What Are Your Top 5 Scientific Proofs That Creationists Cannot Dispute?

[Isambard]

Creation vs. evolution.
It CANNOT be proven, short of a time machine.
No one was there to witness the events.
We all take it on faith, based on our own belief paradigms.

Thats a silly arguement. By that logic, we cant 'prove' anything at all.

Hell you might be immortal.

 

[Merlin]

All an evolutionist does is demonstrate one (but not the only) possibility.

 

[MoonLancer]

its a shame creationists don't demonstrate much of anything, or their really could be a reasonable debate.

 

[Phred]

Creation vs. evolution.
It CANNOT be proven, short of a time machine.
No one was there to witness the events.
We all take it on faith, based on our own belief paradigms.

Therefore the Bible cannot be proven and should be taken with a grain of salt, is that not correct? After all, no one alive was there to witness the events...

 

[Phred]

All an evolutionist does is demonstrate one (but not the only) possibility.

No sir... a scientist demonstrates how to use evidence, logic and inescapable conclusions to discover what happened in the past. If what was discovered agreed with what you believe due to your faith you'd be on the bandwagon cheering them on. But it doesn't so you do whatever you can to try and tear it down. In most cases what's been found is the only possibility rational men can accept. Given a choice between, "It happened this way or it was caused by magic to look like it happened this way but it was really just magic" I'll take the rational explanation every time.

 

[Merlin]

Therefore the Bible cannot be proven and should be taken with a grain of salt, is that not correct? After all, no one alive was there to witness the events...

Yes, I agree.
The Bible's version of events (creation) also cannot be proven.

 

[FishFace]

Creation vs. evolution.
It CANNOT be proven, short of a time machine.
No one was there to witness the events.
We all take it on faith, based on our own belief paradigms.

Sure, they can't be proven, but that doesn't mean we take it on faith. I once made the mistake of using faith where it was inappropriate, but a quick trip to the dictionary taught me. You don't need any faith to believe in science, and science points to evolution.

 

[Merlin]

No sir...

Ma'am, in this case

a scientist demonstrates how to use evidence, logic and inescapable conclusions to discover what happened in the past. If what was discovered agreed with what you believe due to your faith you'd be on the bandwagon cheering them on. But it doesn't so you do whatever you can to try and tear it down. In most cases what's been found is the only possibility rational men can accept. Given a choice between, "It happened this way or it was caused by magic to look like it happened this way but it was really just magic" I'll take the rational explanation every time.

I don't need to tear down science.
I only point out where its limits are at.
Where science ends and your faith begins.

The Bible does not claim magic, though that is a common simplistic explanation, often used to discredit theology.

 

[Chalnoth]

Creation vs. evolution.
It CANNOT be proven, short of a time machine.
No one was there to witness the events.
We all take it on faith, based on our own belief paradigms.

You can't prove anything at all about reality. We don't look for proof in science. We look for the most reasonable explanation of the evidence. The theory of evolution is, in short, the most reasonable explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. It is a process that we observe happening today, and a process of which we see copious amounts of evidence in the past.

Creation, by contrast, is very much contrary to the evidence.

 

[Merlin]

You can't prove anything at all about reality. We don't look for proof in science. We look for the most reasonable explanation of the evidence. The theory of evolution is, in short, the most reasonable explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. It is a process that we observe happening today, and a process of which we see copious amounts of evidence in the past.

Creation, by contrast, is very much contrary to the evidence.

I'm glad you can acknoledge that it is not provable.
You may consider it reasonable to accept that nature engineered life, but I don't accept that explanation.
For me, a better explanation is that the Elohim engineered life.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm glad you can acknoledge that it is not provable.
You may consider it reasonable to accept that nature engineered life, but I don't accept that explanation.
For me, a better explanation is that the Elohim engineered life.

No, it's not. It's not even remotely reasonable. After all, if the human body was engineered, why do we have an appendix? This little organ, after all, is the cause of quite a number of deaths each year.

 

[Merlin]

For me

No, it's not.

You even dare to claim what is acceptable For me?

 

[Chalnoth]

You even dare to claim what is acceptable For me?

The truth isn't subjective, Merlin. You can't claim that something is acceptable 'for you' when it is blatantly against logic. That's what is known as wishful thinking. And no matter how much you may wish something were true, that doesn't make it so.

 

[Merlin]

The truth isn't subjective, Merlin. You can't claim that something is acceptable 'for you' when it is blatantly against logic. That's what is known as wishful thinking. And no matter how much you may wish something were true, that doesn't make it so.

Thank you for making it clear.
You are deciding for me based on your own beliefs.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Creation vs. evolution.
It CANNOT be proven, short of a time machine.
No one was there to witness the events.
We all take it on faith, based on our own belief paradigms.

Philosophically speaking, nothing can be absolutely "proven".

But you seem to think the issue of creationism and evolution is a matter of faith and that the playing field is level. It all just matters what you "believe". However, this isn't the case. Evolutionary biology (including common descent) is a useful, practical applied science. Creationism is not. They are worlds apart. Creationists may take comfort in pretending otherwise, but this is precisely why creationism can never "replace" evolution as a real science.

 

[FishFace]

I'm glad you can acknoledge that it is not provable.
You may consider it reasonable to accept that nature engineered life, but I don't accept that explanation.
For me, a better explanation is that the Elohim engineered life.

Wonderful. But, although you're right in saying there's no such thing as empirical proof, there is such thing as empirical evidence. And all such evidence points to evolution.

 

[FishFace]

Thank you for making it clear.
You are deciding for me based on your own beliefs.

He's telling you your beliefs are unreasonable. If you have a problem that, you should be showing how they are reasonable, instead of complaining that, on a debate forum, someone has started debating.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thank you for making it clear.
You are deciding for me based on your own beliefs.

To echo FishFace, I am not deciding anything for you. I'm saying that your decision is irrational and unsupportable. All that you have done so far is attempt to claim that a belief in creation is every bit as good as a belief in evolution. This is simply false, because evolution has evidence. Mountains of it.

 

[birdan]

I'm glad you can acknoledge that it is not provable.
You may consider it reasonable to accept that nature engineered life, but I don't accept that explanation.
For me, a better explanation is that the Elohim engineered life.

I am so glad Stephen Colbert came up with the word truthiness:

Truthiness is a satirical term coined by television comedian Stephen Colbert to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

MESSAGE FROM STARFLEET:

[bible]Ecclesiastes 7:29[/bible]