# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/382 "2012-04-23T04:57:08Z")
Jon55, you seem like a relatively intelligent fellow. You also state that you have ‘problems’ with the current theory of Evolution. Do you have any alternative hypotheses that fit the observed data better than the standard theory? Do you question the basic foundations of biological evolution? Please elucidate a positive proposition of your own that contradicts the current theory and gives a plausible mechanism for your thesis. That is not too much to ask. After all, you must have a clear understanding of the current theory in order to make judgement as to its effectiveness as a scientific theory. Surely you have come up with some alternative hypotheses. I, for one, would be pleased to see such presented here. It would be a refreshing change from the usual dreck excreted by other posters who lack your insight into the matter. ---
**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, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/383 "2012-04-23T04:57:49Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Does not have a thing with to do with what the world is made of. Say what? It’s physics. It’s _all_ about what the world is made of. > [@Jon55](#): > > Ok so what kind of selection process is that? Natural selection. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/384 "2012-04-23T05:05:01Z")
The best evidence for an intelligent creator for life would be the presence of some sort of easter egg, or message from the creator. If a particular strand of DNA is ever translated into a code that says something like “Created by God on the 5th day of creation” or something like that, then wham, you’ve got a slam-dunk case for intelligent design. Without some piece of evidence, a message, or something, there is just absolutely no reason to create a theory involving an intelligent designer. _PLEASE DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE BIBLE IS EVIDENCE_ ---
**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 23, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/385 "2012-04-23T05:31:54Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > 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. I’m a computer scientist who wrote a compiler for my dissertation, but who has worked on hardware for over 30 years, and I can tell you that hardware is much easier. Hardware has a very limited set of inputs, and doesn’t have to deal with users. But actually, software evolves also. Windows was designed for standalone single user PCs, and so has all sorts of horrid features - like DLLs - which made sense back 20 years ago and no sense now. UNIX, which was designed as a multiuser system from scratch, does much better. I think it is problematic that big-multigeneration systems are intelligently designed. People may work at each stage, but there is no overriding supervision. Thus we get the kind of junk you see. I don’t think I’m allowed to give my opinion of HP stuff. > [@](#): > > 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. A creator God is everywhere and can do all this design perfectly. It would be a real bad design if it had to be tweaked all the time, wouldn’t it? And if I were divine I would know all the surprises people have thrown at me in advance and could have designed for them, That would save time. I actually almost have, but that comes from a lack of trust in the sanity of users which I have learned from long experience. ---
**Author:** ![keeganst94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@keeganst94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeganst94)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/386 "2012-04-23T05:32:13Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? I’m no expert, but it seems to me that sounding the alarm would help protect the rest of the community, including that monkeys children. From an evolutionary perspective, it doens’t really matter what happens to the alarm-sounding monkey, as long as it’s already reproduced. Besides, it’s a tradeoff; slight chance of being killed while sounding an alarm, vs. hugely better odds of survival by belonging to a troop. And of course any troop without an alarm-sounder would probably be ambushed and destroyed. So monkeys without the alarm-sounding behavior got killed more, because their entire troop got killed, and the alarm-sounding troops were more succesful, stayed alive longer, had more children, and thus the trait became more common. ---
**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 23, 2012, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/387 "2012-04-23T05:41:52Z")
> [@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? > > 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/) First, why do you think the explanation in the article fails? I suggest you read “The Selfish Gene” which is cited in the references and which is an easier to understand and longer discussion of some of this stuff. There is a lot of mathematical genetics now, in that various strategies can be simulated and that which comes out best determined. The problem in your first paragraph is that this noble gene is spread throughout the monkey tribe, and if one sounding the alarm saves monkey lives on the average, the gene will continue to spread. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/388 "2012-04-23T05:45:11Z")
If you look at it from the gene’s perspective, the lives of individuals are not as important as the eventual promulgation of the gene. Therefore, we get certain behaviors like altruism. More about the source for this may be found at [The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) Interesting side note: this is the work wherein the word ‘meme’ first appeared. ETA: DAMMIT! Ninjaed by **Voyager**! \ Khaaaaaaaaaaaaannnn! ---
