Proof of Creationism

[aquatus1]

Hi Kitty Lover, welcome to the forum!

The purpose of this thread is to show exactly the amount of work that it takes to propose a scientifically valid theory. This is why you have seen me posting over and over again exactly what it is that I am looking for. A person who is unfamiliar with scientific methodology has little problem with simply shrugging off the combined efforts of thousands of dedicated scientist who have spent millions of man-hours in laboratories and in front of review boards defending their work. It seems a little unfair, to say the least, to take the exhausting amount of work they have done and simply toss it in the wastebasket with a simple "Yeah, but evolution has no proof and creationism does". At the very least, don't you think, there should be an attempt made to meet the very definitions of a scientific theory, prior to declaring that one indeed has a scientific theory of creationism.

So again, if you wish to defend scientific creationism, please post a definition, a theory backing up that definition, and evidence supporting that theory. Telling us, "it's true, and if you want proof, look for it." misses the entire purpose of the thread. In science, the person making the extraordinary claims is the one responsible for providing proof for it. The claim has been made, frequently, that scientific evidence exists for creationism. We Evo's have looked into it and found it wanting. So this thread is a direct challenge, an open field with no place to hide. If you have evidence supporting creationism, then by all means bring it. If you believe it, good for you, but that isn't the purpose of this thread.

Once more, please post a definition of creationism, a theory backing up that definition, and evidence supporting the theory.

[Stellar]

And if you want proof for my theory, then you should visit google, then type in evidence against evolution. It will say 17 evidences agaist evolution. Visit that site. You may find it very interesting. Hey, you might even come to realize that evolution has no facts that can compare with this site.

Umm, this thread isnt about disproving evolution, its about proving creationism. Even if you managed to disprove evolution (which, if you wanna try me, you can create a thread for it), it would not prove your "theory", hence, you've still got no case.

[Potholer]

Umm, this thread isnt about disproving evolution, its about proving creationism. Even if you managed to disprove evolution (which, if you wanna try me, you can create a thread for it), it would not prove your "theory", hence, you've still got no case.

480492[/snapback]

Yes, thanks Stellar, I think aquatus1 has that under control

I read an article the other day in New Scientist. Something about how modern physics supports the existence of God. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) I forgot about this thread and it's relevance and told my mum she could take it back to work. I tried finding the article on the New Scientist site but I couldn't and it will be a month or 3 before we can get our hands on the issue again as it is in circulation around her work place.

otherwise, my friend told me about a book she has called "A case for creationism" from which I hope I can get some material. Despite not believing in Creationism (I'm agnostic) I'd still like a go at providing proof for it.

I'll attempt to do a full post with a definition, theory and supporting evidence when I have the book.

Potholer

[Venomshocker]

aquatus1 didnt we beat this subject to death before?

As far as Im concerned creationism still meets the criteria for a scientific theory.

For all those who havent seen our great discussion before, here it is.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...pic=15429&st=30

[aquatus1]

Yes, it was beaten to the point of almost providing evidence for reincarnation, however your memory seems a bit faulty. If you will recall, or re-read the thread, you will see that you continued arguing over and over again that evolution wasn't valid, even after we had, for the sake of the argument (exactly as we are doing here) that evolution did not exist. You were continously asked for evidence supporting creationism, and you evaded the question so many time that I finally offered you, quite clearly, the option of showing evolution to meet the criteria for science on the condition that you accept that Creationism did not, which you did (you can find this on page eight of that thread). We continued on that note, till we finally ended with my refuting everyone of your attempts to falsify evolution, till I struck the final blow by pointing out a logical fallacy in your very own argument concerning the genetic compatibility of horses and donkeys. You gracefully exited with the promise that you would consider the data. I sincerly hope that you did, but make absolutely no mistake about it, at no point in the entire thread did you manage to come even close to supporting creationism. Your entire argument, all ten pages of it, consisted of absolutely nothing other than refuting evolution.

