What if creationism is true?

[camanintx]

See right here!! Hold it right here!!! Here is where you just left science and went to religion. You just left science and went to religion and you didnt even know it. It happened that fast lol. "You have to look at the dog's predecessors to find any nondogs"....."before there were dogs, there were Caniforma which evovled into dogs, etc" This is no evidence that this large scale change has occurred. NONE. This is adding your INTERPRETATION to the alleged evidence. What evidence do you have that dogs, bears, badgers, etc, evovled from Caniformia to the animals there are now. And dont bring up the fossil record either, because the fossil record is not evidence. See how quickly you left science and went to your religion. It can happen in a blur.

Evidence is anything which can be independently studied and verified. Since fossils have be independently studied by many different scientists, they most certainly are evidence. That you choose to disagree with the conclusions drawn by those who have studied them is immaterial.

There are no dog or cat fossils dating back more than 40 million years ago. Before that we only find fossils of Miacids which have characteristics of both dogs and cats. Since there are no fossils of Miacids younger than 33 million years, we can draw two conclusions from this evidence. Your theory is that God let Miacids die out and created cats and dogs to replace them. The scientific theory is that Miacids evolved into the dogs and cats which came later. Since evolution has been observed while creation has not, which of these theories is based on faith?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Evidence is anything which can be independently studied and verified. Since fossils have be independently studied by many different scientists, they most certainly are evidence. That you choose to disagree with the conclusions drawn by those who have studied them is immaterial.

That is the problem right there. Fossils are not able to tell us anything other than something has died. That is the only conclusion we can draw from finding fossils. You dont know whether any fossil that you stumble across had any children, let alone different kinds of children. When scientist find fossils, if they determine anything other than "a living creature from long ago has now died off", they are adding their own interpretation to the finding.

There are no dog or cat fossils dating back more than 40 million years ago. Before that we only find fossils of Miacids which have characteristics of both dogs and cats. Since there are no fossils of Miacids younger than 33 million years, we can draw two conclusions from this evidence. Your theory is that God let Miacids die out and created cats and dogs to replace them. The scientific theory is that Miacids evolved into the dogs and cats which came later. Since evolution has been observed while creation has not, which of these theories is based on faith?

One would have to question scientific dating methods. I question carbon dating and its reliability.

 

[fishy]

That is the problem right there. Fossils are not able to tell us anything other than something has died. That is the only conclusion we can draw from finding fossils. You dont know whether any fossil that you stumble across had any children, let alone different kinds of children. When scientist find fossils, if they determine anything other than "a living creature from long ago has now died off", they are adding their own interpretation to the finding.



One would have to question scientific dating methods. I question carbon dating and its reliability.

Carbon dating is not used, generally, to determine the age of fossils. Do you also question the methods actually used to date fossils? Do you know what they are?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I said under what cirumstances, meaning explain the circumstances that will allow such voo doo science. Second, I as I said before, your answer is the typical reply, saying it "takes to long". It takes so long to happen that no one alive today will be able to see it, and it happened so long ago that no was was alive to see it. This is faith lol.

As I, and others, have said countless times, evolution has been observed in lab among bacteria that can reproduce within hours. Thus it's possible to catalogue each generation along the way and have a huge data sample to work from. This has already been done and we have observed speciation with bacteria. Simply because you are too dense to recognize that large organisms generally take a long time to reproduce and reach sexual maturity, thus we won't see very many generations within our lifetimes, doesn't mean that it's faith. How can you have faith in something you've observed first hand?

Everyone has explained evolution to you, in part or in whole. Everyone has presented evidence to you. All you're doing is dismissing everything with no reason to. You aren't offering any other possible interpretations of the evidence. You aren't offering any evidence of your own to back up IDiocy. All you're doing is asserting that God did it and literally denying facts such as that evolution has been observed or that there's even a fossil record. If you did the most menial of research (a Google search), you'd find all this evidence before your eyes - fossils, dating methods, experiments with bacteria undergoing speciation. But since you're so dogmatically attached to your religion, you decide to believe that instead of things that have actually been observed by people and there's actually a lot of evidence for.

