Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[ImmortalFlame]

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

You've not provided any evidence. You're just making a claim. How can you actually demonstrate that "nothing is designed without intelligent effort" and how do you know this extends to processes that have no apparent intelligent effort behind them (i.e: any natural process)? Where is your evidence?

 

[james bond]

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.


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".


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


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.


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.


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


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.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions which leads to wrong ones. Didn't I say atheists are usually wrong? We've just started with the evidence. However, where is the evidence for the Big Bang from nothing? It sounds as if Dawkins is starting to claim aliens did it (I think atheist scientists are starting to claim they'll find aliens within the next 35 years with their expensive high-powered equipment). Does that mean he's giving in to ID?

I also posted a link to the website -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01 -- where I'll be drawing what evolution states. Since Evo 101 isn't taught in schools, we got the rest on our own. Usually, the internet. I'll be using the apologetics press, too.

As for my evidence, before we had the steady state theory or the universe always existed. Even Einstein thought this way for his model of the universe early on. Now it's pseudoscience. So, the universe having a beginning is a big deal as it starts the evidence for a Creator.

 

[McBell]

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions which leads to wrong ones. Didn't I say atheists are usually wrong? We've just started with the evidence. However, where is the evidence for the Big Bang from nothing? It sounds as if Dawkins is starting to claim aliens did it (I think atheist scientists are starting to claim they'll find aliens within the next 35 years with their expensive high-powered equipment). Does that mean he's giving in to ID?

I also posted a link to the website -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01 -- where I'll be drawing what evolution states. Since Evo 101 isn't taught in schools, we got the rest on our own. Usually, the internet. I'll be using the apologetics press, too.

As for my evidence, before we had the steady state theory or the universe always existed. Even Einstein thought this way for his model of the universe early on. Now it's pseudoscience. So, the universe having a beginning is a big deal as it starts the evidence for a Creator.

Who claims the big bang came from nothing?
I mean other than you in your strawman?

Dawkins said no such thing.
Rather difficult to take you seriously when your "argument" relies so heavily on dishonesty, quote mines, fallacies, etc.

What schools did you attend that did not teach evolution?
I am assuming not in the US, right?
Or perhaps a religious based school, perhaps?

what you present is not evidence.
It is merely bold empty claims.

 

[Shad]

I also posted a link to the website -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01 -- where I'll be drawing what evolution states. Since Evo 101 isn't taught in schools, we got the rest on our own. Usually, the internet. I'll be using the apologetics press, too.

No we get the rest from biology classes. I am not sure when you started your post-secondary education but in the last few decades evolution has been taught as part of biology classes.

As for my evidence, before we had the steady state theory or the universe always existed. Even Einstein thought this way for his model of the universe early on. Now it's pseudoscience. So, the universe having a beginning is a big deal as it starts the evidence for a Creator.

No it doesn't since time is part of the universe. No universe, no time, no ability to act as a creator.

 

[Shad]

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.

Except the destruction took place 32 years after the 70 year "prophecy". Biblical scholars disagree with your "obvious" claim. Daniel is not part of canon in the 2nd century only after.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions which leads to wrong ones. Didn't I say atheists are usually wrong? We've just started with the evidence. However, where is the evidence for the Big Bang from nothing?

Nowhere, because the Big Bang didn't come from "nothing" and no scientist has claimed it did. If you head read my post properly, you'd have seen that I already explained that.

It sounds as if Dawkins is starting to claim aliens did it (I think atheist scientists are starting to claim they'll find aliens within the next 35 years with their expensive high-powered equipment). Does that mean he's giving in to ID?

No, Dawkins isn't "starting to claim aliens did it". That's a flat-out lie perpetuated by an extremely dishonest documentary.

I also posted a link to the website -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01 -- where I'll be drawing what evolution states. Since Evo 101 isn't taught in schools, we got the rest on our own. Usually, the internet. I'll be using the apologetics press, too.

As long as schools teach biology, they teach evolution.

As for my evidence, before we had the steady state theory or the universe always existed. Even Einstein thought this way for his model of the universe early on. Now it's pseudoscience. So, the universe having a beginning is a big deal as it starts the evidence for a Creator.

Where's your evidence? "Some models for the Universe turn out to be inaccurate" isn't evidence of your position.

 

[james bond]

I'm going by this thread on Dawkins. Reminds me of the good ole:

So far, I presented Genesis from the Bible and how the Big Bang Theory backs it up. Thus, science backs up the Bible. OTOH nothing from the universe started from nothing fans.

