Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Giroth
alright.Suit yourself.I don't feel like getting into a childish arguement with you about why my belief is wrong.have a nice day.

You have a nice day too.

I did notice that you repeatedly have no problem making snide comments when you don't agree. If you have evidence to support your belief- present it. I think that is all anyone is asking from you.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Giroth
...that won't do too good here. You can't tell Ruinel and that bunch to shut up....just let em discuss it themselves.

Have fun,Ruinel and friends ....

First of all, I haven't really been posting in this thread. That's because it's a thread to post evidence for creationism. Since I don't have any evidence to post for creationism, I am not posting any. All I was saying is that if there is any evidence, please post it, because I haven't seen any posted here! *looks around thread* As a matter of fact, Giroth, you haven't posted any either. So, how about you get off your butt and post some evidence to support this theory you are so eager to defend, instead of trying to pick a fight.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hey..You Creation guys are supposed to post YOUR evidence...we evolutionists already did, (and continue to do) "our work" on the evolution thread! So... you want Cirdan to post some info, then what.....you go on *pick apart and attack again mode*! Not fair! Post your "evidence" for creation! That's what this thread is for! (Just ignore me if you want to, Cirdan....of course we have nothing to hide, "The truth will set you free"! )

Geez, Liz, that was a sincere question on my part - I'm sorry if you think I'm sneaky I need a brief break - that's just a consequence of posting in a minority position - YOU try to do as many posts as I have and see how YOU feel . I must post at least 20 posts for every 1 post of yours, don't you think? And they are long and thought-out, too.

I honestly wanted to know some more, and I though Cirdan could give some helpful info. If I do see some logical problems with it, I'll bring them up for discussion, but neither side should be afraid of that, should they? Neither side should have anything to hide, since this is impartial evaluation of evidence.

Cirdan - I really had no intentions besides learning something while I was taking a brief rest - but if you would rather hold off, that's fine - perhaps you think the same way Lizra does - and then we can just pick up after I catch my breath. I really never thought of my post being interpreted the way Lizra interpreted it, I was just trying to take advantage of someone with a uni degree of Geology sharing some info for all of us. (YOU don't happen to know the answer to my question, do you, Lizra? Would you be interested in learning more?) I can understand if you want to hold off, tho, Cirdan - it's up to you. Or if you would like to stipulate that no discussion take place on what you share until after I get my breath back and start on some more creationism evidence - whatever you want.

(ps - hi Gwai! I miss you! How is Russia?)

You know, guys, I just looked at the rest of the posts after Lizra's - Except for Gwai's and GrayMousers, they were starting to get mean-spirited. Let's stop with the insults, OK?

And I also must note that I've observed that those who have offered the most in the way of scientific/logical discussion are also the politest.

Thanks, GrayMouser, for your patience and understanding, and the joke. (and I still just bust up every time I think of your "yum,yum" post! ). The age/zone term was really just a thought on my part for a new nomenclature, since I think the currently popular ages assigned to the different layers are based on a faulty assumption. That's all, just some brainstorming. Nothing earthshaking.

To the complainers - all I can say is please count up my posts, compare them to yours, and get some compassion and understanding.

[jerseydevil]

Rian - my comments were driected mostly at Giroth. As of yet - there has been no proof of creationism unless you throw out half the discoveries made in support of evolution and just call those fossils unique species.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
....You know, guys, I just looked at the rest of the posts after Lizra's - Except for Gwai's and GrayMousers, they were all getting pretty nasty. Let's stop with the insults, OK? ....
To the complainers - all I can say is please count up my posts, compare them to yours, and get some compassion and understanding.

I'm not trying to be nasty, RÃ*an. I'm just trying to point out that people need to stick to the topic and post evidence for the theory of creationism, instead of trying to tear down the theory of evolution.

Am I complaining? Yeah, I am. Because your thread isn't really going anywhere near the intentions you first posted.

