Most of the documents were written by Ph.D. scientists. I'm not sure what you find objectionable to the links I provided.
Upvote
0
Is there Proof for Creationism?
- Thread starter Arikay
- Start date
Most of the documents were written by Ph.D. scientists. I'm not sure what you find objectionable to the links I provided.
Well, the couple likes that I have gone to so far, are the same old arguments and what not. Many fall in the area of belief and not fact or evidence. I was asking you to point me towards the facts/eviudence.
Upvote
0
Many of which have no expertiece in the fields they are talking about, are not working scientists, nor even have valid PhDs. Now I can give you a mountain of articles and scientific papers written by working scientists talking about their field of expertice. But I doubt you'd care about them.
Um, it is impossible to do accurat science in the context of "biblical bias." The same holds true for "political bias," "emotional bias," etc. For example, using biblical bias I can prove that the moon landing was a hoax and so is meterology. Invalidating data because it doesn't say what you want it to is not scientific. Yet that is exactly what they do, and that is exactly why they get so many things obviously wrong.
Upvote
0
To expand on this more, Lets look at the FAQ:
Can you find me something in the FAQ that doesnt interpret the bible for the answer, doesnt make an attempt to only disprove evolution but doesnt go any further (just disproving evolution, doesnt prove creationism), and does say "god did it"?
Can you find me something in the FAQ that doesnt interpret the bible for the answer, doesnt make an attempt to only disprove evolution but doesnt go any further (just disproving evolution, doesnt prove creationism), and does say "god did it"?
Upvote
0
Really, I don't want to go into it. These topics have been discussed to death to no avail. And ... that wasn't the original intent of this thread.
But in a nutshell:
Fact is one thing. The interpretation of that fact is something entirely different. For example:
Fact - the existence of the Grand Canyon.
Interpretation #1 - formed by a lot of water over a short period of time.
Interpretation #2 - formed by a little bit of water over long periods of time.
Creationists use the Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists use naturalism or materialism. Both have a bias from the get go.
Upvote
0
nephilimiyr
I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
- Jan 21, 2003
- 23,432
- 1,799
- 60
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Of course this ignores all the other facts about the nature of the grand canyon that disprove interpretion #2. Presenting the fact of the grand canyon is simply "its existance" is proof that creationists do routinely ignore data that disagrees with their interpretation.
Upvote
0
The issue with interpreting the evidence, is the interpretations have to jive with ALL the available evidence, not just bits and pieces of it. This is far too often the problem I've seen with creationist literature, especially with regard to flood geology. They harp on about this or that as evidence for a global flood, yet conveniently ignore other evidence to the contrary.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Basic objection: the universe is not "governed" by these "laws".
A scientific law is a description of what is, not what should be. (I´m sure one of our resident scientists can dig out the correct definition.)
If you assume a creator as neccessary for any of these laws, you get into the problem of causation again.
Isn´t "A creator had to first set these laws into motion before anything of mass and energy happend." also a "law"?
So who set this laws into motion? The mentioned creator could not have done it, because then the above "law" would not be correct.
There is another possibility: "natural laws" are inherent. They don´t exist independent from "mass and energy".
Upvote
0
nephilimiyr
I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
- Jan 21, 2003
- 23,432
- 1,799
- 60
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
If you take away any of these physical laws I stated you will have complete chaos! I actually wouldn't even know what you'd have but nature wouldn't resemble anything what we have now. Things would just fall apart for all I know. But anyhow, yes these laws do govern the universe.
Are you surmising that if these laws would have to be created that that would mean the creator of these laws would have to be created too? That's got to be the stupidest thing I ever heard in this forum!
Your going to have to do better than this to argue my point.
Upvote
0
Hmmmm - worship creation or the creator?
Power or energy is what creates - correct? Everything needs a 'push' to explode, create, or die - everything that we Humans do - create or destroy - happens when a button is pushed. But, why is it so hard to accept that God just has to will it and it is?
Of all the complexities in the universe that we will never fully understand is similar to God - He's complex and way too smart for us to understand. So why then do we question God as the creator of the universe? We're just beginning to learn about our Earth and we're questioning if God created?
"It was all in His hands, all He did was open them"
Power or energy is what creates - correct? Everything needs a 'push' to explode, create, or die - everything that we Humans do - create or destroy - happens when a button is pushed. But, why is it so hard to accept that God just has to will it and it is?
Of all the complexities in the universe that we will never fully understand is similar to God - He's complex and way too smart for us to understand. So why then do we question God as the creator of the universe? We're just beginning to learn about our Earth and we're questioning if God created?
"It was all in His hands, all He did was open them"
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
I think you missed the point of Freodin's post. These laws are inherent properties of the universe in the same way there are inherent properties of elements. These laws describe what IS. These inherent laws and properties exist because of what exists. They would not exist in the abscence of matter/energy, but since matter/energy exists, these universal laws exist.
It's not stupid at all. If your argument is going to be from causation, then it begs the question, "what created the creator?"
Upvote
0
Well, one thing to point out, is that evolution doesnt say anything about how life or the universe began.
So, as someone else said, who created the creator?
If god was infinite, why cant the universe be infinite?
So, as someone else said, who created the creator?
If god was infinite, why cant the universe be infinite?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Funny you should say that. The evidence that is found for creation or the existence of God is always thrown out and the person that found it is discredited. It's a common practice needed to stay ahead of the game by scienctist around the world. Name one christain scientist you respect that has found evidence for either creation or God. But yet all are discredited when they do. Some were even considered the best minds in science until they "rock the boat". It's like a church member deciding to worship Satan instead of God. He is no longer welcome. All kinds of web sites go up with hateful slandering words. But it would not matter if the person sued for what was said. The damage is done. And that's what was needed to shut them creationist whacko's up. Yet some still work with NASA. But the damage is done so that would not matter. Glad NASA does not listen to what people think about someone.
Upvote
0
more baseless claims
deja vu all over again
please name a creationist scientist who has actually done research (you know, experiments, those things that are used to test hypotheses) that has produced results
deja vu all over again
please name a creationist scientist who has actually done research (you know, experiments, those things that are used to test hypotheses) that has produced results
Upvote
0
I second that, please tell us about the facts and evidence for creationism, since that is what I originally asked about, and I wouldnt mind knowing them.
Remember, the things in the first post. Things that are beliefs but not evidence. Any claim, no matter where it comes from, must be backed up.
Remember, the things in the first post. Things that are beliefs but not evidence. Any claim, no matter where it comes from, must be backed up.
Upvote
0
Here we go again. The test they do are always thrown out as hogwash. Do you think that every creation scientist started out believing in God? Most were Evolutionists, but uncovered evidence that changed their mind. What happens to this evidence? You tell me. It's just like the evidence used to get Evolution in schools. It's lock in a safe because someone would steal it. Why? It was proven not to be what it was said to be. So a creationists aquired it and locked it up because he new it would be destroyed and later claimed to be lost. He has all the authentic papers and news paper article. But I will not tell you anymore info on this because I want to see how much info you can come up with on this subject. Just to see how much info has actually been changed. To me, it will be interesting. I have seen this tooth and the papers so I know they exist. So see if you can find anything on it. Give you another hint to the story. Another scientist went back to the site where the tooth was found to dig up the rest of what it was supposed to be. But what he found was a pig with matching teeth to the tooth that was used. Any ideas?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Why? Would you believe anything I say anyway? Backing up requires credability. Name one person who is a creationist you deem creditable. With that you answer your own question. So why would I waste my time?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
