Jump to content


Photo

What Is The Evidence For Creationism?


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#21 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 November 2009 - 11:14 AM

"Flight works" is just like saying "Life is". Yes, we can see that. It doesn't need proof nor evidence, it's just an observation. It's not a scientific hypothesis.

View Post

Amazing...

Flight was not always known to work. Once upon a time there was an hypothesis. Wilbur & Orville proved flight was possible.

Do you require a link?

#22 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 27 November 2009 - 11:22 AM

It seems this thread has become circular!

“This post is based on the assumption that creationism contends with evolutionary biology...”

View Post

“I want to know what creationists think is the evidence for creationism.”

View Post

“You would still need to have a coherent theory of creationism...”

View Post

Here is a coherent theory (the definitions of the word “theory” are vague at best):
It seems there is purposeful design in all of life; there must be (or I think there is) a designer.

Seth does an awesome job and this thread really ends there:

“We use Exactly the same evidence and data as evolutionists do. The only real difference is our "interpretation" of said data.”

View Post

...and so on


However, lehtv demands “proof” is not possible,

...
No. Science does not deal with proof of any kind.
...

View Post

View Post

which lends validation to Seth’s argument about “evidence” – which is what the OP asked for.

Although a valid show of proof is given,

That is an absolute statement. No proofs=nothing is 100% true all the time. If I heat water to 212f, 100c at 14.7psi, it will boil.

View Post

but is discounted by lehtv as “observation”. I do not agree, at some point in the past it is very likely somebody (whether scientist or not) hypothesized that water can boil. Larry shows absolute proof that water can indeed boil under certain conditions, not mere “observation” but “PROOF” – and that person can claim “I proved that water can boil”.

The Wright brothers hypothesized that man could build a “flying machine”, and they “PROVED” their theory of man-designed flying machines. Do these flying machines sometimes fail? Unfortunately, yes – but this still does not “Disprove” man-designed flight-capable machines.

Dictionary.com’s first definition of the word “evidence”:
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
(“prove”, “disprove” and “proof” are words used in the definition of evidence – interesting that “ground for belief” is also there)

Dictionary.com’s first definition of the word “proof”:
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
(interesting that the word “evidence” is used in the definition of proof, also interesting that the word "belief" is used)

--- It seems to me you can not have evidence and/or proof without considering the other, evidence and/or proof ---


Biblical definition of “faith”:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Wind is unseen, but the evidence (proof) of it exists – from leaves fluttering, to trees falling, to small towns being destroyed.


Because the “theory” of Creation requires faith that God did what He said, and in the time-frame He said it was done, faith is a necessary part of evaluating the “evidence for Creation”. Without a belief in God a person simply is not looking for “evidence for Creation”, rather the are looking for a “reason to believe”. In the OP, lehtv also says this:

... I'm very interested in belief, religions and science as phenomena.

View Post

If the assumption is that belief and religion are “phenomena”, then you are already biased against any “evidence[s] for Creation”.

Matthew 6:33:
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

I’ll end my post by simply pointing everyone back to Seth’s well worded, and conclusive, answer to the OP. The “evidence” for both scientific avenues of understanding (Creation or Evolution) is the same, it is all around us: flowers, trees, rocks, animals and human beings.

#23 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:02 PM

With regard to your semantic attempt to show science deals with proof by pointing to dictionary definitions is pathetic at best. I don't conform, and neither does science, to the definitions you've given.

A statement like "water can boil" or "planes can fly" is not a falsifiable hypothesis. The opposite statement "water can't boil" can be falsified by showing it can boil. That you've seen it boil is an observation, and has nothing to do with having proven a scientific explanation for an observation or set of observations. Science deals with explanations for observed phenomena in order to make sense of how the world works, and that water boils is not an explanation for anything, it is an observation. I will repeat here a proposal I posed earlier:

Give me one example of a scientific explanation for an observed phenomenon that is proven.

If you cannot do that, you have not shown science deals with proof.

