Shortest Proof for Creationism?

[Spirit of Light]

Probably only dirty old men do that. I prefer to watch Judge Judy.

i would say plants do pollination to become more flowers

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably only dirty old men do that. I prefer to watch Judge Judy.

It is probably for the best. I have been trying to protect your delicate sensibilities. But you have forced me to reveal the ugly truth of the birds and the bees.

Flowers are perverted little gits. They either do themselves, which is bad enough. Or they enlist the use of either a bird or a bee. Think of it this way. How would your wife react if you told her that to . . .um . . . have relations with her that you needed a sheep to be involved? And that the sheep had to take your seed and deliver it to her. That is rather sick if you ask me. But that is how flowers use bees or even humming birds.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It is probably for the best. I have been trying to protect your delicate sensibilities. But you have forced me to reveal the ugly truth of the birds and the bees.

Flowers are perverted little gits. They either do themselves, which is bad enough. Or they enlist the use of either a bird or a bee. Think of it this way. How would your wife react if you told her that to . . .um . . . have relations with her that you needed a sheep to be involved? And that the sheep had to take your seed and deliver it to her. That is rather sick if you ask me. But that is how flowers use bees or even humming birds.

So that brings up an interesting question for evolution. Which cam firstm bees or flowers? Bees need flowers for their pollen and flowers need bees so they can pollinate and reproduce. If no bees the flowers could not repeoduce and would die off. If no flowers the bees would have no pollen and would die off. Surely they did not evolve at exactly the same time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution is a good correlation but not a good theory

The theory of biological evolution is correct and will not be upturned. If your religion disagrees, your religion is incorrect, and you should either look to get out of religion altogether, or else find one not in conflict with science and reason. Nobody is listening to the creationists but other creationists.

Fortunately for Christians, their religion didn't double down against the germ theory of infectious disease, nor the heliocentric theory. Like evolution, they're also both correct scientific theories with no chance of being overturned. No scientific theory supports any of the Christian mythos, and much contradicts it.

And no validation from the religions is required.

You did not answer the question. Can you name anything that exists that was not designed and built?

Seriously? Try a cloud or a sand dune.

Why don't you know that? Why haven't you noticed that they are undesigned structures?

And if you haven't, why are you arguing against science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So that brings up an interesting question for evolution. Which cam firstm bees or flowers? Bees need flowers for their pollen and flowers need bees so they can pollinate and reproduce. If no bees the flowers could not repeoduce and would die off. If no flowers the bees would have no pollen and would die off. Surely they did not evolve at exactly the same time.

That is a poorly asked question. The ancestors of modern bees discovered that flowers were a source of food I would have to look into it, but they may have originally consumed pollen. Flying from plant to plant would spread pollen better than the wind would so it was beneficial to plants to have bees consume some of their pollen. Bees still consume pollen today. The nectar and colors of flowers are probably a secondary effect to attempt to entice more bees. Do you want me to search that and find an article for you?

At any rate neither "came first" in the sense that you asked the question.

 

[blü 2]

I repeat, if the Theory of Evolution can not be proven wrong, it is wrong.

That reminds me to ask ─ how did your "proof" of Riemann's hypothesis go in peer review?

 

[Alex22]

I never saw any proof of creationism in that post, typical Orthodox nonsense.

 

[Tiberius]

I understand that everything exists because someone with the knowledge and power to build it used that knowledge and power to do so. If I see a painting of a flower I know there was an artist who painted it. Someone did not just put a canvas and some paint in a room and close the door and then come back later to see if there was a painting. But the actual flower which is much more complex than a painting, oh, that just happened all by itself.

Okay, let's go back to your original post that I replied to:

Perhaps the best proof of creation is for someone to name anything that exists that was not designed and built by someone who had to knowledge and power to design and build it. A house was designed and built. A car or computer or cell phone was designed and built. But a living animal which is a million times more complex than a house or car just came into being all by itself?

A builder making a house takes pre-existing materials and puts them together to make a house.

