# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/362 "2012-04-23T01:48:45Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > All the Christians in this thread who’ve said that your argument sucks? > Pretty much all of them have made good points. Do I win a pony? _Why don’t you just wait for a housefly to turn into a pony, evolutionist!!!11_ ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/363 "2012-04-23T01:55:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How can we disprove God if a standard working definition of God isn’t given to us to disprove? Since the definition varies from one sect to another, and since merging science with religion makes for bad science and bad religion, let’s go with the one described in the [Nicene Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use). If you want to know how many pounds he can bench press, you have to admit upfront you’re not participating here in the best of faith. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/364 "2012-04-23T01:57:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What **DrFidelius** said, and scientists already have clues on how and why it could be better. > > [http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/11/ask\_a\_scienceblogger\_which\_par.php](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/11/ask_a_scienceblogger_which_par.php) I’m surprised the article doesn’t even mention the appendix. Here’s a vestigial piece of crap that does pretty much nothing at all (I know some scientists have posited that it plays a role in preserving the bacterial flora in the intestines, but then many people have had it removed who are no worse for wear) ; and yet should it become inflamed it _kills you_ unless someone is quick with a knife. That seems like a teeny tiny problem to me. D’you think people would be OK with a car that spontaneously exploded once in a while unless you drove it to the garage double quick as soon as a particular light came on ? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/365 "2012-04-23T02:38:53Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Why didn’t God design us to be fireproof? Related, I thought the evolutionist theory regarding fire is that it was useful for cooking and tenderizing meat - in fact without it, humans would have difficulty eating and digesting raw meat, while other carnivores manage it easily. Hence, the God-given reflexes that let us pull our hands from stoves is a slapdash solution to the problems created by a need for cooked meat built into our design. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/366 "2012-04-23T02:51:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I would never do such a thing. But you are saying that the equivalent of someone coming to you and saying, “hey, the doors are welded shut and you can only enter from a broken window with jagged glass around it”, simply doesn’t have the expertise to see why the welded doors and broken glass are necessary? > > You’re contending that the flaws other people see are necessary design considerations. > > You agree that there are no\* necessary design considerations\* for an omnipotent being, right? So your God isn’t omnipotent, right? So you are saying that having we have flaws as glaring as the above? Please point them out. Oh…hyperbole to make a point maybe. Ok its a fair point and also fair to change the argument to design limitations. But would you really want a world where we all live forever? [QUOTE=Czarcasm] When I was in the U.S.A.F. my job was crew chief for the B-52D. When that plane was on the ground one of my many duties was to inspect it for cracks, popped rivets and other flaws. I didn’t have the knowledge to smelt the steel, design the plane or put it together. Does this mean that I was incapable of doing my job, Jon55? [/QUOTE] I assume you had training for this? I would also assume the manufacturers recommendations went into the training. I think Lobohan has a fair point that if they are not design flaws then they are design limitations (I hope that is an accurate paraphrase) Saying that God cannot be tri-omni because He was limited in what He could do with us along with the other logic exercises of that ilk. If God was all powerfull why did evil come about as a result of his creations etc etc. Is just a logic exercise and thats it. Philosophers have been proving impossible things for ages. At around 500 BC Zeno of Elea proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that movement was impossible. He did so with three famous paradoxes the one I like the best is that you can take any movement such as a step and divide it. So a half step then a quarter step and so on. There are infinite numbers of fractions ergo there are infinite numbers of steps in a step. So you cannot never complete a step. Hope your chair is comfy. All these design limitation and/or design flaw arguments are just philosophical arguments wrapped rather loosely in science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/367 "2012-04-23T02:53:33Z")