If you deny evolution has been observed, when it has, I have no further interest in continuing the discussion with you. Others may find it a prudent expense of their energy to keep on presenting evidence to someone who has no problems rejecting it without bothering to examine it or at least put up a good argument against it. I do not want to waste my time and energy in the same fashion. You don't understand evolution. And I know you get all uppity when people say that, but you really don't. The claims you've made about it so far show a fundamental lack of understanding.

Evolution has been observed. Period. Exclamation point.

 

[McBell]

All you're doing is dismissing everything with no reason to. You aren't offering any other possible interpretations of the evidence.

He seems awful proud of his three months worth of :ignore:

 

[shawn001]

That is the problem right there. Fossils are not able to tell us anything other than something has died. That is the only conclusion we can draw from finding fossils. You dont know whether any fossil that you stumble across had any children, let alone different kinds of children. When scientist find fossils, if they determine anything other than "a living creature from long ago has now died off", they are adding their own interpretation to the finding.



One would have to question scientific dating methods. I question carbon dating and its reliability.

Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective​

Radiometric Dating


Dating methods

Superposition
Stratigraphy
Dendrochronology
Radiocarbon C14
Radiometric Dating Methods
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
Fission-track Dating
Ice Cores
Varves
Pollens
Corals
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
Patination
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating

Evolution -- Dating Methods


Call_of_the_Wild, there are many new ways to take measurements. But the first post is very good and will help explain it all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is the problem right there. Fossils are not able to tell us anything other than something has died. That is the only conclusion we can draw from finding fossils. You dont know whether any fossil that you stumble across had any children, let alone different kinds of children. When scientist find fossils, if they determine anything other than "a living creature from long ago has now died off", they are adding their own interpretation to the finding.

And yet, when you look at living things, you decide that it is reasonable to conclude "therefore it was designed by God". If we applied your same logic to living things, how could you possibly reach any other conclusion than "life is just evidence that life exists - it doesn't tell us anything about what created life". You are a huge hypocrite.

This is no different to saying "the fact that there was a body in my basement isn't evidence that I killed them - it's just evidence that somebody has died". That's just plain ridiculous. What we see when we look at the fossil record as a whole is a gradual progression of morphological similarities emerging from distant species. Scientists do not just look at a dog-like fossil and conclude "dogs must have evolved from this!". They look at the hundreds (if not thousands) of fossils throughout the geological strata that go from less-to-more-doglike throughout the geological column, date them, discover that their dates indicate that the less dog-like fossils are older than the more dog-like fossils, check the DNA and discover that the DNA, too, follows this same pattern, and conclude that these fossil represent distant evolutionary ancestors of modern dogs.

Meanwhile, the only explanation of these facts that you can possibly offer is "that's just the way God made it". Well, sorry, but that's not a satisfactory answer. Not in science, and definitely not to anybody with any kind of reasonable, rational mind.

 

[camanintx]

That is the problem right there. Fossils are not able to tell us anything other than something has died. That is the only conclusion we can draw from finding fossils. You dont know whether any fossil that you stumble across had any children, let alone different kinds of children. When scientist find fossils, if they determine anything other than "a living creature from long ago has now died off", they are adding their own interpretation to the finding.

Fortunately, paleontologists are not limited by your lack of knowledge. There is actually quite a bit that can be learned from fossils besides "something died". You would do yourself some good by learning about a subject before you criticize it.

What We Can Learn From Fossils Besides Just "What The Organism Looked Like"

One would have to question scientific dating methods. I question carbon dating and its reliability.

One could, but they would be foolish to do so.

 

[shawn001]

Call of the wild.

" Fossils are not able to tell us anything other than something has died"

LOL, well actually its not funny.

they tell us what kind of animal died first of all. So fossil of dinosaurs don't tell us anything?

Dino Death Pit!

"This scene may have played out again and again as at least 14 dinosaurs tumbled into three different mud traps. Now, more than 160 million years later, scientists have unearthed this dino graveyard—including fossils of the oldest known member of the tyrannosaur family. And the discovery is revealing ancient secrets from the age of the dinosaurs.

