Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[metis]

I try to leave my replies simple, because I try to see everything for what it is, simple. So if everything is so simple, then what is the difference in evolution and creationism? There really isn't a difference. We are created, and we evolve, so what is the argument over? Where did we come from? We were created and we evolved from a single cell, a single energetic being eons of time ago. We were born into human form in this life, and we evolved from a sperm fertilizing an egg, from an embryo, from a fetus, from a baby, a toddler, a child, into an adult that we are. There is your proof for our evolution and creation. Why does this have to be argued over, you lived your life, you know you have evolved, why do you deny it? Do you deny yourself existing? Do you deny you were created? Well, how else do you exist?

The above sort of reminds me of how the Buddha supposedly responded when asked if there was a creator-god, and he said the question was irrelevant. IOW, the implication was that we live in the here and now, so it's most important to deal with today.

 

[tth1119]

The above sort of reminds me of how the Buddha supposedly responded when asked if there was a creator-god, and he said the question was irrelevant. IOW, the implication was that we live in the here and now, so it's most important to deal with today.

I agree. It is best to live in the now. Don't try living in the past because it is already over. Don't try living in the future because it hasn't happened. Don't try to force your own reality. You don't know what the future will bring because the future doesn't exist, so let it be what it is when it happens. I try to explain this to people to try to help with people and their stress issues. People stress mainly over future issues that have not happened yet, or past issues they can't change. Don't stress something you can't change, and don't stress something that doesn't exist. You may make it come into existence by your behavior towards it and the energy you send outwards - it gets directed back.

 

[gnostic]

No, you said "scientific impossibilities." You didn't say "not supported by the evidence currently available."

Do you know the meaning of the word impossible?

Impossible: unable to be done or to happen : not possible

Genesis is entirely irrelevant as to whether a global flood is possible.

Just because I didn't mention "science" or "scientific" with any of the book of the bible, especially Genesis in regarding the flood in that one sentence, everything else is comparing the bible with science and history in post 2797.

You are nitpicking or cherry-picking because of omission in one sentence.

I don't see why Genesis is irrelevant.

Ok, let me re-quote the relevant section again from post 2799:

I can reject the bible (both Torah and the gospels) and Qur'an, because I can see the ignorances there, the superstitions (like the Book of Job, from chapters 38 to 41), the scientific impossibilities of events like

1. ...the 6-day creation, or man being made out of dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur'an),
2. ...or that of the worldwide Flood,
3. ...or that everyone speaking one language one day and they all instantly speaking totally different languages before the end of the day (the Tower of Babel event),
4. ...or more on God's supposed answers to Job (JOB 38 to 41)
5. ...and that some way and some how, there was someone who witnessed the wagers between God and Satan (JOB 1 & 2).

And I can reject scriptures on the ground of historically inaccurate in many places, for instances Genesis 10 and Luke 2 (when the census of Quirinius took place).

That's not whole post, but enough of it is here, to show that I comparing the bible chapters from Genesis, Job, and even Luke against science and history. As you can see in that original quote, I am talking about the Genesis' Flood against science and history.

I did say "I can reject the bible (both Torah and the gospels) and Qur'an, because I can see the ignorances there, the superstitions (like the Book of Job, from chapters 38 to 41), the scientific impossibilities of events like...", which was followed by list of events that occurred in the bible.

The Genesis is relevant here to the Flood. You are simply have taken my one sentence - "out-of-context", you are not reading the whole post.

You keep telling me my English is horrible. Granted, I don't deny my grammars are shocking, but I understand that if I comparing list of events (from the bible) against science or history (or both), then when I mentioned worldwide flood, then it is very clear that I am using Genesis 6 to 8 as my example.

You are showing the classic case of ignoring what was written in my post, by you selecting only very few chosen words, like "scientific impossibilities" and "worldwide flood". That's you taking me out-of-context.

Then I went on to expand what I have stated in post 2827, choosing one section of your reply in post 2798, in regards to your example of how the earth may be flooded (if the earth was perfect sphere, the earth would be 2.5 km deep).

You can't just use my line, and ignore the scientific (as well as historical) impossibility of the Genesis Deluge.

Why else would I mention the 6-day creation (before) or the Tower of Babel (after), if you think the Flood had nothing to do with Genesis?

