User talk:Refreshments/Draft: Scientific Evidence for Creationism

Hope you don't mind me commenting, but...

Why would anyone go exploring the moon to find evidence for evolution? All the evidence for evolution comes from right here on Earth. Are you possibly confusing evolution (theory about the origin of species) with theories about the origin of life? Evolution takes life as a given and doesn't attempt to explain how it came about.
Noone is searching for life in outer space, which would be silly - outer space is a near-perfect vacuum, filled with harmful radiation, and not a very likely place to find life. (Reasonably complex amino acids have been found out there, but they're not alive). Perhaps you mean life on other planets? At the moment the tools for finding life on distant planets don't exist - but if such life did exist, it wouldn't prove much at all - it might have been created, or it might have come about by non-supernatural means.
Biogenesis is indeed the law that "life comes only from life", but it relates to pre-18th century ideas about where certain living creatures originate - it was thought that flies arise from rotting meat, fleas from straw, etc. The biogenesis principle actually supports evolution - if life comes from life, then speceis must also come from species.

In general, I think you've misunderstood what evolution is about - it's not a theory for the origin of life, but for the way in which different species (cats and dogs, say) arose.

Also, the search for scientific evidence for creation is impossible - if God did create the universe, what evidence would you expect to find?

PiCo (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PiCo, the law of biogenesis ('life comes only from life') does mean that no life could ever have come from non-life. Creationists say that all life came from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, where macroevolutionists say that all life came from, what, the Big Bang? Slime over time? From goo to you by way of the zoo? Since the Big Bang idea is unprovable do you just accept it on faith? Invmog (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invmog, you appear to have no understanding of science. You don't have to believe it, or like it, but the Big Bang is established scientific fact. There is not even a little debate in that area. Young earth creationism is false and beyond that is a lie.--Adam in MO Talk 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that I "appear to have no understanding of science." Well, by definition science is knowledge.

you say that "the Big Bang is established scientific fact." Has the imaginative 'Big Bang' story ever been proven by the scientific method? No, of course it hasn't; it would have had to been observed for that.

You say it is "fact." Well, many facts have been showed to be false over the years. In fact, according to Wikipedia itself;

"A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation."

In short, not all facts are in the end proven to be true. Invmog (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang has been established through the scientific method. You don't have to directly view something in order for it to be established fact. Read the article on the Big Bang if you want to see the evidence. Just because science can't answer all questions doesn't mean that anything happened by majic.--Adam in MO Talk 01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adamfinmo: I agree with you when you say "Just because science can't answer all questions doesn't mean that anything happened by majic." However, Wikipedia isn't exactly a forum to discuss everyone's personal beliefs, and here we are working on a project to display what young-earth creationist believe and scientific evidence which they believe supports their beliefs. Invmog (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I would like to offer some help with the project. I know my way around Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, et al. Where would you like to start.--Adam in MO Talk 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with everything Answers in Genesis says and I definitely don't agree with all of the ideas that Kent Hovind had, but many creationists on Wikipedia see that many or all of the articles are written from a secular and even humanistic POV, which is why some have formed Conservapedia. What I believe this article would be about is to show people the beliefs of conservative Christians by showing how their world view interacts with the physical reality by showing how many of us Christians believe that science never contradicts God's Word, the Bible, which would include young-earth creationism. Basically it would show how young-earth creationists interpret the physical evidence for (in their mind) young-earth creationism instead of (in your mind) macroevolution and Big Bang story. Invmog (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds awfully like an attempt at original research based on your interpretation and evaluation of primary sources, and notoriously unreliable ones at that. Remember that verification from a reliable third party secondary source is needed: one suitable and informative source is Ron Numbers' The Creationists, ISBN 0674023390. Of course your proposal also sounds like a POV fork, so to avoid that you'll have to give due weight to mainstream views. Trust you find that helpful. . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dave; we'll try and make it full of good references and treat macroevolution as NPOV as young-earth creationism is treated on the macroevolution page. Invmog (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]