Here is a coherent theory (the definitions of the word “theory” are vague at best): It seems there is purposeful design in all of life; there must be (or I think there is) a designer.


It seems? You think? Sounds rather weak. Nevermind, what evidence do you have to support your "coherent theory"?

“We use Exactly the same evidence and data as evolutionists do. The only real difference is our "interpretation" of said data.”


The only thing this says is that Seth looks at some evidence and concludes it supports the hypothesis that "God did it." Care to show what that evidence is, and why it supports that hypothesis?

#24 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:22 PM

With regard to your semantic attempt to show science deals with proof by pointing to dictionary definitions is pathetic at best. I don't conform, and neither does science, to the definitions you've given.

View Post

A personal attack and an admission that you have your own way of thinking - and I am confident you don't speak for ALL of 'science'.

A statement like "water can boil" or "planes can fly" is not a falsifiable hypothesis. The opposite statement "water can't boil" can be falsified by showing it can boil. That you've seen it boil is an observation, and has nothing to do with having proven a scientific explanation for an observation or set of observations. Science deals with explanations for observed phenomena in order to make sense of how the world works, and that water boils is not an explanation for anything, it is an observation. I will repeat here a proposal I posed earlier:

Give me one example of a scientific explanation for an observed phenomenon that is proven.

View Post

Talk aboud semantics :)

If you cannot do that, you have not shown science deals with proof.
The only thing this says is that Seth looks at some evidence and concludes it supports the hypothesis that "God did it." Care to show what that evidence is, and why it supports that hypothesis?

View Post

Asked and Answered - the cyclical argument continues.

#25 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 27 November 2009 - 01:26 PM

A personal attack


No. I attacked your argument, not you.

and an admission that you have your own way of thinking - and I am confident you don't speak for ALL of 'science'.


Everyone has their own way of thinking. Fair enough, I can't make a claim to speak for all science.

However, you dismiss a clear proposal posed to you as "semantics", which it is not (as I'm not arguing about definitions), which shows you don't know how to answer the proposal. How surprising - there is no answer, because science doesn't deal with proof.

Asked and Answered - the cyclical argument continues.


Can you quote the evidence that has been presented in this thread? I can't, because I honestly don't know what evidence you're referring to.

If you (or anyone else) can, I ask you to do so, so we can continue to discuss it. This is your chance to show me what evidence I've failed to notice.

EDIT: clarity

#26 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 27 November 2009 - 03:11 PM

Not a personal attack :)
I’m no expert in grammar, but I think the sentence could be reduced to:
“your semantic attempt is pathetic at best”
(if I’m taking it wrong than I apologize)

Then you say “as I'm not arguing about definitions”, however (referring to the same attacking sentence) you said “pointing to dictionary definitions is pathetic”, if you’re not “arguing about definitions” then why are you attacking the definitions I refer to?
(I really don’t need an answer to that)

The OP asks “What Is The Evidence For Creationism?” however you can not accept a creationist’s “evidence” because you don’t believe in God – your predisposition is anti-Creation. In your own words, science “deals with explanations that are supported by evidence.” And I say to you, Creation Science “deals with” Biblical “explanations that are supported by evidence”.

How would you answer the same question, with a slight change?
“What Is The Evidence For Evolution?”
If I, as a creationist, pose that question in an “Evolutionary” thinking forum I am predetermined that I will not get a satisfactory answer – because I do not believe in evolution!

Thus, it is fair for me to determine your objective is one of two:
You are really looking for a reason to believe (as stated previously).
OR
You are simply wanting to waste time.

If it is not your intent to just waste time then I suggest reading through the Bible with an open mind, with a true desire for revelation. God will “prove” Himself to you. Once you are a believer in the Creator, you will see how the evidence fits well in a Creationist Worldview. There are certainly other sources to help you in your quest to understand Creationism, The Institute for Creation Research is one, I’m sure others can list more.

#27 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 November 2009 - 03:32 PM

So you want proof of creation of life?

Well proving design proves a designer. Let's take the eye for instance.

