Evidence FOR the Creation Theory (reject, evolution, God, science)

[Ceridwen018]

Every evolution v. creationsim thread in all of these forums runs along the same format--evolutionists present their evidence, and creationists try to present evidence to prove them wrong. I have never seen a creationist independently provide evidence FOR their own theory, but only against the theory they disagree with.

So, now's your chance!! This thread shouldn't turn into a debate until a little ways down the road, in my opinion. I want all the creationists out there to have their chance to post their reasons for why they subscribe to the theory they do. I am very interested to learm exactly what kind of science is behind all of this.

Post away!!

[Mister Emu]

There is no scientific evidence for a God because it falls outside the field of science. Science deals with the material and testable and thus disregards the immaterial and untestable. Now just because science does not deal with it does not mean it does not exist.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

There is no scientific evidence for a God because it falls outside the field of science. Science deals with the material and testable and thus disregards the immaterial and untestable. Now just because science does not deal with it does not mean it does not exist.

I, for one, totally agree.

[Ceridwen018]

Emu, we're not talking about god here--we're talking about science.

...or are you admitting that the creationism theory is wholly unfounded in science, and is instead a completely religious invention?

If so, perhaps you could explain your direct renunciation of logic?

[Mister Emu]

Emu, we're not talking about god here--we're talking about science.

...or are you admitting that the creationism theory is wholly unfounded in science, and is instead a completely religious invention?

God is outside of the scientific field, so yes there is no scientific theory of God. However the limitations of science do not define reality.

If so, perhaps you could explain your direct renunciation of logic?

I did not nor will I ever renounce logic, I did and do however reject the idea that science defines what is and is not real.

[Ceridwen018]

God is outside of the scientific field,

Again, this is about Creationism and the science involved in it, not God.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Beyond the empty mantra "God did it", there is no 'Creationism', only mindless repetition.

[Irenicas]

Uh. Anyone else see the rather large problem there?

[Ceridwen018]

Lol, I do!

You know, I used to think that Creationists practiced a form of selective science--only seeking theories which supported their beliefs, etc. At the very least, I expected them to have something. That something may be misguided and ill-informed, certainly, but I never expected a complete absence of logical thought. Now that I've learned they don't try to back up their theories with any sort of science, at all whatsoever...well, to be completely honest I can't stop laughing.

[robtex]

I keep looking for a url that is procreation with science on its side and so far i got nada. anyone have one?