This thread has nothing to do with that. Evolution is not in existance, as far as this thread is concerned. If you feel that you can support creationism as a scientific theory, and that means that must meet the exact same pre-requisites that every single other scientific theory, at a minimum, must meet, then, by all means, post a definition of creationism, a theory concerning that definition, and evidence backing up your theory.

[aquatus1]

I'll attempt to do a full post with a definition, theory and supporting evidence when I have the book.

Potholer

480842[/snapback]

I look forward to it, although I wouldn't recommend A Case for Creationism. It just rehashes all the old arguments.

[Venomshocker]

If you feel that you can support creationism as a scientific theory, and that means that must meet the exact same pre-requisites that every single other scientific theory, at a minimum, must meet, then, by all means, post a definition of creationism, a theory concerning that definition, and evidence backing up your theory.

I stated quite clearly how creationism meets the criteria for a scientific theory,defined it well, and then I procceeded to provide evidence for creation, by showing how spontaneous the fossil record was. If you havent noticed this answers exactly what you asked for. It might not satisfy you personally, but what more do you want?

Would you like me to recite these posts, emitting all refrences to evolution?

[aquatus1]

By all means, re-post away, however remember that when you tried to meet the criteria, you made the same mistake people here made, which is failing to apply the five pre-requisites to a single theory. Instead, you went all over the place, answering each of the five with a different subject. You even made the mistake of using your hypothesis as your explanation, which obviously doesn't work (the explanation has to explain the hypothesis, not repeat it). So, yes, if you feel that you can provide a definition of creationism, a theory (one at a time) backing up that definition, and evidence supporting that theory, we can finally get started on the peer review portion of this argument.

[Venomshocker]

You must understand I am what is called an Old earth creationist meaning I believe in the Big Bang and that the universe is billions of years old, and therefore the earth also. The different animal species were created over a long period of time, millions of years in fact. As the fossil record shows. It is my belief a Creator created species, let them die out, then created more species, let them die out.

The 5 criteria

1)The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

Creationism explains current existing data by claiming that each species was created individually, on its own on purpose.

2)The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

Creationism predicts future data, based on current data by saying that no new species will form from current existing species unless something with higher intellect decides to create a new species on purpose.

3)The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

By looking at the fossil record, one might conclude that the fossil record is vast and spontaneous, and that things were spontaneously created because of this. More on this in the evidence section.

4)The theory must be falsifiable.

Based on possible future evidence and observations if we were to observe species mutating and forming new species or through the some transformational method used by Schmoo , then Creationism would be false. Likewise if we were to observe that species did not mutate, or transform by Schmoo into a new species we could reach the conclusion that speciation does not occur and that life forms were created on purpose.

5)The explanation offered must be a verifiable event.

If, a creator decided to create a brand new species that could be a verifiable event, because we would be around to see it and be able to verify it experimentally.

Evidence

Fossil Record

The fossil record is vast and interesting. New species are being discovered in the fossil record all the time. A researcher examining the same fossil record might come to the conclusion, that each species is different from the next, and that they appear in the fossil record independent of one another. It is my personal belief the fossil record actually shows evidence of creation. What are commonly believed to be transitional fossils, can in there own right be independent fossils. The fossil record does not show, small animals becoming bigger animals, or less intelligent species becoming more intelligent, the fossil record is punctuated with all sizes of fossils, and conceivebly intelligent species at irregular intervals. Planet earth has been a fairly hostile planet, with extinctions, comets hitting, and ice ages. When examming the fossil record, there are fully formed fossils that appear right after these major catastrophes. Also there are fossils of new species in the fossil record consitently up until the appearance of man. Man seems to be the last new species, which is interesting to note.

I believe in something called Progressive Creationism, and Intelligent Design. I believe that a COSMIC creator created the universe with the Big Bang. Something out of nothing so to speak. The creator started creating animals here on planet earth and or possibly elsewhere. I believe the creator took his time creating animals, and basically had fun, taking millions of years, letting some die out, and then creating new ones, and then letting those die out until he potentially finished with the creation of man. I believe that the creator used genes as the blueprint design and created different life based on that. I believe a creator created animals similar to us, so we could relate to them, and learn from them. And I mean learn from them from an anatomical/genetic perspective. And besides its economic.