Nah, even I mentioned before that in reality Achilles gets the turtle much to the chagrin of Zeno. And the early church was fond of following like minded philosophers like Aristotle, but then someone called Galileo showed how unreliable the church was with their chosen philosophers. Speaking of fire, I think a philosopher of recent days once said that the church lost their best argument when they were no longer allowed to burn people. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/368 "2012-04-23T03:05:09Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Typical atheist escape route. Just claim logical fallacy or straw man to create the illusion of winning the argument. Do you not understand that this… > [@GEEPERS](#): > > No, a perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God. …is a straw man? Not a single person here argued that a perceived design flaw concretely disproved God. Yet you said that was their claim. That’s a straw man, bucko. The _actual_ claim was that perceived design flaws disprove an omnipotent, omniscient designer. Prediction: When you return to this thread, you’ll read this post, find no way to rebut it, and thus ignore it entirely, hoping that no one else will remember it. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/369 "2012-04-23T03:10:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If we (and all other organisms) were designed, then we were all designed with an enormous amount of evidence, both anatomical and genetic, for common descent. Whales still have remnants of hip bones, though they have no hips. Some snakes still have remnants of leg bones. Through the fossil record, we can see tons and tons of “transitional” forms, whether between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and mammal, various stages of primates’ evolution, etc. And the predictions that the fossil and anatomical data make, like that our closest relatives are the great apes, are confirmed with genetic analysis. > > Evolution has enormous predictive power. If we see fish in one geologic strata (representing a particular time period), and no amphibians, then see amphibians in a later strata, scientists make the prediction that an animal existed in between those strata with characteristics of both fish and amphibians. And with time, [those predictions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega) are usually accurate. Itchy again? That story has changed four times by my count. BTW thats a terrible article. For one thing fossils have been collected since 1955 and despite at least three different expeditions the forelegs of the beast still have not been found. The article makes no mention of the work by Jarvik even tho he did most of the reconstruction work (took him bout 40 years) and no mention of the 2005 reconstruction by Ahlberg, Clack and Blom [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06obse.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06obse.html) ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/370 "2012-04-23T03:25:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What a comedian he/she/it is by ordering ethnic cleansing! > > It is a huge problem, so huge that it was one of the main reasons why I had to conclude that if there is a god, the one of the bible was not it, I go more for what many founding fathers thought, for a more deistic entity that it may exist but for all intentions and evidence so far, he/she/it is not really interested on this neck of the universal woods. > > \*Hundreds of years ago, but he/she/it just remember it, yes, as mentioned, a laugh riot. I am not dodging it but I dont have a good answer either…if I ever do I promise to let the board know. You did touch on a counter proof for me. One of the main reasons I still hold on to my belief system is that you can take the tenets of the New Testament and lay them beside many best selling self help books and see some striking similarities. Does this absolutely prove the writers were inspired? Sadly no because the writers of US Constitution pulled off a similar feat (not as impressive but close) much later. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/371 "2012-04-23T03:29:04Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Well, if the human (and generally among mammals) airway/ esophagus junction was designed, the Hypothetical Omniscient Designer certainly sweated the details to make sure it looks just like something that started out as a pouch in a fish’s throat to hold a bubble of air. > > Now I don’t know about you, but combined with the whole potential for smiting, I would go out of my way to appreciate what the Hypothetical Omniscient Designer built into the system, including any hypothetical constraints and ersatz design history. If He didn’t want us to beleive in evolution, he should not have built the world to look as if it has evolved. So salt evolved from sugar or is it the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/372 "2012-04-23T03:33:32Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Itchy again? That story has changed four times by my count. BTW thats a terrible article. For one thing fossils have been collected since 1955 and despite at least three different expeditions the forelegs of the beast still have not been found. Oh I see, it is not good to find transition fossils, they have to be complete. Unfortunately for you it is not a show stopper for scientists much to the chagrin of many creationists, because it is clear that creationists want to ignore the hind-limbs that demonstrate that indeed they were an intermediate form as predicted. > **[Ichthyostega](http://tolweb.org/Ichthyostega)** > [@Jon55](#): > > The article makes no mention of the work by Jarvik even tho he did most of the reconstruction work (took him bout 40 years) and no mention of the 2005 reconstruction by Ahlberg, Clack and Blom [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06obse.