Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

[Jayhawker Soule]

String theory suggests that not all nothings are created equal.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that Muhammed was anything other than a belligerant primitive who sucked his silly cosmology from the froth of Persian and Hellenist science.

 

[Ceridwen018]

HelpMe,

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?

I'm afraid you've missed the point. I am not offended by the 'name of god' in the least. When I said I wanted science that did not mention the word 'god', I meant that I wanted science which did not rely on some imaginary being who lived in the sky, or whatever other things people believe.

I was not singling out one god, but all gods/goddeses/idols/whatever. Why? Because the theory of god is totally and completely devoid of any science whatsoever (as is Genesis 1), and therefore has no place in the description of a scientific theory. I hope we have that cleared up now.

i didn't say 'believe in god' now did i?i said 'a scientist who believes in god in the same way i do'.

How is your belief in god so different from everyone else's?

i don't believe you'll find me disagreeing.since the creationism theory was around before the scientific one.

If we both agree that the creationist theory is completely unscientific, why are we arging?

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.

But what kinds of things in particular? I'm thinking that perhaps we could straighten you out, because usually, a rejection of evolution is due to misunderstanding. I would disagree that we do not witness modern evolution--there are many examples. Take the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics that it is regularly exposed to, for instance. We see that happening every day.

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.

The thing is, is that there are some Christian communities who DO believe in evolution (Catholics, and others), whereas Creationism is not accepted in ANY scientific field. We must also take into consideration, exactly why evolution is not accepted in some religious cirlces--because it does not correspond to the bible. The fact that the bible is completely unscientific only makes the scientific community laugh harder.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... scientific creationism...

Can you say OXYMORON? Herein lies the problem. You can say whatever you wish, you can ignore evidence and data, you can deceive yourself, you can post links to any hogwash site you wish, but you can never make this OXYMORON a reality.
How sad that you are incapable of accepting the fact that the scientific community simply ignores what you so desperately seek to have them endorse. It will never happen, and you would be well served to accept that fact, and get on with your life.

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

I hope we have that cleared up now.

yes

Why? Because the theory of god is totally and completely devoid of any science whatsoever (as is Genesis 1), and therefore has no place in the description of a scientific theory.

ok, iyo, but for the sake of, well kicks and giggles;if it were true, how would you refer to it?

How is your belief in god so different from everyone else's?

you mean catholics?islam?or the very many other religions that include a 'god'?this of course doesn't even take into account the many different protestant views of the creation story.

a scientist whom believes in the 6k+/-yrs old life of mankind and evolution basically.

If we both agree that the creationist theory is completely unscientific, why are we arging?

for fun.

But what kinds of things in particular? I'm thinking that perhaps we could straighten you out, because usually, a rejection of evolution is due to misunderstanding.

do you really think all these scientists simply were misunderstanding of the theory?if, as you say, i have missed something in all my researching of the theory, then i would like to know how i would know what it is i have missed?

The thing is, is that there are some Christian communities who DO believe in evolution (Catholics, and others), whereas Creationism is not accepted in ANY scientific field.

catholics are silly, honestly even if they agree with you on this now, consider the fact that they would of killed you or me a few hundred years ago for disagreeing with them because their leaders told them to, the same leaders that told them to agree with evolution now(not that all do).the so-called christians you speak of i guess are in the same part of my 'religion' book as are the scientists i linked you to under the last quote are in your 'scientific field' book.

The fact that the bible is completely unscientific only makes the scientific community laugh harder.

so?you telling me people laugh at my theories is as irrelevant as me quoting gen1 for my scientific theory of how things came to be as they are.

How sad that you are incapable of accepting the fact that the scientific community simply ignores what you so desperately seek to have them endorse.

i'm sorry, but do you consider this board my form of the scientific community?do you think i just outlaughed those scientists of your dear community?

It will never happen, and you would be well served to accept that fact, and get on with your life.

i cannot walk and chew gum at the same time either?

i never ever said or implied that i believed the scientific community would accept my views, are you fond of stickmen?

 

[Ceridwen018]

a scientist whom believes in the 6k+/-yrs old life of mankind and evolution basically.

So you basically take the bible literally? I mean, you believe the earth is 6000 years old and the whole she-bang?

for fun.

Gotcha

do you really think all these scientists simply were misunderstanding of the theory?if, as you say, i have missed something in all my researching of the theory, then i would like to know how i would know what it is i have missed?

