Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[ImmortalFlame]

Theory of the Universe would be how it began. Today, it's the Big Bang Theory. Earlier, it was Steady State Theory. I am asking which came first evolution or the theory of the universe.

Big bang theory has its roots in the writing of George Lemaitre in 1927. Evolution has its roots in the work of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's writing on the transmutation of species starting in 1809. Of course, the current big bang theory and the current theory of evolution are now completely different from how they were in their earlier forms.

As for your last question, what do "you" mean by evolution? Is it just biological science to you?

Yes, because that's literally what it means.

Evolutionary thought goes into the origin of the universe. For example, the origin of the universe began 13.7 billion years ago.

What does that have to do with evolution? You seem to not understand what evolutionary theory actually says, or what field of science it is.

 

[james bond]

Big bang theory has its roots in the writing of George Lemaitre in 1927. Evolution has its roots in the work of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's writing on the transmutation of species starting in 1809. Of course, the current big bang theory and the current theory of evolution are now completely different from how they were in their earlier forms.


Yes, because that's literally what it means.


What does that have to do with evolution? You seem to not understand what evolutionary theory actually says, or what field of science it is.

You got the first question right and was before what I was thinking in 1859 with Darwin's book. Evo came first before Big Bang (fundamentals proposed by GL in 1927), developed by Edwin Hubble and proven in 2007 by Mather and Smoot who won Nobel prize. Steady State was theorized in 1948 by Hoyle. Now pseudoscience.

I understand evo because I read the fundamentals. It is related to almost everything and not just biology. Evidence is here. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is there. So who does not understand evolution?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_01

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand evo because I read the fundamentals. It is related to almost everything and not just biology. Evidence is here. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is there. So who does not understand evolution?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_01

You. What aspect of evolutionary theory relates to "everything" other than biology? Nothing in that article says that evolution is "related to everything" - it merely explains how evidence from various different scientific fields contributes to the theory of evolution. Evolution itself is a strictly related to biological processes.

What do you think evolution is?

 

[james bond]

I think evolution (which isn't what I wanted to discuss) is based on all that is in the link I posted. Will continue my point below. I went to school in California and there was no class called Evolution or Evo 101. Maybe there was at the university I went to, but I didn't see it listed. It wasn't required. There was a Philosophy class that I had to take and there were classes that covered Christianity, but I didn't go further than what I was required to take in philo and for my major. How evolution got into my teaching was through some of the topics listed in the link and scrolling through its history. Probably why evolutionary biology isn't taught or a required subject is because then creation biology would have to be taught as a required subject.

My point is Creation vs Evolution has been argued throughout history and here is the history in a nutshell. Before Darwin, the argument was carried out by creationists against men like James Hutton and Charles Lyell. They were proponents of a model of geology called uniformitarianism or the view that the forces affecting the universe are the same now as at any time in the past. Until the rise of uniformitarian geology in the early 1800s, most geologists accepted the Noah's flood theory as part of geology. But Hutton proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the flood theory out of consideration. Darwin read Lyell and accepted it as one of his foundations. Eventually, in the 1800s creationism was ruled out of the discussion. Some proponents of the flood theory or catastrophism were able to resurrect their theories during the second-half of the 1900s with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood, by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb. There was the invention of internet during that time and where it is today in the 21st century.

So, in a nutshell the answer to this thread title is the Bible. While it is not a science book, science has backed up the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What on earth is "creation biology?"

 

[Shad]

I think evolution (which isn't what I wanted to discuss) is based on all that is in the link I posted. Will continue my point below. I went to school in California and there was no class called Evolution or Evo 101. Maybe there was at the university I went to, but I didn't see it listed. It wasn't required. There was a Philosophy class that I had to take and there were classes that covered Christianity, but I didn't go further than what I was required to take in philo and for my major. How evolution got into my teaching was through some of the topics listed in the link and scrolling through its history. Probably why evolutionary biology isn't taught or a required subject is because then creation biology would have to be taught as a required subject.