I would also like to point out that the act of creation does not solely have to be A God in the traditional religous sense. Human beings are excellent at creating.It can be said we were created to create. And with genetic technology it may be feasible to one day create a new species!!!! This would provide evidence if not proof for the 'act of creation' of human beings and potentially other life forms. Because mayby we were created in a similar fashion.

There it is. It meets the 5 criteria for a scientific theory, I have provided evidence, and also expanded on the theory, and how it possibly could have occured. Its really quite simple.

Edited February 9, 2005 by Venomshocker

[aquatus1]

Really, now, c'mon. I posted exactly what I was looking for, and exactly the mistakes you made previously, and you go ahead and do it all over again.

There is a specific reason that I have, several dozen times on this thread alone, specified "a definition of creationism, a theory (one at a time) backing up that definition, and evidence supporting that theory." By not following this very basic outline, you fall into the very pitfalls that science was created to avoid.

Let us start with a definition. Yours, while a little vague, is nonetheless sufficient for what we plan to do. I would like to see it a little neater, but that is neither here nor there.

Definition:

You must understand I am what is called an Old earth creationist meaning I believe in the Big Bang and that the universe is billions of years old, and therefore the earth also. The different animal species were created over a long period of time, millions of years in fact.

So, where is your theory, or more appropriately, your hypothesis? Where is the formal explanation that you are offering as support of this definition? I can only assume it is this, and as a hypothesis goes, it is entirely too vague to be of any use.

As the fossil record shows. It is my belief a Creator created species, let them die out, then created more species, let them die out.

What is your hypothesis? That the fossil record shows evidence of a creator creating species, letting them die out, and creating brand new ones? What is this evidence of? What facts are we deriving from that that would lead to support the definition that you gave? Either this is a hypothesis, in which case you must explain how it will support your definition, or it is evidence, in which case you must define what it is evidence of, i.e. post a hypothesis. It cannot be both.

1)The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

Creationism explains current existing data by claiming that each species was created individually, on its own on purpose.

I pointed out this exact sentence to you as an example of using a hypothesis as an explanation. This is one of the pitfalls that you fell into when you avoided following the format given. You cannot define creationism (and, in fact, you didn't; your definition has nothing to do with what you have posited here) as a spontaneous generation of all species, and then explain it by saying that it is a spontaneous creation of all species. You cannot use your hypothesis as an explanation.

Either define more clearly your definition of creationism, or present a clear hypothesis, or explain what is the evidence you are offering. The only thing that you have done here is post the requirement and say "Well, I have to explain currently existing data, so I shall do so by saying that I can explain all currently existing data". Maybe this works in politics, but not in science.

2)The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

Creationism predicts future data, based on current data by saying that no new species will form from current existing species unless something with higher intellect decides to create a new species on purpose.

Now you're talking! This, assuming our assumptions on your definition and hypothesis are correct, would meet this criteria perfectly. Assuming, of course, you can back it up, but that is for later.

3)The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

By looking at the fossil record, one might conclude that the fossil record is vast and spontaneous, and that things were spontaneously created because of this. More on this in the evidence section.

Not quite, no. What this is referring to is not the evidence that you present, but the logical path from the evidence to your conclusion. You will need to tweak this a little, but you are on the right path. Define more clearly what leads us from the fossil record to your hypothesis, to your definition. Show how the fossil record is vast and spontaneous (remember, in science, no one is going to take anyone's word on it), and how this is evidence supporting your hypothesis, which backs up your idea.

4)The theory must be falsifiable.

Based on possible future evidence and observations if we were to observe species mutating and forming new species or through the some transformational method used by Schmoo happy.gif , then Creationism would be false. Likewise if we were to observe that species did not mutate, or transform by Schmoo into a new species we could reach the conclusion that speciation does not occur and that life forms were created on purpose.