First of all, of the millions of people with doctorates in different scientific fields in this country alone, let alone the world, that list is quite small. Secondly, all of the creation scientists listed who had little biography pages, claimed to convert to creationism as part of their conversion to Christianity--NOT because they found and/or were presented with contrary scientific evidence. Thirdly, none of the creation scientists listed have made any scientific claims or tested hypotheses which contradict the theory of evolution...they just seem to not agree with it because it is contradictory to their belief in a god. As far as you "not knowing what you've missed", I'm simply interested in what you personally find to be inadequate with the evolutionary theory.

Bottom line? There is no science to back up creationism, or if there is, it certainly hasn't been discovered.

catholics are silly, honestly even if they agree with you on this now, consider the fact that they would of killed you or me a few hundred years ago for disagreeing with them because their leaders told them to, the same leaders that told them to agree with evolution now(not that all do).

LOL, very true!

so?you telling me people laugh at my theories is as irrelevant as me quoting gen1 for my scientific theory of how things came to be as they are.

People laughing at the creationist theory is relevent, because it shows that said theory is indeed laughable. You quoting the bible to prove a scientific point achieves the same end.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

you mean catholics?islam?or the very many other religions that include a 'god'?this of course doesn't even take into account the many different protestant views of the creation story.

Well, let's think about this for a second. I know how to find out which version is correct! We'll test each version by observation, collect supporting evidence for each one, modify our hypotheses, and whichever version has the strongest evidence and fits the observations the best, we'll call that one our working theory! Oh, what's that you say? There is NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THE VERSIONS? Well - let's just forget it - it was all probably just wishful thinking anyway.

if, as you say, i have missed something in all my researching of the theory, then i would like to know how i would know what it is i have missed?

My guess is that you missed the part where fossil findings, along with scientific basics such as taxonomy provide evidence that lead scientists to deduce that evolution is a legitimate working theory - that actually has so much supporting evidence that it now approaches irrefutable fact (at least, to anyone with a functioning brain). You would know that you have missed this by virtue of reading the views of others with an open mind.

i'm sorry, but do you consider this board my form of the scientific community?do you think i just outlaughed those scientists of your dear community?

I don't think that it is possible for you to outlaugh the people that hear your "evidence" for creationism.

i cannot walk and chew gum at the same time either?

These are your words - not mine. I do know that you appear to be incapable of selecting a letter of the alphabet from a keyboard, while depressing the "Shift" key at the same time. You can infer anything you choose to from that.

i never ever said or implied that i believed the scientific community would accept my views, are you fond of stickmen?

I believe that you meant to use the phrase "strawman" as opposed to "stickmen". Then again, I should not presume to speak for you. If, indeed, I am correct, then I would have to question why you bother to enter into a debate that asks for scientific evidence on the one hand, while you slaughter the very premise of what science is, on the other hand - unless you seek some type of acceptance.
If, of course, you truly did mean "stickmen", I have would have to reply in the negative. I have no special fondness for that particular type of art even though I still draw stickmen myself (I am not very adept at drawing). Truth be told, I much prefer the works of Peter Paul Rubens, and I don't know of any of his works that involved stickmen. Why you would be interested in my preferences in the field of art escapes me, but I so desperately want to try to meet you halfway in this fine debate.

Always looking to learn,
TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

So you basically take the bible literally? I mean, you believe the earth is 6000 years old and the whole she-bang?

i do not believe the bible confirms any age of the earth.

People laughing at the creationist theory is relevent, because it shows that said theory is indeed laughable.

i have friends that would laugh at evolution, so what?

you seem to of missed somethings, most importantly, if it were true as the bible teaches creation, how would you refer to it?

There is NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THE VERSIONS? Well - let's just forget it - it was all probably just wishful thinking anyway.

whoever said there was evidence?the whole argument lies in evolutionists claiming to of debunked creationism, so naturally a creation theory beyond that which was supposedly debunked would involve countering the claims of evolutionists.

that actually has so much supporting evidence that it now approaches irrefutable fact (at least, to anyone with a functioning brain).

what fruits do you gain from your continued insults of creationists?really.for a while you've been mature enough for me to consider your argument unbiased, but these cheap shots really reveal more than you intend i'm sure.

