Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Tons of scientific evidence of creationism? Now you're just blowing smoke up our asses.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Dono wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
A lack of evidence is not support for the other side. It is simply that: a lack of evidence. A few gaps in the chain of what we have reproduced about evoultion vs. no evidence whatsoever of creationism. I'll take gaps in the chain and acknowledge it as such over science which has no science in it. You don't have to pick one of the present alternatives that are the only ones you know of - maybe there is a third, real answer which we should count on science (the methodological study of the world) to sort out for us.

(note: there were not "high" levels (by percentage) of those other gases in the atmosphere, but according to my learnings they were there - and still are - composing less than 1% of our atmosphere.)

Catch up with the latest research. Scientists themselves are throwing up their arms and saying it looks more and more like Intelligent Design.

BTW, I've tried several times to change my icon and I guess I just can't find the right button. I do it, but nothing changes!

If you look at "creation scientists*," sure. But evolutionary theory is the basis of modern science, and every class I've had (botany, biology, oceanography) is supportive of evolution studies. The theory of evolution, especially microevolution, is supported by evidence we have, and has not yet been contradicted. A lack of evidence is frustrating, but it does not dispute the theory - it only means we have more research to do. (Regardless of who or what it supports.)

That's okay. I couldn't change my icon either. I'll pretend it's not a gun :wink: .

* I do not consider creation scientists to be scientists because they do not use the scientific method.

Actually there is a lot of contradiction in the evolution studies, depending on which scientist you listen to.
I don't know how you can make a statement like this about creation scientists. I don't know which one or ones your referring to but I'm sure there are many scientists who would take great offense to this and I don't think you can back it up. I think it's more of an opinion, which I disagree with.

0 Replies

Example of scientific experiment:

You notice that the grass is green in one area, and brown in another.

You hypothesize: "The grass is green because there are more nutrients in the soil where the green grass is, and less where the brown grass is."

You start collecting data: taking soil samples and counting the nutrients. You find that the nutrients in both soils are the same.

Your hypothesis was wrong. You have to start over.

new hypothesis: "The grass is green because there is more water in the soil where the green grass is, and less water where the brown grass is."

you start collecting data: taking soil samples and measuring the amount of water. you find that water levels are higher in the green grass soil than in the brown grass soil.

Your data supports your hypothesis, so now you test:
You set up two trays of identical soil, and plant grass seeds. You water both trays until the grass grows. Then you water one tray half as much as the other tray.

Result of test: The tray with less water turned the grass brown, in the tray with more water the grass stayed green.

Now you have a test that confirms your hypothesis. You publish your results in a respectable scientific journal, and other scientists repeat the testing. All of the scientists find the same results, and your hypothesis becomes a theory.

0 Replies

Dono wrote:

Actually there is a lot of contradiction in the evolution studies, depending on which scientist you listen to.
I don't know how you can make a statement like this about creation scientists. I don't know which one or ones your referring to but I'm sure there are many scientists who would take great offense to this and I don't think you can back it up. I think it's more of an opinion, which I disagree with.

I have looked at two or three studies that started out trying to prove biblical creationism. The studies are flawed. If there were any flaws in what we have learned so far about the theory of evolution, it would no longer be a theory. I have been studying biology for seven years, and have not heard of any study which found evolutionary theory to be false. (Maybe you are unfamiliar with Darwin's theory of evolution? It doesn't say anything about being the beginning of the universe, you know.) If you find me a valid scientific study supporting creationism, or a valid scientific study finding problems with the theory of evolution I will gladly listen.
[please note that the credibility of a scientific study started by observation and not to prove somthing is much higher.]

I find this unlikely, having studied biology for such a long time, but I am always flexible to new ideas.

Are you familiar with Darwin's Origin of Species?

0 Replies

As far as your hypothesis, even if it did prove that it was brown becase of a water shortage, it doesn't prove why. It could be because of a natural underground spring, it could be because one place recieves more shade, and is therefor subject to less evaporation, or it could be that one patch of grass is greener because someone has been watering it every day. Science may be able to show that at least some evolution has taken place, but it can't prove that god wasn't behind it. It may be able to explain the life stages of a star, and how they're initially formed, but they can't prove that god didn't set the whole system in motion. The fact the science supports that the universe runs on its own, with all of its systems coexisting, or codepending one one another just tells me that god did a good job of watering his lawn.

