Proof of Creationism (ID)

Whenever a new theory is put forward, I've never quite understood why such evidence is said to either prove or disprove what creationists believe. The question is does it really matter whether dinosaurs existed simultaneously with [censored] sapiens or not? I mean, for all we know, some of these species may still exist today (note the latest yeti footprints found recently which have scientists baffled).
Then there was the recent discovery of the hobbitoids that are supposed to prove we did evolved from apes (the said [censored] floresiensis being the inbetween). Again, it can't specifically be proven on the other side.
Another thing that was weird was when we were discussing life on other planets during a thread elsewhere on another site, creationists denied there could be life elsewhere in the universe since the Bible doesn't teach such a theory. But I figured it's more the case the Bible simply doesn't comment on that issue.
Now I ask myself what creationists will say if they find water on Mars and bacteria. Should they be shocked or isn't it just the case no religious book comments on such a scenario?

Bro Deal said:

Not complete proof, but pretty solid evidence to support part of the theory.

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=126

Bro Deal said:

Not complete proof, but pretty solid evidence to support part of the theory.

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=126

What's the saddle leather made of? Slow horses?

Here is one of the later working models

Felt_Rider said:

Here is one of the later working models

Well, there's your proof right there...let's see the frickin' atheists refute The Flintstones! They even had a dinosaur for a pet! Early man domesticated the damn things, Bro!

That was amusing! 🙂

Felt_Rider said:

Here is one of the later working models

Carrera said:

Then there was the recent discovery of the hobbitoids that are supposed to prove we did evolved from apes (the said [censored] floresiensis being the inbetween). Again, it can't specifically be proven on the other side.

Now I ask myself what creationists will say if they find water on Mars and bacteria. Should they be shocked or isn't it just the case no religious book comments on such a scenario?

*Wasn't the Flores [censored] supposed to have lived at the same time as early man, hence no missing link?

*What if they find water on bacteria? So what?

My personal belief is life isn't restricted to this planet alone. For creationists, this shouldn't really be a problem as the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" so I figure as "heavens" comes before "earth", these must be more important (the heavens, that is).
However, if they find life on Mars in the form of bacteria and water, many Christians will be shaken up as they believe God created men in the image of God uniquely and period! Less fundamentalist Christians won't be so shaken and will just acknowledge the Bible doesn't elaborate on life elsewhere.
I donn;t know when the hobbits were thought to have lived exactly but they were saying they're between apes and men.

garage sale GT said:

*Wasn't the Flores [censored] supposed to have lived at the same time as early man, hence no missing link?

*What if they find water on bacteria? So what?

It was only 18,000 yrs old; the scientific community is not sure whether it was just a diseased, stunted human or not since they only have one skeleton.

There is water on Mars; it has ice caps. Liquid water on Mars would be a find. But why shouldn't there be water on bacteria? It's practically their home.

I meant water and life as a whole such as organisms, maybe insects e.t.c. Simple life is enough.
Did you hear about the planet they discovered recently that's very similar to earth? "The new planet, which orbits a small, red star called Gliese 581, is about one-and-a-half times the diameter of the Earth. It probably has a substantial atmosphere and may be covered with large amounts of water - necessary for life to evolve - and, most importantly, temperatures are very similar to those on our world."
I feel pretty confident life isn't the pure, one-off accident we assume it is and that other life has adapted to all sort of unusual circumstances. Even if we consider the vast variety of, say, plant life on this planet, it's amazing how different species adapt and modify.
As for creation, I don't believe someone sort of sat down and began to "create" the whole universe like an artist painting a picture. I can buy some kind of intelligence behind the cosmos but figure it goes far deeper than the simple descriptions of the Bible and a 6 day creation.

garage sale GT said:

It was only 18,000 yrs old; the scientific community is not sure whether it was just a diseased, stunted human or not since they only have one skeleton.

There is water on Mars; it has ice caps. Liquid water on Mars would be a find. But why shouldn't there be water on bacteria? It's practically their home.

Carrera said:

The question is does it really matter whether dinosaurs existed simultaneously with [censored] sapiens or not? I mean, for all we know, some of these species may still exist today (note the latest yeti footprints found recently which have scientists baffled).

Well, yes it does. Evolution lays down a timeline of change and having dinosaurs wandering around six thousand years ago would cause all sorts of problems. For example it would be hard to explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The real question is why do these ID crackpots insist on denying the evidence of the age of dinosaurs. Why don't they adjust their beliefs to the facts rather than paint them self into a corner that is so indefensible that it is the subject of humor.

I will be shocked if we don't find life on Mars. We may have to dig deep to find it. I think we will be able to find microscopic life living off the residual heat of the planet's core.

As a historical document, the Bible is quite useful and has often been shown to be accurate. Where many of us differ is over fundamentalist, literal interpretations of passages. Even Jesus didn't interpret the O.T. literally which is why he said it was O.K. to do good things on a Sunday (or Sabbath). The fundis backs then were claiming that as the Bible says no works should be undertaken on the sabbath, if there was a guy on the road in a pool of blood, you should do nothing and keep the law.

Bro Deal said:

Well, yes it does. Evolution lays down a timeline of change and having dinosaurs wandering around six thousand years ago would cause all sorts of problems. For example it would be hard to explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The real question is why do these ID crackpots insist on denying the evidence of the age of dinosaurs. Why don't they adjust their beliefs to the facts rather than paint them self into a corner that is so indefensible that it is the subject of humor.

Maybe this planet was just a chunk of Mars that broke off?

Bro Deal said:

I will be shocked if we don't find life on Mars. We may have to dig deep to find it. I think we will be able to find microscopic life living off the residual heat of the planet's core.