Lost in Time

Fossils have shown that the earliest dinosaurs lived about 230 million years ago and were only about the size of today’s German shepherds. About 145 million years ago, massive dinos such as the four-story-tall Brachiosaurus began to stomp the Earth. But what did dinosaurs look like in between?

Dino Death Pit -- National Geographic Kids



They told us man evolved and bird's are the ancestors of dinosaurs for one.

There is also amber.

 

[johnhanks]

Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective​

Radiometric Dating


Dating methods

Superposition
Stratigraphy
Dendrochronology
Radiocarbon C14
Radiometric Dating Methods
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
Fission-track Dating
Ice Cores
Varves
Pollens
Corals
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
Patination
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating

Evolution -- Dating Methods


Call_of_the_Wild, there are many new ways to take measurements. But the first post is very good and will help explain it all.

Shawn, you have to realise Call_of_the_Wild doesn't want to know about these things: he has to keep his Invincible Ignorance intact. As soon as he starts messing his head with facts, he'll have to take on board the evidence conveyed by those facts; by staying ignorant, he can dismiss them out of hand.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is the problem right there. Fossils are not able to tell us anything other than something has died. That is the only conclusion we can draw from finding fossils. You dont know whether any fossil that you stumble across had any children, let alone different kinds of children. When scientist find fossils, if they determine anything other than "a living creature from long ago has now died off", they are adding their own interpretation to the finding.

One would have to question scientific dating methods. I question carbon dating and its reliability.

Do you object to theistic evolution?

 

[jamesmorrow]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

if creationism is true it would not necessarily prove a god in the first place....our observable universe and everything within it could very well have been created by non intelligence. and when we consider an intelligent cause we will first have to consider the possibility that there is more than just one creator. maybe an army of creators.... then we have to consider that the creator/s may be impersonal and not get involved in human affairs. then, we will have to consider the identity of such creators. known to man or not??.........remember. the concept of creationism is based on the concept of non-creationism. as ultimately a creationist will claim that the creator of existence was itself not created, but either simply appeared out of nothingness, or always existed that way randomly by chance.

 

[jasonwill2]

There is a creator, and you are all standing on-top of it. It is The Universe, and The Universe calculated it's exact proportions of physical constants because it was the only possible way for anything to exist.

If you are the only thing in existence, you have two choices:

1) do nothing and nothing ever happens

2) create something so something happens.

So if you have to create to do something, and YOU are all that exists, what do you create this something out of? Yourself obviously, quite literally you use your essence to create stuff. Then you cease to be a consciousness, but BECOME the material reality.

God did create the Universe, but he is the Universe, finite and equal to the sum of all the parts, not greater than it. This is Pantheism. I call God by what I feel personifies him: Leviathan.

From all relevant information, Leviathan is about 14-15 billion years old. While the Universe seems to be geared to some degree towards the development of life, I do not feel that Humans were explicitly "designed" anymore than any form of life.

I feel that Leviathan let Evolution, one of his many natural forces, do it's work. So Leviathan rules all, but is associated with the above, or The Heavens, while Satan rules the below, or Earth, which I sometimes refer to as "Hell" to poetically contrast with The Heavens, as I associate earth with "the fire of life" and space with 'an ocean and the mysteries of the deep that is Leviathan', more or less. It also helps that Leviathan is a sea monster which is in the depths of the ocean. It indicates hugeness, mystery, and such.

Satan is a subset of Leviathan, and the spiritual incarnation of Him.

This is my stance on creationism: that natural and "super"natural are one in the same. In one way, "God" can be understood in naturalistic terms, because God is naturalistic for all intents and purposes. But that is different from screaming "god did it, don't trust science!" Quite the contrary, because God is "naturalistic" and provides no "holy book", we MUST research and study it.

Or something like that; I do not see a divide between God and Nature.

Distracted by T.V. ), so my text may not be the most organized right now, hehe.

Hail Satan! Hail Leviathan!

Hail Science, the Big Bang Theory, and Evolution as what, according to all available, up-to-date, and relevant data, is the correct explanation of how God works!