At least, the Alien theory is something and Ridley Scott made a movie of it -- Prometheus. However, it's not really convincing since it's science fiction. Most of alien theory is sci-fi, as there is no evidence, but atheists and atheist scientists think that they exist. See below. I have to careful or else I could be tossed from the religious forum for promoting unconfirmed, unexplained, unconventional paranormal mysteries.

Here are the most evidence I could find on it.

Understanding others: A smarter way to search for aliens?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0301/Understanding-others-A-smarter-way-to-search-for-aliens

NASA Chief Scientist Ellen Stofan Predicts We'll Find Signs Of Alien Life Within 10 Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/nasa-alien-life_n_7023134.html

NASA: We'll find aliens within 20 years
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/07/17/nasa-aliens/12804315/

 

[rusra02]

Except the destruction took place 32 years after the 70 year "prophecy". Biblical scholars disagree with your "obvious" claim. Daniel is not part of canon in the 2nd century only after.

The 70 year period Daniel prophesied about was "to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·siʹah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks." The destruction of " the city [Jerusalem].and the holy place [the temple]" ( verse 26) would occur some time later. Jesus himself prophesied about this destruction at Luke 21:20-24.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So far, I presented Genesis from the Bible and how the Big Bang Theory backs it up. Thus, science backs up the Bible. OTOH nothing from the universe started from nothing fans.

No, what you presented was a video which shows a basic lack of understanding of Big Bang theory and then creatively interprets the Genesis account of the Bible to try and make it fit with cosmology. Big Bang theory does not "back up" the Genesis account.

At least, the Alien theory is something and Ridley Scott made a movie of it -- Prometheus. However, it's not really convincing since it's science fiction. Most of alien theory is sci-fi, as there is no evidence, but atheists and atheist scientists think that they exist. See below. I have to careful or else I could be tossed from the religious forum for promoting unconfirmed, unexplained, unconventional paranormal mysteries.

Here are the most evidence I could find on it.

Understanding others: A smarter way to search for aliens?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0301/Understanding-others-A-smarter-way-to-search-for-aliens

NASA Chief Scientist Ellen Stofan Predicts We'll Find Signs Of Alien Life Within 10 Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/nasa-alien-life_n_7023134.html

NASA: We'll find aliens within 20 years
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/07/17/nasa-aliens/12804315/

At this stage, you're just embarrassing yourself. You don't know anything about evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory or atheism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

So your measure of design is complexity?
So if something is not complex, does that mean it's not designed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Isn't a naturally-occurring snowflake, for example, maybe a reason to conclude otherwise?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions which leads to wrong ones. Didn't I say atheists are usually wrong? We've just started with the evidence. However, where is the evidence for the Big Bang from nothing? It sounds as if Dawkins is starting to claim aliens did it (I think atheist scientists are starting to claim they'll find aliens within the next 35 years with their expensive high-powered equipment). Does that mean he's giving in to ID?

I also posted a link to the website -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01 -- where I'll be drawing what evolution states. Since Evo 101 isn't taught in schools, we got the rest on our own. Usually, the internet. I'll be using the apologetics press, too.

As for my evidence, before we had the steady state theory or the universe always existed. Even Einstein thought this way for his model of the universe early on. Now it's pseudoscience. So, the universe having a beginning is a big deal as it starts the evidence for a Creator.

The classes schools present are things like, Biology and Introduction to Animal Learning and Behavior, and The Biology of Organisms, and Genetics in Everyday Life, and Animal Diversity: Ancestral Vertebrates to Jellyfish, and so on. Just because it's not called "Evolution 101" doesn't mean it's not being taught.

Dawkins is not "starting to claim aliens did it" - he answered a hypothetical question once, asked by a dishonest guy interviewing him for a movie.

 

[Parsimony]

atheism of the gaps I call it!

"Atheism of the gaps" doesn't make sense. Do you even know what an "X of the gaps" argument is? It's where X is put forth as an explanatory mechanism for some currently unsolved problem because competing mechanisms are perceived as having insufficient ability to solve the problem. It's generally phrased something like, "You can't explain how phenomenon Y happened with existing theories, therefore X is the right explanation". Atheism can't be put in the X because it isn't an explanatory mechanism: it's stance of belief/disbelief. Just try it: "You can't explain how life came into being with existing theories, therefore a lack of belief in God is the right explanation". See? Nonsense.

 

[james bond]

No, what you presented was a video which shows a basic lack of understanding of Big Bang theory and then creatively interprets the Genesis account of the Bible to try and make it fit with cosmology. Big Bang theory does not "back up" the Genesis account.