[Cirdan]

...but Ruinel, 90% of creationism is the attacking of the ToE.

I've got no problem with your request. Rian. It may take a while to put together. I'll probably put it together off-line first.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Rian - my comments were driected mostly at Giroth. As of yet - there has been no proof of creationism unless you throw out half the discoveries made in support of evolution and just call those fossils unique species.

BTW, JD, I want to specifically say that I include YOU in the group of those who are polite and have offered a lot in the way of logical discussion.

And there IS proof of creationism in the fossil record - the extreme complexity of some of the creatures in the Cambrian, the earliest age with abundant fossil remains; the fact that even in the Cambrian there are an abundant amount of distinct types, some of which are around today, as opposed to intermediates; the types of finds in the Cambrian fossil plant record (more distinct types, many of which are found today, and plants are supposed to come way after the Cambrian acc'd to evolutionism, if I understand correctly); the Cambrian insect record - again, distinct, well-defined types, some around today.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I've got no problem with your request. Rian. It may take a while to put together. I'll probably put it together off-line first.

Thanks, Cirdan, and if you'd like to hold off discussion on what you post for awhile, I would be happy to honor that request. My intent was only just to learn something while resting a bit. In fact, that's probably a good idea - if it's okay with you, we'll hold off discussion of what you present until we're on the topic. Let me know what you think.


BTW, I'm working on something off-line myself, that I hope will work out, and I think we would all really enjoy it

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, JD, I want to specifically say that I include YOU in the group of those who are polite and have offered a lot in the way of logical discussion.

Thank you.

And there IS proof of creationism in the fossil record - the extreme complexity of some of the creatures in the Cambrian, the earliest age with abundant fossil remains; the fact that even in the Cambrian there are an abundant amount of distinct types, some of which are around today, as opposed to intermediates; the types of finds in the Cambrian fossil plant record (more distinct types, many of which are found today, and plants are supposed to come way after the Cambrian acc'd to evolutionism, if I understand correctly); the Cambrian insect record - again, distinct, well-defined types, some around today.

But a lot of things survive - with little change, such as the shark. I can't remember where the Cambrian period falls into - but plants and insects are not way up there on the evolutionary scale. They can survive unchanged as long as they aren't required to change - but that doesn't mean things did not branch off from them.

[Rían]

(and one more thing before I head off for a nice Sunday nap...)

I asked this before and got no response - has anyone else read Darwin's The Origin of Species? I'm about 2/3 of the way thru now...

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
...And there IS proof of creationism in the fossil record - the extreme complexity of some of the creatures in the Cambrian, the earliest age with abundant fossil remains; the fact that even in the Cambrian there are an abundant amount of distinct types, some of which are around today, as opposed to intermediates; the types of finds in the Cambrian fossil plant record (more distinct types, many of which are found today, and plants are supposed to come way after the Cambrian acc'd to evolutionism, if I understand correctly); the Cambrian insect record - again, distinct, well-defined types, some around today.

Would you be so kind as to post the names of those species here.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Thank you.

You're welcome

And I'll get you an answer shortly, Ru, and please remind me if it slips my memory

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I know what you mean about kids, esp. on summer vacation...mine are off for a week of day-camp- YAY!!

I'm jealous! My own 3 kids often tire me out, but what really killed me last week was being with over 800 kids all week!! Our church had their annual Vacation Bible School, and over 800!! kids signed up, and I was one of the "crew-leaders". Oy! I came home Friday afternoon and went straight to bed! My kids got to play Nintendo the rest of the afternoon

(ps - how many kids do you have, and what age?)

And those lymph nodes are still enlarged under my arms - I think they'll have to come out, since it's now been over 6 months - that's another reason why I'm so tired Yuck! I'm not looking forward to surgery....

[Lizra]

Sorry Rian, I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but this thread is so anti climatic. Where's all your help anyway?