 

[Big_TJ]

With all do respect Big T, it seem as if you are doing the same thing everyone else is doing. You attack my understanding of the subject. I understand the subject quite well. Evolution is the concept of all animals having a common ancestor, is it not? That is evolution. For example, all dogs have the common ancestor of a dog. If that is true, all dogs today comes from its common ancestor, which is the grey wolf. So where did the grey wolf come from?? If the grey wolf was the first dog, that would mean that whatever produced the grey wolf wasn't a dog (or so it is theorized). But that is exactly where you leave science and go to religion. Dogs produce dogs. There is no evidence that the first dog came from a nondog. This is voo doo science, yet you people believe it and accept it as truth.

So in a nut shell, that is what evolution is. Without getting into the technical babble that people like to hide behind, that is what evolution is. Large scale change over time. All dogs share a common ancestor with the grey wolf, but if you trace the grey wolf back to its origins, you will find that it had the alleged origins of a nondog. This is religion, not science. There is nothing observational about, and nothing empirical about it. It is what you believe, and if that is the case, fine. You can believe what you want, but dont go passing it off as facts and put it in the text books as facts and lying to kids.

CotW

No, I am not attacking your knowledge. As you see, i asked to get your understanding and you gave it. I now understand your points seeing that i understand what understanding of Evolution you are using.

I was just pointing out (and maybe didnt do a good job there), that what you explained as Evolution is infact the "Theory of Evolution" not "Evolution."

So, you seem to have an issue with the "Theory of Evolution" not an issue with "Evolution;" correct? Again, i ask: if someone were to point out what "Evolution" is, would you use that understanding to review your stance to see if it still remain the same?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you object to theistic evolution?

Yes I do.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

CotW

No, I am not attacking your knowledge. As you see, i asked to get your understanding and you gave it. I now understand your points seeing that i understand what understanding of Evolution you are using.

I was just pointing out (and maybe didnt do a good job there), that what you explained as Evolution is infact the "Theory of Evolution" not "Evolution."

So, you seem to have an issue with the "Theory of Evolution" not an issue with "Evolution;" correct? Again, i ask: if someone were to point out what "Evolution" is, would you use that understanding to review your stance to see if it still remain the same?

I apologize if I had you wrong. To answer you, I have a problem with any kind of evolution whose theory revolve around animals producing or beginning to produce DIFFERENT KINDS OF ANIMALS, and by "kind" i mean for a dog, a million years from now, beginning to produce a non-dog.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I apologize if I had you wrong. To answer you, I have a problem with any kind of evolution whose theory revolve around animals producing or beginning to produce DIFFERENT KINDS OF ANIMALS, and by "kind" i mean for a dog, a million years from now, beginning to produce a non-dog.

Don't worry. Biological evolution does not work that way. Dog's will not begin producing non-dogs a million years from now. (Although it is probable you will notl recognize their descendents as 'dog kind' a million years from now)

 

[shawn001]

I apologize if I had you wrong. To answer you, I have a problem with any kind of evolution whose theory revolve around animals producing or beginning to produce DIFFERENT KINDS OF ANIMALS, and by "kind" i mean for a dog, a million years from now, beginning to produce a non-dog.

wow, still on dogs, which humans have breed into a new species.

This is a "picutre of the oldest light in the universe" before any stars or galaxies existed at all. Everything has evolved from that point on, the heavy elements, stars galaxies and life.

Life has evolved in stages from single cells to before reptiles to reptiles and then to mammals and then to us. Its a done deal, you just don't get it all.

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

http://cosmos.lbl.gov/Images/resizenowmap.jpg

http://sos.noaa.gov/images/Solar_System/wmap.jpg

The air your breathing is because of biological evolution and cynobacteria that evolved the process of photosynthesis and gave us the oxygen atmophere we have today. The earths atmophere has evolved even.

You can't name one thing that hasn't evolved since the CMB light. Nothing!

 

[McBell]

You can't name one thing that hasn't evolved since the CMB light. Nothing!

Yes I can.

 

[I care]

Don't worry. Biological evolution does not work that way. Dog's will not begin producing non-dogs a million years from now. (Although it is probable you will notl recognize their descendents as 'dog kind' a million years from now)

That is it in a nutshell.