# Top Ten Scientific Proofs of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231 "2012-04-19T02:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/222 "2012-04-20T20:00:36Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > But couldn’t a reality have occured where sex was extremely unpleasant for human beings but needed for procreation? You’re going to have to at least admit that evolution gave you the winning jackpot on that facet of life! Our course such a reality would be possible. And the species/subspecies/population group/whatever that didn’t like sex would soon become extinct. The ones who did like sex would thrive. End result= people like sex. _ **That’s how evolution works** _ - luck has nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/223 "2012-04-20T20:02:24Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I’m sorry, I would just expect a bit of respect for someone’s different belief sets instead of being rude and throwing it back in their face. You didn’t say “This is what I believe.” You said “Here’s the truth.” Trotting out old, absurd, long-debunked arguments is not respectful. If you’re interested in the subject, why not ask some questions instead of making blanket assertions you can’t support? > [@](#): > > If you’ve heard it a thousand times, why even bother responding? The vain hope that somebody reading might learn something. And scientific ignorance should not go unchallenged. There is no shortage of people out there who manipulate the ignorant for their own ends and put a lot of work into spreading misinformation. It’s appalling that so few people seem to understand what evolution actually is. > [@](#): > > But couldn’t a reality have occured where sex was extremely unpleasant for human beings but needed for procreation? Probably- it sounds like some animals have a terrible time. But it seems pretty clear to me that a species that doesn’t want to procreate is going to have worse odds of surviving than a species that wants to do it and finds it pleasurable. And I see someone else beat me to this point, but you’re wrong to keep describing evolution as random. It’s not being guided by an intelligent designer, but it’s not random. Mutations are involved and those can be random, but species don’t make random and unsensible changes for no reason without response to the external world. > [@GEEPERS](#): > > Atheists will focus on the minute negative while completely ignoring the extreme positive. And I want to respond to this again. It’s frustrating that you won’t follow from Point A to Point B here. You said upthread that “The human body is a marvel of engineering. The countless complex machinations strongly suggest a fore knowledge, not some natural selection process.” People pointed out that from an engineering standpoint the human body is far from flawless and that some kind of intelligent designer certainly would have known about those flaws and improved upon them. That’s an important point and it’s a very sensible argument for evolution, but you’re treating it like a nitpick that misses the big picture. If you believe in some kind of omnipotent god, then that god could have designed a flawless human without any greater difficulty than it designed the flawed real human, but it didn’t design a flawless human. We have all kinds of physical defects, inefficiencies, and weaknesses. We’re fairly easy to kill from an animal standpoint, and all sorts of things can and do go wrong with us. The amount of rare birth defects alone is staggering. Some of those inefficiencies make it very obvious we evolved from something else earlier and the structures have improved over time, which is, you know, evolution. ---
**Author:** ![PSico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a88e57/32.png) [@PSico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSico)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/224 "2012-04-20T20:04:29Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Of course it matters. > If a mortal human can out reason, or out design, etc… any religion’s God, then it’s a damn good bet that that God is a pretty poor concept and will generally necessitate a retreat to the “mysterious ways” bastion. Yes, if. :dubious: How have you “out reasoned” what was supposedly reasoned by God? Which universe have you designed and how have you determined that it is better than the universe that was supposedly designed by God? Please provide an example of when you used the “If I were God” argument to convince a proponent of Intelligent Design that your viewpoint is correct. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/225 "2012-04-20T20:05:19Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You try talking to someone who tries to substitute fairy tales for science and see how long you can keep a straight face. Wow so you have concrete evidence that God is not real? Please share since it would obviously put an end to the debate. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Without gratification, metabolically expensive actions are generally not engaged in with great frequency. Genes which code for greater sexual activity tend to out-compete those which code for lesser sexual activity. No mystery involved. > Original sin, being imaginary, only plays a role in the world to the extent that its believers act on it. Hmm so why did the gene that gives me back pain win over the ones that does not? Why are there evil people in this world? Or better yet, why is mankind the most cruel to his own species than any other creation? Or better yet, if you think these Christian arguments are complete rubbish, why even bother debating? Seriously. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > As for why a corpse doesn’t smell good, as with our OP, you are simply proclaiming your utter ignorance of the topic you’re expounding upon. Rather obviously, the evolutionary fitness of a corpse is _zero_. A corpse has no reproductive capabilities, because it’s dead. Genes only have selections pressures acting on them if they are heritable. That’s the same reason why selection pressures have given us relatively-healthy young while the older you get, especially once you pass your peak reproductive years, the more maladies pile up.The claim that women’s vaginas and/or pelvieses would be wider if God didn’t change things (as revealed by the scientific treatise, Genesis) is… an interesting idea. But no. Fossil evidence reveals that hominid pelvises aren’t ideal for childbearing. > > To say nothing of the ideological disconnect in worshiping a Monster God who didn’t just punish a couple of naked hippies for eating a fruit that a talking snake told them to eat, but decided that, yeah, it’d be a reasonable thing to punish all of their descendants, in perpetuity. You completely missed the point I was getting at, but that’s ok. I expect you to immediately reject any pro-Christian evidence because you have to. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/226 "2012-04-20T20:07:55Z")
> [@PSico](#): > > Please provide an example of when you used the “If I were God” argument to convince a proponent of Intelligent Design that your viewpoint is correct. Providing examples of improvements is easy. Convincing an ID proponent he is wrong is the hard part. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/227 "2012-04-20T20:09:37Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Hmm so why did the gene that gives me back pain win over the ones that does not? How do you know your back pain has a genetic cause? > [@](#): > > Why are there evil people in this world? I’ll ignore the whole question of good and evil and just ask - what does this have to do with genes? Nobody said evolution has created perfect people. That would seem to be the department of some kind of omnipotent god who might design better eyes. > [@](#): > > Or better yet, why is mankind the most cruel to his own species than any other creation? Again, this is a highly debatable comment and it has nothing to do with genetics. > [@](#): > > Or better yet, if you think these Christian arguments are complete rubbish, why even bother debating? They are rubbish. Do you think you should win debates by just showing up? 😉 > [@](#): > > I expect you to immediately reject any pro-Christian evidence You haven’t posted any evidence. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/228 "2012-04-20T20:09:54Z")
> [@Twoflower](#): > > Our course such a reality would be possible. And the species/subspecies/population group/whatever that didn’t like sex would soon become extinct. The ones who did like sex would thrive. End result= people like sex. _ **That’s how evolution works** _ - luck has nothing to do with it. Really, are you suggesting that sex is pleasurable for all existing forms of life? Otherwise, that species would have died out a long time ago. Hell if I was a male preying mantis, I certainly would abstain from sex. But there is something programmed into animals that forces them to perform such actions.. It’s called instinct. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/229 "2012-04-20T20:14:08Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Pain was increased in childbirth. Thorns and thistles now grown. Whether God did this purposely as a punishment or it is just a reality of sin, I can’t say I can. I have never sinned, and yet I have thistles in my yard. Therefore, God did this purposely. It’s the ONLY possible explanation. Edit: but if Jesus took the burden of our sin on himself, then why are there still thistles, and pain in childbirth? ---
**Author:** ![Sampsiceramos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Sampsiceramos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampsiceramos)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/230 "2012-04-20T20:15:34Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Really, are you suggesting that sex is pleasurable for all existing forms of life? Otherwise, that species would have died out a long time ago. Hell if I was a male preying mantis, I certainly would abstain from sex. But there is something programmed into animals that forces them to perform such actions.. It’s called instinct. You are either completely missing Marley’s point, or you are making a straw-man argument. Marley did in no way suggest that sex was _physically pleasurable_ to all species. He did, however, point out that any species lacking an instinct that drives it to procreate will soon go extinct. A such instinct is **quite adequately** explained by evolution, in that a lack of it would preclude reproduction. As such, any mutation causing it would give the bearer an immense reproductive advantage, and therefore result in its spread. ---
**Author:** ![PSico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a88e57/32.png) [@PSico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSico)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/231 "2012-04-20T20:16:06Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Providing examples of improvements is easy. Convincing an ID proponent he is wrong is the hard part. Okay, please provide examples of improvement that were the result of using the “If I were God” argument. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/232 "2012-04-20T20:16:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > How do you know your back pain has a genetic cause? > I’ll ignore the whole question of good and evil and just ask - what does this have to do with genes? Nobody said evolution has created perfect people. That would seem to be the department of some kind of omnipotent god who might design better eyes. > Again, this is a highly debatable comment and it has nothing to do with genetics. > They are rubbish. Do you think you should win debates by just showing up? 😉 > You haven’t posted any evidence. Sure I did. The human body contains several components that would require foreknowledge of design in order to give humans a fighting chance at life. I’ve also demonstrated that humans are more than just a bag of chemicals. We operate by emotion, not programmed instinct. Of course, you will reject this because you HAVE to reject anything a Christian says. It’s a guarantee! ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/233 "2012-04-20T20:17:53Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I can. I have never sinned, and yet I have thistles in my yard. Therefore, God did this purposely. It’s the ONLY possible explanation. > > Edit: but if Jesus took the burden of our sin on himself, then why are there still thistles, and pain in childbirth? You sin every day, you just don’t know it. One of the worst sins people commit daily is gossip. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/234 "2012-04-20T20:19:47Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Sure I did. The human body contains several components that would require foreknowledge of design in order to give humans a fighting chance at life. I’ve also demonstrated that humans are more than just a bag of chemicals. We operate by emotion, not programmed instinct. Name them. > [@](#): > > Of course, you will reject this because you HAVE to reject anything a Christian says. It’s a guarantee! This is called “poisoning the well” and is a common logical fallacy. One could easily turn this around and say that you HAVE to reject anything a scientist says. It’s a guarantee! We work in evidence here. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/235 "2012-04-20T20:22:35Z")
> [@PSico](#): > > Okay, please provide examples of improvement that were the result of using the “If I were God” argument. Like I said, easy. Just to name a couple that evolution has already solved in other species, human eyes have blind spots, many animal eyes don’t. Human teeth cause all kinds of problems; sharks just keep producing new ones. Getting a little more complicated, human males have to want sex in order to have it; so make human females have to want a baby before they can become pregnant. Presto, no more unwanted children. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/236 "2012-04-20T20:25:23Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Sure I did. No, you absolutely haven’t. An assertion is not the same thing as an argument. You’ve _said_ human complexity requires foreknowledge and a designer, but you haven’t said anything to back up that argument. You’ve just said it’s true. And of course you’ve complained that atheists are mean and sarcastic and you’ve failed to respond to their counterarguments. > [@](#): > > The human body contains several components that would require foreknowledge of design in order to give humans a fighting chance at life. Again, this is an assertion, not an argument. How do you know those components required foreknowledge? How do you know the answer is foreknowledge instead of evolution? > [@](#): > > I’ve also demonstrated that humans are more than just a bag of chemicals. Nobody said humans were just a bag of chemicals. Well, other than you. > [@](#): > > We operate by emotion, not programmed instinct. And you think our emotional responses have nothing to do with evolution? I hate to tell you, but they do. I agree our responses are generally not programmed the way simpler animals’ are - whether humans have instincts at all is a matter of semantics and debate and I don’t really know enough about it to offer an answer - but there is no dichotomy between evolution and emotion. Emotions are physical and chemical responses to your experiences. They occur partly in your brain, and your brain is a part of your body - it’s a part of your body that has evolved and which is influenced by other things within your body like your hormones and your heart rate. > [@](#): > > Of course, you will reject this because you HAVE to reject anything a Christian says. It’s a guarantee! Again, I’m not impressed by people who play the victim card like this. I don’t have any problem agreeing with Christians. I do have a problem agreeing with people who spout misinformation and nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![PSico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a88e57/32.png) [@PSico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSico)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/237 "2012-04-20T20:34:39Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > This is a legitimate line of inquiry, as we are limited by our human minds, imaginations, senses and experiences we cannot help but define God in our own image. This leads to all sorts of logical contradictions. I don’t define God in my own image. The only definitions that I have of God are the ones that I have seen and heard presented by those who believe in God. _Those_ definitions lead to all sorts of logical contradictions. I don’t need to introduce what would be the case “if I were God”. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/238 "2012-04-20T20:40:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, you absolutely haven’t. An assertion is not the same thing as an argument. You’ve _said_ human complexity requires foreknowledge and a designer, but you haven’t said anything to back up that argument. You’ve just said it’s true. And of course you’ve complained that atheists are mean and sarcastic and you’ve failed to respond to their counterarguments. > Again, this is an assertion, not an argument. How do you know those components required foreknowledge? How do you know the answer is foreknowledge instead of evolution? > Nobody said humans were just a bag of chemicals. Well, other than you. > And you think our emotional responses have nothing to do with evolution? I hate to tell you, but they do. I agree our responses are generally not programmed the way simpler animals’ are - whether humans have instincts at all is a matter of semantics and debate and I don’t really know enough about it to offer an answer - but there is no dichotomy between evolution and emotion. Emotions are physical and chemical responses to your experiences. They occur partly in your brain, and your brain is a part of your body - it’s a part of your body that has evolved and which is influenced by other things within your body like your hormones and your heart rate. > Again, I’m not impressed by people who play the victim card like this. I don’t have any problem agreeing with Christians. I do have a problem agreeing with people who spout misinformation and nonsense. If I’m going to spend (er waste) my valuable time debating with atheists, I want to know they have the ability to cast aside their anti-Christian biased nature and consider any argument with an open mind. The fact that you have fired off responses within seconds tells me that you never even gave my statements any consideration. It’s the equivalent of being on American Idol, and one judge rejects every singer regardless of their talent. Why even bother going on the show then? I’m not going to play your game where the rules are grossly slanted in your favor. Even with your post, you repackage my statements to reject them. Oh that’s not an argument, it’s assertation. Oh yea, a miracle healing is invalid without medical documention. Oh, provide the documentation and then you find some other way to invalidate good solid evidence supporting Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/239 "2012-04-20T20:45:53Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > If I’m going to spend (er waste) my valuable time debating with atheists, I want to know they have the ability to cast aside their anti-Christian biased nature and consider any argument with an open mind. The irony here is almost literally painful because you make so many comments that alienate any atheist or skeptic who reads your post. But putting that aside, atheists are not inherently biased against Christians. I know you’ve been told that before and I don’t expect you to notice it now, but it’s true. > [@](#): > > The fact that you have fired off responses within seconds tells me that you never even gave my statements any consideration. It means the flaws in your arguments are obvious, especially to people who have seen them before (and most posters here have seen them before.) Whatever you think about everybody’s tone, they have posted a series of detailed and sensible responses to your comments about complexity and a designer. You don’t seem to have any answer to what they said. > [@](#): > > Oh that’s not an argument, it’s assertation. Saying “it’s an argument” does not make it an argument. What you made is an assertion and you haven’t backed it up or explained it even though I asked you to do so. If you don’t want to bother explaining comments like “The countless complex machinations strongly suggest a fore knowledge, not some natural selection process,” why make the comment in the first place? Do you expect people to accept it as the truth just because you said it? ---
**Author:** ![PSico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a88e57/32.png) [@PSico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSico)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/240 "2012-04-20T20:51:13Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Like I said, easy. Just to name a couple that evolution has already solved in other species, human eyes have blind spots, many animal eyes don’t. Sorry, I’ve created some confusion. I originally asked for examples of when the “If I were God” argument was used to convince a proponent of Intelligent Design that your viewpoint is correct. You then said that examples of improvements are easy but it is hard to convince an ID proponent that he is wrong. I took your use of the word “improvements” to mean that you improved the viewpoint of the ID proponent by using the “If I were God” argument". In your subsequent response, you don’t mention ID proponents nor do you provide an example of when you used the “If I were God” argument". You are discussing something else. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/241 "2012-04-20T20:54:46Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Really, are you suggesting that sex is pleasurable for all existing forms of life? Otherwise, that species would have died out a long time ago. Hell if I was a male preying mantis, I certainly would abstain from sex. But there is something programmed into animals that forces them to perform such actions.. It’s called instinct. You think sex drive isn’t programmed into us? Look at all the people who throughout history have done stupid things because of sex - nearly as stupid as the praying mantis. I don’t know if he felt pleasure, but my old dog, who was neutered, would start to hump his bed whenever my wife and I even thought about sex. Not to mention that lots of animals go into heat. We just are in heat 24/7. If God thinks sex is sinful, why did he design us that way? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=13)