Evidence for Creationism?

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:54 pm

Taking evolution, Big Bang, and abiogenesis out of the equation. What is the evidence for creationism?

Can creationism stand on its own merit?

H.sapiens · Post by **H.sapiens** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:02 pm

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 355 by rikuoamero]

Do you honestly think those hands look similar?

They look even less similar than Dolphins look to Sharks or Cows look to Horses, but everyone accept those animals as being different species.

There is no evidence of Sharks becoming Dolphins or Horses becoming Cows, so those pictures prove nothing. In fact pigs have closer to the same skin as humans, but they have hoofs and no hands.

Its amazing to me if you can truly not see the difference.

You are betraying an abysmal lack of knowledge concerning comparative anatomy, sharks and dolphins are radically different as are cows and horses. Have you ever closely examined any of the four?

JJ50 · Post by **JJ50** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:23 am

There is no verifiable evidence to support creationism, imo. The Theory of Evolution is much more credible.

Hector Barbosa · Post by **Hector Barbosa** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:11 pm

[Replying to post 371 by H.sapiens]

You are betraying an abysmal lack of knowledge concerning comparative anatomy, sharks and dolphins are radically different as are cows and horses. Have you ever closely examined any of the four?

Well you are entitled to have faith in anything you like, but without any proof or evidence of knowledge on your part, the intelligent reader should see your comment as abysmal.

I have no reason to take you serious with posts like this, you seem completely irrational to me and argue as if you are trolling for angry outbursts rather than look to debate seriously about truth. So I think we are done. I will ignore you in the future.

H.sapiens · Post by **H.sapiens** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:21 pm

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 371 by H.sapiens]

You are betraying an abysmal lack of knowledge concerning comparative anatomy, sharks and dolphins are radically different as are cows and horses. Have you ever closely examined any of the four?
Well you are entitled to have faith in anything you like, but without any proof or evidence of knowledge on your part, the intelligent reader should see your comment as abysmal.

Privately, yes. But when one spews demonstrable nonsense in a public debate they have no reason to complain when they are called to task.

Hector Barbosa wrote: I have no reason to take you serious with posts like this, you seem completely irrational to me and argue as if you are trolling for angry outbursts rather than look to debate seriously about truth. So I think we are done. I will ignore you in the future.

You have "no reason to take (me) seriously" because you have no rational response to the issues I've raised and the criticisms of your beliefs that I have made. We are not "done," all that has happened is you have left the field with your tail between your legs crying, "It's only a flesh wound." Typical!

Hector Barbosa · Post by **Hector Barbosa** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:21 pm

[Replying to post 372 by JJ50]

There is no verifiable evidence to support creationism, imo. The Theory of Evolution is much more credible.

Sure it logically would be because the theory of evolution has focus on physical observation and data by machines which are unbiased, while creationism is relying on a theist connection they can't control, imperfect humans, faith and logic.

But make no mistake you ask a scientist to create life from nothing, prove consciousness or replicate a miniature evolution module about the "beginning" they can't do it. And you ask them to give logical answers for how something can come out of nothing, living out of non-living or something having existed forever they will not have any more success in a logical explanation than the theist, I would argue that they would have less in fact.

So the beginning of life remains a mystery to anyone who do not believe in God, that is a FACT! You may find people argue with that here, but they are NOT scientists and can not prove how life came to be.

The probability of life existing is in fact so small that it is tough to see how rational it is to claim that such an event could happen with so many things going "just right" at random. It is not a very logical argument.

H.sapiens · Post by **H.sapiens** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:26 pm

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 372 by JJ50]

There is no verifiable evidence to support creationism, imo. The Theory of Evolution is much more credible.
Sure it logically would be because the theory of evolution has focus on physical observation and data by machines which are unbiased, while creationism is relying on a theist connection they can't control, imperfect humans, faith and logic.

But make no mistake you ask a scientist to create life from nothing, prove consciousness or replicate a miniature evolution module about the "beginning" they can't do it. And you ask them to give logical answers for how something can come out of nothing, living out of non-living or something having existed forever they will not have any more success in a logical explanation than the theist, I would argue that they would have less in fact.

So the beginning of life remains a mystery to anyone who do not believe in God, that is a FACT! You may find people argue with that here, but they are NOT scientists and can not prove how life came to be.

The probability of life existing is in fact so small that it is tough to see how rational it is to claim that such an event could happen with so many things going "just right" at random. It is not a very logical argument.

No, the probability of life existing is equal to: 1, because it does. If you want to argue that the probability of life existing without the prodding of deity, then I suggest that you show us how you do your sums. Every attempt I've ever seen at such an exercise has been rather badly botched ... let's see you do better.

You are essentially arguing that there must be a god because the exact route of the ball travelling down a pachinko is so impossibly unlikely, but yet it has occurred. What you are missing is that the ball will reach the bottom, never-the-less. There is a huge difference between prospective and retrospective statistical analysis.

Post by **otseng** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:50 am

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 371 by H.sapiens]

You are betraying an abysmal lack of knowledge concerning comparative anatomy, sharks and dolphins are radically different as are cows and horses.
I have no reason to take you serious with posts like this, you seem completely irrational to me and argue as if you are trolling for angry outbursts rather than look to debate seriously about truth. So I think we are done. I will ignore you in the future.

Moderator Comment

Both of you please cease from the personal remarks.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:56 am

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 371 by H.sapiens]

You are betraying an abysmal lack of knowledge concerning comparative anatomy, sharks and dolphins are radically different as are cows and horses. Have you ever closely examined any of the four?
Well you are entitled to have faith in anything you like, but without any proof or evidence of knowledge on your part, the intelligent reader should see your comment as abysmal.

Considering all the pictures easy to read posts preceding this comment I assume you are joking or simply offended from being called out on your previous comments.

Considering that here is more evidence for evolution

1 1/4 cup flour
1/2 cup blueberries
1 tsp backing powder
2 cups milk
1 Tbsp salt
3 Tbsp sugar
1 egg

Mix all the ingredients in a mixing bowl. Heat a skillet up on medium heat with a thin layer of melted butter. Pour batter on skillet in 1/2 cup dollops. Wait for the top to bubble then flip. Makes 6-9 pancakes.

Hector Barbosa · Post by **Hector Barbosa** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:11 am

[Replying to post 378 by DanieltheDragon]

I assume you are joking or simply offended from your argument being called out on false claims to evidence, just like the ingredients you listed which are evidence of the God who created them

Mix all the ingredients and cook the pancakes well and you are a God of pancakes

Plumbus Grumbo · Post by **Plumbus Grumbo** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:30 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote:
Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 371 by H.sapiens]

You are betraying an abysmal lack of knowledge concerning comparative anatomy, sharks and dolphins are radically different as are cows and horses. Have you ever closely examined any of the four?
Well you are entitled to have faith in anything you like, but without any proof or evidence of knowledge on your part, the intelligent reader should see your comment as abysmal.
Considering all the pictures easy to read posts preceding this comment I assume you are joking or simply offended from being called out on your previous comments.

Considering that here is more evidence for evolution

1 1/4 cup flour
1/2 cup blueberries
1 tsp backing powder
2 cups milk
1 Tbsp salt
3 Tbsp sugar
1 egg

Mix all the ingredients in a mixing bowl. Heat a skillet up on medium heat with a thin layer of melted butter. Pour batter on skillet in 1/2 cup dollops. Wait for the top to bubble then flip. Makes 6-9 pancakes.

Far too much milk and slightly too much flour.