**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, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/389 "2012-04-23T07:38:37Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Whenever science cannot explain something there are two predictable responses. > > Creationist…God did it. > > Atheist…We just have not gotten to it yet. Thing is, history tells us that the godless approach will get results at least some of the time - i.e. what is a mystery to the creationist today will remain a mystery forever, with at best an ungrounded promise that an individual will receive revelation after death, while the scientist can observe reality and come up with useful applications. Why does a human knee sometimes give out during the human’s lifetime? A creationist doesn’t know and has no means of finding out. A scientist can at least explain how the decay happens, and come up with ways to mitigate it (i.e. anti-inflammatory medications) or fix it (i.e. surgical replacement, which though not yet as durable as the biological original, is slowly getting there). You’re basically insulting scientists while indulging in the benefits they provide. This strikes me as, at the very least, a misdirection of the gratitude you instead lavish on your invisible sky-pixie. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/390 "2012-04-23T10:05:21Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > So salt evolved from sugar or is it the other way around. Okay. Please expand on this statement, as otherwise it is simply a non sequitur. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/391 "2012-04-23T10:07:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > A marvel of engineering? [I think not.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design#Examples) If anyone designed us, they could have done a lot better. One of my favorite examples is the [recurrent laryngeal nerve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve), a nerve that goes from the larynx (in the throat) to the brain, apparently by the scenic route- around the _aorta_. In giraffes, this means the nerve is _twenty feet_ longer than it needs to be. There is video of this nerve in a giraffe. (warning dissection). [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/cO1a1Ek-HD0/hqdefault.jpg "Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/392 "2012-04-23T11:56:12Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Typical atheist escape route. Just claim logical fallacy or straw man to create the illusion of winning the argument. Those sneaky atheists. I would love to just see once where an atheist agrees that a Christian has mad a good point. Not gonna happen. Actually, any number of atheists have noted the good points that several Christians, (or Jews), have made in this thread. What one will never see is an atheist acknowledging that a Creationist, arguing against facts and relying on rhetoric that even other Christians reject, has made a valid point when no such “good point” has actually been made. Confusing Creationists with Christians is one of the errors that a great many Creationists make on a pretty regular basis. Just because one rejects 2000 years of Christian thought and belief regarding the stories of Genesis for a version invented in the nineteenth century does not make one a spokesperson for all Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/393 "2012-04-23T12:08:09Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > > [@Jon55](#): > > > > So salt evolved from sugar or is it the other way around. > > Okay. Please expand on this statement, as otherwise it is simply a non sequitur. I’m guessing it’s an analogy based on a naive or grossly simplistic view of what constitutes ‘similarity’ when it comes to empirical study of the relatedness of any two organisms. - i.e. the process of examining two forms and deducing that either [they share a common ancestor] or [one is ancestral of the other] is being likened to very superficially examining salt and sugar and concluding that they are related, on the basis that they are both colourless crystalline solids. Needless to say, comparing salt and sugar like that isn’t anything like the multitude of different ways we can compare organisms to one another (including, but not limited to: morphology, embryology, bioregiography, the fossil record, and a whole heap of different genetic methods). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/394 "2012-04-23T12:16:13Z")
(But that is a common creationist tactic - vastly oversimplify something, stripping it of all important details in the process, to the point that it no longer makes sense, then drily observe that it is nonsense. A specific kind of straw man argument, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/395 "2012-04-23T12:17:39Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m guessing it’s an analogy based on a naive or grossly simplistic view of what constitutes ‘similarity’ when it comes to empirical study of the relatedness of any two organisms. > > - i.e. the process of examining two forms and deducing that either [they share a common ancestor] or [one is ancestral of the other] is being likened to very superficially examining salt and sugar and concluding that they are related, on the basis that they are both colourless crystalline solids. > > Needless to say, comparing salt and sugar like that isn’t anything like the multitude of different ways we can compare organisms to one another (including, but not limited to: morphology, embryology, bioregiography, the fossil record, and a whole heap of different genetic methods). That’s what my stumbling block was on that statement. Once you actually look at salt and sugar, you wil see that they are not “related” in any way. Crystal structure (analogous to morphology), production processes (analogous to embryology), and chemical composition (analogous to genetics) are all so very different that only the most unobservant could ever propose that they are related. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/396 "2012-04-23T12:46:49Z")