The Genesis is very relevant to that post, and all other succeeding replies relating to the Flood. Noah's Flood didn't happen scientifically, in the time Genesis Flood was supposed to have set, i.e. 3rd millennium Bronze Age.

I clearly wasn't talking about any time before there were humans.

Stop nitpicking.

 

[gnostic]

You're back. I do admit creationists aren't perfect and what you said has happened, but we do not believe in things that are wrong. We believe in the truth and using science to help seek the truth and demonstrate the glory of God. That shows that God exists.

To date, I have yet to see you use "science", JB.

All I have see you do, is to twist the bible so that it will fit the science. OR, when you tried to twist the science to fit in with your brand of creationism.

Neither tactics you've used are science. It just show how blatantly dishonest you are, and that just add to the already tarnished views towards creationism.

Creationists are not so much as "not perfect", as they are frauds.

And it is not just the atheists and agnostics. Even fellow-Christians viewed creationists as dishonest bunch.

And the "Creation Science" is nothing more than pseudoscience.

 

[ashkat1`]

To date, I have yet to see you use "science", JB.

All I have see you do, is to twist the bible so that it will the science. OR, when you tried to twist the science to fit in with your brand of creationism.

Neither tactics you've used are science. It just show how blatantly dishonest you are, and that just add to the already tarnished views towards creationism.

Creationists are not so much as "not perfect", as they are frauds.

And it is not just the atheists and agnostics. Even fellow-Christians viewed creationists as dishonest bunch.

And the "Creation Science" is nothing more than pseudoscience.

Amen to that!!

 

[gnostic]

I try to leave my replies simple, because I try to see everything for what it is, simple. So if everything is so simple, then what is the difference in evolution and creationism? There really isn't a difference. We are created, and we evolve, so what is the argument over? Where did we come from? We were created and we evolved from a single cell, a single energetic being eons of time ago. We were born into human form in this life, and we evolved from a sperm fertilizing an egg, from an embryo, from a fetus, from a baby, a toddler, a child, into an adult that we are. There is your proof for our evolution and creation. Why does this have to be argued over, you lived your life, you know you have evolved, why do you deny it? Do you deny yourself existing? Do you deny you were created? Well, how else do you exist?

Evolution is biology, governed by the natural law, such as heredity, passing genes to generations of descendants. The theory explained it.

Creationism doesn't explain anything.

All you have to do, is to believe "God did it", based on the ancient myths. That's not science; that's what I would called wishful thinking and superstitions.

Superstitions are based on fear and ignorance.

1. God created the world in 6-day...that's myth and superstition.
2. God created man from dust, or in the case of the Qur'an, made from clay...that's more myth and superstition.
3. God created woman from man's rib...again, it's myth...and again, superstition.
4. Talking serpent and talking donkey (or in the Qur'an, about Solomon with talking ants and birds)...fables and superstition.
5. God causing people who spoke the same language, then instantly speaking different languages (eg Tower of Babel or the speaking of tongues in Acts)...well, you can guess I am going to say "myth" and "superstition".

None of the above (or more, if you add all the nonsenses from god's reply in Book of Job, from 38 to 41) reveal anything "scientific". It simply required just blind faith to accept all these superstitions.

The problem is that creationists have ruined good ancient stories, by meddling with science and history.

Have they kept the creation myth in theology department, you would have no problem. But the moment you tried to mix biblical stories with science and history, then you would put the scriptures under microscope, for anyone to pick apart each fraudulent claims.

 

[gnostic]

Amen to that!!

JB think this is a contest between atheists and theists. That's not really true.

Since there are Christians and Jews who viewed Genesis as allegories, then it is not limited atheists and agnostics, who disagree with creationists' view on the creationism or literal interpretations of Genesis.

 

[ashkat1`]

JB think this is a contest between atheists and theists. That's not really true.

Since there are Christians and Jews who viewed Genesis as allegories, then it is not limited atheists and agnostics, who disagree with creationists' view on the creationism or literal interpretations of Genesis.

Yes, very true. Many Christians have no trouble reconciling God and evolution. For example, I believe that creation is God's own process of self-evolution from unconsciousness and pure potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization.

 

[james bond]

Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. Creation-science is totally fraudulent and does not glorify God.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." English Proverb

"But you can run the horse around the track until it's thirsty and then make it drink." james bond

Giddyap. Hiyaaa. Crop. Crop. Spurs. Ha ha.

