And the purpose of your comment was, what?
ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.
- Thread starter noguru
- Start date
And the purpose of your comment was, what?
So rather than finding the evidence that would have been deemed fitting for the original question, you wasted hours of your life on your standpoint. Bravo! :jawdrop:
Sorry sir. I do not consider it a waste of time helping people to understand the nature of truth.
Whereas you on the other hand continue to spout lies:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1417967&postcount=41
You continuing to repeat the same lies over and over again shows you are the one wasting time.
Does "descent of all life from a single primitive ancestor" have experimental evidence?l
Critics have "shown" this many times of course, but their theories are eventually consistently discarded when archeological evidence is found that supports the Bible accounts. This was why I eventually began to entertain the possibility that Bible history was correct and critics were wrong. I now feel that Bible history is without peer among all historical documents (and many serious scholars agree with this assessment).
If you disagree start a thread on this subject. I am sure there are plenty of people on this forum who could defend Bible history much better than my paltry efforts, because my tendency is to concentrate on science. However even my feeble efforts in researching the Bible history subject have revealed the poverty of the arguments advanced by critics.
Experimental evidence as in "Eureka, I have made life and watched it evolve!!" Is that what you are looking for?
Obviously if it had any you would trumpet it loudly instead of advancing "the argument from ridicule".
You asked the question. What were you looking for? What experimental evidence?? Please enlighten me. thanks
Are you suggesting that all science needs to be experimental? That without reproducible experiments it is not "science"? If that is not your position, why bother to raise the issue?
Last edited:
That's funny. Bob asks you a question for experimental evidence...and your answer is "What experimental evidence??" EXACTLY!
What experimental evidence? There is none.
If you have any experimental evidence, present it and stop beating about the bush.
Otherwise shut up and let people who have something useful and interesting to say have the floor.
See my post #127.
That was my point earlier in the thread when people were griping at me. I claimed that truth can be found in ways other than by reproducible experiments and I was told unless it can be shown via the scientific method it is not true.
Doesn't quite answer my question. Why not just answer my question.
So let me get this straight. I claimed that truth can be found in ways other than what is in a science textbook.
I get blasted for making such a claim.
You make the same claim...and now you want me to answer the question whether or not truth can be found in places other than a science text or the scientific method?
Try again. I made no claims, I was asking a question based on a statement from bob b which seemed to imply that without actual experimental evidence "descent of all life from a single primitive ancestor" was somehow suspect. All I was trying to do was to clarify whether bob b's position was that for something to be "science" it had to be experimentally proven.
And if that is your best evidence for a young earth supernatural creation as called for in the title of this thread, too bad, pretty lousy evidence when compared to the rest of the evidence, much of which has been detailed by science.
I do not doubt that true things can be shown otherwise than through the scientific method. There is no need for example, nor any way to do it, to experiment with the existence of George Washington. He lived, he was our president, etc. But he probably never chopped down that cherry tree or threw a silver dollar across the Delaware. However, the Biblical account of creation is not inerrantly true. There is no evidence to support it, other than perhaps other creation myths, but they are all just myths.
Do you not see the contradiction here? You ask for the best evidence of a "super"natural creation but are only willing to accept natural explanations (that which can be used in a science classroom).
That has been one of my main points throughout this thread. The contradiction of excluding evidence. (i.e. proving George Washington was married but only using a physics book).
Well, since many people here believe in supernatural special creation just a few thousand years ago, then the request was valid.
Do you have any evidence, whatever, of a young earth, excluding the Bible as evidence?
SUTG
New member
Correct, so far.
What makes you think they ever had it on their own?
Correct.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Can you explain it another way?
Real Sorceror
New member
We are discussing two feilds here: science and history. The Bible is niether of these things until proven otherwise.
Yes, but I didn't learn anything there.
The question was asked for the best evidence for "super"natural creation. I provided evidence (historical) and it was rejected BECAUSE it was historical and not from a science book. Later it was then rejected not BECASUE it was historical but because it was from a historical source that people don't accept. I found this all silly and began asking a series of questions regarding how one determines what evidence they are willing to accept.
