proof against evolution (Creator, Darwin, creation, genesis, science)

[flupke]

Come on, all you creationists and intelligent designists ! I know you have it...
Come up with a well formulated proof against evolution.

[dawny0826]

Originally Posted by flupke

Come on, all you creationists and intelligent designists ! I know you have it...
Come up with a well formulated proof against evolution.

Genesis...

Pick a version...any version...King James, NIV, NLT...

[Abram]

There is no proof against evolution. Thats to broad of a statment. There is somesorts of evolution we can see today (dogs, cats, ect...)

Darwinism is almost dead though. There is a ton of science that works against it. Cambrain explosion, DNA, and there is zero fossil evidence.

[flupke]

Originally Posted by dawny0826

Genesis...

Pick a version...any version...King James, NIV, NLT...

Mmm, a strong creationist here. You are taking an arbitrarily chosen book as 'proof'. If you want to use it as real proof, though, you'll first have to prove that it's true. As you will most likely say you 'believe' it to be true, and can never prove it, you can therefore NOT use it as proof against an alternative theory. That's plain logic.

[flupke]

Originally Posted by Abram

There is no proof against evolution. Thats to broad of a statment. There is somesorts of evolution we can see today (dogs, cats, ect...)

Darwinism is almost dead though. There is a ton of science that works against it. Cambrain explosion, DNA, and there is zero fossil evidence.

You're obviously mistaken:

1. the explosion means there was a lot of speciation on a short time. It means there was a strong pressure on evolution. It's an indication of a specific mechanism, not evidence against it. On the contrary, stating that there was a lot of speciation in a short time (relatively speaking) does not mean a creator made them in that time.

2. One of the latest issues of the journal "science" reflects on the greatest achievements of 2005. This is chosen to be the complete genomic data from various organisms. Everything supports evolution; nothing contradicts it. On the contrary, it revealed a lot of new more detailed mechanisms.

3. There are fossils, therefore it cannot be 'zero'.

[dawny0826]

Originally Posted by flupke

Mmm, a strong creationist here. You are taking an arbitrarily chosen book as 'proof'. If you want to use it as real proof, though, you'll first have to prove that it's true. As you will most likely say you 'believe' it to be true, and can never prove it, you can therefore NOT use it as proof against an alternative theory. That's plain logic.

And logic is everything, isn't it?

[flupke]

Originally Posted by dawny0826

And logic is everything, isn't it?

In talking about 'proof', yes.

In talking about 'belief', clearly not...

[Abram]

Originally Posted by flupke

You're obviously mistaken:

1. the explosion means there was a lot of speciation on a short time. It means there was a strong pressure on evolution. It's an indication of a specific mechanism, not evidence against it. On the contrary, stating that there was a lot of speciation in a short time (relatively speaking) does not mean a creator made them in that time.

But it put the Darwin tree upside down, bringing the more dominate animals first.

2. One of the latest issues of the journal "science" reflects on the greatest achievements of 2005. This is chosen to be the complete genomic data from various organisms. Everything supports evolution; nothing contradicts it. On the contrary, it revealed a lot of new more detailed mechanisms.

Do your homework on this one. It walks in to irreducible complexity.

3. There are fossils, therefore it cannot be 'zero'.

Of course ther are fossils, you'ld be a fool to ignore that. But there is not evidence of a missing link or the in between

[sandy whitelinger]

How about we start with proof that God exists?

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.

By applying Albert Einstein’s formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M). God is energy (E).

Thus when people ask the question, “If God created mankind, who created God?”, they mistakenly imagine God as having a form or mass. Only mass needs a creator, not energy.

The creator of mass is of course, energy. The theory of God’s existence is in line with mathematical theory.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

God is energy.

Are you really sure that's how you want to define God?