Questions for creationists...(part 1) can you answer this question?
Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.
Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
Saddly, 23 responses and not one real answer. Spontaneous generation is NOT part of the theory of evolution, in reality, neither is abiogenisis.
On to question 2
musingalo: The things you've put down are either not true (like mutations not adding information) or are better explained by evolution (fossils). Why are their no birds or angiosperms in Devonian sediments?
Beng T: Most plants are not useful to humans. And you would expect many to be useful - how else would we and other animals survive?
An overpopultation of humans is mostly causing loss of biodiversity.
All of this is better explained by evolution.
musingalo: also, IC has never been demonstrated or has other exlainations.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
How about a fellow frenchman Louis Pasteur. A French microbiologist and chemist. His experiments confirmed the germ theory of disease, and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He is best known to the general public for showing how to stop milk and wine from going sour - this process came to be called pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, among Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. He also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the asymmetry of crystals.
The debate on the spontaneous generation of life, in which Pasteur was involved and in which he came off victorious, was not just a scientific quibble. It was more than an interesting point for a few scientists or intellectuals to discuss among themselves. It had much greater significance—it involved evidence that had to do with the existence of God.
François Dagognet, a French philosopher specializing in the sciences, observes that Pasteur’s “adversaries, both materialists and atheists, believed that they could prove that a unicellular organism could result from decomposing molecules. This allowed them to take God out of creation. However, as far as Pasteur was concerned, there was no possible passage from death to life.”
To this day all the evidence from experimentation, history, biology, archaeology, and anthropology continues to show what Pasteur demonstrated—that life can come only from preexisting life, not from inanimate matter. And the evidence also clearly shows that life reproduces “according to its kind,” as the Bible’s account in Genesis states. The offspring are always the same “kind,” or type, as the parents.—Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25.Source(s): Life Comes From Life From antiquity, the most fanciful ideas had been proposed to explain the appearance of insects, worms, or other creatures in decomposing matter. For instance, in the 17th century, a Belgian chemist boasted that he had made mice appear by stuffing a dirty blouse into a jar of wheat! During Pasteur’s time the debate in the scientific community was heated. To confront the proponents of spontaneous generation was a real challenge. But as a result of what he had learned in his research on fermentation, Pasteur was confident. So he undertook experiments intended to put an end to the idea of spontaneous generation once and for all. His experiment using swan-necked flasks is one of his most famous. A liquid nutrient left in the open air in an open-topped flask is quickly contaminated by germs. However, when stored in a flask that terminates in a shape like a swan’s neck, the same liquid nutrient remains uncontaminated. Why is this the case? Pasteur’s explanation was simple: On passing through the swan-neck, the bacteria in the air are deposited on the surface of the glass, so that the air is sterile by the time it reaches the liquid. The germs that develop in an open flask are not produced spontaneously by the liquid nutrient but are transported in the air. To show the importance of air as a transporter of microbes, Pasteur went to the Mer de Glace, a glacier in the French Alps. At an altitude of 6,000 feet, he opened his sealed flasks and exposed them to the air. Out of 20 flasks, only one became contaminated. He then went to the foot of the Jura Mountains and repeated the same experiment. Here, at the much lower altitude, eight flasks became contaminated. He thus proved that because of the purer air at higher altitudes, there was less risk of contamination. Through such experiments Pasteur demonstrated convincingly that life comes only from previously existing life. It never comes into existence spontaneously, that is, by itself.
- 1 decade ago
Observation that supports?? Okay, how about irriducible complexity? Certain things in the world that are made up many parts that CANNOT survive without all parts being there at the SAME time.
Another: We see 100% of mutations TAKING information OUT... a loss of info always occurs in a mutation, even the so-called beneficial mutations. So comparing the theories at war... this would not support goo-to-you evolution but would support a perfect creation which is slowly becoming worse...loss of info... no gain.
We also have a law in science that states life cannot come from non life. We have never witnessed life coming from non life... another observation that would fit.
Predictions that the theory would have made... yes... the flood of Noah's day.
This would predict billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. What do we see: billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth! Huge water formed canyons... polystrate fossils (fossilized trees spanning through MANY layers of rock), HUGE amounts of water erosion all over the earth and strata that spans for many miles. Giant rips in the earth where the fountains of the deep broke open...
How did I do?
BOTH creation and evolution are HISTORICAL sciences. Neither are experimental science since they both happened in the past and cannot be re created.
- 1 decade ago
I love the question. I suspect you already know the answer.... Mine is long, I hope you can bear with it.
As you know the crux of the Creation theory is that God willed the universe and all things in it into existence. Unless God is repeating this process at some interval or planning to do it again at some point, it is truly not possible to "observe" Creation-by-God's-Hand. As such, it is an unobservable, untestable, unprovable hypothesis following the scientific method.
I expect you also know, though, that this does not preclude it from being the truth. Things that are true are true independent of our ability to prove that they are true. For example, would you agree that there are countless organisms from single-celled through human who have lived and died without any formal record of their existence and no formal way of proving that they lived and died?
However, it would be very lame to simply say something is the truth without any evidence whatsoever. As a Christian, my belief in Creation rests not on the ability to observe it directly but by observing its results. I hope you can agree that the scale, power, and intricacy of the universe and the things in it, while not providing proof, at least lend some credence to the possibility that it was created by Someone with an incredible amount of intelligence.
