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

[tanzanos]

The Earth is 100 million years old.
The Earth is 500 million years old.
The Earth is 2 billion years old.
Neanderthal Man is the missing link.
Nebraska Man is the missing link.
Java Man is the missing link.
Piltdown Man is the missing link.
Cro-Magnon Man is the missing link.
The evolution of the horse.
Dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
Dinosaurs were slow and clumsy.
The Coelacanth fish is the ancestor of an amphibian.
Archaeopteryx is the link between reptiles and birds.


[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0]A list of all the things evolutionists believe which can be shown to be true. For example,
Natural selection causes small variations in species.

Oh! and don't forget Lucy.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Your lack of any scientific knowledge is pitiful to say the least. You are in no position to judge science.
Creationism is totally ANTI SCIENCE and the proof that creationism is hogwash is the very fact that we are using the internet right now!

 

[gamespotter10]

I have several debates going with Creationists in my personal life on moral and scientific levels. I am good with the moral issues, but we butt heads quite a bit on science levels. Neither of us are scientists ourselves, so we must rely on evidence of the scientific camps we subscribe to. I remind my opponents that if I personally am not equipped with the information to refute their Creationist claims, it doesn't validate their point. It merely means I am not an expert in the field.

So...for the experts, what are your Top 5 scientific proofs that creationists cannot dispute? A link to some information regarding it would be helpful too.

This will be educational for myself as well as my debate partners.

Thanks.

top 5? lets see here

#1. Human chromosome #2

#2. Endogenous retroviruses

#3. Redundant pseudogenes

#4. speed of light

#5. fossil record

 

[Merlin]

Philosophically speaking, nothing can be absolutely "proven".

That's right.
OP: "So...for the experts, what are your Top 5 scientific proofs that creationists cannot dispute?"

 

[Merlin]

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.

Only if you first reject the possibility of engineering.

 

[Merlin]

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.

I'm simply pointing out the arrogance of someone claiming my beliefs are wrong for me.

 

[TheOutsider]

I'm simply pointing out the arrogance of someone claiming my beliefs are wrong for me.

If I firmly proclaimed that the moon was made out of green cheese, would you correct me or just say "Well, you are allowed to have your own belief system." ?

 

[TheOutsider]

Only if you first reject the possibility of engineering.

There is a possibility of engineering, but it is not probable at this time. There is almost no scientific evidence for it.

 

[Merlin]

There is a possibility of engineering, but it is not probable at this time. There is almost no scientific evidence for it.

There have been many things science has thought not probable, which was later determined to be true.

 

[FishFace]

Only if you first reject the possibility of engineering.

No. The evidence points away from engineering, unless the engineer wanted to emulate the results obtained if he had left everything alone and allowed it to evolve. But there's no evidence for that, so we wouldn't believe that either.

 

[Loudmouth]

There have been many things science has thought not probable, which was later determined to be true.

Those later determinations were based on evidence, of which you have supplied zero. This is the exact opposite with evolution which is based on evidence, mountains of it.

 

[Merlin]

Those later determinations were based on evidence, of which you have supplied zero. This is the exact opposite with evolution which is based on evidence, mountains of it.

But the evolutionist's evidence is only evidence of possibility, not of fact.

 

[Isambard]

I'm simply pointing out the arrogance of someone claiming my beliefs are wrong for me.

Your entire arguement is that evolution is wrong because you have an opinion....

If only all science could follow that formula!

 

[Merlin]

Your entire arguement is that evolution is wrong because you have an opinion....

But I have not stated it is right or wrong.
I have stated that, for me, the evidence is inadequate.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That's right.
OP: "So...for the experts, what are your Top 5 scientific proofs that creationists cannot dispute?"

You're just playing a semantics game. The point of the OP was pretty clear.

At any rate, this does nothing to dispute the point I raised about evolutionary biology being a practical, applied science and creationism being a religion. Apples and oranges.

 

[JamesDaJust]

Your lack of any scientific knowledge is pitiful to say the least. You are in no position to judge science.
Creationism is totally ANTI SCIENCE and the proof that creationism is hogwash is the very fact that we are using the internet right now!

Wow. Thanks dude.
You can't handle the truth.
But thats OK, you have your own revolving tree of Darwinist peer reviewed life as you know it.

</IMG>

 

[Loudmouth]

But the evolutionist's evidence is only evidence of possibility, not of fact.

The theory of evolution does two things: 1)predicts what we should see if evolution is true, 2)predicts what we should NOT see if evolution is true. So far, the positive predictions are fulfilled and the negative predictions (i.e. potential falsifications) are not seen. To me, the theory of evolution fits all the characteristics of a well supported theory, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Loudmouth]

But I have not stated it is right or wrong.
I have stated that, for me, the evidence is inadequate.

What reasonable evidence would you consider adequate? What was the reasonable, testable, and adequate evidence that led you to accept creationism?

 

[Merlin]

The theory of evolution.... To me,

So glad we can agree

 

[FishFace]

There have been many things science has thought not probable, which was later determined to be true.

Do you believe that tomorrow you won't fall straight through your floor? I believe I won't. Science thinks this is not probable - if you want to claim that we shouldn't discount things because science has no evidence for them, then you have to entertain the serious possibility that you might fall through the floor tomorrow.

 

[JamesDaJust]

But the evolutionist's evidence is only evidence of possibility, not of fact.

Exactly. !!!
That needed to be said .
</IMG></IMG></IMG>