0 Replies

SCoates,
So you think that a literal interpretation of Genesis is valid?

0 Replies

Not a perfectly literal one, no. But I think that most scripture can be taken literally, and sybolically. Certainly all of it would be one or the other if it hasn't been corrupted. That is to say, if they are the words as god intended them. Any particular passage you're thinking of?

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Not a perfectly literal one, no. But I think that most scripture can be taken literally, and sybolically. Certainly all of it would be one or the other if it hasn't been corrupted. That is to say, if they are the words as god intended them. Any particular passage you're thinking of?

I do not understand what you mean by "not a perfectly literal one".
Are you talking about minor discrepancies such as creating light on the first day and the sun on the fourth day?

0 Replies

mesquite..
"Light" and "lights" are different.

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

mesquite..
"Light" and "lights" are different.

Yes you are quite correct. That was my point. Lights make light. :wink:

Quote:

.5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [Literally, "and the evening was, and the morning was, the first day."]

Quote:

.16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

0 Replies

Photons appeared first then the Sun was born. What's wrong with this formula?

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

Photons appeared first then the Sun was born. What's wrong with this formula?

Well for starters photons do not just dance around all sparkly and brighten things up. They come from an emitter, and the emitter that gives us day as in verse 5 is the sun.

0 Replies

First of all, I think that god organized the universe, and that he had a poetic mind, and you can't take everything literally with poetry. As for the discrepency you sited, I don't know what to attribute it to. I doubt the meaning was lost in translation, but perhaps in transcribing. Perhaps the first instance was when he got out his little red pencil and drew out the blue prints on paper, thinking what we would need to survive on this planet, and coming to the conclusion, "Hmm... they'll probably appreciate a little light."

0 Replies

mesquite..
Photons are in the blackbody also, or you will call it "blackbody radiation."

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

First of all, I think that god organized the universe, and that he had a poetic mind, and you can't take everything literally with poetry. As for the discrepency you sited, I don't know what to attribute it to. I doubt the meaning was lost in translation, but perhaps in transcribing. Perhaps the first instance was when he got out his little red pencil and drew out the blue prints on paper, thinking what we would need to survive on this planet, and coming to the conclusion, "Hmm... they'll probably appreciate a little light."

I can agree with you that Genesis was written by a poetic mind, but one with zip knowledge of the sciences.

0 Replies

If God had explained the science of what he had done to such an ancient people, they would have dismissed the whole affair as "too complicated." God knew his audience, and he just needed to get the point accross that he was in charge. In their case "Hey, guys, I created light," was much more effective than a lengthy group discussion on gravity, fission, fusion, and spectral analysis.

0 Replies

The content of science changes with time faster than humans evolve. You cannot rely on science as a long lasting basis of belief.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

If God had explained the science of what he had done to such an ancient people, they would have dismissed the whole affair as "too complicated." God knew his audience, and he just needed to get the point accross that he was in charge. In their case "Hey, guys, I created light," was much more effective than a lengthy group discussion on gravity, fission, fusion, and spectral analysis.

Sounds to me as though you are now blowing Genesis off as meaningless except as a way to establish authority. That is fine with me. Where I begin to have a problem with creationists is when they try to force our public schools to teach it as an alternative to real science. By real science I mean knowledge gained through scientific methods rather than the reading of a fairy tale.

0 Replies

I've never supported it as literally as you make it sound. I think that god literally organized the universe, but I don't believe that he did anything contrary to science. I do, however, believe that he knows a lot more about science than we do, obviously, or we would be creating worlds and life ourselves.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

I've never supported it as literally as you make it sound. I think that god literally organized the universe, but I don't believe that he did anything contrary to science. I do, however, believe that he knows a lot more about science than we do, obviously, or we would be creating worlds and life ourselves.

I didn't make it sound literally. I merely quoted the bible. Since the only source of knowledge you have about God is the bible, and the bible is chock full of info contrary to science how do you go about sorting the wheat from the chaff.

0 Replies

Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know