The first part is right on, although you blaspheme against the Great Schmoo. The second part is neither falsification, therefore is irrelevant, nor is it logically valid, since the conclusion relies on an event which could conceivable happen in the infinity of time, and will therefore always remain open. After all, you cannot confirm something using an event that hasn't occurred yet for the simple reason that it has not yet occurred, and therefore you do not know if it ever will.

5)The explanation offered must be a verifiable event.

If, a creator decided to create a brand new species that could be a verifiable event, because we would be around to see it and be able to verify it experimentally.

It doesn't have to be limited to a creator. Anyone or anything, human, god, or computer, who can replicate the exact manner in which you theorize that something happened, counts as a verification. Provided, of course, that it meet validity requirements.

You are off to a great start, better than many of the others have posted, but you aren't quite there yet. This is what makes science so difficult; the requirements pretty force you into looking at things objectively and logically, and there are simply some ideas that cannot survive that sort of scrutiny. Nonetheless, you have something here that you can work with. For this to work, what you need to do is the following:

Definition: Be absolutely clear and exact. Do not try to encompass everything and anything that creationism would be, but just enough so that we understand where you are coming from and what the relevance of the theory and the evidence will be. Remember, this definition is only for the purpose of this theory, not as the ultimate definition of creationism. As an example (example!0, I could define evolution as the "survival of the fittest", followed by an explanation of what I am referring to. This is by no means a complete definition of all that is evolution, but if my theory and evidence concerns how strong creatures reproduce more than weak creatures, it is sufficient. If I were to attempt a different argument, say the mutational rate of the genome, I would have to use a different definition.

Hypothesis/Theory: This must be absolutely clear. Think mathematics, or logic. If A is true, and B is true, then A + B must be true. Whatever your definition of creationism is, the hypothesis must support it. Again, as only an example, if my definition of evolution is "Survival of the Fittest", my theory could be: X species with a genetic advantage should prove more capable of having surviving offspring reach the age of reproduction than Y species without it". This theory would show how a species that is not as fit as another would survive longer, thus backing up my definition.

Evidence: I'll be honest and say that I didn't read the evidence section. The simple reason for this is because there were so many errors already present that it would have been pointless. There was no hypothesis or definition which I could, with no doubt, apply it to. Evidence is extremely specific and concerns a very exclusive range of data. The evidence must be relevant to the hypothesis. The logical path from the evidence must lead completely objectively towards the result, so objectively that it requires absolutely no faith or previous bias on the part of any person who reads this data. To finish my example, defining evolution as survival of the fittest, and providing the theory of species X having a genetic advantage over species Y, my evidence would be along the lines of "This study, done by Professor X of X University (source/link), shows how the genetic mutation in one species (say, fluffier hair) provides a quality not possessed by the other species. This quality gives such an such advantage to the animal (surviving cold), which is reflected throughout the increased probability of survival of the offspring (compared to the lower probability of the other species). It goes without saying, I hope, that the species would have to be similar enough for the comparison to be valid.

I hope you re-work this, as I think you stand poised to learn a great deal about proper scientific methodology.

[kitty lover]

OK. But what do you base it on?

480378[/snapback]

I have to admitt that I am a Christian and I will base my beliefs on what I think is found in God's word. But I will also base my beliefs on the scientific evidence that prooves against evolution. Maybe there is no proof or hard evidence that prooves evolution or creation is wrong, and they are both theories, but I am still going to stick with the fact that I was at least created.

God created creationists, and from there evolutionist evolved.

P.S. I will not always base my beliefs on the Bible, but I will base my beliefs on something that actually makes sense. And if you don't know what I am talking about, I am talking about CREATION.

[kitty lover]

Sure the Bible has some (what evolutionist call) "theories" of how life came to be, but there sort of is proof against evolution.

By chance what version do you use?

NIV

SCIENTIFIC evidence/proof.

The same science that has evolution theory?

What other science would I use?