Seriously, natural selection does not allow for apes to become bipedal.

 

[james bond]

Yes, very true. Many Christians have no trouble reconciling God and evolution. For example, I believe that creation is God's own process of self-evolution from unconsciousness and pure potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization.

Now you're discussing philosophy and not science. You should read the Kalam Cosmological Argument instead of the atheist (secular) cosmologies.

That's just my 2 ¢. You are entitled to your own worldview and philosophies. God gave us free will.

However, we can discuss science.

Unless you're discussing with the evos and atheists here, they want to limit it to ToE, i.e. biological evolution. They do not understand BBT as part of evolutionary and atheist thinking. Abiogenesis, too. In that regard, creation is complete while ToE is not.

 

[ashkat1`]

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." English Proverb

"But you can run the horse around the track until it's thirsty and then make it drink." james bond

Giddyap. Hiyaaa. Crop. Crop. Spurs. Ha ha.

Seriously, natural selection does not allow for apes to become bipedal.

Hey, seriously, why don't you study science some time so that you know what you are taking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's your worldview talking. Based on the criteria you apply to "supernatural" if demonstrable, testable or measurable, evolution fails. Else it would be cased closed and we can all use it. It's a worldview except for the natural selection part.

You're just wrong. It's a scientific theory by every definition. We don't base our worldview on evolutionary theory any more than we mold our worldview around gravitational theory or germ theory. Evolution is an extremely well evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It is supported by evidence from multiple fields of science, and multiple independent studies with multiple independent groups of researchers everywhere around the world for the last 150+ years. All evidence gathered during that time has bolstered and supported the theory. It is demonstrable, testable and measurable and the mass amounts of evidence supporting it are available to anyone curious enough to look at it.

A couple of days ago, it was explained to me that anthropogenic global warming climate change, is not science but worldview. Our worldview is that anthropogenic warming will not happen again (although there are Christians who believe in anthropogenic global warming). The climate change that creation scientists believe happened is not man-made, but God-made. We had Noah's Flood which was the greatest catastrophic climate change which evos refuse to acknowldge. It's incredulous. The creation scientists look ahead for climate change and what it can do, but do not worry about flooding. I think it has to do with the atmosphere, but I don't have a good handle on it, so will have to stay abreast of it. BTW creation scientists are for being GREEN. We are not against going green. What they do not believe is anthropogenic warming. That's just part of nature. Don't worry. Be happy.

Climate change isn't a worldview either. See above.

I'm not sure what climate change has to do with "evos."

It appears that your view of climate change stems from your worldview which appears to be based on Christian mythology that says god will never flood the earth again? Creationist scientists don't worry about flooding? Don't they wonder why there has been (and is currently) massive flooding occurring all over the US, Canada and parts of Europe?

There is no evidence for the Noah's ark flood story; there is no evidence indicating that there was a worldwide flood, or that Noah's ark ever existed in the first place. There is also no evidence that human beings used to live to be 900 years old.

Supernatural God can be demonstrated by the Kalam Cosmological argument and others. God can be measured by the amount of faith people have in Him. I'm sure God is testable, but one has to have faith. In that sense, He is not testable to non-believers.

Kalam is garbage. And even if it worked, it doesn't get you anywhere near proving the existence of the god of the Bible.

If god can be measured by the amount of people that have faith, then ghosts must also exist; it must actually be bad luck for a black cat to cross one's path or for a person to walk under a ladder; aliens are abducting people on a regular basis; the chupacabra regularly attacks livestock in South America; witches are real, etc., etc., etc. See how that argument doesn't work?

If god is supposed to interact with the physical world we live in (though not every theist believes that), then god should in fact, be testable and measurable. If not, then perhaps there is no way to test for any god's existence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're back. I do admit creationists aren't perfect and what you said has happened, but we do not believe in things that are wrong. We believe in the truth and using science to help seek the truth and demonstrate the glory of God. That shows that God exists.

Yesterday, I found proof that we could not have evolved from chimpanzees. Case closed. There is no reason for apes to start bipedalism. They were already efficient with their own locomotion. Since humans are bipedal, we can't climb trees very well. I was thinking about rock climbing and tree climbing and this is the type of gear one has to get.

It sounds like you've already decided what you believe, then go out and find evidence that supports that pre-existing belief.

Case in point: Your beliefs about climate change.