It was have been with a biology course, usually one of the general prerequisite for many other fields that branch of the common basis or your WQB. These days it is divided up into 2 categories. One covers highschool courses as biology, chemistry and physics are electives. The other is a university prep course for the jump to specific programs.

Creation biology..... hah

So, in a nutshell the answer to this thread title is the Bible. While it is not a science book, science has backed up the Bible.

Depends on interpretation. A literal one untenable. An inerrant one is untenable.

 

[Shad]

What on earth is "creation biology?"

Creationism rebranding itself again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Creationism rebranding itself again.

That's exactly what it sounds like.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think evolution (which isn't what I wanted to discuss)

You didn't want to discuss it? Then why did you bring it up?

is based on all that is in the link I posted. Will continue my point below. I went to school in California and there was no class called Evolution or Evo 101. Maybe there was at the university I went to, but I didn't see it listed. It wasn't required. There was a Philosophy class that I had to take and there were classes that covered Christianity, but I didn't go further than what I was required to take in philo and for my major. How evolution got into my teaching was through some of the topics listed in the link and scrolling through its history. Probably why evolutionary biology isn't taught or a required subject is because then creation biology would have to be taught as a required subject.

Wrong. There is no such thing as "creation biology". That's like saying that if they teach that the earth is round, they should also teach that the earth is flat.

My point is Creation vs Evolution has been argued throughout history and here is the history in a nutshell. Before Darwin, the argument was carried out by creationists against men like James Hutton and Charles Lyell. They were proponents of a model of geology called uniformitarianism or the view that the forces affecting the universe are the same now as at any time in the past. Until the rise of uniformitarian geology in the early 1800s, most geologists accepted the Noah's flood theory as part of geology. But Hutton proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the flood theory out of consideration. Darwin read Lyell and accepted it as one of his foundations. Eventually, in the 1800s creationism was ruled out of the discussion. Some proponents of the flood theory or catastrophism were able to resurrect their theories during the second-half of the 1900s with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood, by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb. There was the invention of internet during that time and where it is today in the 21st century.

So, in a nutshell the answer to this thread title is the Bible. While it is not a science book, science has backed up the Bible.

What on earth does any of this rambling have to do with anything? What science backs up the Bible?

 

[McBell]

Probably why evolutionary biology isn't taught or a required subject is because then creation biology would have to be taught as a required subject.

More likely "creation biology" was not taught because how do you justify charging that amount for a class that is nothing more than a person standing in the front saying "goddidit"?
As for "evolutionary biology" not being taught, was there a biology class taught?

What college did you attend?
I can look it up for myself to see just how dishonest you are being.

 

[james bond]

More likely "creation biology" was not taught because how do you justify charging that amount for a class that is nothing more than a person standing in the front saying "goddidit"?
As for "evolutionary biology" not being taught, was there a biology class taught?

What college did you attend?
I can look it up for myself to see just how dishonest you are being.

What I mean by creation biology is the biology referred to by creation scientists, i.e. religious scientists as opposed to atheist scientists. It can be expanded to creation science, too. Science is science and the data is data. The difference shows up in the worldview. The only part not accepted by science is the supernatural or the immaterial. Today, science has squeezed out God as a possibility.

I don't think I have to show my credentials. My posts should be enough for you and others to judge and comment on. Originally, I started using science and evolution. However, it did not provide the answers or I didn't think it was correct. Eventually, I got around to seeing what the creationists and their scientists were saying. I thought they were more right than the atheist scientists (Generally, I think atheists are wrong). Over 50% of the scientists today profess atheism according to Pew Research surveys.

As for the evolution biologists, present something and I'd be glad to look it over, but evolutionary thinking covers more than just biology or else there would not be the arguments this thread has created. (I'll look over the others when I get a chance.)

