Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

[HelpMe]

yea, excuse me for forgetting to include other creationist religions.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm beginning to think that one half of this debate isn't really paying attention....

TVOR

 

[Ceridwen018]

Alright here guys, this has turned into the typical debate between evolution and creationism--evolutionists on the defensive, being nitpicked at by the creationists.

This is a problem, given that the word 'evolution' should not even have to be mentioned. Contrary to the belief that HelpMe posted earlier, evidence against evolution is not 'Evidence FOR the Creationism Theory', and is therefore off topic.

Use this as a rule of thumb: If your post contains the words 'evolution', 'god', 'goddess', 'higher power', 'supernatural', 'magic', 'leprechaun', etc., you are not on topic.

Muchas Gracias Amigos!

 

[Pah]

Alright here guys, this has turned into the typical debate between evolution and creationism--evolutionists on the defensive, being nitpicked at by the creationists.

This is a problem, given that the word 'evolution' should not even have to be mentioned. Contrary to the belief that HelpMe posted earlier, evidence against evolution is not 'Evidence FOR the Creationism Theory', and is therefore off topic.

Use this as a rule of thumb: If your post contains the words 'evolution', 'god', 'goddess', 'higher power', 'supernatural', 'magic', 'leprechaun', etc., you are not on topic.

Muchas Gracias Amigos!

Let me put my weight behind that too!!

pah
an indication of my "weight"

Bob

 

[HelpMe]

why can't people believe in god(amongst other non-reportable things) now?and if they supposedly can, then why can't they give god credit for anything?

is that two warnings?why hasn't someone answered the question, what could possibly be called evidence for a life created in motion?

I'd say i agree with posts #2 and #3, but the only thing i would correct is to say it is testable, die.it is apparently to many not reportable.

 

[Ceridwen018]

why can't people believe in god(amongst other non-reportable things) now?and if they supposedly can, then why can't they give god credit for anything?

Because it's not scientific. This here's a scientific thread, which explains it's location in the science related forums. Carry on.

 

[HelpMe]

i'm sorry, the science related forum?

Religious Education / Debate / Religious Debates / Evolution Vs. Creation > Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

science related forum?it seems to fall under ...religious debates<evolution vs. creation<thread.you would even be wrong if it were under science vs religion.

where did you pick the word science from?i don't think scientific debates would fall under the religious debates section, unless you only wanted to argue with religious people, thus bringing in concepts of god.perhaps if you take it to 'world philosophies' it may not include god.the top of my browser reads 'religious education', did you hax that so as to (mis)lead me here?or are you wrong?

 

[Ceridwen018]

For god's sake, HelpMe--quit making a fuss over things that don't matter and post some evidence already! I'm beginning to think that this constant merry-go-round of yours is simply a strategy to avoid questions that you don't even understand, let alone have the answer to. Truth be told, I've actually thought that for awhile, but that's beside the point. For the record, "Evolution vs. Creationism" is most certainly 'science related,' so your point is moot regardless.

For the last time, let's please get back on topic!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

science related forum?it seems to fall under ...religious debates<evolution vs. creation<thread.

He's got you there, Cerid.

I think when Ceridwen says "Evidence" she means scientific evidence. In other words, the fact that Hindu tradition holds that the Earth is flat and supported by a snake is not "evidence"....though a satellite photo of the snake might be.

 

[HelpMe]

i think she means scientific evidence as well, but i have no reason to believe (nor has an atheist provided a reason as to why) such evidence would exist.

what evidence should there be?a signature*?really, lol.

*which of course would only be seen as a forgery.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I don't think such evidence exists either, HelpMe, and I'm not going to try and convince you that it does. However, the reality is that there are people out there who consider creationism to be a valid scientific theory, and even hope to have it instigated in secular science programs. I'm just interested in the logic behind such pursuits and allegations.

 

[HelpMe]

did you understand my parable in post #151?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm just interested in the logic behind such pursuits and allegations.

Whatever else that logic is, it's ill-conceived, and would not stand up to scrutiny.

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

nothing stands up to scrutiny, if(according to the topic) you ask the right people.

 

[Pah]

it is testable, die.it is apparently to many not reportable.

:biglaugh: If ya don't publish, the theory dies as well :biglaugh:

Bob

 

[Pah]

i'm sorry, the science related forum?

Religious Education / Debate / Religious Debates / Evolution Vs. Creation > Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

science related forum?it seems to fall under ...religious debates<evolution vs. creation<thread.you would even be wrong if it were under science vs religion.

where did you pick the word science from?i don't think scientific debates would fall under the religious debates section, unless you only wanted to argue with religious people, thus bringing in concepts of god.perhaps if you take it to 'world philosophies' it may not include god.the top of my browser reads 'religious education', did you hax that so as to (mis)lead me here?or are you wrong?

I think you should address Rex_Admin and do it directly via PM. He should be able to answer all your questions about the organization of the board instead of clogging up the debate. Or even start a thread in the Site Feedback Forum

Bob

Sorry, Rex

 

[The Voice of Reason]

nothing stands up to scrutiny, if(according to the topic) you ask the right people.

That is true, HelpMe. However, if we are talking about something like gravity, and someone disputes it, we can draw more conclusions about the person arguing against it, than we do about the law of gravity. Anyone that is arguing that creationism is a valid scientific theory - supported by science, and asking that it be taught in secular science classes, is in the same category as someone arguing against gravity. Very revealing.

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

i should start a thread titled "evidence against creationism".you think think such a thing exists?

pah, no evidence against creationism has been published, yet a large handful of people on these boards alone hold it as fact.and thanks, but i have no problem with the (dis[in some cases])organization of these forums.nor do i have any questions regarding it.also, how long do you think it's(theory of an actual pink unicorn) gonna take then to die?or was that a lie?

now before your lids pop, encounter the fact that i also made no mention of 'god' or the 'bible'(in the title of the suggested thread).this(disproving christianity or any other religion) would not be the goal of your evidence against creationism.would any of you have the same standard of 'proof' you require from creationists?the entire argument is a matter of faith, moot, and unending.

tvor, am i unblocked?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

tvor, am i unblocked?

Yes, I have taken you off of my "Ignore List". I only put you on it because I was not controlling myself - I was letting my anger control me. The only way I could stop that was to ignore you (and LISA63) until I calmed down. I could not (nor can anyone else) "Block" your posts - I could only set it up so that I could not see them.
Actually, I would guess that only Rex Admin or Colin Admin could permanently silence someone - by banning them from the site. I certainly hope that never has to happen.

TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

the entire argument is a matter of faith, moot, and unending.

I think that's Ceridwen's point, HelpMe. The statement "God created mankind and the universe" makes no predictions; therefore, no observational evidence could possibly verify or falsify the statement. That is why biology textbooks do not claim that "God created mankind and the universe". They only claim things that can be verified/falsified by observational evidence, because science is contingent upon evidence (not "truth").

However, some Creationists make claims that do make falsifiable or verifiable predictions. For example, some Creationists claim there was a global flood, that all animals came from two individuals on Noah's Ark, etc. If these things really happened, we should find evidence for it. But what geologists and paleontologists observe contradicts these claims.