Would Anyone Care To Defend The Creation Model?

[KWCrazy]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded.

Here's something that most evolutionists don't understand. Creation isn't a scientific theory.

So with that in mind, what is the paradigm creationists intend to replace evolution via natural selection with?

Creation came first. Evolution is the newcomer.

What natural mechanisms are behind it?

Nothing natural about a supernatural creation.

What predictions can we make as a result of it, and what testable hypotheses can be put forward as a result of those predictions?

None. God isn't going to prove His self to you. You have to come to Him through faith, not the scientific method.

How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

Go forth and multiply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's something that most evolutionists don't understand. Creation isn't a scientific theory.

I can assure you that we understand that probably better than you do.

Creation came first. Evolution is the newcomer.

Correct, that happens quite often. Early wrong ideas are replaced by newer more accurate ideas.

Nothing natural about a supernatural creation.

Even a "supernatural creation" should leave evidence of its occurrence. There is none. All of the reliable evidence points to evolution and evolution only.

None. God isn't going to prove His self to you. You have to come to Him through faith, not the scientific method.

So your belief in creation is of no use at all.

Go forth and multiply.

Sorry, that does not explain the diversity of life, the various nested hierarchies that point to evolution or the fossil record that also points only to evolution.

 

[The Cadet]

Here's something that most evolutionists don't understand. Creation isn't a scientific theory.

You may say this, but somehow there are people who think that creation is scientific, and I'd kind of like to hear from them, given that once you admit that creationism isn't science and admit that your worldview doesn't work without invoking forces that throw science out the window, you essentially admit that you have absolutely no mechanism to back your assertions, and that it's doubly ridiculous to favor this over literally any explanation that borders on scientific.

Creation came first. Evolution is the newcomer.

But by your own admission, creation is not a scientific paradigm for explaining the natural world. The fact that it came first has no bearing on whether or not it should be considered an acceptable model. We gain neither knowledge nor predictive power by using it. The model "God Did It" is not a viable answer to the question. I mean, as you state:

None.

So at this point, what you're asking us to reject a model which makes numerous useful and accurate predictions and replace it with one that makes no testable predictions whatsoever. How is this anything but an absurd destruction of human knowledge? Without predictive power, you lose any ability to determine whether or not it is true.

God isn't going to prove His self to you. You have to come to Him through faith, not the scientific method.

Yes, but we're not talking about God, we're talking about the origins of the universe. Regardless of whether God created the universe or not, we can still examine the evidence and draw conclusions based on them.

 

[juvenissun]

It is good because there is no better one.

I have nothing against believing any explanation, so long as it is buoyed by evidence. This is not evidence.

So wait, now you're claiming that "the current historical model" and "biblical creationism" is a true dichotomy? Ugh.

This is getting really tiresome. The entire point of this thread is to defend the creation model. The idea that any model of reality somehow "wins by default" is laughable and shows a fundamental misunderstanding. If you can't figure out that proving evolution wrong does not get you one step closer to demonstrating creation, you do not belong in this thread.

As I said, you get the domain of argument wrong at the first place. Creationism, by definition, does not "start with" science, while evolution does in 100%. It is impossible to "prove" creationism because its definition is not a scientific one, even all its contents are. Your OP is an argument on the definition level. That is why you are deemed to be frustrated.

Specifically, the nature of relationship between evolution and creation is indeed, a dichotomy. So, the argument becomes a little simpler. If science is the thing to focus on, then beat evolution will be the win of creation. And, believe me, evolution is very very easy to beat according to science.

To be considerate to you, I will give you some scientific arguments about creationism, IF you accept the definition of creation at the first place. That is: don't ask for a proof on the idea of creation. If so, we can talk about the contents of creationism.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So, the argument becomes a little simpler. If science is the thing to focus on, then beat evolution will be the win of creation. And, believe me, evolution is very very easy to beat according to science.

Wrong on every level. First your creation story is not the default alternative. It isn't even in the running. Secondly, the theory of evolution is one of the most solid theories in all science and, as you don't even understand the theory, your grand pronouncements on the matter are worthless, as well as being false.