Here is an simple infograph of what I mean. Obviously, the timeline between creos and evos are different and not much overlap. There are more sophisticated issues with the timeline, but for an internet forum, this should suffice until more is required. With the Big Bang Theory, it helps explain the creationist position better than the 13.7, 15 or 20 billions years ago. See video below.

Day 1, God created everything under the heavens and earth, i.e. electromagnetic spectrum, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, Planck's constant and so on. One can still see and differentiate between day and night. The Big Bang of billions of years ago professes it started from nothing. If it started from nothing, then we should see more examples. I've been a Christian since 2012 and learned enough to make an educated judgment as to the Bible. When I read it, I thought it meant literal days.

 

[McBell]

My posts should be enough for you and others to judge and comment on.

Ah, so you claim to have attended a college that did not offer a biology class and we are supposed to take you seriously?
I suspect dishonesty on your part and you are merely reinforcing said suspicion with each post.

 

[Tiberius]

about creation as a means to say.....I AM!

might be difficult to say so without something to show for it

This does not answer the question.

 

[Tiberius]

By all means, explain with evidence, not just assertions.

I'm sorry, but I am not aware of any fossilized termite mounds to show you. But the fact remains that there is nothing here which contradicts what evolution says is impossible.

You are now, no doubt, going to claim that evolution must be wrong since I am not able to provide you with the detailed explanations you demand, that evolution cannot be correct. Of course, if I was to ask you questions about your alleged creator you could not answer, would you accept that as evidence that your ideas were wrong? Of course not. So you realise that just because one person who is not an expert in the field is unable to answer a few questions, it doesn't mean that the thing they are talking about is wrong.

And Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation which fits all available facts is most likely to be correct. Since evolution explains it WITHOUT invoking a creator, it seems to me that it is the simplest answer.

 

[Tiberius]

Historically.

Please provide a valid historical document to show this. Since this is detailing a prophecy, please show how we have verified that the prophecy was not added at a later date than the event which fulfilled it, and show that the event which fulfilled it did take place and was not simply claimed to have taken place. Also show how the prophecy was described in a clear and unambiguous manner to leave no doubt as to the events which would satisfy it. Also show that the prophecy was not talking about something which was a perfectly plausible event (for example, I can predict conflict in the middle east, but that hardly means I can make prophecies, since conflict is quite likely there.)

In short, show me something outside the Bible which shows that the event occurred.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What I mean by creation biology is the biology referred to by creation scientists, i.e. religious scientists as opposed to atheist scientists.

You do realise that the vast majority of religious scientists accept the exact same models of the Universe as the atheist scientists do, right? There's no difference. The vast majority of religious biologists accept evolution theory.

It can be expanded to creation science, too. Science is science and the data is data. The difference shows up in the worldview. The only part not accepted by science is the supernatural or the immaterial. Today, science has squeezed out God as a possibility.

You've not really answered the question of what "creation biology" is. If all it is is "scientists who are theists" then it isn't actually any different from "biology".

I don't think I have to show my credentials. My posts should be enough for you and others to judge and comment on.

And what you have shown so far is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution theory, and named a completely imaginary field of science.

Originally, I started using science and evolution. However, it did not provide the answers or I didn't think it was correct. Eventually, I got around to seeing what the creationists and their scientists were saying. I thought they were more right than the atheist scientists (Generally, I think atheists are wrong). Over 50% of the scientists today profess atheism according to Pew Research surveys.

Considering that you have already explained that you haven't studied evolution in depth, and displayed no understanding of what it is actually about, your evaluation of the evidence is obviously insufficient.

As for the evolution biologists, present something and I'd be glad to look it over, but evolutionary thinking covers more than just biology or else there would not be the arguments this thread has created. (I'll look over the others when I get a chance.)

I've asked you before what "evolutionary thinking" means, because I don't think it means what you think it does. Evolution is strictly a subject for biology.

