-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation evidence
- Thread starter Jonsul
- Start date
Luminous
non-existential luminary
Can't UnTheist Ban people?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No single Mod can ban people either, it must be discussed among the rest of the mods. It's not a whilly-nilly affair. It takes repeated warnings or blatant disregard for the rules of the forum.
(from my own experience as a Mod anyway)
wa:do
(from my own experience as a Mod anyway)
wa:do
Jonsul
Ehh....
Just as you can't say God's existence is a fact, you can't say that evolution is a fact. And trust me this is said with no disregard to anyone's beliefs. It's just a fact to me is something that can't exist. I interpret the word fact as 100% proven, which neither evolution, creation, nor God can claim to be; in the human sense of the word at least.
However if you hold the definition as the most unopposed commonly accepted belief then you may be right. But then with a definition like that it may be creationism that may be considered fact instead. Because evolution is limited in that it is upheld by for the most part the educated population of the world. While creationism is upheld by every single religious movement that believes in a creation. So in this sense it would probably be creationism that would be considered fact.
Lastly there is the religious view in which anything God has done or commanded is considered fact.
Anything else comes close but can't be considered fact.
Debating what is fact is pointless, as you can see there are many interpretations to the word.
Probably more then the three I mentioned above. All you can really do is believe what you feel is right and hope for the best^^
However if you hold the definition as the most unopposed commonly accepted belief then you may be right. But then with a definition like that it may be creationism that may be considered fact instead. Because evolution is limited in that it is upheld by for the most part the educated population of the world. While creationism is upheld by every single religious movement that believes in a creation. So in this sense it would probably be creationism that would be considered fact.
Lastly there is the religious view in which anything God has done or commanded is considered fact.
Anything else comes close but can't be considered fact.
Debating what is fact is pointless, as you can see there are many interpretations to the word.
Probably more then the three I mentioned above. All you can really do is believe what you feel is right and hope for the best^^
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
By that definition, there is no such thing as a fact. Evolution is as proven as gravity.
Have you never heard of the fallacy of Appeal to Numbers?
This is pointless, as nobody can prove that God has done or commanded anything, nor even exists.
Perhaps, but as you can (hopefully) see, not all of them are valid or useful interpretations.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Wronnngggg. One is an indisputable fact that can be observed by anyone, and the other is a completely unsupported opinion. They're also not inconsistent; it's entirely possible that both are true.
In your world there's no such thing as a fact? Nothing is a fact? That you exist is not a fact?
How about if my definition is: supported by the evidence?
Lastly there is the religious view in which anything God has done or commanded is considered fact.
Anything else comes close but can't be considered fact.
Debating what is fact is pointless, as you can see there are many interpretations to the word.
Probably more then the three I mentioned above. All you can really do is believe what you feel is right and hope for the best^^[/quote] So basically science is useless and impossible, and we should give it up?
Jonsul
Ehh....
That's exactly how I see it, I don't think anything can be a fact
Also I was just giving examples of the different types of definitions for fact
so don't be upset at me if I post something other people believe.
And even if some of the definitions are odd, there's still people who believe them.
That's why I don't think evolution is proven,
there are some problems that keep it from being fully proven.
But before you get mad also know I don't think creation is proven,
and that there may be as great if not greater problems on it's case
I just wish there wasn't so many so many faked evidence on both sides of the spectrum. It makes it hard to know anything is worth the time. From the many fake missing links to faked dinosaur cave paintings.
I don't know why anyone would want to make fake ****. It's always found out, and just makes everyone even more confused.
[edit] by the way I was going to edit the first post and add the contradicting test links for each one. But the edit thing is gone. Is there a time limit or something?
Also I was just giving examples of the different types of definitions for fact
so don't be upset at me if I post something other people believe.
And even if some of the definitions are odd, there's still people who believe them.
That's why I don't think evolution is proven,
there are some problems that keep it from being fully proven.
But before you get mad also know I don't think creation is proven,
and that there may be as great if not greater problems on it's case
I just wish there wasn't so many so many faked evidence on both sides of the spectrum. It makes it hard to know anything is worth the time. From the many fake missing links to faked dinosaur cave paintings.
I don't know why anyone would want to make fake ****. It's always found out, and just makes everyone even more confused.
[edit] by the way I was going to edit the first post and add the contradicting test links for each one. But the edit thing is gone. Is there a time limit or something?