To be considerate to you, I will give you some scientific arguments about creationism,

No you won't. You never have before and you never will. You just like making it sound as if you have something special to contribute whereas experience has shown that you don't.

IF you accept the definition of creation at the first place.

Give us your definition and we'll tell you if it's acceptable or not.

That is: don't ask for a proof on the idea of creation.

Just evidence will do.

If so, we can talk about the contents of creationism.

Frankly, your opinions aren't actually something we're waiting for with baited breath. If you want to run your ideas past us, fine, but we're not expecting very much.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what? This does not mean that your explanation is right by default.

Just to give an example, if it turns out that General Relativity is just dead wrong, and we have no other known mechanism for explaining how objects operate at light speed, does that mean my "magical pixies make it so" theory is automatically right? The fallacy you are committing is called the "argument from ignorance" - "We don't know, therefore whatever I can come up with is right". That's not a valid argument. Creation still needs to provide its own evidence and testable predictions. Just because you cannot think of an alternative does not mean that there is no other possible mechanism other than creation - you'd need to demonstrate that dichotomy in order for this argument to work.

Nor would it mean yours is right by default.

GR isn't wrong - it just applies to solids, liquids and gasses and not plasma is all. Cosmologists just can't face up to the fact that plasma - 99% of the universe - operates by the laws of plasma physics and not gravitational theory. GR is perfectly applicable to the state of matter is was designed to describe. It's only too bad that solids, liquids and gasses only make up 1% of the universe and therefore gravitational theories only apply to 1% of the universe - planetary systems. When you finally accept what every plasma physicist in every laboratory knows - you will come to understand they are simply applying the wrong theory to the wrong state of matter. And hence they must add 95% Fairie Dust to make gravitational theory even fit a semblance of reality. It takes that 95% Fairie Dust to force fit plasma behavior to a gravity only viewpoint.

So in your world it is better to use what you consider to be a "wrong" theory, just because you don't have one you consider right???

No, in order for creationism to be wrong, you must first propose a correct theory. Continuing to use an incorrect theory simply because you do not want to accept the only other theory is just plain bad science. As is cosmologists refusing to accept plasma physics and apply it to plasma instead of gravitational theory which applies only to the other three states of matter. If they accepted over 200+ years of laboratory experiments with plasma, they wouldn't need 95% Fairie Dust. Just as if evolutionists accepted over 200+ years of laboratory evidence in plant and animal husbandry, they wouldn't need 95% Fairie Dust either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am afraid that you have got this slightly wrong; it was the precession of Mercury's perihelion that didn't fit into the Newtonian paradigm. To put it more simply, the long axis of Mercury's orbit was rotating slightly faster than was predicted by Newton's theory of gravitation.

An incorrect assumption from lack of research and acceptance of the correct physics. Newton's theory does just fine when one uses energy conservation laws in the calculation. Energy conservation laws that must be applied to everything, which is not done. Relativity becomes irrelevant to the explanation.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html

Applying gravitational theories to non-planetary systems - to plasma - is another debate.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just evidence will do.

I agree. Breed mates with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species - as is observed in all of reproduction. Your evidence? You "believe" it happened through mutation in the past because you refuse to apply what is observed to the fossil record so incorrectly name everything slightly different a new species, instead of what they are as per observations - different breeds of the same species.

So my evidence is Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook through combining genes and recessive and dominant factors creating variation. Your evidence is your "belief" that species evolves through mutation into other species and your transitional's are just missing - even if no transitional's exist between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook?

Your "evidence" (your belief) requires I ignore how we understand all life does propagate. Requires that I ignore the fact that breed mates with breed producing variation within the species - with no evolution through mutation involved. You ask that I ignore the Husky and Mastiff mating to produce the Chinook and insist I accept the Husky or Mastiff instead evolved through mutation into the Chinook, and we just forgot to record the transitional species as the fossil record forgot to fossilize them. Instead of accepting the fact they never existed in either situation.

So let's discuss this evidence of breed mating with breed producing variation within the species versus your "claim" that it happened differently in the past than we observe today. Or is it really just theory you want to discuss without any evidence?