Here is an simple infograph of what I mean. Obviously, the timeline between creos and evos are different and not much overlap. There are more sophisticated issues with the timeline, but for an internet forum, this should suffice until more is required. With the Big Bang Theory, it helps explain the creationist position better than the 13.7, 15 or 20 billions years ago. See video below.

Day 1, God created everything under the heavens and earth, i.e. electromagnetic spectrum, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, Planck's constant and so on. One can still see and differentiate between day and night. The Big Bang of billions of years ago professes it started from nothing.

Wrong. The big bang explains that it comes form a singularity - no scientific theory necessarily claims that the Universe started from "nothing".

If it started from nothing, then we should see more examples.

What? Whether or not the big bang came from nothing, how exactly would you expect to see "more examples" of it? How can you see "more examples" of the entirety of all the mass in the Universe expanding from a singularity?

As for this video, it starts by making a completely false assertion when it says that science claims that the Universe started "without God". It doesn't. Science is completely silent on the subject of God. It also betrays a complete lack of understanding of Big Bang cosmology (i.e: asserting the big bang was a "definite beginning") and continues to be litle more than creatively interpreting the Genesis account (out of sequence) to try and make it fit with what is claimed in Big Bang cosmology. This is lousy evidence at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[rusra02]

I'm sorry, but I am not aware of any fossilized termite mounds to show you. But the fact remains that there is nothing here which contradicts what evolution says is impossible.

You are now, no doubt, going to claim that evolution must be wrong since I am not able to provide you with the detailed explanations you demand, that evolution cannot be correct. Of course, if I was to ask you questions about your alleged creator you could not answer, would you accept that as evidence that your ideas were wrong? Of course not. So you realise that just because one person who is not an expert in the field is unable to answer a few questions, it doesn't mean that the thing they are talking about is wrong.

And Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation which fits all available facts is most likely to be correct. Since evolution explains it WITHOUT invoking a creator, it seems to me that it is the simplest answer.

In my view, saying that the things I mentioned below, and millions of others, were not designed, is tantamount to saying a house found in the woods built itself. Such complexity and evident design proves a Creator to me. Science may describe the complexity but cannot explain satisfactorily how it happened apart from a Creator, despite decades of trying.

• Air conditioning in termite mounds
• The anchoring skill of the razor clam
• The navigation skill of the dung beetle
• The storage ability of DNA

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In my view, saying that the things I mentioned below, and millions of others, were not designed, is tantamount to saying a house found in the woods built itself. Such complexity and evident design proves a Creator to me. Science may describe the complexity but cannot explain satisfactorily how it happened apart from a Creator, despite decades of trying.

• Air conditioning in termite mounds
• The anchoring skill of the razor clam
• The navigation skill of the dung beetle
• The storage ability of DNA

How is that anything other than an argument from ignorance? What makes you so certain that these things can't be a result of natural, unintelligent processes?

 

[rusra02]

Please provide a valid historical document to show this. Since this is detailing a prophecy, please show how we have verified that the prophecy was not added at a later date than the event which fulfilled it, and show that the event which fulfilled it did take place and was not simply claimed to have taken place. Also show how the prophecy was described in a clear and unambiguous manner to leave no doubt as to the events which would satisfy it. Also show that the prophecy was not talking about something which was a perfectly plausible event (for example, I can predict conflict in the middle east, but that hardly means I can make prophecies, since conflict is quite likely there.)

In short, show me something outside the Bible which shows that the event occurred.

Just read the prophesy at Daniel 9:24-26, and then google "destruction of Jerusalem." The fact of Jesus Christ coming as the Messiah ( mentioned in the prophecy) is documented history. Since portions of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea scrolls and dated to the first century B.C.E., it is obvious Daniel was not written after the events prophesied occurred. The writing of Daniel was completed around 536,B.C.E.

 

[rusra02]

How is that anything other than an argument from ignorance? What makes you so certain that these things can't be a result of natural, unintelligent processes?

Because of the evidence. Nothing is designed, much less constructed, without intelligent effort. There is no valid reason to conclude otherwise, IMO.