I'm curious, can I have proof of creationism?

[Sandform]

I think a lot of creationists hate evolution because they cant cope with the fact that we are a mistake. If the meteor didn't kill the dinosaurs there would be a race of super intelligent dinosaurs controlling the world. And that because of a mutation (probably opposable thumbs) a section of apes could survive better and they reproduced more and then more mutations (that were completely random) like bigger brains and less hair, allowed those apes to be smarter and they bot bigger and bigger, until. Poof: here we are. then there are mutations like an ape being born with deformed third arm, or a bulging mass sticking out of its head. that would put that ape at a disadvantage. that ape wouldn't be able to survive in the wild and it wouldn't reproduce and so its traits can't be passed on. If Sand form or someone else could just tell me, "do i have the gist of it?" Evolution isn't solely based on mutation, but that is a big part of it. The physical portion of evolution I think you semi understand. The social aspect was covered by xaqaria a little bit, but not entirely. I'm not entirely sure if all evolution is random...I believe adaptation is also used. Basic example of evolution is the whole butter fly thing. White vs. black butterflies. White ones used to be uber, but then after companies came in with soot making tree leaves turn black, black butter flies started to live more, and white ones died, until black butterflies became the dominant type of butterflies. In the past it was reversed. You seem to have darwin theory down...that the strongest survive, and the weak die. Superintelligent dinosaurs... Wow! It possibly could have happened. That is the trippiest idea I have come across in a while. That was actually on an episode of star trek... Although whether or not it could have happened, I wouldn't know. I don't know how much of a difference a mammals brain has than an amphibian or reptile... I just wonder how animals continue to reproduce, when EWWW they all look so nasty! =P

[Soul_Sleeper]

Thanks guys for helping me understand evolution fully. When I say "Mistake" I am mearly stating the fact that mutations in nature are random, but animals evolving from the help of useful mutations is not. And I think a lot of people dont like the idea that human creation was because of random mutations.

[jaasum]

It's the same thing as Christians not liking it when they found out the earth wasn't the center of the universe, that the sun was. Or when they found out the universe had a beginning. Or when they found out the universe was ever expanding. Eventually they will prove that humans came from a certain type of ape. They will find the "missing link" and then the church will be forced to re-consider it's views. The same would be if they found life on another planet or moon such as Europa.

[Replicon]

It's the same thing as Christians not liking it when they found out the earth wasn't the center of the universe, that the sun was. We sure have come a long way since this .

[Soul_Sleeper]

[QUOTE=jaasum;531026]It's the same thing as Christians not liking it when they found out the earth wasn't the center of the universe, that the sun was. [QUOTE] I understand what your saying but... The sun isn't the center of the universe. Not even close.

[Xaqaria]

I understand what your saying but... The sun isn't the center of the universe. Not even close. Actually, as far as can be calculated; everywhere is the center of the universe; although I know thats not what you were getting at.

[Lucid_boy]

How can you possibly find proof of the infinite in a finite world? For somthing that moves, acts, and spans across an unending number of dimensions. That would be like the two dimensional flat worlders looking for proof and evidence of the third dimension in a two dimensional world. It's impossible. Just because those flat worlders can't find proof of our third dimension dosen't mean it dosen't exsist. In a world were flatworlders exsisted We would know that our third dimension exsist even though they couldn't prove it just as we know god exsists but can't prove it.

[Sornaensis]

Evolution does have holes, all theories do. A theory is a scientific idea that is subject to the scientific method. If data comes along that disputes it, then it is revised or thrown out all together. That doesn't mean immediately, it maybe a hundred years before someone revises evolution to make it fit. Evolution evolves. Even something as concrete as gravity (Most christians believe in gravity now,) has flaws in the theory. Newton's gravity couldn't explain the movement of Mercury, but was still accepted as correct until Einstein gave us relativity. Newton wasn't wrong, he was just incomplete, but even Einstein's gravity model is incomplete (no one knows why galaxies rotate at constant velocity.) You clearly misunderstand a scientific theory. The definition of one is "A well tested hypothesis that can be demonstated".

[Sornaensis]

Actually, as far as can be calculated; everywhere is the center of the universe; although I know thats not what you were getting at. He's... Kinda right... And wrong. Mathematically and Physically speaking he is wrong, wrongwrongwrong. But since we have yet to find a "center" then yea, anywhere could be it.

[M-Cat]

Um, you are wrong, ninja. There are no holes in evolution. There are no 'flaws' in evolution. If you have indeed found a flaw, I recommend publishing it in a credible scientific journal -- son, you have just made a breakthrough. One thing I have learned is that any 'flaw' or 'hole' a christian finds in evolution is simply a gap in their UNDERSTANDING of evolution, not a flaw in the theory itself. And you are certainly, like many others, misunderstanding the scientific meaning of the word theory. In science, it's much more concrete than in modern vernacular. In a scientific context, it's a well-tested, well-researched thing which can predict future outcomes (more or less). Someone once said that evolution has more independent strings of evidence than gravity. Everything ties together. There aren't flaws. If there are, then I'm sorry and I'd like you to show them to me. However, remember that most flaws are simply one's lack of knowledge in the theory of evolution. What a beautiful post. It moved me to tears. There is still some hope in humanity; ignorance has not taken over yet. Oh yeah, and to answer the question, there is no proof of creationism.