 

[Astrophile]

An incorrect assumption from lack of research and acceptance of the correct physics. Newton's theory does just fine when one uses energy conservation laws in the calculation. Energy conservation laws that must be applied to everything, which is not done. Relativity becomes irrelevant to the explanation.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html

Applying gravitational theories to non-planetary systems - to plasma - is another debate.

You have misunderstood me; I was merely correcting The Cadet's use of astronomical terms. He spoke of 'the perehelion of mercury's procession', thereby showing that he did not understand the meaning of the words 'perihelion' and 'precession'. I was trying to correct his error and to explain what is meant by the precession of Mercury's perihelion; I was not discussing the validity of Newton's theory or of general relativity.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I agree. Breed mates with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species - as is observed in all of reproduction. Your evidence? You "believe" it happened through mutation in the past because you refuse to apply what is observed to the fossil record so incorrectly name everything slightly different a new species, instead of what they are as per observations - different breeds of the same species.

So my evidence is Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook through combining genes and recessive and dominant factors creating variation. Your evidence is your "belief" that species evolves through mutation into other species and your transitional's are just missing - even if no transitional's exist between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook?

Your "evidence" (your belief) requires I ignore how we understand all life does propagate. Requires that I ignore the fact that breed mates with breed producing variation within the species - with no evolution through mutation involved. You ask that I ignore the Husky and Mastiff mating to produce the Chinook and insist I accept the Husky or Mastiff instead evolved through mutation into the Chinook, and we just forgot to record the transitional species as the fossil record forgot to fossilize them. Instead of accepting the fact they never existed in either situation.

So let's discuss this evidence of breed mating with breed producing variation within the species versus your "claim" that it happened differently in the past than we observe today. Or is it really just theory you want to discuss without any evidence?

Sorry, who is all that drivel aimed at?

 

[The Cadet]

No, in order for creationism to be wrong, you must first propose a correct theory.

...So, another person who thinks "Creationism is the default and thus does not need to present either its model nor its evidence"? This is really disappointing. I'll be taking your "genuinely interested in science" card, thank you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, who is all that drivel aimed at?

Apparently another person that ignores how life propagates in favor of fantasy. My bad, I thought we were discussing science instead of fantasies of how you want it to be.

So I take it your not interested in discussing how life propagates as per observations, just in theory long ago?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

...So, another person who thinks "Creationism is the default and thus does not need to present either its model nor its evidence"? This is really disappointing. I'll be taking your "genuinely interested in science" card, thank you.

I've presented evidence any of you have yet to counter with any evidence to the contrary except "claims."

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Genes combine with other genes and through recessive and dominant traits variation occurs in the species. No evolution through mutation of one creature into another is observed. No missing links went missing. Because you refuse to apply what we observe in actual life to the fossil record, you misconstrue these fossils to be separate species - when they are in actuality different breeds of the same species. The links are not missing - they never existed - just as no links are missing between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook.

Let's discuss the science - please - let's do.

Besides incorrectly calling Finches that all interbreed separate species before you found out they did interbreed - what evidence do you have that these fossils are separate species and not different breeds of the same species as is seen in every aspect of present day life?

Just your pre-conceived ideas that they are do to your belief in speciation? You can't do that with dogs as it's lineages are too well known, otherwise you'd be going species happy there too. And just like in the fossil record a T. Rex remains a T. Rex from the oldest fossil to the youngest - as a Husky remains a Husky. Until one breeds with another breed within the species and produces a new breed. You know this is how it happens in real life, so why do you insist we reject interpretations corresponding to the real world in favor of interpretations that require us to reject what we observe in favor of something never once observed?

You have made the term species a meaningless catch-all suppository devoid of any significance. Species may now apply to anything and everything - making it useless as a scientific classification.

Two birds interbreed - they are the same species. Two birds interbreed - they are different species. Species now made a meaningless concept in the discussion.

 

[The Cadet]

I've presented evidence

You have provided absolutely no evidence for your model of creation. In fact, you haven't even presented your model! I have no idea what you believe!

How did the universe come to exist?
How did life originate?
What explains the variety of life currently present?

The point of this thread is to hear from creationists what they think the answers to these questions are, and what evidence they can provide to support these beliefs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here is mine:
It will be two posts.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

Now the earth was unformed and void,

This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.


and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.