1) What in evolution concluded that it needed to be a certain size in order to work?
2) What in evolution concluded that the fluid inside the eye had to be clear so that the light can pass?
3) What in evolution concluded that a certain pressure needed to be maintained in the eye so that it will keep it's shape? Kinda like tires on a car need a certain psi to stay inflated and wear properly.
4) What in evolution concluded that the eye needed to see in light, and darkness, so rods and cones were made?
5) What in evolution concluded that blood needed to pass in front of the retina so that there would be some protection from UV rays?
6) What in evolution separated our vision, which caused a blind spot, so that we can focus on forward vision without side vision giving much problem as a distraction?
7) What in evolution concluded that vision needed to be processed at a certain speed so we can function as we do today?
8) What in evolution concluded that we needed to see in color?
9) What in evolution wrote the program that enable vision to be processed and understood by the brain to the extent that it is?
10) What in evolution knew where to precisely to place all things inside the eye so that all things are in place and work together to give us sight?
11) What in evolution decided where the eye would be placed on the body?
12) What in evolution decided how many eyes we needed?
13) What in evolution decided what type of eyes we needed, with all the known available type eyes that could have evolved instead?
14) What in evolution decided that we needed eye lids?
15) What in evolution decided we needed eye brows?
16) What in evolution decided that our eyes needed moisture, and that moisture needed to be clear and sanitary?
17) What in evolution decided that we needed to blink every so often?
18) What in evolution decided that we need tears when we get emotional enough to cry?

etc....

I can ask these same type of questions for every part of the body. If evolutionist cannot come up with a all natural designer that figures out these things before they evolve, then intelligence is the only other alternative. Just the balance of chemical reactions that go on in our bodies everyday, is like a huge chemistry experiment. Yet all of this is balanced to do what each one needs to do. Who came up with the formula that allows all of the chemical reactions to take place and work for one purpose, and that purpose is to sustain life?

You just don't throw a bunch of chemicals into a container and expect to get a certain result every time that is exactly the same. There are rules and laws that govern the results. So what followed these rules and laws and made these results end up as life as we see it?

Example: When a chemical experiment is tested, recorded, and results achieved. What did it take to get to that level of conclusion and knowledge to get the desired result?

1) It takes controlled conditions.
2) It takes a need or desire to achieve something.
3) It takes knowledge of the chemicals.
4) It takes trial and error.
5) And takes math.
6) It takes knowing the laws of physics, chemical reactions, and certain conditions get certain reactions.
7) It takes fore-thought.
8) It takes going in the right direction.
9) It takes learning from your mistakes.
10) When the desired result is achieved, it takes being able to repeat it to ensure it was not a fluke.

So what in evolution did all this to achieve all the chemistry that our body works with everyday so that life can be sustained? What thought up the balanced formula that allows our bodies to function and not destroy itself soon after being born?

What put the programming in our brains so that we can think, and process all that is around us? What put the protection in our bodies that allow us to survive most illnesses and diseases? What put the Blood Brain Boarder in our brain to protect from chemicals that can harm the function of the brain? What decided that our heart needed a type muscle that never gets tired so that we can live long lives? What decided that this heart muscle needed certain chemicals to sustain a correct beat? What decided the rhythm of that beat? What decided that blood clots are needed so that when we are injured, we don't always bleed to death?

I can go on and on with this. All of this requires fore-thought and intelligence. Life is not a cake you bake in your kitchen. Our bodies are so complex, we still don't have all the answers. Does complexity take intelligence and fore-thought? Or random chance-time-and it just happens because we want it to?

The answer I hear most often for this is: Given enough time anything is possible. Really? Is that answer really scientific, or is it a board excuse for ignoring the truth?

#28 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 27 November 2009 - 07:11 PM

Ok, great, NO presuppositions you "claim". Let us "test" your claim. The evidence you seek is exactly the same evidence that evolutionist's use the difference is in the "interpretation". This was obviously not acceptable to you. I don't know what more to say.

I see a human cell and the complex systems within the cell and make the clear as crystal obvious conclusion that it MUST have been designed, no question about it. Zippo! It's as plain as the nose on my face.