I want to read the evidence that you have mentioned so often! Ever since we "met" you have repeatedly told me ( in a teasing way, but still annoying to me, none the less) that I am wrong and you are right.....about God. (Something like...."How can you bear the burden of having a handicapped child when you don't realize God made her that way for a special purpose" ugh! )


It just so happens, the "creation myth" is one of my big sticking points on religion. If you could prove that the bible is correct about creation, hey! That would be a fantastic revelation to me! I'm ready! But, it seems you can't! I'm not surprised, since no one else has ever been able to! You are a wonderful lady, but proving creation theory is a pretty big bill! You get a "A" for effort, certainly!

It doesn't really matter, but I do want to quit squirreling around here, and get down to the nitty gritty. We are all busy people! Let's put this baby to bed! I think you don't have any great "evidence"...just your faith. That's fine with me, just quit "teasing" me about being wrong! That's what makes me so irritated with religious people sometimes....that subtle bit of a condescending "attitude". I would just like to read your evidence and be done with it. This constant dragging out of the creation/ evolution topic is boring! Lets do it! I'd like to get away from this "heavy topic" crud too! I have many wifely and motherly duties myself!

Do whatever makes you happy, but I'm losing interest. Maybe I should get back to the Tolkien topics too!

[wahine]

Logical, Smogical...






*pause*








*mind Blanks*










WOOHOO GO AMERICA!

[Lizra]

Huh!?

[Rían]

I don't have any help right now oh well!

I'm so sorry you thought I've been "teasing" you - we seem to really be miscommunicating now I think I'm right about God, and you think you're right - I really don't understand how that's me "telling" you you're wrong any more than you "telling" me I'm wrong. I don't understand, Lizra - how is it different? I really don't see. We disagree, so each of us thinks the other is wrong. So? Let's be friends anyway, if it brings enjoyment and enrichment into our lives. It does to me, and I hope it can to you.

I've never belittled you, have I? Please believe me, I never meant to. The "burden" phrase was in a private email, and I don't think that's what I said exactly, anyway, and I wish you wouldn't quote it here - it's out of context, for one thing, because I really only meant it as sympathetic. You sounded so grieved in your email, and I responded in great sympathy. I have a handicapped child too, and it's terribly hard at times! It's really painful. And I get great comfort from knowing that he isn't an evolutionary "bad" mutation, but instead, something that God allowed and will work good thing through, and this life here is only for a short time - in heaven, which is eternal, he'll be running around (the Bible talks specifically about the lame being healed) and there will be no more tears. I have already seen many good things that have happened through his life.

I'm sorry, again and again, if I ever caused you pain. I gave you my phone number once - do you want to just set up a time where we can chat and perhaps clear things up? You're one of my oldest Entmoot friends, and I would be terribly sad if the friendship was lost.

One of my biggest frustrations here is not being able to keep up with the post load. I post an initial post on fossil evidence, and I get lots of reactions - which I should respond to! I suggested at the beginning that perhaps I should just be allowed to post for a week or so without comment, so I could lay down some evidence posts without having to respond, but that was nixed. I have a health issue, too, as I've mentioned before, that really limits me - last night was one of the worse pain nights, and I had to take some Vicodin to get to sleep. Pain and fatigue are just a fact of life with me, unfortunately, and a huge frustration as well, because it limits me from doing things I would like to do. Perhaps another reason why we could talk on the phone - it would be a lot faster than this posting business! I'd really love that. Or I could call you - I just got a great phone deal with a flat rate and unlimited long distance!!

What do you say? I'll resend my phone # if you lost it, or send me yours, and we can chat uninterrupted by others, and I can share the various points of evidence for creationism, and you can tell me how to make my climbing roses do better!

[Lizra]

It would be fun to chat, but I would want to do it after summer vacation is over (August 14th). I can't really talk freely like I'd like to, with the kids listening in! Sounds good.

[Rían]

Yay!

