• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
HelpMe said:
how exactly do you not come up with anything?i used 'creation evidence' and got quite a few.and you're the smart ones?
I have noticed that many of the "smart ones" try to use capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and spacing rules to make their posts easier to read. They have devious minds, to be sure!

Of course, those of us that are watching the "smart ones" closely can clearly see that this does not hide their obvious lack of knowledge in scientific matters - such as the proper use of the scientific method to prove something grounded in revealed faith, having no basis in empirical evidence, rational thought, or logic.

Remember this, all you "smart ones" - we are keeping an eye on your attempts to pervert science and bend it to your will!
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
My apologies HelpMe - I took my quote from your post prior to your editing of it - the change from "smart ones" to "clever ones" had not been made yet.

TVOR
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
HelpMe -

I went to the first link you posted and did a quick perusal of the evidence that is cited for support of creationism:

Quote from CEMOnline:
Abstract:
Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth that contains such coalified materials.

Introduction

"If coal takes millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form, how is it possible that creationists are teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old?" This is a commonly asked question among individuals seeking answers about the age of the earth and the universe. Research has been done by several creation organizations, as well as independent scientists, in order to answer such questions. The evidence actually shows that coal does not take millions of years to form, as is commonly asserted. In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours. End Quote

So, it is obvious that making a few claims that coal is formed "rapidly and in vast quantities" is now part of the scientific method, and makes the statement true? This is great news for the world!! Silly old us, always looking for alternative energy sources. :eek: Why, we'll just wait a few hours (let's be generous and make it a few days), and soon - Voila! a new coal field will be discovered!! I'm sure this works with natural gas deposits as well as crude oil! This is super news for all mankind!

Sadly, this is one of the more well grounded arguments I could find on the site. Is there no bottom to the depth of misunderstanding of science and how it works? The people that promulgate this garbage and call it science are nothing more than snake oil salesmen with a wagonload of bottled ignorance. The worst part is, that the "frontier" is full of willing buyers with no ability to think critically or rationally.

Woof.

TVOR
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
HelpMe said:
This article is about a project in my backyard. I have firsthand experience with coal as an energy source, and all of its related problems. As Pah states, this fuel is simply the processing of sludge from coal slurry ponds as part of a mixture with sawdust - it is an attempt to find a way to get rid of coal slurry and use the last bits of energy trapped in the coal along the way.
It is NOT the "making of coal" as was posited by the item I quoted from the CEM site.

Thanks,
TVOR
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
HelpMe:

It is very important to me that you read this post carefully.

All of the sites you provided fall directly under the cliche 'creationist' stereotype that I was trying to get away from with the start of this thread. They were either religiously founded, or specifically against evolution.

I want COLD HARD FACTS concerning creationism, which do not mention the theory of evolution, or belief in god or the bible AT ALL. Think you can do that?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Ceridwen018 said:
I want COLD HARD FACTS concerning creationism, which do not mention the theory of evolution, or belief in god or the bible AT ALL. Think you can do that?
You're so demanding, Ceridwen. Next thing you know, you'll want creationist "scientists" to adhere to the same high standards as mainstream scientists...and then where will all the fun go?
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
Ceridwen018 said:
I want COLD HARD FACTS concerning creationism, which do not mention the theory of evolution, or belief in god or the bible AT ALL. Think you can do that?
i don't see the point.if i happen(as i won't be searching beyond the next few minutes) to come across something else that might suit your needs i'll gladly return here and allow you to try to belittle it.

the notion that evolution says we come from current primates should not be dismissed as a person knowing less than another in the feild as is shown in the fruit fly experiment, the original as well as the two diversified species continued to exist at the end of the test which only proves that our 'ancestors' didn't have to fall off the face of the earth.i find it ironic that evolution is still disbelieved by the same brainwashed religious types that have been taught (brainwashed) in schools, museums, TV science programs and in National Geographic all their lives.

you're asking me to find you a scientist who does not believe in a god(or use a 'god' in their theory for our existance) and not believe in evolution, this is actually like me asking you to find a scientist who believes in god in the same way i do whom accepts evolution(i.e.,ridiculous).


scientists

do you honestly believe all those scientists had no reason to disbelieve evolution?i am not saying that because of their numbers they are right, i am saying that perhaps you may recognize through what is recorded of their beliefs that they don't believe for scientific reasons.

scientifically

a scientist's testimony

assumptions

ng and darwin

i've read this and the n.g. article amongst other things, would you have me study much more?
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
the notion that evolution says we come from current primates should not be dismissed as a person knowing less than another in the feild as is shown in the fruit fly experiment, the original as well as the two diversified species continued to exist at the end of the test which only proves that our 'ancestors' didn't have to fall off the face of the earth.i find it ironic that evolution is still disbelieved by the same brainwashed religious types that have been taught (brainwashed) in schools, museums, TV science programs and in National Geographic all their lives.
This is exactly what I'm talking about! The creationist theory is not a theory in and of itself, it's merely an antagonist to the evolutionary theory. The entire quote above is concerning evolution, but why? We aren't talking about evolution! We're talking about creationism here!

you're asking me to find you a scientist who does not believe in a god(or use a 'god' in their theory for our existance) and not believe in evolution, this is actually like me asking you to find a scientist who believes in god in the same way i do whom accepts evolution(i.e.,ridiculous).
Not quite. You see, it is perfectly possible to believe in a god and evolution at the same time. I could list many people who practice this train of thought. If believing in god is a prerequisite for understanding and accepting the creationist theory, then you've just proven my point--creationism is a purely religious idea that is founded on absolutely no science whatsoever.