A car manufacturer takes pre-existing metal to make a car.

A phone maker takes pre-existing materials to make a phone.

What pre-existing materials did God use to make animals?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Okay, let's go back to your original post that I replied to:



A builder making a house takes pre-existing materials and puts them together to make a house.

A car manufacturer takes pre-existing metal to make a car.

A phone maker takes pre-existing materials to make a phone.

What pre-existing materials did God use to make animals?

Obviously the same materials that were used in evolution. Or maybe God has powers that a house builder or car maker does not have and can make his own materials.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obviously the same materials that were used in evolution. Or maybe God has powers that a house builder or car maker does not have and can make his own materials.

You do realize that evolution is not an origin of life theory?

That humans can build things is not evidence in support of the claim of a creator.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So that brings up an interesting question for evolution. Which cam firstm bees or flowers? Bees need flowers for their pollen and flowers need bees so they can pollinate and reproduce. If no bees the flowers could not repeoduce and would die off. If no flowers the bees would have no pollen and would die off. Surely they did not evolve at exactly the same time.

This assumes that bees and flowers did not evolve, but sprung into existence fully formed. Not the case. The insects appeared about 400 million years ago and flowers did not arrive on the scene until 125 million years ago.

Many plants are pollinated by wind, other insects besides bees and other animals. There was plenty of opportunity for the bee/flower relationship to evolve as it has.

 

[Tiberius]

Obviously the same materials that were used in evolution. Or maybe God has powers that a house builder or car maker does not have and can make his own materials.

Evolution is a process that didn't happen until AFTER there were living organisms.

Your alternative explanation invalidates your own argument.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You did not answer the question. Can you name anything that exists that was not designed and built?

How about this - formed in a cave:

[GALLERY=media, 8491]P4190210 - Copy by Mock Turtle posted Apr 19, 2018 at 7:31 PM[/GALLERY]

[GALLERY=media, 8492]P4190212 - Copy by Mock Turtle posted Apr 19, 2018 at 7:31 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Colt]

ABSTRACT:
1. proof, that there are transitional forms in the modern theory of evolution.
2. statement, that they are not capable of living and surviving.
3. conclusion, that there is God.


Once upon a time, there were no humans on Earth.
But the leading lifeform was bacteria.
Therefore, there are transitional forms between us and bacteria.
Therefore, there are transitional forms (living on the planet) between us in 2021 AD and bacteria some billion years ago.

Later the leading lifeform became underwater plants.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and plants.

Later the leading lifeform became fish.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and fish.

Later the leading lifeform became monkeys.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and monkeys.

But the transitional forms are not capable of living and surviving.

We came to contradiction, therefore there is God.
We came to contradiction, therefore there is God.
We came to contradiction, therefore there is God.

The Biblical God tells, that there are many kinds of beings on the planet.
Theory of Darwin tells, that there is only one single organism in the origin of all life, including humans..
Thus, the Evolution tells an absurd, that there is only humankind on the planet, and no bird-kind, no worm-kind, no plant-kind. Namely, birds are humans too.

Darwin operates with the term species. Such a term is possible if to consider a kind. There are different species within the kind of beings. For example, there are black people and white people.
But they belong to one kind: humankind. Definition of a kind: all beings, who share a common ancestor. So, there is only one kind in the Theory of Evolution. You can name it with any word. But it is easy to remember: humankind. If we would discover organisms on Venus they would be venerian-kind.

According to the Theory of Evolution, there are many species within one kind of beings. There is only one kind on the planet.

According to so-called pseudo-science, there are many kinds of beings, each with its own species.
A kind can contain many species.

Suppose, that life on Earth has begun 7000 B.C. One of the first organisms was item A. It has multiplied itself into the multitude of all trees. It had no sexual relation to other lifeforms during all history of the universe, future, and past. Well, such a structure of trees that have ever existed and have one last common ancestor (LCA is the item A) God has named "kind of trees". Another LCA, item B has been multiplying without sexual relation to other lifeforms and item A, and has produced all cats in the history of the universe. Then this multitude of cats God has named cat-kind. The number of LCA-s is the number of kinds of life, which are on the planet. In Darwinian evolution, however, there is only one LCA, so there is only one kind: Earthlings. If we will discover life on Mars, they will add the second kind: Marsians. About the kinds in the Bible: Genesis, chapter 1.