- BrotherMichaelLv 61 decade ago
You are approaching this in the wrong manner, that is, wanting scientific evidence for Creation, using observable, testable, repeatable evidence. Neither belief system can pass this. We cannot not observe creation, test it, repeat it or falsify it, same for evolution. The proper approach is that of a legal case, that is, accumulating the evidence at hand and build a case that tilts the balance. If you honestly, without prejudice, look at the evidence, from astronomy to biology to geology, you will see the evidence clearly favors creation. I will present one such piece of evidence, DNA. The DNA molecule contains volumes of information. Information cannot come about through natural processes, nor matter or energy. It can only come from a greater source of information. What would that greater source of information be?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- iraqisaxLv 61 decade ago
Creationism is not science. It is belief based on faith. So is evolution. It is not science. It has nothing to do with science. It was not formulated using the scientific method.
Evolution is a model invented to explain a pre-conceived notion of the origin of life devoid of God. Were it not for this need, nobody would believe in such a fantastic idea. If we take God out of the picture, what is the best scenario that you can come up with? Probably something along the lines of evolution. Even though nobody has ever seen it happen, we have to believe it, because the alternative is, creation.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Hopefully in part two of your question you will choose to make sense.
Creationists are a group of well-meaning Christian people, who truly believe what they say - that this earth is 6000 year old, and that God created it. In each and every group of people, whether it be a religious group, or a political group, there are folks who are operating their boat with only one oar in the water. Christianity is sure no exception to this rule, believe me.
However, that being said;
The real truth is that there is absolutely no controversy between the truth of what Scripture says, and true science. None.
The Bible states this earth is billions upon billions of years old, and even mentions the dinosaurs. So don't be too quick to judge the Faith on what a few unlearned folks have to say. Like I said, they are well-meaning, and do not know any better.
The first Creation of this earth, and the processes which led it to where we are today, were and are a natural part of God's plan and certainly the sciences which God created would not be as ignorant as a man, that they would contraindicate Gods existance.
- rapturefutureLv 71 decade ago
No, I can't answer your question the way it was asked. How ever I would like to give you an approach that you can disprove if you can. It too is a theory like evolution is.
You use the grand canyon as your time tool, but creationists like me believe that the canyon was created during Noah's flood. When a lot of water hits alot of fire [deeper portions of the earth] its like the effect of a huge bomb thus the grand canyon happened. now the 'time tool' has just happened. And what do you do with that???
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I can observe that life comes from life. I can safely answer that I came from my mother, and she from hers, and she from hers, since there are 5 generations living in my family. And I can draw documents that trace my family back several hundred years. Then I can reference people that lived several thousand years, who were witnesses that people lived many generations before that. Even going back as far as written history will allow, I can move to a fossil record which illustrates that there were live beings as far back into antiquity as one can imagine. So, all of the evidence that I can directly point to confirms the theory that life comes from life, and I can see that it continues today. But where did it begin? Another life. I have seen, or heard, or read, nothing whatsoever that indicates that life came from inert matter, so I must conclude that the origin of life here was life from somewhere else.
- Beng TLv 41 decade ago
Creationist theory predicts that there is goodness and purpose in Creation, becuase it has been created by a loving God who pronounced it good after he had created it. Evolutionists use terms like "fitness" to mean a certain thing so let me use "goddness" here to mean something promoting the welfare of humans and other animals.
It predicts that the effects of sin have marred the perfection of creation, so both goodness and badness can now be seen in it. As badness has been increasing over history, so in modern times there will be more badness than in the fossil record say, and in ancient times there will be more evidence of goodness, such as animals being more healthy and having more vitality.
Lets look at some observations that may support this. First, the usefulnes of plants to humans and other animals. Genesis says that God gave plants to humans and other animals as their food at first. Plants contain not only macro nutrients, but also micro nutrients. Many also are useful for treating diseases. Many plants produce large fruits or seeds with a high nutritional value for humans and other animals, and not only do they satisfy hunger and give energy, they are also delicious and enjoyable to eat. This suggests that plants have been created by God as a gift to humans.
After sin, God cursed the ground and said it would produce thorns and thistles and man would have a hard time working it. This also is reflected in the fact that whereas many plants appear purposely designed to be useful to man and other animals, some are now noxious or even dangerous as food or just of no food value (though even these often have other uses, such as fibres for ropes and fabric, construction materials, etc).
As for the trend of increasing badness over time, compare the diversity of life in the fossil record with that seen today, see also the accelerating rate of extinction and loss of biodiversity. Until the 18th century, an average of about 0.25 species of living things became extinct per year. This rate jumped to one species per year in the 19th century, to 1,000 species per year in 1975, and to 40,000 species per year by around the year 2000.
It is estimated that the earth now has only 10% of its original biodiversity left. Also, looking at the fossil record, plants and animals related to modern species grew to much bigger sizes in ancient times, sugesting that they lived longer lives and had greater vitality. Dragonflies had 3 foot wingspans, there were 60 foot snakes, and so on. Even amongst extant species, the sizes of large animals are decreasing (crocodiles, sturgeon, snakes, lizards, etc). Meanwhile the only things that seem to be evolving new species are microbes, some of which give rise to new diseases that affect humans and animals (HIV and BSE and H5N1 for example). Badness is increasing as predicted.
- Nowhere ManLv 61 decade ago
Theory - The best explanation for a given set of facts and evidence.
Clearly, Darwinian Evolution fits the description of theory. Creationism is clearly a hypothesis, at best.