And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.
The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.
Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.
Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger.
The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.


6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7546975/
Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.
11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}

There are two points to consider in interpreting this verse. The first is that there is no evidence to support this verse. The second has two possible meanings which could be valid. The first of the two is that there is no evidence of this due to plate tectonics, it is a well known fact that the earliest surface of the earth is probably lost for all time due to movement. The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.

I concede that "evidence" to support my viewpoint on this is interpretive at best and so I will consider this verse somewhat of a gap in the conclusions I hold.

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 19{P} and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are several conflicts in this verse that skeptics have in their understanding of this verse. The first is firmament being meant as a hard dome surface but we see in the following verses that birds fly in the firmament which would be impossible to do in a hard domed surface. The second is that the sun was formed first with the moon and earth thereafter.

My viewpoint is that the age of the earth is not conclusive due to plate tectonics, the oldest known rocks are probably lost to us and those that are in evidence show the earth much older than scientists first believed. 03 February, 1998. Astronomers have been able to date the Sun by applying the theory of stellar structure and evolution to data that describe the interior of the Sun found through the study of solar oscillations. The Sun is dated at 4.5 billion years old, satisfyingly close to the 4.56 billion year age of the Solar System as found from the study of meteorites.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html
Dating the Sun is an indirect process. There are several independent ways of estimating the age and they all give nearly the same answer: about 5 billion years.
The age of the Sun can be estimated from the ages obtained from radioactive dating of the oldest meteorites. This may seem odd at first, but in fact it is extremely likely that the solar system (i.e. th Sun, planets, asteroids etc.) formed as one unit. Therefore the age of the Sun should be close to the age of the meteorites, which can be found using the method of radioactive dating.
G.J. Wasserburg obtained a meteoritic age of (4.57 +/- 0.01) x 10^9 years and D.B. Guenther (1989, Astrophysical Journal 339, 1156) estimated that hydrogen burning started shortly thereafer (40 million (0.04 +/- .01) x 10^9 years later).
Additional evidence comes from the Earth. The oldest Earth rocks are also about 4.6 billion years old. The oldest fossils, found in Australia, are about 3.5 bilion years old. The presence of fossils in rocks indicates that the Earth was a suitable place for life when the fossils formed. This implies that the Sun was luminous at that time. [Of course we can't say exactly how long before the fossil formed the Sun was like it is today, but it does give us a lower bound.]
What is meant by "luminous?" We mean that the Sun was at or near the stable part of its lifetime called the "main sequence" more than 3.6 billion years ago. Viewing the Sun as a star on the main sequence, is very useful and important for astronomers because they have a model called "The Standard Solar Model" that views the Sun at stages in its life while it is burning hydrogen and converting that to helium. The model can be run forward and backward in time, and the astronomers can check the observable quantities in the model like luminosity, solar radius, composition, solar p-mode frequencies, and so on with our real Sun. They can stop the model at any time during its main sequence. If what we see from our Sun matches the quantities in the model for a specific age, then we have one more piece of information of what we think that the age of the Sun is.
One complication of checking the Solar Model with our real Sun is the quantity of helium: the "helium abundance." That is rather difficult to obtain. According to the Dalsgaard article (see below), the solar spectrum is too complicated to accurately measure the helium abundance, so that one parameter has to be estimated (one infers the helium abundance by matching the observed solar radius and luminosity in the solar models). It turns out this affects the estimated age very little.
__________________

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Now life moves to land. This is describing the Cenozoic period. The first mammals appear during this period.

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-3.htm
The Cenozoic is the most current era, taking place from the last mass extinction of all land-based dinosaurs (approximately 65 million years ago) to the present day.
This era saw the rise of many mammals, such as whales, the great hunter cats, as well as Humans. But it also saw the rise of the birds, insects, and many new plants, including flowering plants.
Much of life as we know it today evolved during this era.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have misunderstood me; I was merely correcting The Cadet's use of astronomical terms. He spoke of 'the perehelion of mercury's procession', thereby showing that he did not understand the meaning of the words 'perihelion' and 'precession'. I was trying to correct his error and to explain what is meant by the precession of Mercury's perihelion; I was not discussing the validity of Newton's theory or of general relativity.