You look at a human cell and see what? Evolution? Why?

I have NEVER EVER seen or heard of ANY complex machinery be the result of some mindless random act, NEVER!!! Why would I conclude it's "possible" then? Why should I? Because I want to "Imagine" it? That's fine but that's "Imagination" NOT Reality.

Evolutionist's make the claim they have actual evidence to show us how complex systems and organism can become so WITHOUT an intelligent source. Where is it? Nowhere! But I see we're getting off topic again. If you REALLY had no presuppositions as you claim then the questions I asked before should be legitimate questions to consider, especially to an "open mind". However, you've already provided ready answers so it seems obvious to me that you indeed have made your mind up about this.

The point of God and Matter was not one of comparison but rather a point of how FAITH is used from BOTH evolutionist and Creationists when "interpreting" the exact same scientific data. The FACT that evolutionist have not a clue as to where matter came from but they "believe" it was formed somehow without God. That's FAITH. Similar to the idea of Creationist's having no clue as to where God came from but we believe (and openly so I might add) that He exists (Eternally I might add as well). Faith is included! However it is the evolutionist who makes the fantastic claim that they have evidence of complex systems and organisms forming without an intelligent source. And, as per usual, instead of having any evidence to show us this, they ask the question, show us "Why" this impossible? I gave you the answer but your "non" presupposing position doesn't accept the claim. The answer is again, based on life experience and reality, complex machines or systems have always required an intelligent source!

The fact that you CAN go to a car factory to see them made is irrelevant to the "Obvious" conclusion you and I would make, based on our experience, that tells us that watches, tv's etc. requires intelligence even "Without" the need to go to ANY factory. It wouldn't be necessary for us to go to those measures because it's Obvious! Just as obvious that God created all things! Now if you or any evolutionist wants to make the claim that it doesn't then you need to show us why it doesn't. You need to show us why it's possible that complex organisms do NOT require an intelligent source. You can't prove a negative, which is what you're asking. So, until you can prove a positive, based on said claim, I will continually lean on the side of reality and lifes experiences that say otherwise.

So a Creationist interprets the evidence based on life experiences in a reality that has consistently shown that complex machines and systems require an intelligent source and make the obvious conclusion that a Creator, God, an intelligent source, was the cause. That's it.

Now if you or any evolutionist don't want to accept this interpretation and want to, for whatever reason, entertain the idea that "maybe" it's "possible" that you don't need an intelligent source based on fantasy then you of course are free to do so. But that position is certainly not based on any real evidence to show us this but rather an amazing faith. At least our faith has a reality we can at least relate to. Yours does not.

#29 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 27 November 2009 - 08:06 PM

All you guys have given me is the following: since 1) you don't understand how evolution works and 2) you don't understand how the scientific method works and why, creationism is obviously right.

You have not given me any evidence that points to a creator. All you've said is "it's obvious", and you've tried to back that up with how you don't think evolution is right because you don't understand how it works. Even if you had the evidence to falsify evolution, you would not have shown creationism is correct. The two matters are entirely separate, and just because your intuition tells you it's obvious there's a creator, doesn't make it so. You need evidence.

I've got lots of evidence for evolution, but sorry, I don't have the time nor the patience to educate you. Even if I did, it wouldn't lead to anything, because you've already decided you're right, following from the fact you think it's obvious. And no, I did not, and still do not, presuppose creationism is incorrect. It's just that I have no reason to believe it, because you haven't given me any evidence that points to the direction of creationism being correct.

Saying that you use the same observations as the theory of evolution but interpret them differently is fine, but you would still have to give me an example of why the data is evidence for creationism. Saying that "well, cars were designed, so life must've been designed too" is just not good enough, because we have actual real-life evidence cars were designed, but not an iota of evidence life was, judging from your inability to show me that evidence. Hours have been wasted asking for evidence and not getting any. I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised.

Thanks for your time.

#30 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 27 November 2009 - 09:20 PM

What signature?