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06obse.html) And yes, the cite I made here does cite Ahlberg, Clack and Blom, the context is that currently scientists do see that critter as evidence of the Early Evolution of the Limbs > **[Terrestrial Vertebrates](http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952)** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/373 "2012-04-23T03:35:31Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > I am not dodging it but I dont have a good answer either…if I ever do I promise to let the board know. > > You did touch on a counter proof for me. One of the main reasons I still hold on to my belief system is that you can take the tenets of the New Testament and lay them beside many best selling self help books and see some striking similarities. > Does this absolutely prove the writers were inspired? Sadly no because the writers of US Constitution pulled off a similar feat (not as impressive but close) much later. There is no need to depend on the god of the bible to be good in this universe, that is clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/374 "2012-04-23T03:48:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Was skimming over the thread when I spotted this. The key difference is that the human knee is not some passive chunk of metal - it (ideally) is in a constant state of self-repair, such that it can indeed last a human lifetime - until the self-repair mechanism breaks down and it begins eroding, as I assume happened in your mother’s case. Yes. Just wanted to say hi… I expect in my lifetime to see artificial joints made of futuristicky ceramics or whatnot that will outlive any human. Where’s your God _then?_ [/QUOTE] …but I do have to say what you or I expect really dosent have much to do with it. Whenever science cannot explain something there are two predictable responses. Creationist…God did it. Atheist…We just have not gotten to it yet. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/375 "2012-04-23T04:12:52Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > I cannot build a car from scratch, or even if you gave me all the parts in a pile, and yet I can see that the placement of the gas tank in the old Ford Pintos was a design flaw. > > In fact, I’d be willing to bet you see design flaws in things you cannot build yourself _all the time_. > > You (and many other religious people) seem to think that since scientists, which you falsely equate to atheists, do not have a god, they hold themselves up as god, and you seek to show us that we are not divine as god, since we can’t “build a man from dirt”. But, you see, _ **we don’t believe in ANY gods.** _ Scientists recognize they cannot make a person in a lab from scratch\*. So what? The point is that _ **God didn’t build a man from dirt EITHER.** _ Not being able to make a person from dirt is utterly irrelevant, since no one (except the ignorant) thinks man was built from dirt anyway. > > You are incapable of seeing the world without your religious lens. Rest assured that others don’t have that problem, though. > > \*yet. It may happen one day I guess you missed the part where I said it was a joke or maybe where I said I didnt believe in a literal genesis. Also I certainly never equated scientists with atheists I am usually on the other side of that argument. There is alot of evidence for evolution I cannot deny that but there are also many problems with it. Seems than many like to ignore those and present it as a slam dunk case which it is most certainly not. Darwin struggled with many of the problems with his own theory and he did so in an open, honest and honorable way to bad so many of his supporters refuse to do the same. One problem is altruism. If a monkey is attacked it will sound the alarm for its troop. Often this monkey is the one that is eaten and so its noble genes die with it and cannot be selected. So why are monkeys still sounding the alarm? Here is an article from Stanford (as opposed to Wiki) that attempts to rectify this problem. In my humble opinion it fails maybe its these religious lens I am suppose to be wearing. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/) ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/376 "2012-04-23T04:23:34Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Good for you Jon55. Nobody understands everything. I surely don’t understand the big bang (for instance) that others have a better grasp of. Instead of attributing it to God or a higher force. I am comfortable with just saying “I really don’t quite get it”. I could investigate it further, but I don’t just say “God did it”. Many, many other things in life interest me more. That’s what I investigate. Hey if you have come to your atheistic world view on philosophical grounds while I might still try to change your mind but I do respect your opinion. I think that philosophy should be our debating ground and not science. I have the opinion that science has precious little to say about a creator or lack thereof. And I would much much rather this discussion be in the cosmological arena. Biology is not really my cup of tea either. > [@enipla](#): > > I don’t need a God to love my neighbors, or forgive those that may have wronged me. That some people do need a God to fear or respect just to be a good person is disturbing. And a bit scary. Yes I got that the first two times and if you do have a judge He is not me but I would assume that as Dr Fidelous (sp?) already mentioned that our grade will be based solely on how we treat each other. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/377 "2012-04-23T04:34:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nah, even I mentioned before that in reality Achilles gets the turtle much to the chagrin of Zeno. And the early church was fond of following like minded philosophers like Aristotle, but then someone called Galileo showed how unreliable the church was with their chosen philosophers. > > Speaking of fire, I think a philosopher of recent days once said that the church lost their best argument when they were no longer allowed to burn people. So what about the infinite number of steps to take a step? ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/378 "2012-04-23T04:44:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Let me correct your ignorance. I’ve seen more computer design flaws than you ever will. I’m involved in bringing up new microprocessors and computers, and I also own data on field failures. I wish that we, as experts, could just look at it and see a design flaw. > Design flaws are not big holes in a design. They are statistical - something fails more often than it should, or is slower, or gives the wrong answer. Even when the flaw itself is not statistical, the input required to sensitize the flaw and observe its affects may be quite subtle. Remember, the famous Intel FDIV bug only showed up for a small set of inputs - and would have been no big deal if the comics hadn’t gotten hold of it. > When you find a design flaw late, and don’t have the time or budget to tape out a new version, you work around it - just like our brains worked around the blind spot in our eye. > Breech births are a design flaw. The Heimlich maneuver is a work around for a design flaw. Color blindness is a design flaw. > > We know the design flaws in the human body statistically and through deep study. No, there aren’t obvious fatal ones, since they got removed by natural selection, just as design flaws that you will see in a shipped computer are subtle, since the obvious ones get caught during verification. > The human body just what you’d expect from an imperfect design process and an imperfect verification process. Hell, if someone in my company wanted to ramp a processor with as long an errata list as our bodies have, he’d get fired. > i Ok so come to work with me one day and fix my crappily networked and terrible designed operating software. I have several Hewlit Packards running Sacmi software all installed by a rather stoned but really nice Itilian…and no I am not kidding. This point and the ones that followed are well taken especially the one about medicine but what would you expect a creator to do? Just make clones of himself? That really dosent sound that interesting and in any case its not what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/379 "2012-04-23T04:47:00Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > So what about the infinite number of steps to take a step? Quantum mechanics. The world does not divide into infinitely small quantities. > [@Jon55](#): > > There is alot of evidence for evolution I cannot deny that but there are also many problems with it. Seems than many like to ignore those and present it as a slam dunk case which it is most certainly not. No, it most certainly is. It can be seen happening, and is a result of how biological reproduction works. Even if life _had_ been created by a god, evolution would have immediately started up as soon as that life appeared. > [@Jon55](#): > > One problem is altruism. If a monkey is attacked it will sound the alarm for its troop. Often this monkey is the one that is eaten and so its noble genes die with it and cannot be selected. So why are monkeys still sounding the alarm? Because the other monkeys share most of its genes. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/380 "2012-04-23T04:52:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh I see, it is not good to find transition fossils, they have to be complete. Unfortunately for you it is not a show stopper for scientists much to the chagrin of many creationists, because it is clear that creationists want to ignore the hind-limbs that demonstrate that indeed they were an intermediate form as predicted. > > [Ichthyostega](http://tolweb.org/Ichthyostega) > > And yes, the cite I made here does cite Ahlberg, Clack and Blom, the context is that currently scientists do see that critter as evidence of the Early Evolution of the Limbs > > [Terrestrial Vertebrates](http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952) So why dintcha use those in the first place? So much more interesting and at least at first glance looks alot more reliable. Really thanks for the link I will persue it when I have time. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/381 "2012-04-23T04:55:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Quantum mechanics. The world does not divide into infinitely small quantities. Does not have a thing with to do with what the world is made of. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it most certainly is. It can be seen happening, and is a result of how biological reproduction works. Even if life _had_ been created by a god, evolution would have immediately started up as soon as that life appeared. > > Because the other monkeys share most of its genes. Ok so what kind of selection process is that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=20)