and untestable. Now just because science does not deal with it does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no scientific evidence for a God because it falls outside the field of science. Science deals with the material and testable and thus disregards the immaterial and untestable. Now just because science does not deal with it does not mean it does not exist.

I, for one, totally agree.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Emu, we're not talking about god here--we're talking about science.

...or are you admitting that the creationism theory is wholly unfounded in science, and is instead a completely religious invention?

If so, perhaps you could explain your direct renunciation of logic?

 

[Mister Emu]

Emu, we're not talking about god here--we're talking about science.

...or are you admitting that the creationism theory is wholly unfounded in science, and is instead a completely religious invention?

God is outside of the scientific field, so yes there is no scientific theory of God. However the limitations of science do not define reality.

If so, perhaps you could explain your direct renunciation of logic?

I did not nor will I ever renounce logic, I did and do however reject the idea that science defines what is and is not real.

 

[Ceridwen018]

God is outside of the scientific field,

Again, this is about Creationism and the science involved in it, not God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Beyond the empty mantra "God did it", there is no 'Creationism', only mindless repetition.

 

[Irenicas]

Uh. Anyone else see the rather large problem there?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Lol, I do!

You know, I used to think that Creationists practiced a form of selective science--only seeking theories which supported their beliefs, etc. At the very least, I expected them to have something. That something may be misguided and ill-informed, certainly, but I never expected a complete absence of logical thought. Now that I've learned they don't try to back up their theories with any sort of science, at all whatsoever...well, to be completely honest I can't stop laughing.

 

[robtex]

I keep looking for a url that is procreation with science on its side and so far i got nada. anyone have one?

 

[Rex]

Lol, I do!

You know, I used to think that Creationists practiced a form of selective science--only seeking theories which supported their beliefs, etc. At the very least, I expected them to have something. That something may be misguided and ill-informed, certainly, but I never expected a complete absence of logical thought. Now that I've learned they don't try to back up their theories with any sort of science, at all whatsoever...well, to be completely honest I can't stop laughing.

What about the old line, prove to me you love your mother. How could you give me proof of a feeling? No science, no logic.

when you point and laugh you have 3 other fingers pointing back

 

[Ceridwen018]

when you point and laugh you have 3 other fingers pointing back

Too true, Rex. Too true.

 

[Pah]

What about the old line, prove to me you love your mother. How could you give me proof of a feeling? No science, no logic.

when you point and laugh you have 3 other fingers pointing back

Of course, Rex is right about subjective feelings. However, many of Christian faith fight an objective model of reality with entirely subject thought. Would Rex be saying, in extrapolation, that emotive, subjective thought has no business in denying an objective system?

Bob

 

[Rex]

Of course, Rex is right about subjective feelings. However, many of Christian faith fight an objective model of reality with entirely subject thought. Would Rex be saying, in extrapolation, that emotive, subjective thought has no business in denying an objective system?

Bob

I was merely saying that science doesn't have to actualize what is truth for it to be truth.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I was merely saying that science doesn't have to actualize what is truth for it to be truth.

Before we fall off the wagon here, I'm going to make a new thread about this...

 

[croak]

Islam is in accordance with science:
http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/articles/Introduction/science/Science.html

I've noticed that scientists have had trouble with the Big Bang theory, so I'm thinking........where is the evidence for no god? I see no evidence for that.

 

[Ceridwen018]

RearingArabian,

There was nothing on that site which spoke of creationism.

where is the evidence for no god? I see no evidence for that.

Exactly.

 

[croak]

RearingArabian,

There was nothing on that site which spoke of creationism.

Just saying, if Islam was created by people, it wouldn't be completely in accordance with science, right? I mean, tell me how they knew about fetuses 1,400 years ago. You can't cut up a lady and expect to see the process right before your eyes (please don't cut me up. It's true......I don't want to die!!!!!!!!!!!).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...where is the evidence for no god? I see no evidence for that.

We have discussed this before, in many threads. It is not logically possible to prove a (universal) negative. Science will never prove that God does (or does not) exist, for two reasons:
1) It is not logically possible to do so. If I tell you that there are no white ravens anywhere in the world, I can never prove it. The best I can hope to do is prove that there are no white ravens on the farm we are standing on (our immediate field of view). This would not (and does not) preclude the existence of a white raven in a field one farm over.
2) Science does not address the existence or non-existence of God. This question is in the realm of philosophy.

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

Now that I've learned they don't try to back up their theories with any sort of science, at all whatsoever...well, to be completely honest I can't stop laughing.

I keep looking for a url that is procreation with science on its side and so far i got nada. anyone have one?

try this site?

or this one?

enough?

you found nothing?

how exactly do you not come up with anything?i used 'creation evidence' and got quite a few.and you're the clever ones??