I am asking what you will require as proof. Signature

What do you require as evidence?


What evidence do you have? Give me the evidence, I'm waiting for it.

View Post

Mechanical flight
Radio trsnsmission
Light bulb
Electricity
Round world
A non-geocentric solar system

There are plenty.

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 November 2009 - 09:21 PM

All you guys have given me is the following: since 1) you don't understand how evolution works and 2) you don't understand how the scientific method works and why, creationism is obviously right.

You have not given me any evidence that points to a creator. All you've said is "it's obvious", and you've tried to back that up with how you don't think evolution is right because you don't understand how it works. Even if you had the evidence to falsify evolution, you would not have shown creationism is correct. The two matters are entirely separate, and just because your intuition tells you it's obvious there's a creator, doesn't make it so. You need evidence.

I've got lots of evidence for evolution, but sorry, I don't have the time nor the patience to educate you. Even if I did, it wouldn't lead to anything, because you've already decided you're right, following from the fact you think it's obvious. And no, I did not, and still do not, presuppose creationism is incorrect. It's just that I have no reason to believe it, because you haven't given me any evidence that points to the direction of creationism being correct.

Saying that you use the same observations as the theory of evolution but interpret them differently is fine, but you would still have to give me an example of why the data is evidence for creationism. Saying that "well, cars were designed, so life must've been designed too" is just not good enough, because we have actual real-life evidence cars were designed, but not an iota of evidence life was, judging from your inability to show me that evidence. Hours have been wasted asking for evidence and not getting any. I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised.

Thanks for your time.

View Post


That was a nice cop out. You cannot give what I asked for so to save face you use the old tactic of:

1) you don't understand how evolution works and 2) you don't understand how the scientific method works and why, creationism is obviously right.


That is so lame.

What decides how something evolves in life? You don't know because evolution is not true. Like you say: I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised. And I say: Ditto

I actually expected this. Evolutionists, the smartest people that ever walked the planet cannot answer a simple question. So they use the reverse of guilt to pawn off their inability to do so and try to make the people who ask it look stupid for asking. If you are so smart, answer the question.

In fact ehtv, I'm going to make a challenge unto you. Here it is. If you cannot answer the question, and provide the process in which this is done (how evolution designs what is claimed to have evolved). Then you must leave the forum. If you can, I will leave the forum.

You have the choice to accept or reject. But you are not going to make threads here where you cannot answer a question, then make everyone else look stupid for your own ignorance. So put your intelligence on the line. Let's see who is smarter. I'm not afraid of the truth, are you?

#32 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 27 November 2009 - 09:46 PM

All you guys have given me is the following: since 1) you don't understand how evolution works and 2) you don't understand how the scientific method works and why, creationism is obviously right.

We understand how evolution is proposed to operate and scientific method better than most that believe ToE.

You have not given me any evidence that points to a creator.

The only available evidence is His work. Creation. He cannot be observed, so we observe the claims He has made. Evolution has no answer for origin of life. Evolution has not been supported by an transitional organism being observed in the fossil record or in life.

I've got lots of evidence for evolution, but sorry, I don't have the time nor the patience to educate you.

I don't need an education. Give me one evidence of evolution that stands alone and allows no other possibility. That is the criteria you expect of us, so step up.

Saying that you use the same observations as the theory of evolution but interpret them differently is fine, but you would still have to give me an example of why the data is evidence for creationism.

View Post

We have, you have not accepted it.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 November 2009 - 10:08 PM

Not a personal attack :D
I’m no expert in grammar, but I think the sentence could be reduced to:
“your semantic attempt is pathetic at best”
(if I’m taking it wrong than I apologize)

Then you say “as I'm not arguing about definitions”, however (referring to the same attacking sentence) you said “pointing to dictionary definitions is pathetic”, if you’re not “arguing about definitions” then why are you attacking the definitions I refer to?
(I really don’t need an answer to that)

The OP asks “What Is The Evidence For Creationism?” however you can not accept a  creationist’s “evidence” because you don’t believe in God – your predisposition is anti-Creation.  In your own words, science “deals with explanations that are supported by evidence.”  And I say to you, Creation Science “deals with” Biblical “explanations that are supported by evidence”.

