Creationism vs Naturalism

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are many tests which I am sure you can read up on. One of the more famous ones is the microwave background radiation.

[b]Creation has countless accurate predictions and you know it.
I don't know of any predictions, please tell. All I have ever heard from creationists is criticism of evolution. I have never heard of any actual evidence for cr ...[text shortened]... bout all the HUGE assumptions made by the TOE?[/b]
Please give one assumption made by the TOE.[/b]

There are many tests which I am sure you can read up on. One of the more famous ones is the microwave background radiation.

Oh yes, so would you care to explain how this proves that the big bang did occur? And why is it that you do not ask the questions of the big bang that you would ask of any other 'bang'? You just continue to ignore the second law of Thermodynamics? And what about all the countless other problems that the big bang theory has?

I don't know of any predictions, please tell. All I have ever heard from creationists is criticism of evolution. I have never heard of any actual evidence for creationism. (The Bible does not count as scientific evidence)

You should definitely read more on both sides of the debate. Here's one little link for starters: http://www.creationevidence.org/

[b]And what about all the HUGE assumptions made by the TOE?
Please give one assumption made by the TOE.[/b]

The whole theory is based on MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS. One of which is the assumption that life could arise from non-life by random chance.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Oh yes, so would you care to explain how this proves that the big bang did occur?

I do not believe in proof outside of mathematics. Only evidence. It is evidence (not proof) that the universe was once very very small. The theory predicted it before it was discovered.

And why is it that you do not ask the questions of the big bang that you would ask of any other 'bang'? You just continue to ignore the second law of Thermodynamics? And what about all the countless other problems that the big bang theory has?
Because the big bang in in no way like any other bang except in name. That is like saying "why not ask the questions of the big bang that you would ask of any replicating life form." The two are unrelated so why ask the same questions?
Please tell us how the second law of Thermodynamics has anything to do with it? And list some of those countless other problems. I will not claim that there are answers to everything but a lack of answers is different from a contradiction. Not knowing how something works does not mean it cant work.

You should definitely read more on both sides of the debate. Here's one little link for starters: http://www.creationevidence.org/
I will have a look.

The whole theory is based on MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS. One of which is the assumption that life could arise from non-life by random chance.
That is neither an assumption made in TOE nor required for it. There are however separate theories/hypotheses covering that. To my knowledge there are so far only theories showing that it is possible not theories showing exactly how it happened. ie how it happened are only hypotheses.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You should definitely read more on both sides of the debate. Here's one little link for starters: http://www.creationevidence.org/

I have looked at the site you gave. I admit I have been unable to read every page as most of it is about trying to sell you books or advertise a museum. The links which appear to talk about evidence for creation do no such thing.
Please check the site yourself and post a link to a page which in your view presents some evidence for creation.

Please note that the page claiming that the population growth rate proves a young earth (as otherwise the earth would be over populated) shows nothing other than the stupidity of the writer. Otherwise we would have been overrun by rabbits long ago!