Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that was nice and specific.

With answers like that, who needs questions, eh?

I can only gave generic answers to generic questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Other stories in scripture regarding the Creation account
and stories about Jesus show "finished" works, ready for
immediate use.

• 1Types and motives
  • 1.1Cures
    • 1.1.1Blind people
    • 1.1.2Lepers
    • 1.1.3Paralytics
    • 1.1.4Women
    • 1.1.5Other healings
    • 1.1.6Other
  • 1.2Exorcisms
  • 1.3Resurrection of the dead
  • 1.4Control over nature
• 2List of miracles found outside the New Testament
• 3Setting and Interpretations
  • 3.1Cultural background
  • 3.2Traditional Christian interpretation
  • 3.3Liberal Christianity
  • 3.4Non-religious views
• 4Gallery of miracles
  • 4.1Cures
  • 4.2Power over demonic spirits
  • 4.3Resurrection of the dead
  • 4.4Control over nature

All these are just claims.
I'm not asking you what you believe. I'm asking how you know what you believe is true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution believers:

Please show the scientifically valid explanation for the origination of the universe.

1. the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution
2. the origins of the universe are unknown
3. great job at proving the point of the OP

1. You do not get to presuppose the existence of another universe which exists only in your fantasies.
2. You can cite Quantum theory ONLY if you can validate a suspension of the effects of gravity and explain where the subatomic particles originated.

I'm sure you will ALL agree on this single scientifically proven process by which the universe began. After all, there could be no life without the building blocks of life, which had to come from minerals and chemicals in the environment.

How life came about, also has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence is against you:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE / SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

I suggest you check the education and training of any of these
before you claim that they are notable in that they ignored
their creationist training. Yes, there is another current list.

Couldn't find anyone that hasn't been dead for more then a century, ey?

ps: none of those disciplines have anything to do with "creationism".

It's a bit like claiming that alchemy is a valid science, because Newton wrote more about alchemy then he did about physics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Scientific principles like cause and effect, which claim that all resuts
have a first cause, and thermodynamics showing that all energy is dissipating.
Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death

And how does that support or prove that your specific god (or any other god for that matter) had anything to do with it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can check:

Miracles of Jesus Christ in chronological order

Repeating claims, is not the same as supporting said claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Genesis account describes how the world was formed
including a Garden where God walked and talked with Adam.
The Gen account is about the creation of Paradise where God walked.
It's not about the realm where we currently live. Adam was
banished from Paradise.

How do you know?

 

[Jimmy D]

The evidence is against you:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE / SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

I suggest you check the education and training of any of these
before you claim that they are notable in that they ignored
their creationist training. Yes, there is another current list.

Pretty much every area of science that those gentlemen pioneered has helped dispell any ridiculous notions of special creation and a young earth.

 

[Kylie]

Being temporary, how much time do you calculate we have left before the quantum wave reverses and all existence is sucked over to the other side?

If a particle/anti-particle pair is created near a black hole, and one of them crosses the event horizon and the other doesn't, how do you suppose they annihilate?

 

[KWCrazy]

2. the origins of the universe are unknown
How life came about, also has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

So by using science and natural law you are unable to scientifically prove how the universe was created through natural processes, but you expect US to provide scientific proof of a SUPERNATURAL creation?

In other words, you have faith in the fact that natural laws control the universe even though natural laws preclude the creation of the universe. We have faith in God and God by definition could and DID create the universe. Our God is knowable. Your "science" is not. Which of us, then, is irrational?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So by using science and natural law you are unable to scientifically prove how the universe was created through natural processes, but you expect US to provide scientific proof of a SUPERNATURAL creation?

In other words, you have faith in the fact that natural laws control the universe even though natural laws preclude the creation of the universe. We have faith in God and God by definition could and DID create the universe. Our God is knowable. Your "science" is not. Which of us, then, is irrational?

No, we are just asking for evidence. We do have evidence for our beliefs. You do not seem to have any evidence for yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

That wasn't the claim.
Intellectualism?

If even creationists don't use creationism, then it would appear to be intellectually dead.

 

[Loudmouth]

So by using science and natural law you are unable to scientifically prove how the universe was created through natural processes, but you expect US to provide scientific proof of a SUPERNATURAL creation?

We expect anyone to provide evidence for their claims, no matter what that claim is. Scientists are quite happy to say that they don't know how the universe came to exist. The problem is that you do claim to know how the universe came about, so we need to see evidence to back that claim.

In other words, you have faith in the fact that natural laws control the universe even though natural laws preclude the creation of the universe. We have faith in God and God by definition could and DID create the universe. Our God is knowable. Your "science" is not. Which of us, then, is irrational?

If God was knowable you wouldn't have to rely on faith.

 

[SkyWriting]

If a particle/anti-particle pair is created near a black hole, and one of them crosses the event horizon and the other doesn't, how do you suppose they annihilate?

I wouldn't assume any result before your experiment.
But assuming the event horizon blocks particles from
being pulled in, we should see them piling up on the
surface around black holes.

Perhaps that's why our reality is actually a 2 dimensional
plane surrounding black holes?

 

[SkyWriting]

Pretty much every area of science that those gentlemen pioneered has helped dispell any ridiculous notions of special creation and a young earth.

Too bad the issue was intellect and your response
misses the sailing ship.

 

[pitabread]

The evidence is against you:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

The real question should be whether any of those scientists would accept modern creationism or would they adopt mainstream scientific views (regardless of religious faith).

 

[Kylie]

I wouldn't assume any result before your experiment.

And how do you propose we actually conduct it?

But assuming the event horizon blocks particles from
being pulled in, we should see them piling up on the
surface around black holes.

Did I say that? I don't think so.

The event horizon is not a barrier.

Perhaps that's why our reality is actually a 2 dimensional
plane surrounding black holes?

Given that you have demonstrated that you don't even know enough about black holes to know what an event horizon is, I don't see any reason to give even a second of consideration to this claim.

If you want to discuss black holes with me or anyone else, you really need to learn what you are talking about. Right now, your statements about black holes are nonsense.

 

[pitabread]

Everything! Because your faith in a lie is what will condemn you all.

Promises, promises...

 

[Loudmouth]

Everything! Because your faith in a lie is what will condemn you all.

We have evidence that supports evolution, so we don't need faith. The evidence also demonstrates that it isn't a lie.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[AV1611VET]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

A Critique of 29 Evidences for Macroevolution