 

[ashkat1`]

Now you're discussing philosophy and not science. You should read the Kalam Cosmological Argument instead of the atheist (secular) cosmologies.

That's just my 2 ¢. You are entitled to your own worldview and philosophies. God gave us free will.

However, we can discuss science.

Unless you're discussing with the evos and atheists here, they want to limit it to ToE, i.e. biological evolution. They do not understand BBT as part of evolutionary and atheist thinking. Abiogenesis, too. In that regard, creation is complete while ToE is not.

Yes, I am discussing more than just science. I am thinking in terms philosophy and also process theology, which is a major movement in contemporary Christian thought, and also the Christian mystical tradition. I am well aware of the Kalam argument as well as the traditional arguments for the existence of God and major contemporary revisions, such as is found in Hartshorne's revision of Anselm's ontological argument. I have a doctorate in theology.

 

[gnostic]

Now you're discussing philosophy and not science. You should read the Kalam Cosmological Argument instead of the atheist (secular) cosmologies.

There is no such thing as atheist cosmology.

Atheism only deal with the question of theism - the existence of deity or deities - and only with deity's existence.

Being an atheist only mean that he (or she) don't believe in the existence of god, nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is not a religion, because they don't worship any supernatural or spiritual being. It is more like philosophy than a religion, and yet atheism does deal with theological issue.

Atheism is also not science. Hence, it has nothing to do with evolution, the big bang or multiverse. Science is beyond the scope of atheism.

Atheism is not politics. It has no policies. Politics and political issues are beyond the scope of atheism.

Atheism is not legal, ethic or moral issue. It does teach what is moral or immoral, because it is beyond the scope of atheism.

Labelling atheism with cosmologies is simply based on your ignorance and dishonesty.

I have continued rebuff you whenever you link evolution to atheism, or to science with atheism, because Jews and Christians have been known to accept evolution as a valid and well-substantiated explanation for biodiversity.

Parismony is a Christian, and he accepts evolution. Are you calling him - an atheist?

ashkat1 is a Protestant. Will you call him "atheist" because he accepts evolution?

Pope Francis has officially accepted evolution as accepted scientific explanation in biology, are you going to call the pope, "atheist"?

Charles Darwin himself was a Christian. Even in his letter, he denied ever being an atheist.

So the very idea linking evolution to atheists, when you ignored theists who accept evolution, just showed how dishonest you really are, james bond.

 

[ashkat1`]

There is no such thing as atheist cosmology.

Atheism only deal with the question of theism - the existence of deity or deities - and only with deity's existence.

Being an atheist only mean that he (or she) don't believe in the existence of god, nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is not a religion, because they don't worship any supernatural or spiritual being. It is more like philosophy than a religion, and yet atheism does deal with theological issue.

Atheism is also not science. Hence, it has nothing to do with evolution, the big bang or multiverse. Science is beyond the scope of atheism.

Atheism is not politics. It has no policies. Politics and political issues are beyond the scope of atheism.

Atheism is not legal, ethic or moral issue. It does teach what is moral or immoral, because it is beyond the scope of atheism.

Labelling atheism with cosmologies is simply based on your ignorance and dishonesty.

I have continued rebuff you whenever you link evolution to atheism, or to science with atheism, because Jews and Christians have been known to accept evolution as a valid and well-substantiated explanation for biodiversity.

Parismony is a Christian, and he accepts evolution. Are you calling him - an atheist?

ashkat1 is a Protestant. Will you call him "atheist" because he accepts evolution?

Pope Francis has officially accepted evolution as accepted scientific explanation in biology, are you going to call the pope, "atheist"?

Charles Darwin himself was a Christian. Even in his letter, he denied ever being an atheist.

So the very idea linking evolution to atheists, when you ignored theists who accept evolution, just showed how dishonest you really are, james bond.

Amen to that!!

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no such thing as atheist cosmology.

Atheism only deal with the question of theism - the existence of deity or deities - and only with deity's existence.

Being an atheist only mean that he (or she) don't believe in the existence of god, nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is not a religion, because they don't worship any supernatural or spiritual being. It is more like philosophy than a religion, and yet atheism does deal with theological issue.

Atheism is also not science. Hence, it has nothing to do with evolution, the big bang or multiverse. Science is beyond the scope of atheism.

Atheism is not politics. It has no policies. Politics and political issues are beyond the scope of atheism.