PS. welcome to this forum Kitty. This your first time

480367[/snapback]

yes this is my first time.

[aquatus1]

I have to admitt that I am a Christian and I will base my beliefs on what I think is found in God's word. But I will also base my beliefs on the scientific evidence that prooves against evolution. Maybe there is no proof or hard evidence that prooves evolution or creation is wrong, and they are both theories, but I am still going to stick with the fact that I was at least created.

God created creationists, and from there evolutionist evolved.

P.S. I will not always base my beliefs on the Bible, but I will base my beliefs on something that actually makes sense. And if you don't know what I am talking about, I am talking about CREATION.

481412[/snapback]

Well, that is sort of the entire purpose of this thread: to show that Creationism is not a scientific theory, in the way that Evolution is. If you wish to see how Evolution meets all the required criteria of scientific methodology, I invite you to visit the Scientific Methodology thread, which Venom gave a link to a few posts ago.

Common sense isn't a very powerful force in science. There are too many things that make sense, but simply aren't so. The sun moving around the Earth makes sense. The Earth being flat makes sense. Neither, however, are correct, despite the majority of the Earth's population holding the former opinion to be correct.

As far as proving things wrong, that is not what science does. There is no such thing as a theory that states that something does not exist. There are competing theories which answer more questions and fit the situation better, and there are other theories that may explain the phenomena in an entirely different manner, but, when it all comes down to it, a scientific theory is the ultimate best guess. It is an explanation that has been so throughly examined and probed, so completely worked over, that any glaring omissions or errors are readily visible and await further data. A scientific theory is a formal explanation that has followed extremely rigorous guidelines in its creation, has submitted itself to peer review, and has been disseminated to the scientific community through the official publications for the purpose of general knowledge. In other words, a scientific theory is a working equation, it is something used by scientist throughout the world, and if it does not work, one of those hundreds of thousands, more likely more, will inevitably find the mistake, at which time it will either be corrected, or if it is fatal enough, it will concede its place to a theory which takes into account the error.

You miss the point if you simply accept science on faith. Deciding that science which supports creationism is good and science which does not is bad is not understanding how science works. If you understand why certain points of data seem to support creationism, and others seem to defy evolution, then you might be more credible. I suspect, however, that this is your first encounter with formal scientific methodology. Would I be correct in that?

[Venomshocker]

Ok aquatus1, I agree my theory was to vague and encompassed to many variables. Lets keep this simple.

My proposed hypothesis is:

For the creation of a brand new biological species(single or multiple), by a intelligent enitity/entities who created the new species (single or multiple) on purpose.

This is what ill be refering to when i refer to creationism.

*Note* The intelligent enity/entities could be humans, intelligent extraterestrials or even a God/Gods be they of our dimensions or others. Who are what these beings are and their nature is moot. The point is we have something intelligent 'creating' a new species, that to our knowldege has never existed before. And we are interested in if this creation process is possible, testable, and verifyable.

Is this acceptable to you aquatus1?

Edited February 10, 2005 by Venomshocker

[DarkSinister]

Aquatus, by the way this is going, I believe you won't get anyone to provide the necessary evidence of the creationist science theory that'll fit the five criterias of the scientific theory. After reading 15 pages of nonsense, i have concluded that creationist should go do some reading on the scientific theory and what it is before submitting illogical "facts" to define creationism as a theory. If you want creationism to be considered as a "theory" then it must fit under the guidelines that every other theory has undergone and has been deemed valid. So please, refute your theory in the manner that aquatus has propose because it causes irrelevant readings for the onlookers as myself, thank you.

I'm refraining to post anything disputing creationism; i would like to see anything you can provide so we'll have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

Edited February 10, 2005 by DarkSinister

[aquatus1]

My proposed hypothesis is:

For the creation of a brand new biological species(single or multiple), by a intelligent enitity/entities who created the new species (single or multiple) on purpose.

This is what ill be refering to when i refer to creationism.

Wait, is this the definition of creationism, or the hypothesis that supports the definition? In either case, I can't quite understand what is being said here.