Bro Deal said:

Well, yes it does. Evolution lays down a timeline of change and having dinosaurs wandering around six thousand years ago would cause all sorts of problems. For example it would be hard to explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Not necessarily. Speciation doesn't require extinction. Dinosaurs and birds can coexist just as bacteria and humans.

I find dinosaurs fascinating. Makes you wonder what will inhabit our planet in another 100 million years.

Now I'll get on my soapbox. I think evolutionary theory is interesting but unfortunately it's been politicized and most people don't know a damn thing about it. If you talk to your average joe about evolutionary theory on either political/religious side they will opine for hours without even understanding the basic fundamentals. Instead, there are ass holes on both sides that have distracted people from scientific investigation and made it a pop culture issue much like global warming. Jackasses like Richard Dawkins have done more to destroy true scientific investigation than any religious nut.

Evolution deals with one of the most complex topics we could ever face, the origin and maintenance of life. To think we have the complete answer is ridiculous. Evolutionary theory may be a starting point, but it isn't the end. As with any complex scientific analysis it will evolve and change over time and humans (if they exist) hundreds of years from now will likely laugh at much of our reasoning.

Adaptation of species isn't difficult to see and understand. You can see it looking at nature. You can see how plants, for example, modify and adapt to survive. Some can live with hardly any water and some can live almost in water. Some have thorns and others have spikes. Much depends on the circumstances of nature, climate and survival.
Where I take issue is over the idea apes evolved into [censored] sapiens without sufficient data to back this up. I don't have any religious objection to the idea but just find it improbable.
By the same token, no way do I buy the Adam and Eve theory and a 6 day creation.
Dawkin is O.K. but I fear he may be going down the same path of fundamentalists in reverse. He seems to have convinced himself we just arrived in a bang and then produces evidence to back up his belief. It's one thing not to believe in a personal God and another to exclude intelligence at work to explain life. He seems to be arguing a point out of stubborness to take a pop at world religion which he rightly assumes causes a lot of strife and war.

fscyclist said:

Not necessarily. Speciation doesn't require extinction. Dinosaurs and birds can coexist just as bacteria and humans.

I find dinosaurs fascinating. Makes you wonder what will inhabit our planet in another 100 million years.

Now I'll get on my soapbox. I think evolutionary theory is interesting but unfortunately it's been politicized and most people don't know a damn thing about it. If you talk to your average joe about evolutionary theory on either political/religious side they will opine for hours without even understanding the basic fundamentals. Instead, there are ass holes on both sides that have distracted people from scientific investigation and made it a pop culture issue much like global warming. Jackasses like Richard Dawkins have done more to destroy true scientific investigation than any religious nut.

Evolution deals with one of the most complex topics we could ever face, the origin and maintenance of life. To think we have the complete answer is ridiculous. Evolutionary theory may be a starting point, but it isn't the end. As with any complex scientific analysis it will evolve and change over time and humans (if they exist) hundreds of years from now will likely laugh at much of our reasoning.

Carrera said:

Adaptation of species isn't difficult to see and understand. You can see it looking at nature. You can see how plants, for example, modify and adapt to survive. Some can live with hardly any water and some can live almost in water. Some have thorns and others have spikes. Much depends on the circumstances of nature, climate and survival.
Where I take issue is over the idea apes evolved into [censored] sapiens without sufficient data to back this up. I don't have any religious objection to the idea but just find it improbable.
By the same token, no way do I buy the Adam and Eve theory and a 6 day creation.
Dawkin is O.K. but I fear he may be going down the same path of fundamentalists in reverse. He seems to have convinced himself we just arrived in a bang and then produces evidence to back up his belief. It's one thing not to believe in a personal God and another to exclude intelligence at work to explain life. He seems to be arguing a point out of stubborness to take a pop at world religion which he rightly assumes causes a lot of strife and war.

Well for once we agree on something. Dawkins is no different from a fundamentalist. He takes bits and pieces of a theory, presents them as fact then uses them to promote a philosophy.

As I said, life on this planet is incredibly complex and in the grand scheme of things we really know next to nothing about it. I'd love to learn more, but guys like Dawkins and others get in the way by politicizing an issue that to me is completely apolitical.

fscyclist said:

Not necessarily. Speciation doesn't require extinction. Dinosaurs and birds can coexist just as bacteria and humans.

But evolution takes time. To have dinosaurs and man exist at the same time screws up the timeline. You cannot have animals that are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs evolve in a few thousand years. Inability to accept the fossil and geological record is one of the "features" of ID. Thus you get idiocy like the assertion that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood.

Bro Deal said:

But evolution takes time. To have dinosaurs and man exist at the same time screws up the timeline. You cannot have animals that are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs evolve in a few thousand years. Inability to accept the fossil and geological record is one of the "features" of ID. Thus you get idiocy like the assertion that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood.

Yes evolution takes time. I gave the example of bacteria and man coexisting as an example that the ancient can exist with the modern (put simply). You posited that birds and dinosaurs couldn't coexist, but they easily could and that in no way disproves basic evolutionary theory. We have species on this planet that have likely existed since life began and their 'ancestors' also coexist. BTW, I'm not saying birds and dinosaurs coexisted, I'm just saying it would be possible. In other words, the appearance of birds doesn't equal the disappearance of dinosaurs. The disappearance of dinosaurs, much like their appearance, is really a fascinating mystery.

I don't know what created the Grand Canyon and I would be suspect of anyone (scientist or religious person) who 'knows' what created these geological wonders.

fscyclist said:

I don't know what created the Grand Canyon and I would be suspect of anyone (scientist or religious person) who 'knows' what created these geological wonders.

I place my bets on erosion by water over a very very long time.