How would you answer the same question, with a slight change?
“What Is The Evidence For Evolution?”
If I, as a creationist, pose that question in an “Evolutionary” thinking forum I am predetermined that I will not get a satisfactory answer – because I do not believe in evolution!

Thus, it is fair for me to determine your objective is one of two:
You are really looking for a reason to believe (as stated previously).
OR
You are simply wanting to waste time.

If it is not your intent to just waste time then I suggest reading through the Bible with an open mind, with a true desire for revelation.  God will “prove” Himself to you.  Once you are a believer in the Creator, you will see how the evidence fits well in a Creationist Worldview.  There are certainly other sources to help you in your quest to understand Creationism, The Institute for Creation Research is one, I’m sure others can list more.

View Post


He was not interested in an answer. He was interested in trying to make everyone here look stupid. Let's see if he will accept or reject my challenge and see if he is willing to stand behind his beloved theory and put his pride on the line.

#34 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 27 November 2009 - 10:12 PM

A statement like "water can boil" or "planes can fly" is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Not being falsified is not the same as not being falsifiable. The wright borthers could have failed as many have = falsifiable. Electric light bulbs were falsified about 500 times by Edison before he found the correct materails and combination of pasckaging = faslsifiable.

Give me one example of a scientific explanation for an observed phenomenon that is proven.

You have been given several and have not the understanding of science to accept the proof or are too entrenched in the indoctriantion of your education to make a choicce of your own.

I doubt we will here from you again though. The force is weak with you.

#35 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:19 AM

Saying that you use the same observations as the theory of evolution but interpret them differently is fine, but you would still have to give me an example of why the data is evidence for creationism. Saying that "well, cars were designed, so life must've been designed too" is just not good enough, because we have actual real-life evidence cars were designed, but not an iota of evidence life was, judging from your inability to show me that evidence. Hours have been wasted asking for evidence and not getting any. I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised.

Thanks for your time.

View Post


I'm sorry it's not good enough.
I'm sorry that you can't understand why someone, looking at a human cell for example and observing the many complex systems that exist in them, doesn't conclude to themselves that, you know it's quite possilble that this occured "naturally" without an intelligent source. May I ask, why on earth would anyone think that? Why would anyone looking at that human cell even entertain the idea that it quite "possibly" could have "evolved"? Why SHOULD they even consider it? Why shouldn't it be obvious that such a complex thing like the human cell require an intelligent source?

Really, if in all our lives, for example, our experiences shows you and I that apple trees produce apples and you show me a pear and claimed to me that it came from an apple tree why on earth should I believe that? Why even entertain the idea that it's even possible for a pear to grow from an apple tree when reality has always shown otherwise? Is this reasoning really so hard to understand? Furthermore why am I, the one who is being told this story that this pear came from an apple tree, the one NOW asked to prove to the story teller "why it isn't possible" that this pear didn't grow from an apple tree? (I am asked to prove a negative to the story teller who is making the claim.) Amazing.

If you're the one making the claim that this pear came from an apple tree then this must be shown, since my whole life's experience, thus far, has shown me that pears only come for pear trees. I'm sorry this logic escapes you or is unacceptable to you or not enough. My point is that our experiences in life and the knowledge gained from these experiences are being related to how we interpret what we see in life. These are experiences based on REALITY, which showed me that apples only come from apple trees and pears only come from pear trees. Why in the world or for what reason would I have to abandon this understanding??? Simply because I WANT to believe your story that it's "possible" that pears can come from apple trees???
I'm not making here any comparisons or analogies I am making a point of logic and/or common sense in how we use our experiences of reality in our interpretation. There is no experience of reality that evolution can use to help them with their's. They provide their own reality then ask us to accept it as real.
Simply, ridiculous!