[Sornaensis]

What a beautiful post. It moved me to tears. There is still some hope in humanity; ignorance has not taken over yet. Oh yeah, and to answer the question, there is no proof of creationism. Brilliant. Short, sweet, and to the point!

[Xaqaria]

He's... Kinda right... And wrong. Mathematically and Physically speaking he is wrong, wrongwrongwrong. But since we have yet to find a "center" then yea, anywhere could be it. I'm not as wrong as you seem to think. See, The universe is expanding. The tricky part is, the very fabric of space/time is the part that is expanding and so everything is moving away from each other in all directions. What this means is, whatever point you gather the data to calculate the size of the universe from is the point that everything is moving away from, making it the center. If you calculate the expansion of the universe from the Earth, the Earth is the center. A little more on topic; the only form of creationism that Evolution refutes is the "young Earth Creationism" theory. Creationism in general and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[Moonbeam]

Creationism in general and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Except that you don't need creationism to explain anything.

[Xaqaria]

Except that you don't need creationism to explain anything. ...Unless it is the truth, of course. Since when does perceived necessity dictate reality? Unless of course, you adhere to a subjective world view in which our needs and desires define our reality; in which case that statement would be wrong for a lot of people. Either way; evolution still doesn't disprove creationism.

[Sornaensis]

...Unless it is the truth, of course. Since when does perceived necessity dictate reality? Unless of course, you adhere to a subjective world view in which our needs and desires define our reality; in which case that statement would be wrong for a lot of people. Either way; evolution still doesn't disprove creationism. I see the term "creationsim" is getting a little hazy here. What exactly do you mean by "creationism", because in the usual sense, it means god created everything there is today. Now, with evolution, that can't possibly be true. Explain.

[Moonbeam]

...Unless it is the truth, of course. Since when does perceived necessity dictate reality? Unless of course, you adhere to a subjective world view in which our needs and desires define our reality; in which case that statement would be wrong for a lot of people. Either way; evolution still doesn't disprove creationism. Nothing proves creationism, or even supports it. It's not necessary. A figment of your imagination. Something to make you sleep better at night.

[Xaqaria]

Nothing proves creationism, or even supports it. It's not necessary. A figment of your imagination. Something to make you sleep better at night. I disagree. I sleep no differently with or without it. Also, I think it is your perspective that makes it seem as though nothing supports it. Personally, I see creation as self evident. Everything creates. I am a creator. All life on this planet was created by the sun, and so therefore creationism is definitely true. This is why I stress to the point of redundancy that it is only Young Earth Creationism that atheists really have a problem with. They think they disagree with all creationism theories only because they don't know any better.

[Xaqaria]

I see the term "creationsim" is getting a little hazy here. What exactly do you mean by "creationism", because in the usual sense, it means god created everything there is today. Now, with evolution, that can't possibly be true. Explain. God created everything there is today. If Evolution exists today, then god created it. I feel as though I now have to point out that I am not a Christian and do not believe in an anthropomorphic personal God. It is my belief that God is the human representation of all the universe. Everything is a part of god that has been delegated to certain categories through divine creation. You create blood cells in a similar fashion, which is also an act of God's creation; since you are a part of god, and so are your blood cells. The laws of thermodynamics say that everything naturally breaks down and eventually should become a homogeneous soup with no difference at any point. We can see easily that this is not the case. Entropy is natural; creation is a force. This is the creationism that I believe in.

[Moonbeam]

I think it is your perspective that makes it seem as though nothing supports it. No, it's the complete lack of proof, not my perspective. Personally, I see creation as self evident. "Personally" is the key word. All life on this planet was created by the sun, and so therefore creationism is definitely true. Actually, this is not entirely true. There are whole ecosystems which have evolved around hot-spots in the bottom of the ocean, which never see any sun-light at all, and which do not depend on photosynthesis as the basic converter of light into energy. Life without the sun; amazing, isn't it? This is why I stress to the point of redundancy that it is only Young Earth Creationism that atheists really have a problem with. They think they disagree with all creationism theories only because they don't know any better. And you do? I don't just have a problem with "Young-earth creationists", those are easy. It goes right thru that to intelligent design and whatever mumbo-jumbo it is that you believe in.

[Sornaensis]

God created everything there is today. If Evolution exists today, then god created it. But evolution itself creates new things. So... Evolution is a demi-god . On a more serious note: Congratulations. You have re-creaated religion. You have made statements and set up counter-argument blocks that make it difficult to disprove you I'd say i agree with half of what you are saying.

[Xaqaria]

Actually, this is not entirely true. There are whole ecosystems which have evolved around hot-spots in the bottom of the ocean, which never see any sun-light at all, and which do not depend on photosynthesis as the basic converter of light into energy. Life without the sun; amazing, isn't it? Except for the fact that the Earth would be a cold dead rock floating through space or perhaps even a formless dust cloud without the sun. The sun works in mysterious ways.

[Mystic7]

Intelligent Design because banana. Monkey see monkey do.

[Mystic7]

human creation was because of random mutations. That was lucky wasn't it.

[ClouD]

That was lucky wasn't it. Lawl.

[Sornaensis]

That was lucky wasn't it. Yes, it was. So cherish your short existence.