You would know that you have missed this by virtue of reading the views of others with an open mind.

since you know how my mind functions, would you tell me what number i'm thinking of right now?

your "evidence" for creationism.

i don't believe that i've said there is any beyond faith.something i'm sorry to say you cannot relate with.even if it were a faith to another religion you would know what i'm talking about.

I do know that you appear to be incapable of selecting a letter of the alphabet from a keyboard, while depressing the "Shift" key at the same time.

is your worLd going to end because of my disgracefuL puncTuation?this is the second time i've seen you comment on someone's grammar practices, as if they really mattered.which also gives insight into how you work, in the box.

It will never happen, and you would be well served to accept that fact, and get on with your life.

my remark to not being able to chew gum and walk at the same time was a rhetorical question you took as you wished to.but it was a reference to the simple fact that one can continue their life while debating on a web forum at the same time.something that seems to perplex your extravagant mind.

...unless you seek some type of acceptance.

for fun.

are you actually irritated that i used 'stickmen' instead of 'strawmen'?what exactly is the difference?

again, if, as you claim, i were seeking the scientific community's acceptance, then why would i be presenting myself here?

i like dali.

always looking to learn, by way of contest.

shawn

 

[The Voice of Reason]

what fruits do you gain from your continued insults of creationists?really.for a while you've been mature enough for me to consider your argument unbiased, but these cheap shots really reveal more than you intend i'm sure.

My tone is intended to show my contempt for those that insist on using science to support a revealed faith. I have all the respect in the world for those that believe in a revealed faith - I also have the utmost disdain for those that choose to bastardize science in an attempt to establish their view of God as being superior to any other belief system (Theistic or otherwise).

since you know how my mind functions, would you tell me what number i'm thinking of right now?

I can honestly say that I have no idea how your mind works. You question was "how do I know what I have missed" regarding the theory of evolution - I was simply stating how you would know - if you truly cared to learn (which I doubt to be the case). Please note that I am refraining from the obvious sarcastic remarks that result in my receiving warnings from the moderators. Nothing would thrill me more than lacing it up right here, but, I am slowly learning my lesson about holding my tongue.

is your worLd going to end because of my disgracefuL puncTuation?this is the second time i've seen you comment on someone's grammar practices, as if they really mattered.which also gives insight into how you work, in the box.

My world will not end. I've made it this far while deciphering gibberish, I'll carry on the struggle. I have no problem with the occasional typographical error, or the poor grammar that one encounters while on the internet. I fully understand that for many of those posting on this site, English may not even be their first language (in fact, some of the posts on this site demonstrate a remarkable mastery of a second or third language). Your total disregard for the use of punctuation and capitalization only makes it harder to determine the intent of your posts. If you insist on obstinately misusing the keyboard, fine. By all means, feel free to write in crayon, if it will ease your burden. :bonk:

...something that seems to perplex your extravagant mind.

Funny - I don't feel perplexed.

are you actually irritated that i used 'stickmen' instead of 'strawmen'?what exactly is the difference?

The point of my retort was to demonstrate that if you do not take care to use the rules of punctuation, grammar, and capitalization when making a point, you will get responses that go off on some wild tangents. The English language is a cruel mistress. It gets even more cruel when you do not take the time to master it in your youth. When you take the extra twenty seconds that are required to edit your own post, captilize when required, punctuate as intended, etc., you will find that many of your posts draw a better quality of response. Then again, you may never know.

always looking to learn, by way of contest.

Now that is the kind of attitude that we can all respect!

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

if it will ease your burden.

i wish i knew i had one first.

Funny - I don't feel perplexed.

Funny - I don't feel evolved.

When you take the extra twenty seconds that are required to edit your own post, captilize when required, punctuate as intended, etc., you will find that many of your posts draw a better quality of response.

i think the best response will or would come from someone who isn't so delved into trivial matters as webboard grammar.


dne-

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Funny - I don't feel evolved.

I am not surprised. As a matter of fact, I'll be glad to speak on your behalf, should anyone insist that you are.

Some folks seem to have descended from the chimpanzee later than others.
- Kin Hubbard

i think the best response will or would come from someone who isn't so delved into trivial matters as webboard grammar.

I think that education (and it's application) is a good thing.

