Excellent proof of creation

1) these are old arguments, and incorrectly applied math and statistics.

2) even if they were true, their fasification would not automatically mean creation is true.

3) nothing can be proven 100%. The best you can do is make something very probable.

For some facts on evolution:

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

Creationism always tries to attack evolution, when ironically evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or life. If you're going to promote creationism, at least attack an opposing theory, such as the big bang or other cosmology.
 
I admittedly read just the first page, and it being what it was, made the assumption that the rest was likewise the usual creationism.

Page four seems to be the argument that the universe is just so, therefore it must have been created, and not random chance. This is one of the current intelligent design arguments, and my favorite analogy is the one of, the pan must have been made to fit the cake.

We can't be sure how certain constants (if indeed they are constant) chanaged would affect the universe and possible life. I'm sure there's stronger arguments out there, but again, this doesn't default to "well, there must be a god then".

Tell you what...when I get time, I'll look through the rest. So far in skimming, I don't see anything that hasn't been refutted in the past before. Maybe I can find something new...
 
Young earth creationists

This website you quote from also states that the "days" referred to in Genesis absolutely, positively HAVE to be a 24 hour day. No proof is given other than the same old worn out arguement that the translation of the Hebrew word for day, yowm, used in the plural ALWAYS means a 24 hour solar day.

Why don't you ask those knuckleheads how you can prove this scientifically. According to their own scientific textbook of Genesis, they have three 24 hour solar days without any sun? The sun was created on the 4th day correct?

It is detrimental to both science and religion when these people try to brainwash you into believing they have ALL the answers to the question of origins based on the "science" in Genesis.

Allen Harvey, a self described evolutionary-creationist, said once:
It is the function of science to answer questions of "how" things in nature happen, but science is inherently incapable of answering the deeper questions of purpose and meaning. Similarly, the Bible tells us the "who" and the "why" with respect to creation and many other things, but it is generally silent on the "how." We get into trouble when we approach either the Bible or nature with inappropriate questions. The Bible answers many important questions about God's character, how we need to orient our lives, etc. But we misuse the Scripture if we come to it with questions it was not meant to answer, whether it be the scientific details of creation or who will win the World Series next year.
Click to expand...

Ask your Pastor if your salvation hinges on a belief in a 6,000 year old universe. If he answers yes, run, run away as fast as you can.
 
Bridge,

There is more evidence for the 24 hour time span on the following pages... (i.e. Page 6 under "Designs in creation")




Thank you for your post.

-Bullfrog
 
Last edited:
On the fig wasp and fig tree interdependancy, this is nothing new in evolution. Many animals and plants have developed symbiotic relationships as they evolved. If anything, it demonstrates how some adaptations can both benefit and dead end a species, since the elimination of the dependant could cause a likewise extinction for them.

I've noticed a lot of the arguments use the firmament's existence to back them up, but I must have missed the evidence for it existing in the first place.
 
Dear Bullfrog

I don't want to read anymore of that material. What I'd rather know is how YOU feel about the issues. How do you think the first three creation days could be proven as being 24 hours in duration? What is your take on Genesis being used as a "proof"? When it says :

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Click to expand...


Do you have this mental image of God as an old man with a white beard making people out of mud like it was play-doh? Do you think this a good method of bringing people to a better understanding of how things may have happened? What about day 7 Bullfrog? Isn't it true day 7 is ongoing? Is God not resting from creating?

If the only answers you can provide are from websites like that than you are not using your God-given mind they way it was intended to be used.
 
The biblical creation story is not unique to christianity, it is based on earlier myths from different cultures. It is just another living religion that will someday turn into a myth as humans will find something else to worship.

The flood story: has been done before
God, the son, the holy spirit: has been done before
Resurrection: has been done before

Tower of Babel is a hard story to believe. They worshipped god so they built a tower to reach the heavens. God made them speak different languages and spread them across the earth. However, in such a short amount of time, how did they "evolve" into the different ethnicities we see today? Why did each group of people develop their own faith of a different god(s) if they had prior knowledge of the almighty, for which they built the tower for in the first place?

I would like to see Christians argue that their religion is the true religion over others rather than over science.
 
I guess it was about time we had another creationist thread. All the arguments look pretty much the same.

…the effect of all the marshaled units of the universe all designed for some reason with man in mind.105/154-171 This is called the Anthropic principle.
Click to expand...
But using this reasoning we should conclude that since Cockroaches have lasted for a significantly longer time than humans then it would appear that the universe was designed specifically with Cockroaches in mind and that humans are just a late addition. Perhaps if Cockroaches could write they might express their opinion that they were made in God's image.

Try this - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
 
Why cockroaches had not evolved like other species.. is it because they are better equipped for survival..or any other reason..!
 
I wish ....

Perhaps if Cockroaches could write they might express their opinion that they were made in God's image.
Click to expand...
I wish I had with me my copy of Brian Lumley's The Transition of Titus Crow. Beyond that, I can't necessarily explain.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Same with sharks...they haven't changed much in the millions of years they've been around.

One thing about roaches...if we exterminate ourselves, they'll be around afterwards. If we make it to the stars, chances are they'll come with us.
 
Of course the far less arrogant assumption is that the universe seems so perfect for humans not because it was designed for humans but because humans are a result of the universe.

Isn't it interesting that man has only existed for 0.005% of the lifetime of the earth? I wonder why an intelligent designer would wait some 4 billion years after the earth was started to create humans, which were supposedly the reason for creating the earth. Doesn't these facts seem more consistent with evolution than an ID?
 
One last comment on the site in question. The citations for chapter 8 and 9 don't exist, which is a shame, because I really want to know what source claimed that the Earth was 60% smaller in size a few 100 million years ago. I love how non-existant problems are invented in evolution, and then used against evolution with non-existant facts from other sciences. Spin away...
 
Where'd he go? I was ready for another battle.

Bullfrog, prove to me how the days in the Genesis HAVE to be 24 hour days. What is the definition of a day? 24 hours? I think not. A day is one complete revolution of the earth (or the planet in question).

Bullfrog, prove to me how there is ANY physical evidence of creationism. Is there any reproduceable evidence or has it been physically observed & verified? If not, you can still claim as it being "true", but it will drop out of the "science" category and be re-categorized into "religious text".
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by platzapS
Bullfrog, you better be careful supporting creation at a science forum:D
Click to expand...

If you take the time to look at threads here, Bull, you'll notice that ALL creationists have been successfully shot down and beaten down w/ arguments. All of them. Even the hard core ones.
 
re: Creator waiting 4 billion years

ummm....

most creationists or IDers believe God is outside of time. So I don't think the universe's age of 14 billion years is that much of an issue....except to the wooden literalists who insist on following Bishop Ussher's chronology. Not all creationists fall under that category, unfortunately they seemingly have to take the heat for that small group of knuckleheads represented by an even smaller group of knuckleheaded pseudo-scientists.

Either way you look at it, whether you're a hardcore neo-Darwinist or a Bible-thumper, life is pretty friggin amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top