None of the sites you posted fit the criteria--they are either specifically trying to denounce evolution, or they involve god. If there are so many scientists who believe in creationism, why doesn't one of them write a paper outlining their findings?

If you want another site containing scientific information about evolution, abiogenesis, and other things, www.talkorigins.org is a good one. I am curious, what are your personal problems with evolution? What about it doesn't make sense to you?

I am more than willing to agree that the theory of abiogenesis is not perfect, and that some of the more obscure aspects of evolution are still being worked out, but just because the evolutionary theory isn't perfect, doesn't mean that creationism is automatically true. You see, evolution is judged on a secular scale--it's flaws are found when it is compared to other scientific findings. Creationism, on the other hand, is based on the bible. That means that evolution and creationism are not judged on equal footing. If creationism were put up to the secular scale that evolution is put up to, it would be laughed out of the scientific community forever...and it has been.

Again, people--if your post contains the words 'god' or 'evolution' at all, then it is not acceptable. A true scientific theory should be able to be presented independently, let alone it's evidence be correct.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
Ceridwen018 said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about! The creationist theory is not a theory in and of itself, it's merely an antagonist to the evolutionary theory. The entire quote above is concerning evolution, but why? We aren't talking about evolution! We're talking about creationism here!
genesis 1 does not mention evolution, thanks for ignoring this which i've already pointed out?..again, if you don't want the name of the IDer to be 'god' because it obviously offends you, replace it with pink unicorn.

"then 'pink unicorn'(for your convenience) said, let there be..."

this phrase as you may or may not be able to tell does not mention 'evolution' or that horrible name 'god'.we could replace 'pink unicorn' with 'IDer' id you like.Gen1 is exactly what you're asking for, yet for for some reason unbeknownst to me, you wish to exclude the bible from the discussion?who ever said that their religion could satisfy science's standards?if you don't want someone to name the IDer, then what exactly would you have them call the IDer?

why are you so against naming the IDer?that's like me telling you to explain evolution without using fossils.not that the 'bible' is or ever was claimed to be a science book.I can easily set up a test of God's existence. In fact, it is easily explained: die.This also makes the theory falsifiable; it only suffers from it not being reportable.
Ceridwen018 said:
Not quite. You see, it is perfectly possible to believe in a god and evolution at the same time.
i didn't say 'believe in god' now did i?i said 'a scientist who believes in god in the same way i do'.
Ceridwen018 said:
then you've just proven my point--creationism is a purely religious idea that is founded on absolutely no science whatsoever.
i don't believe you'll find me disagreeing.since the creationism theory was around before the scientific one.
Ceridwen018 said:
I am curious, what are your personal problems with evolution? What about it doesn't make sense to you?
the missing link, the lack of observable evolution in todays world that we monitor.i don't know if i ever claimed it didn't make sense so much as i claim it to be false.

scientific creationism, why does it require more than disproving it's adversary?what point exactly does saying it's been laughed out of the scientific community(of course you aren't referring to the scientists that believe in it)?this is as applicable as my saying evolution has been laughed out of the respectable christian community.i.e.;moot.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
HelpMe said:
Gen1 is exactly what you're asking for, yet for for some reason unbeknownst to me, you wish to exclude the bible from the discussion?
Of course it's unbeknownst to you but, nevertheless, Genesis 1 is not a theory.

Parenthetically, on what grounds do you select Genesis 1 and reject the Rig-Veda?
 

croak

Trickster
Okay, well, here's a question I've probably asked 10000000000 times, but oh well:

How did the universe form from nothing? No air, no atoms, no molecules, nothing. How did it form?

Another one:

How did Muhammed (saas) know a lot of things about science that are just being discovered today, him being born over 1,400 years ago and being illiterate ( he didn't go to medical school or biology school or whatever)?

I want COLD HARD FACTS
Let me change that a bit:
I want COLD HARD evidence that the universe formed from nothing and that Muhammed (saas) was just a gifted 40 year old man. Should be simple. ;)
 

Pah

Uber all member
HelpMe said:
scientific creationism, why does it require more than disproving it's adversary?what point exactly does saying it's been laughed out of the scientific community(of course you aren't referring to the scientists that believe in it)?this is as applicable as my saying evolution has been laughed out of the respectable christian community.i.e.;moot.

Another post that doesn't answer the science requested.

Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top