Within the perfection hunger and positive forward march of evolution we can see the innate "purposive potential" of the creator of life using the technique of evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Within the perfection hunger and positive forward march of evolution we can see the innate "purposive potential" of the creator of life using the technique of evolution.

The theory of evolution doesn't need a god. Evolution proceeds simply because genetic variation occurs within spontaneously among living populations over generations, and natural selection acts on these blindly and impartially to favor the most fecund variants. You could stick a god or two into the theory, but it wouldn't enhance its explanatory or predictive power.

This is true for all of science. No gods are needed, and so, none are included. Wherever gods were once used to account for various phenomena such as the sun rising and setting or thunder and lightning, a godless scientific explanation has replaced it.

Newton invoked a god to account for the stability of the solar system. His mathematics suggested that larger planets like Jupiter and Saturn would hurl planets like Earth into the sun or out of the solar system:

• "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all" - Newton

Newton, like many before him, invoked gods when he reached the perimeter of his knowledge. Laplace solved the three-body problem a century later, which accounts for planetary syability without gods. Napoleon asked Laplace: "'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Laplace answered bluntly, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

No part of science has need of that hypothesis, including evolution.

 

[Colt]

The theory of evolution doesn't need a god. Evolution proceeds simply because genetic variation occurs within spontaneously among living populations over generations, and natural selection acts on these blindly and impartially to favor the most fecund variants. You could stick a god or two into the theory, but it wouldn't enhance its explanatory or predictive power.

This is true for all of science. No gods are needed, and so, none are included. Wherever gods were once used to account for various phenomena such as the sun rising and setting or thunder and lightning, a godless scientific explanation has replaced it.

Newton invoked a god to account for the stability of the solar system. His mathematics suggested that larger planets like Jupiter and Saturn would hurl planets like Earth into the sun or out of the solar system:

• "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all" - Newton

Newton, like many before him, invoked gods when he reached the perimeter of his knowledge. Laplace solved the three-body problem a century later, which accounts for planetary syability without gods. Napoleon asked Laplace: "'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Laplace answered bluntly, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

No part of science has need of that hypothesis, including evolution.

The Atheist theory of a meaningless life creating itself by falling uphill for millions of years doesn't need a God. Its just a false hope.

 

[Yazata]

ABSTRACT:
1. proof, that there are transitional forms in the modern theory of evolution.
2. statement, that they are not capable of living and surviving.
3. conclusion, that there is God.

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. How do 1. and 2. logically imply 3.?

Once upon a time, there were no humans on Earth.
But the leading lifeform was bacteria.
Therefore, there are transitional forms between us and bacteria.
Therefore, there are transitional forms (living on the planet) between us in 2021 AD and bacteria some billion years ago.

Single celled eukaryotes such as protozoa, would seem to qualify there.

Later the leading lifeform became underwater plants.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and plants.

Maybe it was kind of a Y-junction in the tree of life, with heterotrophs on one branch (leading to animals and to us), and autotrophs on the other. Again with the single celled eukaryotes at the ancestral stem.

Later the leading lifeform became fish.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and fish.

Something like amphibians?

But the transitional forms are not capable of living and surviving.

Why should we accept that premise? I don't believe that it's true.

We came to contradiction, therefore there is God.

How does what may or may not be a contradiction between your seemingly false premise 2. and the history of life imply anything about the existence of God? That's what looks to me like the logical non-sequitur if this is to be a "proof for creationism".

The Biblical God tells, that there are many kinds of beings on the planet.
Theory of Darwin tells, that there is only one single organism in the origin of all life, including humans..
Thus, the Evolution tells an absurd, that there is only humankind on the planet, and no bird-kind, no worm-kind, no plant-kind. Namely, birds are humans too.