Yep^^
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You're right, it's not proven.
No, it will never be proven scientifically. It can't be because nothing is. Scientific laws and theories are only supported by evidence, not proven.
You also seem to have some misconceptions about evolution. What are the problems you see with it?
Have you come across something that was faked to be evidence of evolution? That would seem kind of weird considering all of the real evidence there is. There is, however, plenty of both faked and wrongly-interpreted evidence of creationism.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I can only think of two 'faked' 'missing links'. One was published by the media before it was properly investigated by science. Another was ignored by scientist out of respect for the elderly gentleman that 'discovered' it, until his death when it was made public.
As for 'proof'... Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science does not do 'proof'. Gravity is not 'proven' it is a theory with an abundance of supporting evidence and testable features. Like evolution.
wa:do
As for 'proof'... Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science does not do 'proof'. Gravity is not 'proven' it is a theory with an abundance of supporting evidence and testable features. Like evolution.
wa:do
Jonsul
Ehh....
For instance the unexplainable start of life. And the onward search for a missing link.
But like I said there are problems with the creation theory as well.
Some things, like I said the many fake or wrongly-interpreted missing links. I remember one case where a skeleton was found that was monkey like but had a human like hip bone. But then it was released that the hip bone was actually found 2 miles away from the other bones. I mean I can see how a hip bone can move that much over time, but I can't see why none of the other bones were moved that much as well. Especially since the hip bone is in the center surrounded by many other bones.
What's sad is that some scientists publish this as evidence when it's clearly a bone from another creature.
And more so with creationist scientists then any other, as fake evidence has really made creation seem like a joke.
[edit] I'll try to find a link to that one as well. But again it's been some time since I learned of it^^
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Including that you exist, right? Not a fact?
You obviously know nothing about evolution and very little about science. Of course it's not proven--science isn't about truth, it's about evidence. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is supported by as much evidence as any other scientific theory. No ToE, no science.
Why are you so worried about other people's anger? This is a debate forum; we're here to debate. And you're right, it's unproven, unprovable and in some cases disproven. (depending exactly what you mean by "creation.")
You know nothing about it. ToE does not rest on any faked evidence. None. Stop slandering hardworking scientists; it's immoral.
*sigh* One good way to avoid such confusion is to learn what you're talking about.
Tell the truth, you don't know either what ToE says, or what the evidence for it is, do you?
[edit] by the way I was going to edit the first post and add the contradicting test links for each one. But the edit thing is gone. Is there a time limit or something?[/quote] Yup.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Which has nothing to do with evolution. Before you start criticizing evolution, maybe you should learn what it is.
There is no such thing.
But like I said there are problems with the creation theory as well.
Baloney.
Piltdown man. Fake, but nothing to do with ToE.
Fortunately we have other scientists around to discredit hoaxes like this, and ToE does not rest on them.
Whereas in creationism, fakes keep being cited, as in the OP.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Jonsul...
sounds like you fell for a creationist propaganda bomb against Lucy. It wasn't her hip, that was found with the rest of her. It was a knee. And it was 2 km not miles, a much shorter distance.
Not bad considering she was taken apart and washed downstream.
And an articulated knee was found with another Austalopithecus specimen just a few years later, proving that the knee was correctly matched with Lucy.
We now have several of these critters, including a toddler and what may be a family group.
wa:do
sounds like you fell for a creationist propaganda bomb against Lucy. It wasn't her hip, that was found with the rest of her. It was a knee. And it was 2 km not miles, a much shorter distance.
Not bad considering she was taken apart and washed downstream.
And an articulated knee was found with another Austalopithecus specimen just a few years later, proving that the knee was correctly matched with Lucy.
We now have several of these critters, including a toddler and what may be a family group.
wa:do
Jonsul
Ehh....
@painted wolf
Hmmm.... I maybe not remembering it right but I remember it having to do with the hip bone or hip joint or something like that. Something to do with the hip.
it's been around a year since I've last looked into it.
@Autodidact
It would be no problem if you believe god started evolution, in which case god is the start.
As they too have nothing to do with the theory of creation science at all.
How do you not know I'm a computer program that randomly researches, copies, ad-libs, and pastes.
Or maybe I exist in a dream by another person, as do you?
That's just pulling **** out of my ***, but the point is nothing can be proved to be a fact, at least not with science.