That's not writing, that's typing.
- Truman Capote, on Jack Kerouac's style


TVOR

 

[Mister Emu]

that actually has so much supporting evidence that it now approaches irrefutable fact (at least, to anyone with a functioning brain).

I will refrain from replying to the last remark and instead focus on the "meat" of this remark(I will assume that you are reffering to the Theory of Evolution, correct if wrong).

Evolution most certainly does not have near enough evidence to support it being called fact. All the data so far shows evolution on the grand scale invisioned by Darwin to not happen(even when we try to force it). There has (to my knowledge) never been an expirement that shows an increase in genetic informaton(a nessecity beyond simple variational evolution).

More on the fallacy of (the Theory of) evolution at www.trueorigins.org

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There has (to my knowledge) never been an expirement that shows an increase in genetic informaton(a nessecity beyond simple variational evolution).

Out of what comic book did you extract this?

 

[Mister Emu]

to my knowledge

If my knowledge base is not up to date, please inform me of the expirement that has shown this.

Or are you arguing that a creature can have an organ or appendage without the genetic information needed to grow such a thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Worry about what I'm talking about later. For now, explain what you're talking about. Give me a reference defining/discussing "simple variational evolution" or discussing the 'necessity for an increase in genetic informaton'. The truly unfortunate thing about the internet is that some find it quite reasonable to argue subjects about which they are entirely unread and ignorant. I personally find that contemptible.

 

[Mister Emu]

Give me a reference defining/discussing "simple variational evolution"

Simple variational evolution is micro-evolution, or speciation, in other words the variation within species. Talk Origins has a list of speciation events at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

discussing the 'necessity for an increase in genetic informaton'

Assuming you are refering to a Darwinist or Neo-Darwinist concept of “speciation event” (as opposed to a punctuated equilibria concept), we must again separate variation (based on inherent, extant—albeit at times not manifest—genetic code) from the concept of “speciation” that requires the production of new instructions, new information, towards the making of a new trait.


To allow the line between these two to be blurred is to confuse the difference between known genetic behavior (the natural potential for inherent variation through shuffling within organism populations), and the still very theoretical notion that an increase in the quantity and quality of genetic information is both possible and commonplace. While it might be granted that actual observation of the latter is impossible due to the length of a human life span, there remains a significant burden of proof for the theoretical notion itself as a practical possibility. Thus, to assume that the notion is true despite both a lack of empirical evidence (beyond mere interpretation of otherwise equivocal data) and the absence of a viable genetic mechanism, is to step out of the realm of science and empirical data, and into a world of theory and conjecture.

Timothy Wallace from trueorigins.org
http://www.trueorigin.org/9712.asp

and again

Duck is here pretending that the source of new genetic information (required for macro-evolution) is of no concern, and his claim is belied by his own words in the next sentence

Timothy Wallace
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.asp

Well since a bacterium has a genome of ~4 million bases and a human has agenome of ~4 billion bases, I would say quantity has increased.

Wayne Duck(in feedback to Timothy Wallace)
http://www.trueorigin.org/9712.asp

For a bacterium to evolve into a human, it would require the addition of 3,996,000,000 bases, thus for the evolutionary theory to be true an organism gaining genetic information is a nessecity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Show me an example of peer-reviewed science discussing the 'necessity for an increase in genetic informaton' to get beyond 'simple variational evolution'.

 

[HelpMe]

I am not surprised. As a matter of fact, I'll be glad to speak on your behalf, should anyone insist that you are.

Some folks seem to have descended from the chimpanzee later than others.
- Kin Hubbard

you know i left that door open on purpose.you're a great person.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Thanks, HelpMe - and I'm sure that you are a fine person as well. It seems we are destined to disagree on this subject.

TVOR

​

 

[HelpMe]

I am not surprised. As a matter of fact, I'll be glad to speak on your behalf, should anyone insist that you are.

Some folks seem to have descended from the chimpanzee later than others.
- Kin Hubbard

kin must of been a very reputable and apparently quotable person not knowing the evolution theory yet referring to it as an insult to persons speaks volumes.

have you ever passed a test of character?

 

[HelpMe]

it would appear that I am passing the test...
So, yes, I'd say at the age of 47 I've had my character tested far more often than yours has.

1congratulations, were you warned for the post i quoted?because i was warned for my rhetorical question..
2judging yourself is one thing, but i'd like to know on what grounds you judge which tests i've(not) been through?

-SHawN