Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   positive evidence of creationism
stonetool
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 74 (2699)
01-23-2002 8:00 PM


Creationists typically spend up their time flailing away at the various flaws and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. They appear to believe that if they disprove the theory evolution, then they have proved the theory of creation. They do not seem to realize that they actually have to present positive scientific evidence of a theory of creation before people actually buy into it. Even if there were to disprove the theory evolution, there would be no need to necessarily believe creationism over say the Hindu theory of creation.
My challenge for creationists is to present positive scientific evidence that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. Scientific evidence would include for example a geological formation that would positively indicate that the world was less than 10,000 years old.
Along those lines, the creationist could present scientific evidence that:
All animals and plants were created at the same time in the recent past.
That a global flood took place in the recent past
That all animals and plants radiated from a Common Point of origin in the Middle East in the recent past
That olive trees can regenerate and grow new leaves within a few weeks of immersion in a global flood
That eight people can effectively care for 16,000 animals on a ship for a year
That a wooden ship of the dimensions of the ark could actually be built given Bronze Age tools and would be sea worthy.
Creationist could prove the items by actually going out in the field and doing archeological expeditions with the goal of locating for example kangaroo fossils in say Pakistan or Indonesia. They could actually build an ark, using Bronze Age technology, staff it, stock it with supplies of their choice, and 16,000 animals of their choice, and sail it. They could try to locate Precambrian layers of rock in which, for example, reptiles, mammals, birds, and fish all appear at once. They could locate through research that biological barrier which prevents micro- evolution from becoming macroevolution.
If they accomplished all or any one of the things, they would not only disprove evolution, but also prove creationism. Despite this, I've yet to find any creationist or creationist organization trying to actually prove their theory. I have looked through several creationist Web sites and have yet to find anyone trying to achieve or even suggest projects that would prove any of creationist tenets. I may be wrong about this, and so I'm willing to be enlightened. Can any creationist direct me to any source that presents this kind of positive scientific evidence of creationism?
Failing that could any creationist on this forum present that kind of evidence?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by sld, posted 01-23-2002 8:56 PM stonetool has replied
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 01-24-2002 1:31 AM stonetool has replied
 Message 27 by Brad McFall, posted 01-26-2002 2:20 PM stonetool has not replied
 Message 72 by Len Lisenbee, posted 11-25-2003 12:01 AM stonetool has not replied

sld
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 74 (2701)
01-23-2002 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by stonetool
01-23-2002 8:00 PM


Didn't you post this as Magus on AOL?
SLD a/k/a LcdrD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by stonetool, posted 01-23-2002 8:00 PM stonetool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by stonetool, posted 01-23-2002 9:33 PM sld has replied

stonetool
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 74 (2702)
01-23-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by sld
01-23-2002 8:56 PM


Nope. Who He/She?
Did any creationist respond?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by sld, posted 01-23-2002 8:56 PM sld has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by sld, posted 01-23-2002 11:10 PM stonetool has not replied

sld
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 74 (2703)
01-23-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by stonetool
01-23-2002 9:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by stonetool:
Nope. Who He/She?
Did any creationist respond?

No, he/she posted almost exactly the same question though a couple of months ago.
The most response was a rehash of Hovind's web site. Including the absurd claim that Paluxy River footprints were men's, and that a basking shark was a dead plesiosaur.
SLD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by stonetool, posted 01-23-2002 9:33 PM stonetool has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5988 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 74 (2704)
01-24-2002 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by stonetool
01-23-2002 8:00 PM


stonetool: Try this site for projects creationists could use to prove their theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by stonetool, posted 01-23-2002 8:00 PM stonetool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by stonetool, posted 01-25-2002 1:35 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 4:24 PM Quetzal has not replied

stonetool
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 74 (2751)
01-25-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Quetzal
01-24-2002 1:31 AM


Thanks, Quetzal. I've already been there and it was the inspiration for my post. He does a much better job than me at greater length.
Thinking up creationist research projects is a fun excercise, and the flood story provides inwspiration forfor anynumber of projectsuggestions.
Another off the top of my my head is how, for example, in the Flood,large animals like whales & elephants get sorted to the upper levels while tribolites get sorted to the bottom.Any highschool physics student could demonstrate that this could not consistiently happen, yet this is was the fossil record shows. Any creationist who could show how the flood achieved this would win a Nobel Prize and actually prove one aspect ofcreationism. Oddly, none of them are lining up to demonstrate this.
No creationist has ever written a book like " Creationism: The Fossils Say YES!" which demonstrates that all phyla of plants and animals appeared in the fossil record within the last 10,000 years.Why is that, I wonder?
Of course, no creationist has responded to my post, either. I guess, there just isn't any positive scienticfic evidence for young earth creationism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 01-24-2002 1:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 74 (2754)
01-25-2002 3:32 PM


I've tried providing evidence and evolutionists merely say that I have no theory so I CAN'T have evidence. I see no reason to post evidence here so that you can blatantly disregard anything I say and mumble something about a "straw man."
My thoughts on the matter are perfectly (and even humorously) explained on this quote from Wallace:
"The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite straw-man caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Don’t let this happen to you!)"