You can use it to support that I exist^^
And I basically said the same thing your saying about science^^
Because... that seems to have been an issue before. This ain't a debate thread^^
Wait didn't you just go into a whole ramble about how nothing can be proven?? I assume the same can be said about evolution considering science doesn't prove or disprove.
By the way, are you using TOE to say theory of evolution, or TOE the accepted abbreviation for the theory of everything?
That's the only thing I know it abbreviates for???
And I do know what it claims and the evidence.
Hmmm.... I maybe not remembering it right but I remember it having to do with the hip bone or hip joint or something like that. Something to do with the hip.
it's been around a year since I've last looked into it.
@Autodidact
Actually it does, as life had to of evolved from a starting point. And coming from the thinking that everything came from something else, there has to of been a start.
It would be no problem if you believe god started evolution, in which case god is the start.
You could say the same thing about all the fakes attached to creationism.
As they too have nothing to do with the theory of creation science at all.
Nope^^
How do you not know I'm a computer program that randomly researches, copies, ad-libs, and pastes.
Or maybe I exist in a dream by another person, as do you?
That's just pulling **** out of my ***, but the point is nothing can be proved to be a fact, at least not with science.
You can use it to support that I exist^^
If you had read all of the posts you would know that I was replying to someone who claimed it was proven.
And I basically said the same thing your saying about science^^
*smacks face*
Because... that seems to have been an issue before. This ain't a debate thread^^
Wait didn't you just go into a whole ramble about how nothing can be proven?? I assume the same can be said about evolution considering science doesn't prove or disprove.
From what I presented above I suggest that you might have to learn about what your talking about.
By the way, are you using TOE to say theory of evolution, or TOE the accepted abbreviation for the theory of everything?
That's the only thing I know it abbreviates for???
And I do know what it claims and the evidence.
Last edited:
rocketman
Out there...
Jonsul, just a couple of friendly tips. For some reason, don't ask me why, this sub-forum has traditionally been about creation vs biological evoultion, despite the name of the sub forum, and the other types of evolution out there such as planetary, stellar, galactic and so on. Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is technically not part of TOE (theory of evolution) anymore than knowledge of Henry Ford is part of the theory of how a Model T works. (even though the moment a self replicating molecule appeared it would have to start evolving...) If we were discussing universal evolution then sure we'd have to talk about it, the same way that we have to talk about non-biological changes such as extinction level events when discussing only biological change over time. The place around here for making a case against abiogenesis would be the science vs religion sub forum.
It's probably better to say creation 'interpretations' than creation science, of which there really isn't such a thing. At the end of the day the science should be the same for everyone, but as we all know there are different interpretaions of the evidence.
Thanks for the interesting items you put up earlier in the thread, do you have any more you could share with us?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
The reason is that biological evolution, as you put it, is all that ToE deals with.
Jonsul
Ehh....
Probably because the word evolution is most associated with biological evolution.
That's what I've been talking about, that's why I was wondering above what he meant with TOE which I've only seen as an abbreviation for the theory of everything. Somewhat confused me alittle why he would be bringing it up though. If you feel it should be there I'm sure some mods could move it.
It's an opinion really, but I see creationism as a science. To me anything that tries to explain a subject using modern scientific methods is considered a science whether it has to do with religion or not. Labeling something as not science solely on the reasons of it having ties to religion I think is close minded.
I mentioned before the video "creation in the symphony" it goes through much of the theories and tests done by creationists to explain creation. It is a little dated though, but it's really interesting.
That's what I've been talking about, that's why I was wondering above what he meant with TOE which I've only seen as an abbreviation for the theory of everything. Somewhat confused me alittle why he would be bringing it up though. If you feel it should be there I'm sure some mods could move it.
It's an opinion really, but I see creationism as a science. To me anything that tries to explain a subject using modern scientific methods is considered a science whether it has to do with religion or not. Labeling something as not science solely on the reasons of it having ties to religion I think is close minded.
I mentioned before the video "creation in the symphony" it goes through much of the theories and tests done by creationists to explain creation. It is a little dated though, but it's really interesting.
Last edited:
rocketman
Out there...
That's what I said it deals with. But there are other kinds of evolution that are traditionally not covered in this sub forum, despite it's name. It's a tradition that I respect btw.
Last edited:
rocketman
Out there...
I think you mean 'she'..
Yeah, in our lab at work it means 'Time of event'. But around here it means evolution of the biological kind.