Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Im an Atheist]

There is quite substancial evidence to support evolution , and the theory of creationism.


Tell me your thoughts, facts and any theories of your own

 

[Storm]

Creationism isn't a scientific position, so what evidence could there be?

 

[Riverwolf]

So far, what I've seen of the so-called "evidence" in support for creationism is more a lack of evidence.

 

[Im an Atheist]

i quote, "and the THEORY of creationism" . --> to storm




All ive seen is carvings and monuments that apperently proves creationism.... which i agree is a lack of evidence to support the theory. ---> to riverwolf

 

[Storm]

i quote, "and the THEORY of creationism" .

Calling it a theory doesn't make it scientific. A biologist should know that.

 

[Im an Atheist]

Calling it a theory doesn't make it scientific. A biologist should know that.

i never said it was sceinctific . ---> to storm

 

[Storm]

Well, then, what are you saying? Because you're not making much sense.

 

[Im an Atheist]

Well, then, what are you saying? Because you're not making much sense.

im asking what people believe, what evidence do they know about to support evolution, or do they do to support the theory of creationism, i would like peoples and opinions on these topics

 

[Father Heathen]

Scientific Theory and a simple "theory" are not remotely close to the same thing. Evolution strictly deals with biology and doesn't concern itself with theology, god or no god. Creationism does not explain scientific observations and is not falsifiable and thus cannot be considered a scientific theory.

 

[Im an Atheist]

Scientific Theory and a simple "theory" are not remotely close to the same thing. Evolution strictly deals with biology and doesn't concern itself with theology, god or no god. Creationism does not explain scientific observations and is not falsifiable and thus cannot be considered a scientific theory.

Thank you, you basically explained what i wanted to say but didn't know how to cheers

 

[Im an Atheist]

but lets stick to the topic of this debate

 

[Storm]

Which is what, exactly? Scientific evidence for a non-scientific philosophy? I ask again, what could there be?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Who knows?

 

[Sleepr]

There is quite substancial evidence to support evolution , and the theory of creationism.


Tell me your thoughts, facts and any theories of your own

i quote, "and the THEORY of creationism" . --> to storm




All ive seen is carvings and monuments that apperently proves creationism.... which i agree is a lack of evidence to support the theory. ---> to riverwolf

im asking what people believe, what evidence do they know about to support evolution, or do they do to support the theory of creationism, i would like peoples and opinions on these topics

i never said it was sceinctific . ---> to storm

I understand you never said it was scientific, but you consistently refer to it in such a manner that implies it is; "the theory".

I can't help but mention the obvious, it's very curious a biologist would refer to creationism as "the theory".

 

[painted wolf]

I've never seen a Creationists do any science to support their hypothesis.
If they had, they should have said so in Dover.

wa:do

 

[3.14]

evolution, the internet of nature

 

[Heneni]

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

Heneni

[/FONT]

 

[Heneni]

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10to the power of 89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

Heneni

 

[painted wolf]

yeah, because no one dies prematurely, or of sabertooth tiger attacks, or plagues, or wars.... and everyone lived to a ripe old age of 30.
Or starvation, poor hygene...yada yada...

“Contrary to Morris’s fanciful assumptions, there is no reason to believe that the global human population has been increasing exponentially, and good reason to believe that it was in fact stabilized by environmental factors (just like the housefly population has been) throughout most of human history, right up until the agricultural and industrial revolutions which have allowed population growth rates to climb sharply. Morris’s population argument is nothing more than an exercise in story-telling, and in it we see the basis for the other stories told by the creationists–selecting a short term trend and then projecting and extrapolating it backwards until it reaches the desired result.” (Lenny Flank,Population Rates and the Age of the Earth)

Reducibly Complex » population growth rate

and the magnetic field thing is a creationist myth.
Does the Earth's Magnetic Field Prove a Young Earth
Heck even other Christian Creationists don't fall for it.
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index, Earth's Magnetic Field

wa:do

ps. you should cite your sources and not just quote them.

 

[Heneni]

Or maybe i dont fall for the evolution theory. Which is mostly what it is.. A theory.

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

To save face...this is what evolutionist did:

Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, many online Scientific websites that list the element Pulonium 214 to be found on Planet earth. On that page they share evidence that Polonium 214 is in fact a chemical profile that can and has been recorded by many scientists.

Any comment painted wolf?