*Note* The intelligent enity/entities could be humans, intelligent extraterestrials or even a God/Gods be they of our dimensions or others. Who are what these beings are and their nature is moot. The point is we have something intelligent 'creating' a new species, that to our knowldege has never existed before. And we are interested in if this creation process is possible, testable, and verifyable.

I have no problem with that. Is this the definition? Creationism: The phenomena of an intelligent creator creating new species? It still seems a little vague...I can't think of a way in which it would be falsifiable.

[Venomshocker]

Creationism: The phenomena of an intelligent creator creating new species? It still seems a little vague...I can't think of a way in which it would be falsifiable.

The inability to create a new species woudl falsify the theory, would it not?

[_hAiLO_]

The inability to create a new species woudl falsify the theory, would it not?

481964[/snapback]

No, because the ability to create new species was thought to belong to the Christian God, and the Christian God, due to religous beliefs of the Christian God's omnipotence and omniscience, its not falisable.

[aquatus1]

Also, one cannot base a verification on something not occurring, just like the previous example you gave. We have no way of knowing if sometime in the future, it will be possible to do.

[Venomshocker]

hmm this seems to be a bit of a roadblock.

With regards to creationsim in general, we are asking ourselves about something that happened far in the past. Species could have been created or they could possibly have evolved. because both happened in the past,and we were not ther to witness,experiment, and verify, there is no way proving by which method the species came to be. And therefore evolution and creationism with regard to how species came to be in the distant past are neither falsifiable.

Hypothetically if specaition were to occur now,that dosent mean, thats how species first appeared. Likewise with creation. If we have the potential to create new species now, that dosent mean thats how they appeared int he first place.

I dont see were this can possibly go from here.......

Edited February 10, 2005 by Venomshocker

[aquatus1]

Science is based on the concept that what is capable of happening in one situation can be deduced have happened in the past given the same results. If we could explain spontaneus generation now, we would have reasonable cause to believe it could have happened in the past. Since we have no evidence that it has happened either in the past or in the present, unlike evolution, we do not consider it a possibility.

[Venomshocker]

Science is based on the concept that what is capable of happening in one situation can be deduced have happened in the past given the same results.If we could explain spontaneus generation now, we would have reasonable cause to believe it could have happened in the past.

The thing is we can explain spontaneous generation now, by examing genetic technology. Think about it, we now have the capability to create amminoacids from their chemical constituents, and from these amino acids we can build proteins, and with these proteins we can now even design DNA. We are not that far off, from one day in the near future potentially creating a new species.

Because we are very near this creation capability now, ther is NO WAY you can rule out that it didnt happen in the past. Perhaps beings from another planet, found a habital planet called earth and decided to create a whole variety of different species. Perhaps we called these beings our Gods.

Eventually we may have that kind of capaility also, already there is talk of how we can create life on mars.

Since we have no evidence that it has happened either in the past or in the present, unlike evolution, we do not consider it a possibility.

I believe there is evidence. From the spontinaity of the fossil record, to the seemingly bizzare and complex megalithic structures ancient man built, the EXTREME vastness of the universe, Religous beliefs, cultures worldwide to believe that we were created. I will admit that as far as the evidence is concerned it is just a subjective opinion on my part based on all the knowledge Ive accumulated form ever facet in life, but evidence for evolution is seemingly just as subjective in my opinion.

In any case, I have shown that evolution and creationism with regards to the appearance of life on earth in the distant past, cant be regarded as scientific theories because they both fail the criteria of falsifibility. Until we develop time travel that is........

Edited February 10, 2005 by Venomshocker

[aquatus1]

The thing is we can explain spontaneous generation now, by examing genetic technology. Think about it, we now have the capability to create amminoacids from their chemical constituents, and from these amino acids we can build proteins, and with these proteins we can now even design DNA. We are not that far off, from one day in the near future potentially creating a new species.

