Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,234 Year: 5,491/9,624 Month: 516/323 Week: 13/143 Day: 3/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 176 (477050)
07-29-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


Brian writes:
I would like to see evidence FOR creation
The problem is that it is impossible to find anything that is not evidence for biblical creation. Since biblical creation was a miraculous act, any discovery is completely compatible with the belief that that is just the way god chose to work his miracle. If a species of ruminant were to be found in Nepal that had pvc pipe for veins, wooden bones, and vinyl skin, that would, of course, be completely compatible with god's miraculous creation. It would, of course, be absolutely disastrous for evolution, Darwinian or otherwise. If a new analysis of astronomic data showed that all the stars and galaxies are actually no more than 6000 light years from earth, that would be evidence in support of creationism. But even finding that stars and galaxies extend out 13 billion light years supports creation since god could have just as easily created a spread out universe as a compact one.
The 'miracle' of modern science is that it has discovered so many theories of extremely limited scope that have been supported by all the evidence at hand. Theories, such as general relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution - particularly Darwinian evolution - are so specific in their predictions and so constrained in their range that they would be absolutely trivial to falsify with simple tests. It's just that no tests to date have been able to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 9:02 AM Brian has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 176 (477069)
07-29-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
07-29-2008 10:37 PM


Re: Explanation
Coyote writes:
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
The prints are perfectly explained if the hominid is committing an act of beastiality with the saurid (or visa versa. Beastiality is a little hard to define with the hominids and saurids of that era.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2008 10:37 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024