|
Author
|
Topic: Best evidence for Creation
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
Message 12 of 176 (477068)
07-29-2008 10:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
07-29-2008 10:17 PM
|
|
Re: Explanation
If the dino print was made first (in pretty viscose mud) then the humanish print was laid down on top you might get what is shown. However, that brings up a big problem. If the mud was viscose enough that they dino print went down only what looks like a couple of cms how did the smaller print get in so deep? One thing that bothers me--it doesn't look like a footprint made during a natural stride. With a natural stride the heel hits first, the foot rolls forward, and finally you push off with the forward part of the foot, ending with the toes. This footprint looks like it was made from the top down, lacking that particular look of a striding foot. I'd like to see what some of the forensic folks say--they know an awful lot about how a foot behaves under various conditions.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2008 10:17 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 15 of 176 (477074)
07-30-2008 12:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by jamison
07-30-2008 12:07 AM
|
|
Welcome!
So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?
Creation. Self-evident.
This thread is in the science forum. Scientists normally offer evidence for their statements. Have you any evidence to share with us?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by jamison, posted 07-30-2008 12:07 AM | | jamison has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 40 of 176 (477147)
07-30-2008 3:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
07-30-2008 2:56 PM
|
|
Creation "science" again
If it had a beginning it had to be created. That is the best evidence for a creator. And I have also seen it claimed that that which had no beginning was the creator. So we have evidence for a creator from:
I just love creation "science!"
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 2:56 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Best evidence?
The best evidence of these claims is observation: the biological world looks specially created; followed by the observation of design and organized complexity seen in each organism and in nature as a whole. The biological world only looks created to those who a priori already believe in creationism. To those who actually look at the evidence and follow the scientific method, descent with modification explains everything we see quite well. There is no need to invent various gods and demons to explain natural phenomena when the very observation you advocate leads to perfectly adequate explanations. Edited by Coyote, : coding error Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 149 of 176 (485780)
10-11-2008 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 5:08 PM
|
|
More study required
Evolution, on the other hand has never been observed in a way that could account for life. Sure we see changing features within species but nobody has ever observed the evolution of random proteins into a living cell or the evolution of one species to another. Therefore, if science is based on observable evidence, then creation is a better scientific theory than Darwinian evolution, no? ...I am fascinated by the evolution vs creation debate You need to study the subject a bit more. You are making some common errors. The theory of evolution deals with changes in the genome since life began, by whatever means. Origins is studied by the fledgling field of abiogenesis, which has several competing hypotheses, but no generally accepted theory yet. Creation is not a scientific theory, but rather a religious belief developed from scripture and revelation, etc. The theory of evolution relies on evidence and the scientific method. Contrary to your assertion that the two are both scientific theories, they are in fact opposites. Welcome, by the way. Stick around, read some of the older and ongoing threads and have some fun.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 5:08 PM | | Kevin123 has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 153 of 176 (485810)
10-11-2008 8:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 7:34 PM
|
|
Origins again
My question now is can the same thing be said about the evolution theory's explanation of the origin of life? The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
The theory of evolution works just fine with any one of them. Why to you keep referring to "evolution theory's explanation of the origin of life" when there clearly is no such theory yet?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 7:34 PM | | Kevin123 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 156 of 176 (485826)
10-12-2008 2:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Kevin123
10-12-2008 12:26 AM
|
|
Re: Origins again
Considering the mathematical improbability of the evolution by natural selection, I don't understand why anyone would follow that theory if an intelligent agent had to be introduced to explain origin. I disagree with your "mathematical improbability." Try this online lecture:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Garrett Odell.
In other words, the mathematicians you cite may be modeling the wrong variables.
If an intelligent agent seeded/planted the early earth would it not be more logical to assume that they used a mixture of seeds (one for each family or genus) rather than a single seed from which all known organisms evolved? No.
It would be easier than trying to explain how all these complex systems might have evolved and they wouldn’t have to explain the missing fossils for the millions of intermediary animals. No problem, there are a lot of intermediate fossils, with more being found every year.
Therefore, I consider ToE and origin to be closely linked. You have presented no credible arguments for that.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM | | Kevin123 has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 157 of 176 (485827)
10-12-2008 2:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Kevin123
10-12-2008 12:26 AM
|
|
Evidence
I think fewer people would have a problem accepting ID as a scientific theory if religion was not always brought up. Scientists would have fewer problems with ID if there was some evidence brought up. So far the main proponent, the Discovery Institute, is running a PR campaign rather than a research project. (Lawyers and PR flacks don't impress scientists very much.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM | | Kevin123 has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 165 of 176 (486565)
10-22-2008 1:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by wardog25
10-22-2008 1:08 PM
|
|
I don't think anyone will be upset that it is a Christian website. My problem with AiG is that it lies, misrepresents, and distorts a lot of the data, or ignores the data entirely. Its track record in terms of both science and accuracy is abysmal. Here is a link that might serve you better: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by wardog25, posted 10-22-2008 1:08 PM | | wardog25 has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 171 of 176 (486646)
10-23-2008 11:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by wardog25
10-23-2008 9:48 AM
|
|
Dating
The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested? I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question. This is properly addressed in one of the Dating threads. One of my fields is radiocarbon dating (primarily sample collection and interpretation), and I know a couple of others here are pretty good at the mechanics of the method. Bring your objections to a dating thread and we'll be happy to show you where you are wrong.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM | | wardog25 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2