Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Polymath257]

Someone had to be first

there is a God

Why do you think that? What evidence can you give?

 

[leibowde84]

Atheists are wrong again? It's funny you're picking out my post and addressing the BBT to me. I'm the other side. Why not ask polymath257? I'm using Stephen Hawking to explain the BBT. He seems to think that gases or that which is gaseous and not matter and what was contained inside caused the BB. He doesn't really explain what it is except for the aftermath. As for antimatter, there is less of it than matter. Matter dominates. Then Hawking never mentions time even though it is implied the gases were immaterial -- timeless, spaceless, all-powerful. My guess he didn't want to say spirit ha ha. I didn't say matter for a reason because Hawking didn't explain what it was exactly.

The important thing to remember is at the beginning, God created time, space and matter all of which is described in detail in the Bible (and while the Bible isn't a science book, science backs up the Bible). Not so much Hawking nor the BBT. So what else do you have?

But, gasses are absolutely 100% matter, so what you are saying doesn't make any sense.

Do you agree that gas is matter?

 

[Thief]

Why do you think that? What evidence can you give?

it's a simple line of thought
called regression

please try the simple things.....first

 

[Polymath257]

it's a simple line of thought
called regression

please try the simple things.....first

An infinite regression is no contradiction.

An uncaused cause need be neither unique nor all powerful.

 

[leibowde84]

Boy, are you wrong. Atheists are wrong again. Creation science is promoting good science instead of make believe science. This is what science is -- about disagreement. Creationism is being taught in fourteen states now and should be able to expand to all fifty without having to resort to the Bible or what's illegal due to it being religion. A creator is the theory of everything. So far, the only difference I see between Hawking and creation is the immaterial (unseen Creator) vs material (invisible all-powerful particles).

So, what scientific theory has creationism provided? What verifiable evidence is there for creationism?

 

[Thief]

An infinite regression is no contradiction.

An uncaused cause need be neither unique nor all powerful.

unless......you are the First

 

[leibowde84]

unless......you are the First

Why?

 

[Polymath257]

unless......you are the First

Nope, not even then.

 

[james bond]

Someone had to be first

there is a God

And it's both God and science. The latter which can be taught in schools, eventually public schools as students question why evolutionary origins does not provide the answers such as did the Big Bang actually happen from invisible particles when black holes cannot be seen and only exist in theoretical papers and computer models?

"More people today than ever are objecting to the exclusive teaching of evolution in the public schools. Strong pressures are developing aimed at opening the schools to the teaching of special creation as a viable alternative to evolution.

Resistance to teaching creationism is still very strong, however. Opposition usually centers around two related arguments. First, evolution is widely claimed to be the only acceptable scientific theory of origins. Second, creation is assumed to be strictly a religious concept, which on that account has no place in a public school curriculum.

Both of these arguments are wrong and invalid. Creation can be shown to be a more effective scientific model of origins than evolution, and evolution can be shown to require a higher degree of credulous faith than creation. It is the purpose of this paper, however, to encourage a careful and objective study of both concepts of origins, on a scientific level only, in the public schools."

 

[james bond]

So, what scientific theory has creationism provided? What verifiable evidence is there for creationism?

Doesn't this assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything? Now we know that assumption is not necessarily accurate, as there are many plausible theories where the big bang wasn't the absolute beginning of this universe.

The tiny spot for the BBT is invisible and even Hawking admits it was giant luck. Instead, Einstein said God does not play dice and we can see that he designed the universe with its complexity and beauty. Creation doesn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Creation has timeless, spaceless and spirit-like creator to explain how space, time and matter was created instead of having to expand and have gravitational problems. The creation of galaxies and stars still are in place today, but would have collapsed by entropy or have become disorganized if 13.7 billion years old. Polymath257 kept saying nothing can go faster than the speed of light while BBT travels faster than light. Creation science teaches nothing can go faster than speed of light, but that speed of light has varied in the past.

 

[leibowde84]

The tiny spot for the BBT is invisible and even Hawking admits it was giant luck. Instead, Einstein said God does not play dice and we can see that he designed the universe with its complexity and beauty. Creation doesn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Creation has timeless, spaceless and spirit-like creator to explain how space, time and matter was created instead of having to expand and have gravitational problems. The creation of galaxies and stars still are in place today, but would have collapsed by entropy or have become disorganized if 13.7 billion years old. Polymath257 kept saying nothing can go faster than the speed of light while BBT travels faster than light. Creation science teaches nothing can go faster than speed of light, but that speed of light has varied in the past.

But none of this qualifies as scientific as nothing you have stated here is evidence of anything. I could just as easily say that the universe was created by a magical elf. But without evidence of the magical evidence that hypothesis is less than worthless. In other words, a hypothesis without evidence doesn't do any good.

 

[leibowde84]

And it's both God and science. The latter which can be taught in schools, eventually public schools as students question why evolutionary origins does not provide the answers such as did the Big Bang actually happen from invisible particles when black holes cannot be seen and only exist in theoretical papers and computer models?

"More people today than ever are objecting to the exclusive teaching of evolution in the public schools. Strong pressures are developing aimed at opening the schools to the teaching of special creation as a viable alternative to evolution.

Resistance to teaching creationism is still very strong, however. Opposition usually centers around two related arguments. First, evolution is widely claimed to be the only acceptable scientific theory of origins. Second, creation is assumed to be strictly a religious concept, which on that account has no place in a public school curriculum.

Both of these arguments are wrong and invalid. Creation can be shown to be a more effective scientific model of origins than evolution, and evolution can be shown to require a higher degree of credulous faith than creation. It is the purpose of this paper, however, to encourage a careful and objective study of both concepts of origins, on a scientific level only, in the public schools."

