Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Creationism?

HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 1:13:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I hear a lot that this, that, or the other isn't evidence for evolution and the like, but I rarely hear what actually is evidence for creationism anymore. So what is evidence for creationism and what specific hypothesis/claim of creationism does this evidence support?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 5:26:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 1:13:32 PM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
I hear a lot that this, that, or the other isn't evidence for evolution and the like, but I rarely hear what actually is evidence for creationism anymore. So what is evidence for creationism and what specific hypothesis/claim of creationism does this evidence support?

In my experience, the evidence used to support creationism falls into one or more of the following categories:

- Evidence that currently supports evolution, interpreted using one or more explicit untestable assumptions,

- Evidence that currently supports evolution, interpreted using one or more implicit assumptions that can and have already been easily disproved.

- Evidence that currently supports evolution, taken in an isolated context which ignores related evidences that show that the evidence cannot be used to support miraculous creation.

This mirrors the typical creationist arguments which fall broadly into one or more of the following categories:

- Blind speculation unsupported by fact or implicitly unverifiable asserted as if it is absolute fact,

- An argument based on premises and assumptions that have already been disproved.

- wild Hypotheses that superficially explain evidence in a way that meets the creationists conclusions, but become illogical or otherwise disproved when the consequences are rigorously analysed.

- blinkered interpretation of evidence that ignores all related or otherwise intersecting facts and avenues of related evidence.

This seems to also be wrapped up with a subconscious need to project these same argument flaws onto their opponents.
imawholockian
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 1:36:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 1:13:32 PM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
I hear a lot that this, that, or the other isn't evidence for evolution and the like, but I rarely hear what actually is evidence for creationism anymore. So what is evidence for creationism and what specific hypothesis/claim of creationism does this evidence support?

Creationists believe that there was a worldwide flood (wwf), the flood in the Biblical record that washed everything off the face of the earth, except for Noah and the ark.
According to evolutionists, there was no wwf, but we find fossils that are on the "geologic collumn" that are towards the bottom layers, which evolutionists believe are 4.5 billion years old, towards the top layers (recent layers)! How did they get there? The only explanation is a massive global catastrophe: the world wide flood.

Also, the moon moves 1 centimeter away from the earth each year, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old (as evolutionists assume), then we wouldn't have the moon's gravitational pull and we would be dead, floating through space.

Each year the salt levels in the sea get higher, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, the salt levels would be so high, the sea life would die.
All this supports the creation account, that the earth is approx. 6,000 years old.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 3:08:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 1:36:47 PM, imawholockian wrote:
Creationists believe that there was a worldwide flood (wwf), the flood in the Biblical record that washed everything off the face of the earth, except for Noah and the ark.
According to evolutionists, there was no wwf, but we find fossils that are on the "geologic collumn" that are towards the bottom layers, which evolutionists believe are 4.5 billion years old, towards the top layers (recent layers)! How did they get there? The only explanation is a massive global catastrophe: the world wide flood.


What "fossils that are on the "geologic collumn" that are towards the bottom layers, which evolutionists believe are 4.5 billion years old, towards the top layers (recent layers)" are you speaking of? There wasn't any life on earth 4.5 billion years ago for there to be fossils. But if, for instance, you are talking about fossils on the top of Mt. Everest, that is easily explained by the very known process of geologic uplift. Relative and absolute dating of the fossils and the surrounding rock support that both are 400 mullion years old.

Also, the moon moves 1 centimeter away from the earth each year, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old (as evolutionists assume), then we wouldn't have the moon's gravitational pull and we would be dead, floating through space.

a) we're orbiting the sun, not the moon, so no we wouldn't.
b) evidence demonstrates differential rates of retreat over the moon's lifetime.
c) under your (false) calculation of the moon's rate of retreat, it would be 3.4 billion cm away from the earth (384400km=38,440,000,000cm-4,500,000,000cm=33,940,000,000cm)
d) if you want to do a back of the napkin estimation the average would be somewhere between 2 and 3, but as stated earlier the moon's rate has been differential

Each year the salt levels in the sea get higher, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, the salt levels would be so high, the sea life would die.

Salt can be removed from the ocean and is on a regular basis. It's in a steady state, which the human race knew at least as far back as the fifties.

Please try again. Hopefully this encourages you to vet the arguments you put out instead of just blindly accepting that they are true. If you would like scientific confirmation of all the information provided here, just ask.
Kostakv
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:12:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no evidence of creationism.... it is an idea without any scientific proof what so ever. As for evolution there is some scientific proof to what happened... it may not answer all the questions but it's a start. If creationism is true... then why are our genes 98-99% the same as gorillas and chimpanzees? Was some science on drugs who claimed it? No... its based on scientific proof and testing on the genes and the ape... Also evolution has Observational proof too... science has found bones from "lucy" is what they called her, they found 40% of her bones which means they automatically found the other 40% because your skeleton is symmetrical. Anyone can claim that creationism happened but as for proof none at all...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 12:45:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 1:36:47 PM, imawholockian wrote:
At 6/3/2014 1:13:32 PM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
I hear a lot that this, that, or the other isn't evidence for evolution and the like, but I rarely hear what actually is evidence for creationism anymore. So what is evidence for creationism and what specific hypothesis/claim of creationism does this evidence support?

Creationists believe that there was a worldwide flood (wwf), the flood in the Biblical record that washed everything off the face of the earth, except for Noah and the ark.
According to evolutionists, there was no wwf, but we find fossils that are on the "geologic collumn" that are towards the bottom layers, which evolutionists believe are 4.5 billion years old, towards the top layers (recent layers)! How did they get there? The only explanation is a massive global catastrophe: the world wide flood.

Uh, no. Since evolutionists do not believe that the fossils were deposited at the same time, it doesnt take a global flood. It takes a local flood.

And yes, Local floods occur all the time.

All.

The.

Time.

Also, the moon moves 1 centimeter away from the earth each year, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old (as evolutionists assume), then we wouldn't have the moon's gravitational pull and we would be dead, floating through space.

Actually, its receding at about a rate of 3.8 cm per year. And since the moon is about 3.8 x 10^10 cm away from the earth, 4.5 billion years only puts it 1.2 x 10^10 cm closer, giving a whole 2.6 x 10^10 cm distance.

Each year the salt levels in the sea get higher, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, the salt levels would be so high, the sea life would die.

The sea level is rising because the polar ice caps are melting. There is not enough ice in the world for it to continually keep rising for 4.5 billion years, straight.

All this supports the creation account, that the earth is approx. 6,000 years old.

Nope. But nice try though. A for effort, F for actually going out and researching whether your claims stand up to scrutiny.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:13:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:35:55 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Me when I see a new thread like this, having endured almost a year of it:

http://imgur.com...

This.

... Although it's only been 3 months for me.