The same life experiences have shown us that things created require a creator or rather that complex machines and systems require an intelligent source. You and I can agree on this. We've never experienced in our lives any reality that showed us otherwise, therefore why on earth should I think something as complex as a human cell would NOT require an intelligent source? I really don't understand why this seems so unreasonable to you?

We are just supposed to study all these complex organisms and freely abandon all that we've come to understand about complex things that we as intelligent humans have made and just "imagine" that "somehow" complex organisms could "possibly" require "less" or even "no" intelligence? Why in the world should we do that? Why in the world should YOU do that? You don't have to answer that of course but it astounds me that you can't understand this. I am making our position very clear. Of course if you've been indoctrinated with story upon story of how evolution did this, then I can see why this reasoning may escape you. But if you REALLY want to see the evidence then it starts by first considering the Creationist's interpretation of the evidence. If there are no "presuppostions" then you should make free to compare both interpretations (evolutionists and Creationists) with your claimed open mind and then conclude for yourself which is the more reasonable interpretation. I have tried to make it clear what we base our interpretation of the evidence on.

The problem I believe you are having is that you don't accept the idea that evolution is based on an "interpretation" of the evidence but rather that the evidence itself (no interpretation required) shows evolution to be true. Which tells me that this uninterpreted evidence clearly shows evolution at work. Which tells me that this evidence clearly shows the "reality" of complex organisms being formed naturally. I'd love to see this "reality". Unfortunately for the evolutionist such a reality does not exist (never has and never will absolutely!) except in their faith based wild imaginations. Our faith has a connection to reality that we use to make the obvious conclusion of God's existence.

Of course if you're leaving, I'm sorry we couldn't help.

#36 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:32 AM

Of course if you're leaving, I'm sorry we couldn't help.

View Post

Well said Seth. I don't believe lehtv was here to discuss anything. Thought he found a group of uneducated rubes to scare with his big brain.

#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:22 AM

Yep, long ago and far away. The time god did it is all we have to say.

Attached File  Evolution_tale.jpg   21.84KB   37 downloads

#38 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 28 November 2009 - 06:43 AM

I feel obliged to reply to your questions and answer, despite having already 'left' the forum.

Please note that this post is just to show you what I think. I came to this forum to learn how creationists think, and I have learned that, thank you.

In reply to Seth:

1. Your claim that evolutionary biology postulate pears came from apple trees is false. It doesn't. You don't understand how evolution works - if you wan't to understand, get a university education in evolutionary biology.

2. Your post shows you don't understand the following concept: if evolutionary biology is false, creationism is not necessarily correct.

In reply to larrywj2:

1. You fail to understand what falsifiable means. To quote:

Electric light bulbs were falsified about 500 times by Edison before he found the correct materails and combination of pasckaging = faslsifiable.


The claim that electric light bulbs can work is not falsifiable. Even if you showed a billion times that an electric light bulb you've created doesn't work, it wouldn't falsify the possibility that a working electric light bulb can be created. It would simply amount to great amounts of evidence.

On the other hand, if you make the hypothesis that working electric light bulbs cannot be created, then creating JUST ONE that does work falsifies the hypothesis. It's that simple.

2. You said,

The only available evidence is His work. Creation.


This shows that you don't require evidence, because you already have faith that what you see is His work. Faith is not belief supported by evidence, it is the belief in the absence of evidence. You believe God created life, therefore, God must've created life. No (word filtered).

3. You don't understand the difference between proof and evidence. To quote,

Give me one evidence of evolution that stands alone and allows no other possibility.


You're asking for proof, and as I've already argued, science doesn't deal with proof. The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, are concerned with a vast amount of evidence that supports the explanation for observations. You're asking for ONE observation that proves evolution is true. No amount of observations can prove evolution true, they can only give evidential support. The same applies to all scientific theories.

That is the criteria you expect of us, so step up.


No, I don't expect you to prove anything. And currently, I don't even expect any evidence.

In reply to ikester:

1. I did not come here to make you look stupid, and I don't think any of you are stupid. I think you are ignorant and unwilling to learn. Admitting you are ignorant is the only way you can possibly ever learn.

