Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm curious as to the best arguments supporting creationism. By creationism, I'm referring to the idea that a Creator created matter and species as is.
For example, people who believe in evolution have physical evidence such as species having similar skeleton structures, fossil evidence, geograpic distribution of similiar looking species, etc. What do people who believe creationism say to best support their argument?
Ah. Well, I was going to say First cause and zones of comfort. But, if you limit it to the development of life, I can only say the remaining doubts about abiogenesis.
There are the DNA codes (Zipf's law) and animal intelligence arguments, but they don't actually stand up very well. Apart from that, there are (while I think of it) no arguments FOR creationism, only arguments for evolution which Creationists try to refute.
P.s Yep. I just had a google of 'evidence for creation'. It does tend to argue 'something mustha dunnit'. Apart from that it is all (not very well informed) objections to evolution.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-22-2010 at 06:43 AM..
Well, there are lots of hot babes in the world, confirming Eve was hot, as per all the religious artwork. She must have passed her physical traits unchanging through the generations to many women.
And what about the ugly ones? Well my friends, I have learned the hard way that it is truly dangerous and wrong to verbalize the phrase "ugly woman", so if it isn't ever said one could (maybe) argue they don't actually exist.
Therefore, I conclude creationism is 'da bomb, because there are no ugly women. That could only have happen if god made a perfect babe from a piece of man-sized prime rib and there are no genetic mutations that could lead to ugly women.
What are the best arguments supporting Creationism (God)?
1. the Woman. Have you seen mankind's version? It's called a blow up doll. no comparsion.
2. the Heart. GM Motors came and went out of business before it did. and they're(hearts) still coming off the
lots(prego women) in record numbers(babies) going strong. flawless and timeless design.
3. the Mind. the most powerful computer in the galaxy. created not by evolution, but by GOD. Dell and Bill Gates eat your hearts out.
I'm curious as to the best arguments supporting creationism. By creationism, I'm referring to the idea that a Creator created matter and species as is.
For example, people who believe in evolution have physical evidence such as species having similar skeleton structures, fossil evidence, geograpic distribution of similiar looking species, etc. What do people who believe creationism say to best support their argument?
The so called "physical evidence" you list here proves nothing one way or the other with respect to the origin of species.
This leaves us at the mercy of logic and philosophy (and general revelation for those inclined to believe in such). The 'time + chance + matter' hypothesis always falls short here. Complete nonsense really.
The so called "physical evidence" you list here proves nothing one way or the other with respect to the origin of species.
Actually, the physical evidence proves QUITE a bit about the origin of species over billions of years of evolution. It doesn't say much about the origin of life itself though - that would be covered under abiogenesis.
The so called "physical evidence" you list here proves nothing one way or the other with respect to the origin of species.
This leaves us at the mercy of logic and philosophy (and general revelation for those inclined to believe in such). The 'time + chance + matter' hypothesis always falls short here. Complete nonsense really.
Seriously? Your argument is that physical evidence gathered by actual scientists is worth nothing? And it certainly isn't as good as sitting around and trying to figure stuff out without recourse to physical evidence?
Seriously? Your argument is that physical evidence gathered by actual scientists is worth nothing? And it certainly isn't as good as sitting around and trying to figure stuff out without recourse to physical evidence?
Lead on maestro!
Please explain how this so called "physical evidence" proves the 'time + chance + matter' hypothesis to be anything more than an hypothesis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