We are extremely close to creating a new species, however there is absolutely nothing to support, and plenty to deny, the sudden appearance of complex creatures without intermediate evolutionary forms. There is a world of difference in creating a single-celled prokaryote with a different amino acid based DNA and creating a horse, or even a worm. Don't be coy, Venom. You are not suggesting creationism to explain microbacterial organisms. You are advancing it to explain macro creatures, extremely complex, and as far above the bacteria as God is to humans.

I believe there is evidence. From the spontinaity of the fossil record, to the seemingly bizzare and complex megalithic structures ancient man built, the EXTREME vastness of the universe, Religous beliefs, cultures worldwide to believe that we were created. I will admit that as far as the evidence is concerned it is just a subjective opinion on my part based on all the knowledge Ive accumulated form ever facet in life, but evidence for evolution is seemingly just as subjective in my opinion.

Yes, but, by definition, evidence is objective. That is what the pre-requisite is talking about. A logical path from the evidence to the conclusion means that is a path that anyone, regardless of personal bias of belief can follow and agree to be valid. If the evidence offered for a theory is subjective, it will never get past the peer review.

In any case, I have shown that evolution and creationism with regards to the appearance of life on earth in the distant past, cant be regarded as scientific theories because they both fail the criteria of falsifibility.

Boy, you really like announcing your victories ahead of schedule, don't you? Two things: One, you haven't shown absolutely anything about evolution, at all, on this thread! The only thing you have done is claim that it is subjective. Is this all it takes to meet your criteria for proof? Your opinion on the matter?

And two, if you had attempted to do so, I would have spoken up, because as I have stated repeatedly, the purpose of this thread is support creationism, not to refute evolution. We barely got a definition from you, or a hypothesis, I'm still not completely sure what it was meant to be. You are on the right track, but you don't seem to shy away every time you are told specifically what it is that you are missing.

If you think you can support creationism, then please, no more meandering, no more random paragraphs, no more vague claims. Post a clear definition concerning the creationist story you are working with, a hypothesis that would support that definition, and evidence that would support that hypothesis.

[Venomshocker]

Theres no point in going on, Creationsim as it pertains to how life apperaed on this planet, isnt falsifiable!! And neither is evolution!! Neither one is a scientific theory, and no matter how much evidence I pull up we still have the same root problem its not falsifiable, because it happend in the past!!! If you emit the falsibility rule of your defintion of a scientific theory, ill be happy to continue, but I will not until you do or come up with a way to empirically falsify events that happened in the distant past.

Edited February 10, 2005 by Venomshocker

[aquatus1]

Emit the falsifiability rule? No. No exceptions. Every single theory in existance, including all the evolutionary theories, have to meet these bare minimum standards, and ofter harsher one depending on their field of studies. There will be no special exceptions for any theory. If you wish to argue that evolution is unfalsifiable, do so in another thread, not here.

That you do not understand how we can deduce things from the past from what we can observe from the present is, frankly, something you should educate yourself on. Your lack of knowledge on this, however, does not grant you immunity from the responsibility of accounting from it. Science isn't that easy or forgiving. If you wish to claim that you have an explanation worthy of basing mankind's knowledge on, then you do so by following the rules that science has laid down in order to prevent hoaxes and self-deception from holding sway. If you wish to question one of these rules, then you will have to argue why the rule is invalid for all of science, not just for your pet theory.

Incidentally, you still haven't provided a clear definition or a hypothesis supporting that definition, just an odd mix of the two. Why don't you start there? Heck, I'll help you construct one, just as I have been, if nothing else than to show you the work that goes into making a theory. Tell you what, I'll meet you half-way: just start with a small, clear definition of creationism, and tell me what about that definition you would like to see proven. Keep it concise and clear. Don't ask for something ridiculous and vague like "Prove all the animals appeared out of nowhere." This isn't a genie in a bottle; it's science, and you will have to work at it to get results.

If you cannot, then step out of the ring. The challenge remains open to anyone who wishes to attempt it. Simply post a definition of creationism, a hypothesis backing up that definition, and evidence supporting that hypothesis.