I'll be camping at Lake Tahoe that week, but anytime after that is fine. My kids don't start school until Sept. 2nd or thereabouts. Or just drop me a PM if you want to chat sooner, and I'm sure we could convince our husbands to babysit for a bit ...

[Blackheart]

Gack...

Am I going to have to do something annoying to kick-start this, like argue for intelligent design or some such tomfoolery?

The unfortunate part about science is that it doesn't do very well at all with un-measurable qualities.

All of the arguments that one could make in favor for a universe that is designed to produce life rest on imponderables like the statistical chance occurrence of natural laws...

Not something that science has any business making a statement about one-way or the other, since it has no way of measuring other universes.

I usually find myself skeptical when people refer to intelligent design as science. Philosophy maybe...

That's why I also like to make little digs at people who get frantic about that whole undirected phrase ... Evolution is undirected. So what?

Undirected means something a little different than completely random. (Which is also rather difficult to measure, since it gets deeply into causation) It means that, like water, it will fill the lowest space, undirected, except by the boundries of the space. Life acts like most forms of energy in the universe, it fills a space, a niche, without regard to anything but the space.

Unfortunately it just leads to a tautology, because there's no way to get at that basic imponderable, where and how did the "laws" or physics for the universe originate... In other words, is it a natural bowl, or a "designed" bowl?

I doubt that you're going to offer any real constructive proof for creationism, and If anything groundbreaking in the field of physics had been discovered, I'm sure I would have read about it....

Now an atheist will usually look at the fact that no evidence is provided by science and say, it just goes to show you that there's no proof for god, therefore he doesn't exist. It's more rational to believe that something doesn't exist in the absence of any evidence than to make up wild suppositions, occams razor.

A believer will point out the fact that science hasn't disproved the existence of god, and that the entire basis for belief rests on the idea of faith. Therefore as far as they are concerned god exists.

I find both positions less than satisfying.

A believer basically is saying, I believe because I believe...

Well, that's fine, but it's a tautology, and has nothing to do with a state of knowledge...

An atheist (in this case anyway) is saying I believe (or disbelieve or whatever the hell you want to get pissy about) because there isn't any empirical evidence.

Unfortunately that position denies the fact that science has no way to observe or measure the very principles the argument rests on. So it is un-measurable, and as such, science can’t say very much about it, nor can it be referenced in logical or rational terms.

I find that any statement in this case is actually just a statement of opinion, and as such I find the most intellectually honest opinion to be one that states the somewhat obvious fact that no one knows, and quite possibly that the answer is unknowable.

You can go back to arguing about mythical creationism versus sterile unimaginative science now. I'm just waiting around for humans to realize that their worldviews do not always have to be a polarized dichotomy based on fear of the unknown...

The "real" answer is usually something we would never have arrived at without a synthesis...

[Lizra]

Well that's all well and good Blackheart, of course you are 100% correct in your opinion that neither side knows the answer!

I have no idea how (or what) the original "void" came to be....and certainly no clue as to how the first few forces/matters that "were" created a bang...a soup...a whatever and happened to appear and interact with each other in a manner to cause something out of the unexplainable "nothing". But I find "intelligent design" unaccecptable (re Rian...."complexity comes from intelligence") because that only sets your questioning back futher by then causing you to puzzle on how the *intelligence* that started things up got "there".The *intelligence* would have to be more complex than the world it was setting into motion (having uncomprehendible *power* to do these feats of cosmic birthing).

IMO, The intelligent designer could NOT be infinite in its beginning, (always there, never starting, just always being) that is unacceptible (stupid! ) to me. So just to push the complexitiy back a giant step (with a "creator, and this world being it's creation) still takes you to a beginning.....the beginning for the creator. Somewhere, building blocks have to be drawn together and start interacting under the constraints of universal laws. (statistical chance occurence of natural laws ) The huge gaping chasm of time seems to be the only way for me to see complexity arising. "Things" are possible given enough time, and as you stated, the space begins to fill.