Atheism is not legal, ethic or moral issue. It does teach what is moral or immoral, because it is beyond the scope of atheism.

Labelling atheism with cosmologies is simply based on your ignorance and dishonesty.

I have continued rebuff you whenever you link evolution to atheism, or to science with atheism, because Jews and Christians have been known to accept evolution as a valid and well-substantiated explanation for biodiversity.

Parismony is a Christian, and he accepts evolution. Are you calling him - an atheist?

ashkat1 is a Protestant. Will you call him "atheist" because he accepts evolution?

Pope Francis has officially accepted evolution as accepted scientific explanation in biology, are you going to call the pope, "atheist"?

Charles Darwin himself was a Christian. Even in his letter, he denied ever being an atheist.

So the very idea linking evolution to atheists, when you ignored theists who accept evolution, just showed how dishonest you really are, james bond.

 

[gnostic]

Unless you're discussing with the evos and atheists here, they want to limit it to ToE, i.e. biological evolution. They do not understand BBT as part of evolutionary and atheist thinking. Abiogenesis, too. In that regard, creation is complete while ToE is not.

That's because the Big Bang falls under astronomy, astrophysics and physical cosmology.

The BB don't deal with life, because it is not biology.

Whenever people talk of Evolution, they are referring to biology, life, species, and how life changed over the time. It is all about passing of genes that have changed.

Cosmology is outside of the scope of Evolution.

Tell me, JB. If I am studying gravity, do I need to know the physiology of human organs?

The answer would be no. Gravity is a physics subject, not a biology ones.

If I want to design a bridge, do I need to know how the human digestive system works?

Again, no. The two are totally unrelated, and it would be stupid to mix them up.

Just as it it utterly stupid and dishonest to mix biology and the Big Bang theory up, because they are two different subjects.

And creation and creationism is not science subject, it is a religious or theological subject.

1. Your scriptures (bible) cannot explain HOW the earth formed, let alone HOW the stars, galaxies or universe form, because your bible is not a book on astrophysics. Genesis 1 don't explain.
2. The bible cannot explain HOW the brain works, HOW the cardiovascular system work or HOW the reproduction system work. It cannot how the brain, heart, lung, stomach or liver functions. That's because the bible is not a book on biology, anatomy or physiology.

Saying that "God did it" is not an explanation. It is simply acceptance of your personal belief, hence your blind faith.

And furthermore, you have no evidences to support the existence of the creator deity.

Science required to explain how things work, and it required that these explanations be backed up by physical, testable and measurable evidences. If you can't test or measure it, then it is not science.

There have never been any evidence to support the existence of a god, which make the creationism, nothing more than personal belief and blind faith.

Evidences are what distinguish science and religion (especially creationism):

1. science required evidences,
2. religion don't need evidences, that because religion required faith and belief.

It has been a while since I've read any part of the gospels, but I remember one episode, when someone came up to Jesus, wanting to see the miracles themselves, and Jesus rebuff them, saying something like it is better for a person to believe without seeing.

Meaning, it is better to accept miracles on faith than seeing the miracles with your own eyes.

Jesus wanted people following him on faith, not through evidences or observation, which is the exact opposite of requirements in science.

This is why creationism or the belief in creator/creation can never be science, because creationism doesn't require explanation and evidences to go with the evidences.

Either you literally accept God can create the world in 6-day or the global flood, or accept these as allegories as lessons on morals.

Trying to mix creation/flood with modern science or history, actually ruined the beauty of the stories, because the original meanings are lost, because you are trying to introduce new meanings into the stories that don't belong in them.

My frequent arguments with creationists are not with the texts themselves, but with creationists trying to change the texts with new and foreign interpretations that don't belong in Genesis.

 

[james bond]

Hey, seriously, why don't you study science some time so that you know what you are taking about.

I am talking science and that's why I don't worry about global warming, whether man came from a fish or ape or birds from dinosaurs, common ancestors, have to be told that the earth is billions of years old and humans have lived for millions of years when it isn't true. Forget going to Mars. Go to the moon instead. Jesus loves the moon. The evos and atheists are the ones who worry and are being led down the wrong path. You're the ones who will be sold GM and mutated products. I say avoid those things and don't worry, be happy. Keep calm and appreciate what we got and thank God every day for the earth, universe and all it provides naturally.

 

[james bond]

Amen to that!!

Yes, amen to that!!!