But a theory is in no way more plausible merely because it answers more questions. You have to provide evidence showing that those answers are correct, otherwise you are merely adhering to the God of the gaps fallacy. And that gets you nowhere.

 

[james bond]

But none of this qualifies as scientific as nothing you have stated here is evidence of anything. I could just as easily say that the universe was created by a magical elf. But without evidence of the magical evidence that hypothesis is less than worthless. In other words, a hypothesis without evidence doesn't do any good.

Why don't you criticize Hawking for his lucky magic cosmic hole theory that is invisible and violates laws of science? Creation has science on its side because no laws were violated and it explains with a cause of the universe as timeless, spaceless, immaterial and all-powerful. You didn't listen when I said students are questioning why BBT does not provide the answers and it has laws of science are being violated. Creation fits the theory of everything and has fine tuning theory to explain the solar system.

 

[leibowde84]

Why don't you criticize Hawking for his lucky magic cosmic hole theory that is invisible and violates laws of science? Creation has science on its side because no laws were violated and it explains with a cause of the universe as timeless, spaceless, immaterial and all-powerful. You didn't listen when I said students are questioning why BBT does not provide the answers and it has laws of science are being violated. Creation fits the theory of everything and has fine tuning theory to explain the solar system.

But just because a hypothesis doesn't violate physical laws doesnt meant it is true. You have to test it and find evidence that verifies it. Can you provide any evidence that verifies your hypothesis?

 

[leibowde84]

Why don't you criticize Hawking for his lucky magic cosmic hole theory that is invisible and violates laws of science? Creation has science on its side because no laws were violated and it explains with a cause of the universe as timeless, spaceless, immaterial and all-powerful. You didn't listen when I said students are questioning why BBT does not provide the answers and it has laws of science are being violated. Creation fits the theory of everything and has fine tuning theory to explain the solar system.

Btw, I'm not criticising hawking because he's not involved in this conversation. You made a claim and I'm asking for the evidence that leads you to believe it. Not that it adheres to physical laws ... which it doesn't. Any supernatural being bypasses the laws of physics.

 

[james bond]

But just because a hypothesis doesn't violate physical laws doesnt meant it is true. You have to test it and find evidence that verifies it. Can you provide any evidence that verifies your hypothesis?

I said it many times. Do I have to explain it once more? It's explained in Genesis which isn't a science book, but science backs it up. So far, science has backed it up from eternal universe to there was a beginning. Then we have the creation in 7 days. The reason why evolutionary origins made up their own hypotheses was to argue against creation. So, the people who started this argument was the first evos. Evos even sound like evil.

 

[james bond]

Btw, I'm not criticising hawking because he's not involved in this conversation. You made a claim and I'm asking for the evidence that leads you to believe it. Not that it adheres to physical laws ... which it doesn't. Any supernatural being bypasses the laws of physics.

Not a supernatural being, but one who is described as spirit which is immaterial. This is an important difference to begin with explaining to non-believers since we can't use religion. I can demonstrate to you that what you know of this world is "immaterial" in that everything you know about this world is in your mind. You think you live in a 3 dimensional world, but you do not see it in 3D. Do you believe this or do I have to prove it to you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Creation can be shown to be a more effective scientific model of origins than evolution, and evolution can be shown to require a higher degree of credulous faith than creation.

Good luck with that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I said it many times. Do I have to explain it once more? It's explained in Genesis which isn't a science book, but science backs it up. So far, science has backed it up from eternal universe to there was a beginning. Then we have the creation in 7 days. The reason why evolutionary origins made up their own hypotheses was to argue against creation. So, the people who started this argument was the first evos. Evos even sound like evil.

You make a strong case, and are a formidable soldier for your cause. Your "theory" of why science disagrees with your Bible - "to argue against creation" - is compelling. That may be the reason we have science in the first place.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that many scientists want to take a few years out of their careers, stop doing science, and just focus on fighting Christianity. They think of it as a kind of military service for science. It's important to them, since this one god is a threat to science.

 

[Polymath257]

And it's both God and science. The latter which can be taught in schools, eventually public schools as students question why evolutionary origins does not provide the answers such as did the Big Bang actually happen from invisible particles when black holes cannot be seen and only exist in theoretical papers and computer models?

We *do* see black holes! More accurately, we see their accretion disks and know their mass from dynamics of things close by them.

"More people today than ever are objecting to the exclusive teaching of evolution in the public schools. Strong pressures are developing aimed at opening the schools to the teaching of special creation as a viable alternative to evolution.

Yes, politics is interfering with the teaching of science. That is what I am fighting against. The *scientists* should determine what is taught in science classes, not politicians or even the parents. This is an aspect of the overall decline of our educational system: when the ignorant and misinformed start demanding their views replace informed and accurately derived knowledge.

Resistance to teaching creationism is still very strong, however. Opposition usually centers around two related arguments. First, evolution is widely claimed to be the only acceptable scientific theory of origins. Second, creation is assumed to be strictly a religious concept, which on that account has no place in a public school curriculum.

Creationism is *only* a religious viewpoint. It simply doesn't have the scientific background at all.

As for 'scientific theory of origins', there are *several* interlinking theories. Evolution is *only* a biological theory describing how species change over time. it doesn't discuss abiogenesis. It doesn't discuss the origin of planets. It doesn't discuss cosmology. Evolution is *only* about biology.

Both of these arguments are wrong and invalid. Creation can be shown to be a more effective scientific model of origins than evolution, and evolution can be shown to require a higher degree of credulous faith than creation. It is the purpose of this paper, however, to encourage a careful and objective study of both concepts of origins, on a scientific level only, in the public schools."

Creationism has never suggested a testable idea. It ignores things we *know* from long, hard experience are true. It is at least as far from science as those talking about pyramid power.