But yet the precession and perihelion of Mercury do fit into a Newtonian framework. It never failed to begin with - they just never knew as much as we do now.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have provided absolutely no evidence for your model of creation. In fact, you haven't even presented your model! I have no idea what you believe!

How did the universe come to exist?
How did life originate?
What explains the variety of life currently present?

The point of this thread is to hear from creationists what they think the answers to these questions are, and what evidence they can provide to support these beliefs.

Is cop out all you really got? I'll say it sllloooowwwwwllllyyyyyy.

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Genes combine with other genes and through recessive and dominant traits variation occurs in the species. No evolution through mutation of one creature into another is observed. No missing links went missing. Because you refuse to apply what we observe in actual life to the fossil record, you misconstrue these fossils to be separate species - when they are in actuality different breeds of the same species. The links are not missing - they never existed - just as no links are missing between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook.

According to science the universe came into existence through a Big Bang proposed by a priest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Georges_Lemaître

"was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"."

So if I want a creation story I need look no further than the Big Bang. Even though I do not because it is wrong because you pretend it just happened. You don't know how, just as long as it wasn't a miracle.

You have simply taken a priest's personal and scientific view of how God created the universe and refuse to consider what happens when your math utterly fails at T=0. Lemaitre knew, that's why he remained a priest.

What, too ashamed or scared to give credit where credit is due?????

Good question, how did life originate? Which one of the 20 some scientific theories about how it happened do you put "faith" in?

Mine says it came from the dust of the earth. And sure enough, those same proton's and electron's that make up me, make up dust. You have no more a valid model than I do. We both know this, so stop with the blustering tactics, does you no good with me.

What explains the variety of current life in the present? Are you kidding me??????? How many varieties of dogs and cats do you need to see to realize how variety comes about? And it sure wasn't by evolution through mutation was it.

Do you need more?

 

[bhayes]

Can you please explain to me how evolution explains the origin of the universe? Evolution isn't a theory used to predict the origins of the universe but a theory used to predict diversification of life. "Creationism" explains how life came into being and everything else. So when you are saying provide "scientific evidence" then you have to understand that the natural world is evidence. The fact that everything is defined and ordered, even down to the tiniest cells or microorganisms and seemingly all of this is just organic compounds "responding to their environment" that occurred by chance billions of years ago is actually impossible because it would go against the laws of physics that we now do know such as the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution fails to explain the origins of the universe and until it does you cannot argue with "creationism" because they are explaining two completely different things.

You have provided absolutely no evidence for your model of creation. In fact, you haven't even presented your model! I have no idea what you believe!

How did the universe come to exist?
How did life originate?
What explains the variety of life currently present?

I could ask the first two questions about your theory of evolution because nowhere does it say how the universe came into being or how complexity can come from literally absolutely nothing, (because it can't and this is logical like 2+2=4). The evidence of creation is created things and this is also logical. Whats more the creation is not chaotic but follows order that was set in the beginning of creation, this is simple and what the reality is. The fact that there requires an energy input or the fact that there had to be an original cause in order for this natural world to come into being when there was nothing originally points to the fact that there is a God. Again, there is no way that evolution can explain any of this. If you would like a scientific model of creation I suggest you have a kid. (the kid did not spontaneously generate, but follows the same principles that were set in the beginning by God that point to the fact that he is the original creator. ) Also if you want to learn more I also suggest you look up Dr. William Lane Craig who is a Christian philosopher and scientist who typically gives better answers then your average christian.

I would also just like to add that nobody disagrees with variations within kinds of species. This is normal and proven but it doesn't explain macro evolution or changes from kinds to other kinds which has never been observed or tested, let alone the origins of the universe. Also finding bones in the ground doesn't provide evidence for your transitional fossils because there is no way to confirm that, but you are putting your interpretation on it. And if you want to base your whole worldview and life decision on other peoples interpretations of bones in the ground Against what is so simple and obvious then you need to understand that that is foolish.


Jeremiah 51:15
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Job 12:7
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[The Cadet]

I just realized I haven't shown my face in here since @Oncedeceived posted.

Guys, I promise, tomorrow I will get back to the models presented. And thank you, Oncedeceived, for going into such great detail.