> [@PSico](#): > > 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. According to the Bible Psalm 82 KJV he /she is God! Or john 10 Jesus points out that they are called Gods, at least their Law did! ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/397 "2012-04-23T12:47:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, any number of atheists have noted the good points that several Christians, (or Jews), have made in this thread. > > What one will never see is an atheist acknowledging that a Creationist, arguing against facts and relying on rhetoric that even other Christians reject, has made a valid point when no such “good point” has actually been made. > > Confusing Creationists with Christians is one of the errors that a great many Creationists make on a pretty regular basis. Just because one rejects 2000 years of Christian thought and belief regarding the stories of Genesis for a version invented in the nineteenth century does not make one a spokesperson for all Christians. In other words, “Christians” win the admiration and support of atheists as long as they agree with atheistic ideology. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/398 "2012-04-23T13:01:52Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Again the only proof of Gods existence I have is subjective so I guess you know what comes next. The witnessing, but before I begin I would like to point out that the only kind of witnessing that some of the members of the board have a problem with is the religious kind. > > FinnAgain was witnessing when he noted that as a science teacher he sees the efffects of ignorance everyday and Voyager was witnessing when he related his observation of the effects of artificial selection while breeding dogs. > I can take thier subjective evidence and make it objective for me personally by becoming a teacher or by breeding dogs. > And you can take the subjective evidence I offer and apply it to your own life and see if it works for you if you so desire. > > Ok hang on here we go. My proof of God. > By doing the things asked of me in the New Testament of the Holy Bible I have enriched my life iimmensely. Specifically “love your God with alll your heart, mind, body, and soul.” and “love your neighbor (your fellow human beings) as yoursefl” > The rest of the instruction found in the New Testament concerns how to keep those two commandments. > > Thats it!! If you use the Bible as proof of anything regarding God, or a God, you are using the words and beliefs of some other human.Even if it comes from your own mind, it is just a human thinking. There is no proof of God, just belief that there is,when(an if) belief is proven then it would be fact, since there is no way to prove anything except the human mind, it just remains belief.That is a matter of choice. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/399 "2012-04-23T13:05:09Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Either we both exist because of God or we dont so we both do or do not need God. > > My reasoning is taken right out of the Bible from words written by people who had no idea that science would be able to explain so much of our surroundings. > Faith was required of them and it is required of me. > > That is great and I am glad you do and I do not doubt you bit because I have a good friend who is an atheist and lives his life much the same way I do. He just has more free time on Sundays. > > Some say there are no atheists in heaven and of course that will be true but I tend to believe that there will be some who were atheists till death. > At the very least you will make it ahead of some who pray for people to “make thier toes curl” > > For one thing when the Bible uses the word fear it usually means respect it depends on the context. But some people do need that fear to start them on a better path but the Bible is very clear that if fear is all thats driving a person that person is in the wrong. > > New Testament Christianty is all about internal motives. The outside actions are a result of that. And who wrote the Bible…Humans, Humans decided what was from God or not, so belief is in other humans! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/400 "2012-04-23T13:12:10Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Jesus lived and died under the old law in fact the new law was christened with His blood but not put into effect until He arose on the following Sunday. > > The book Isiah is full of prophecy about the Messiah who would come and usher in a new contract with God and in Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. > > He finished the old contract and began the new. Jesus is also quoted as saying the world would end in that generation, and that he would ‘RETURN’ in his father’s glory with his angels, while some of them standing there listening to him were still alive…it didn’t happen…wonder why? ---
**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, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/401 "2012-04-23T13:25:27Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > [QUOTE=tomndebb] > Actually, any number of atheists have noted the good points that several Christians, (or Jews), have made in this thread. > > What one will never see is an atheist acknowledging that a Creationist, arguing against facts and relying on rhetoric that even other Christians reject, has made a valid point when no such “good point” has actually been made. > > Confusing Creationists with Christians is one of the errors that a great many Creationists make on a pretty regular basis. Just because one rejects 2000 years of Christian thought and belief regarding the stories of Genesis for a version invented in the nineteenth century does not make one a spokesperson for all Christians. In other words, “Christians” win the admiration and support of atheists as long as they agree with atheistic ideology. Gotcha. [/QUOTE] You’re just distorting & ignoring what people are saying again. You’re doing exactly what **tomndebb** was complaining of; equating creationist with Christian. And evolution isn’t ideology, atheistic or otherwise. It’s a scientific fact, like gravity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=21)