2. Your posts are possibly the most off-topic posts ever. Despite that, I'll answer your challenge, though only briefly, as I don't have time to educate you. If you want to understand why my answer is really an answer to your question, get an education in evolutionary biology.

To quote,

What decides how something evolves in life?

If you cannot answer the question, and provide the process in which this is done (how evolution designs what is claimed to have evolved). Then you must leave the forum. If you can, I will leave the forum.


My answer is: Random mutations in the genetic code produce variation within a population. Variants that produce more fertile offpring than other variants become more common, and hence deleterious mutations tend to disappear while useful mutations tend to proliferate. This adapts populations to their physical and biological environment. Genetic drift also changes the genetic composition of a population, because each generation is a limited sample of the genetic composition of the previous generation. In other words, genetic drift is sampling error, and it does not adapt organisms to their environment. Speciation can happen in many ways, and all of those rely on reproductive barriers. This means that 1) an individual is more likely to mate with other individuals of its own population than with individuals of another closely related population, and 2) the offspring of two individuals of one population have higher fitness than the offspring of two individuals of different population. Hence, the gene pools of the two populations become more and more different from each other by means of natural selection; in other words, natural selection inhibits gene flow between the two populations. Conceptually the simplest way of a reproductive barrier to arise in the first place is the divergence of one population into two by geographical isolation. In geographical isolation, the two populations accumulate different mutations, adapt to different environments, and experience different effects due to random genetic drift. This reduces the chance of individuals of one population to mate with individuals of the other and it also tends to reduce the fitness of the offspring of individuals of the two different populations, should the populations become sympatric again. The processes briefly described here are what decide how life evolves.

I hope this satisfies you as much as possible.

#39 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 06:46 AM

In fact ehtv, I'm going to make a challenge unto you. Here it is. If you cannot answer the question, and provide the process in which this is done (how evolution designs what is claimed to have evolved). Then you must leave the forum. If you can, I will leave the forum.

You have the choice to accept or reject. But you are not going to make threads here where you cannot answer a question, then make everyone else look stupid for your own ignorance. So put your intelligence on the line. Let's see who is smarter. I'm not afraid of the truth, are you?

View Post


I see the desire to compete in the evo-creo controversy, and I have no problem with it. I do, however, have a problem with the contingency that whoever looses must leave the forum. If this is truly about the strive for truth, why have such serious consequences to the defeated? It seems counter-productive in the fullest sense. With such harsh punishments why would anyone admit defeat? It will no longer become a dialogue (if that's what you could call it before) on the search for truth, nor could it, unless both of you don't mind leaving the forum, which I sincerely doubt. It will just turn into two sides never-budging from their original claim no matter how ridiculous it becomes. I can easily see it becoming a heated dissing back and forth both claiming the other is essentially willfully ignorant and stupid only much stronger language with the debate going absolutely no where.

Ikester, as a mod you have an obligation to be fair to both sides of the debate. As a participant can you truly be impartial as to who won, and not use your influence/power as a mod to claim victory prematurely or falsely? From the outside it looks like a pretense to ban lehtv with no risk to you. Just an observation I've made.

Lehtv, I would respectfully decline and request a civil, honest dialogue into the evidence for creationism with open minds all seeking the truth. If you both insist on a debate, then I beseech you both to abolish the 'leave the forum' punishment as I honestly think it will only be a hindrance to both sides, as well as a mockery to the search of truth.

#40 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 28 November 2009 - 06:55 AM

Darkness45,

For your and everyone else's peace of mind, I don't intend to debate the creationists on this matter.

As you can see from my above post, I did not decline the challenge but replied to it, but I don't intend to reply to any criticisms made of my answer. I don't believe anything I say will convert them, and converting them is not my intention anyway.

Neither do I conform to the proposition that if a there should be a debate, the loser should leave the forum. However, I have no problem leaving the forum, and I think I've already made that clear on this and other threads. I retain the right to return to this forum whenever I want to.

In any case, you've got some wise words there <_<




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users