At this stage, you're just embarrassing yourself. You don't know anything about evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory or atheism.

LOL. You can't deny it. There was a beginning as the BB shows. Second, you have not produced one shred of evidence for a billions years ago Big Bang nor what started it.

Not only did you jump to conclusions about me, you have been resorting to ad hominen attacks. That is a fallacy of logic, so you lose this one.

I suppose you're ImmortalFlame because in matter of a few posts, you've gone down in flames.

 

[james bond]

The classes schools present are things like, Biology and Introduction to Animal Learning and Behavior, and The Biology of Organisms, and Genetics in Everyday Life, and Animal Diversity: Ancestral Vertebrates to Jellyfish, and so on. Just because it's not called "Evolution 101" doesn't mean it's not being taught.

Dawkins is not "starting to claim aliens did it" - he answered a hypothetical question once, asked by a dishonest guy interviewing him for a movie.

Last point first. Ok. I just went by reading what the post said. Not really dishonest. Here's the statement.

"Dawkins appears quite serious about the possibility of Intelligent Alien Design and has mentioned it on a number of occasions. Take a look at this dialogue taken from a controversial documentary debate called “Expelled”:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Did Dawkins make another similar statement? Yes. What does he mean here?

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/06/richard-dawkins-talks-aliens-and-gods/

As for the first point, yes, evolution is being taught. No question about that and it is why creationists want their side taught in schools, too. It is a valid argument. The complexity of our planet is evidence for a Creator.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL. You can't deny it. There was a beginning as the BB shows.

The Big Bang only shows that the Universe expanded out from a single point - it says nothing about an "ultimate beginning" or even really the origin of matter or energy.

Second, you have not produced one shred of evidence for a billions years ago Big Bang nor what started it.

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid

Not only did you jump to conclusions about me, you have been resorting to ad hominen attacks. That is a fallacy of logic, so you lose this one.

So not only do you not understand evolution, Big Bang theory or basic science, you also don't understand how an ad hominem attack works. An ad hominem is when you fail to address an opponent's argument and instead attack their character - i.e "I don't accept your argument because you smell". Saying "You have demonstrated little to no understanding of the subjects you are talking about" is not an ad hominem attack.

I suppose you're ImmortalFlame because in matter of a few posts, you've gone down in flames.

Hilarious.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Last point first. Ok. I just went by reading what the post said. Not really dishonest. Here's the statement.

"Dawkins appears quite serious about the possibility of Intelligent Alien Design and has mentioned it on a number of occasions. Take a look at this dialogue taken from a controversial documentary debate called “Expelled”:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Citing Ben Stein's Expelled as a source of anything is a demonstration of dishonesty. The documentary has been roundly rebuked and many of the scientists questioned in it, including Dawkins, have accused Stein of editing and misrepresenting their positions:

http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/background/interview-tactics
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/28/religion.film

Did Dawkins make another similar statement? Yes. What does he mean here?

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/06/richard-dawkins-talks-aliens-and-gods/

Absolutely nothing like what you're claiming he means - have you even watched the video?

As for the first point, yes, evolution is being taught. No question about that and it is why creationists want their side taught in schools, too. It is a valid argument.

No it is not. Creationism is a religious ideology, not science. You might as well be arguing that we should teach flat-earthism in geology, or teach astrology alongside astronomy, or teach crystal healing alongside medicine. Evolution is taught as science because it is science. Creationism isn't.

The complexity of our planet is evidence for a Creator.

Complexity does not require design.

 

[Shad]

The 70 year period Daniel prophesied about was "to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·siʹah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks." The destruction of " the city [Jerusalem].and the holy place [the temple]" ( verse 26) would occur some time later. Jesus himself prophesied about this destruction at Luke 21:20-24.

Expect the destruction is part of the prophecy of 70 years but happened 32 years after. It is not separate from it. Repeating a failed prophecy does not make it true.

 

[leibowde84]

Question for evolutionists: Which came first evolution or the theory of the universe?

In the past, evo-heads or evolutionists went to great extremes to avoid scenarios that suggested an universe with a beginning or ending. This was because they posed bothersome philosophical questions such as, “What came before the beginning?” or “What will come after the ending?”. They only considered theories that guaranteed an eternal Universe were worthy of consideration.

So what. That just means that scientific understanding progressed, as should be expected. It is still doing so as we speak.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

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

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

You obviously don't understand what the theory of evolution is. It doesn't speak to the origin of the universe in any way shape or form. It merely speaks to speciation and changes in life through mutation and natural selection.