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 01-25-2002 3:52 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 74 (2755)
01-25-2002 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cobra_snake
01-25-2002 3:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I've tried providing evidence and evolutionists merely say that I have no theory so I CAN'T have evidence. I see no reason to post evidence here so that you can blatantly disregard anything I say and mumble something about a "straw man."

No, they don't, they ask for a testable hypothesis WITH confirming evidence. Evidence comes first, theory after.
So, produce the evidence.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-25-2002 3:32 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 74 (2757)
01-25-2002 4:12 PM


Before I would respond to any of these, many of the Flood depictions and associated variant arguments on the subject of refuting not the Global Flood but Noah and his boat I have adiquately refuted in the Flood Discussion by an unsuspecting 'oponnent' if I should use the word as I do not see fit that discussions should be one against the other but a discussion to bring about conslusive ideas using reason and logicality. Here is where you would turn for some of the refutations stonetool has used: in reply to keenanvin : http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=7 Post #100
Also, I know people will squock about the assumption of uniformitarian properties in the way things have happend throughout history and pre-history (need there be a pre-history). So it should be avoided unless there is reason to use it so.
I'm glad we can get something like this in here, as it seems it is needed from the so many rebutals to my posts emphesising that I have given '0' evidence for a Young earth, or a Global Flood. Though I would emphesize that anything that comes against it and is refuted itself is evidence for it, likewize the Old Earthers.
------------------

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 74 (2758)
01-25-2002 4:17 PM


Note that, to give a theory, it has to be logical for the reason we see things Geologically, astronomically, oceanographically, etc. A theory is not absolute and according to the OE's here, neither is a fact, thus we move into speculation, a speculation of feasability, is it feasible? What I have brought about in the Global Flood Discussio forum is a discussion on the feasability. If nothing is against it, then we move on to what is for it. As I do think my one flaw in these forums is moving all forward in this tactic and now I have many many numerous posts I must reply to, and in reply would continue this tactic of discussion as they are in some places continueing it themselves, and in other places urging me to provide the evidence.
------------------

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 74 (2759)
01-25-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Quetzal
01-24-2002 1:31 AM


"stonetool: Try this site for projects creationists could use to prove their theory."
--OMG, though I totally and utterly excuse this person (the author of the site) from the real world and should confine him to a padded room, pick out an aspect of this straw man material and we can move into a more intelligent discussion than the site provides...the rib...Define kinds...
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 01-24-2002 1:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 74 (2761)
01-25-2002 4:30 PM


squock?????

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 4:34 PM joz has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 74 (2763)
01-25-2002 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by joz
01-25-2002 4:30 PM


"squock?????"
--....probley the wrong word to use even if spelled right, but I think we can get the idea and procede
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by joz, posted 01-25-2002 4:30 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by stonetool, posted 01-25-2002 8:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

stonetool
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 74 (2785)
01-25-2002 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
01-25-2002 4:34 PM


Thanks for posting, truecreation. I have read your response in the flood thread, so we'll try to avoid going over the same ground. Lets start with my first question:
What is the positive scientific evidence that all plant and animal "kinds"(including humans) appeared on earth at the same time within the past 10,000 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 4:34 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AndrewJackson2908, posted 01-25-2002 9:56 PM stonetool has not replied
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 1:26 AM stonetool has replied

AndrewJackson2908
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 74 (2787)
01-25-2002 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by stonetool
01-25-2002 8:14 PM


The "scientific evidence" is in the historical evidence of the Old Testament. Every civilazation mentioned is dating 10,000 to 15,000 yrs. old. Now you may say the Old Testament is a story book. Well, is has stories but it has been proven to be correct through the DEAD SEE SCROLLS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by stonetool, posted 01-25-2002 8:14 PM stonetool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AndrewJackson2908, posted 01-25-2002 10:08 PM AndrewJackson2908 has not replied
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 1:28 AM AndrewJackson2908 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