Members of my family including myself might all be decendants of a single common ancestor generations ago. That certainly doesn't imply that all members of my family are me or that the common ancestor was me.

I think that the idea is that all life on Earth is distantly related to all other life by descent. Hence all living things are quite literally relatives in a single giant family. Evidence that this is the case can be found in common cell biology.

I find something beautiful in that idea. When I look out my window and see a tree, it pleases me to think that the tree isn't just some unrelated "kind", but is quite literally a relative of mine, however distant the family connection. (Probably back in the age of single celled eukaryotes in that particular instance.)

Darwin operates with the term species. Such a term is possible if to consider a kind. There are different species within the kind of beings. For example, there are black people and white people.

Defining the term 'species' is an ongoing problem in the philosophy of biology.

Species concept - Wikipedia

But they belong to one kind: humankind. Definition of a kind: all beings, who share a common ancestor.

Your biblically-derived definition of 'kind' looks like the evolutionary biological idea of a 'clade'. Of course there's an element of arbitrariness to it, since your common ancestor will share common ancestry with other common ancestors. In biology it's a function of what biological characteristics we are talking about and how far back on the family tree we have to go to find the origin of that characteristic.

Clade - Wikipedia

So, there is only one kind in the Theory of Evolution. You can name it with any word. But it is easy to remember: humankind. If we would discover organisms on Venus they would be venerian-kind.

Yes, it does appear that all life on Earth shares a common ancestry and thus forms a single giant clade when we are talking about particular aspects of common cell biology.

And you make a very good point that hypothetical extraterrestrial life won't share any common ancestry with Earth life (absent panspermia). So I wouldn't expect alien life to share our basic cell biology and biochemistry. Let alone anatomical features and such.

According to the Theory of Evolution, there are many species within one kind of beings. There is only one kind on the planet.

Yes, I suppose that's true if we choose to call all Earth life a single "kind". Maybe when/if we start to travel around the galaxy, we will encounter other life "kinds" in this sense. I expect them to be far more alien than our science fiction imagines them as being.

Of course, then we would be faced with another problem from the philosophy of biology -- how to define the word 'life'. Will we even be able to recognize alien life as being life if we encounter it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Atheist theory of a meaningless life creating itself by falling uphill for millions of years doesn't need a God. Its just a false hope.

It's not a hope of any kind.

The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

By contrast, its only alternative, creationism, can do none of that. It is a useless and sterile idea. Even if it were true, it remains a useless idea. As I explained, even if you insert gods into the scientific theory, it does nothing to enhance its explanatory or predictive power, so why would we do that?

Incidentally, when you refer to life as meaningless as you just did above, what you are saying is that your life would be meaningless to you without your god belief, so mine must be. Has religion distracted you so much from life that there is no meaning to it for you if there isn't also a god in the sky? My life is very meaningful to me, and so is the life and the world around me - without gods. It seems to me that a god belief can diminish that, and make people think that's not enough.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A good science theory should be able to make predictions. The theory of Evolution is not a good theory since it cannot make accurate predictions. Evolutionary theory has to depend too much on a type of divine intervention knockoff, connected to statistical assumptions of odds. The gods of statistics are fickle, so predictions cannot be made; whims of the gods.

What I noticed is that science theory, that can make predictions, is accepted by religion. Nobody in upset about the various theories of Einstein or Newton. Religion is not upset about DNA or earthquakes. Religion get defensive when an atheist religion tries to muscles in under the false pretenses, of being a first tier theory.

I can fire a projectile and based on angle and muzzle velocity know where it will land. I do not have to throw dice and/or be frozen by the whims of the gods. Evolution is more like a good rough draft of a theory. It needs work until it can make accurate predictions. It is too soon to be called settled science.

Oops ... Turns out it can, and does:

Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

 

[Revoltingest]

Oops ... Turns out it can, and does:

Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

More....
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

Also...
god did it - Search results - Wikipedia