quote:
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
Actually since creationism and Evolution are based on very different premises and ideas: Scientific thought and Faith,there is no need to prove one to disprove the other. Creationism can be proven false withine scientific arguement, but evolution cannot be comprehensively dispelled. Also Im sorry but there is scientific evidence for evolution(like the fossil record) but no true scientific evidence for creationism, there is only vague accusations and untruths as far as creationism is concerned(no one can seriously belive god created fossils to mislead us all can they?),it is not needed to offer any alternative theory to disprove creationism. some evidence for evolution anyway?
click here
try the article on 29 evidences for Macroevolution. also talking about "only a series of speculations using facts that were either rigged (and exposed) or circumstantial findings that in actuality hold no relevance in support of the idea" is too vague.If you can can present scientific evidence for creationism please do so.
The entire basis of my arguments in this thread are from a scientific standpoint, not a religious one. Scientifically, we cannot disprove creation. The only way we can do so is to prove that life was first begun randomly with no guiding force. And this is something that is just not possible. The fossil record is not conclusive in any way. There is absolutely no way to know if a prehistoric skeleton is that of a primitive form of man or that of an extinct primate. Plus there are gaps at this time that allow any hypothesis to be pure conjecture at best. Yes, in my logical reasoning, you must disprove the long term, established belief before the newfound, unestablished belief can become credible. Otherwise, you are only believing in the new belief (evolution) out of a desire to disbelieve in God, not out of any proof that one or the other is wrong. I did look at article "29 reasons" and I found it very interesting that the author stated clearly at the beginning of the topic that 1. It was a hypothesis (not theory) and 2. These were predictions (not facts nor proofs, nearly predictions based on what was found so far). This is exactly what I have said numerous times in this thread already. At this point, there is a lot of speculation, but no solid scientific proof. Perhaps when some of the gaps are filled in there might be some proof.
I cannot present scientific evidence for creation, except for the fact that what science has so far discovered mirrors what was written in the bible. I'm going at this whole thread from a technical scientists standpoint. trying to leave religion out of it. I've never said creation could be proven, as quite frankly it cannot. I simply say that a random beginning of life, and a common ancestory for either a microbe or sea life, cannot be proven either.