The responses have been pathetic. They can be summed up as follows:
Evil-lutionist: "I want evidence of a "super"natural creation."
Me: "Here is my evidence"
Evil-lutionist: "I don't accept your evidence because it isn't natural"
Me: "Why are historical accounts excluded and what type of evidence are you willing to accept"
Evil-lutionist: "Quit messing with my mind. You're confusing me. I want evidence...but only evidence that I am willing to accept. Historical evidence is no better than a comic book"
Me: "Prove to me George Washington was married but you can only use a physics book."
Evil-lutionist: "You can't do that. That's setting the rules for the game that exlcudes very important details."
Me: "But you are doing the same thing"
Evil-lutionist: "What are you talking about I am not excluding evidence. I am willing to accept all evidence excpet for some of the evidence"
Me: "You're silly"
bob b: "You guys are silly indeed"
Evil-lutionist: "You would say that bob...wouldn't you"
Apart from the Bible (which is THE BEST evidence) I would say the second best evidence is the research done by Robert Gentry and Polonium Halo's in Granite. Why didn't I just come out and say that from the beginning? Becuase they have already been discussed over and over again.
I read his book (Creation's Tiny Mystery) some time ago and found it interesting. I purchased his videos (Fingerprints of Creation and The Young Age of The Earth) and thought the material was well presented.
His work has been attacked from ALL sides including other young earth creationist (see http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/index.htm for his disagreements with) and has yet to be refuted and proven wrong.
The articles on his website are very informative, the information is compelling, and the evidence is in his favor.
So there ya go.
Best Evidence (The Bible) - See my first post in this thread
Second Best Evidence (Polonium Halos) - Robert Gentry
The responses have been pathetic. They can be summed up as follows:
Evil-lutionist: "I want evidence of a "super"natural creation."
Me: "Here is my evidence"
Evil-lutionist: "I don't accept your evidence because it isn't natural"
Me: "Why are historical accounts excluded and what type of evidence are you willing to accept"
Evil-lutionist: "Quit messing with my mind. You're confusing me. I want evidence...but only evidence that I am willing to accept. Historical evidence is no better than a comic book"
Me: "Prove to me George Washington was married but you can only use a physics book."
Evil-lutionist: "You can't do that. That's setting the rules for the game that exlcudes very important details."
Me: "But you are doing the same thing"
Evil-lutionist: "What are you talking about I am not excluding evidence. I am willing to accept all evidence excpet for some of the evidence"
Me: "You're silly"
bob b: "You guys are silly indeed"
Evil-lutionist: "You would say that bob...wouldn't you"
Apart from the Bible (which is THE BEST evidence) I would say the second best evidence is the research done by Robert Gentry and Polonium Halo's in Granite. Why didn't I just come out and say that from the beginning? Becuase they have already been discussed over and over again.
I read his book (Creation's Tiny Mystery) some time ago and found it interesting. I purchased his videos (Fingerprints of Creation and The Young Age of The Earth) and thought the material was well presented.
His work has been attacked from ALL sides including other young earth creationist (see http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/index.htm for his disagreements with) and has yet to be refuted and proven wrong.
The articles on his website are very informative, the information is compelling, and the evidence is in his favor.
So there ya go.
Best Evidence (The Bible) - See my first post in this thread
Second Best Evidence (Polonium Halos) - Robert Gentry
mighty_duck
New member
Interesting questions. But are you sure that these traits gave a survival advantage at the time they were selected away?
For example, humans don't have the ability to generate Vitamin C, even though some of our ancestors were able to do so. But if their diet was rich in foods containing Vitamin C, then a mutation that stopped production (or changed it) would not be detrimental.
Would a dominant carnivore who ate little or no cellulose become less likely to reproduce with a malfunctioning cellulose metabolism? probably not.
Also keep in mind that traits evolve in parallel. A neutral change like a slightly less protruding brow could have evolved along with a beneficial change like a bigger brain. Females may connect the smaller brow with the bigger brains and prefer such partners, which would give the smaller brow a selection advantage.