What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[JonFromMinnesota]

QV please:74

The one cool thing about this link is that it revealed that AronRa used to post on this site. He's a popular outspoken Atheist and vocal critic of creationism. Would you ever debate him head to head in person?

 

[ContraMundum]

You do not seem to understand what the word "dogma" means....You do not seem to appreciate the fact that as time goes on in any subject the errors keep getting smaller and smaller as the correct answer is neared.

Then you do not understand the ignorance of creationists....

I am very sure that you cannot point to any internal inconsistencies in evolution.

I said evolution is internally consistent. Just like religions. Same defense mechanism as well. Same paradigms, and in some cases same devotee fanaticism.

Why aren't you reading me properly? Seriously. How could you miss that?

You just say "you don't understand x" but in fact I'm not sure you are showing much understanding either.

Do you realize you've just made a prophet out of me?

I get the distinct feeling that no matter what is said, posited, postulated, thought about, discussed or asserted there will always be a comeback, and no matter what- the other person will always be deemed "ignorant". As I said, the more that the "you are ignorant" card is played, the less I respect the post. Wasting valuable time here. Either tackle the thoughts being presented that challenge your bullet-proof dogma (yes, dogma) or be prepared for some "car-ma" to run over your "dog-ma". All things unravel for the haughty eventually.

In the interim, I suggest you go and read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" and see where you might fit in. I have a theory about that.

(PS: to the other readers- imagine telling a guy with a degree in theology that he doesn't know what dogma means! LOL. Why bother further?)

Anyone got anything interesting to say?

 

[ContraMundum]

Please, that was a request for honesty on your part too. And I did not "call" you anything. I pointed out what your actions were. There is an important difference between the two.

Yeah, sure buddy.

 

[crjmurray]

I said evolution is internally consistent. Just like religions. Same defense mechanism as well. Same paradigms, and in some cases same devotee fanaticism.

Why aren't you reading me properly? Seriously. How could you miss that?

You just say "you don't understand x" but in fact I'm not sure you are showing much understanding either.

Do you realize you've just made a prophet out of me?

I get the distinct feeling that no matter what is said, posited, postulated, thought about, discussed or asserted there will always be a comeback, and no matter what- the other person will always be deemed "ignorant". As I said, the more that the "you are ignorant" card is played, the less I respect the post. Wasting valuable time here. Either tackle the thoughts being presented that challenge your bullet-proof dogma (yes, dogma) or be prepared for some "car-ma" to run over your "dog-ma". All things unravel for the haughty eventually.

In the interim, I suggest you go and read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" and see where you might fit in. I have a theory about that.

(PS: to the other readers- imagine telling a guy with a degree in theology that he doesn't know what dogma means! LOL. Why bother further?)

Anyone got anything interesting to say?

Is there some sort of refund option?

 

[ContraMundum]

Is there some sort of refund option?

Unfortunately you can't get wasted time back.

 

[crjmurray]

Unfortunately you can't get wasted time back.

Time. Money. Book learnin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, there is no one single "scientific method". But scientific evidence is well defined. justlook knows that he is wrong, but for some reason he seems to think that misleading people about the fact that evolution is a fact will somehow make Christianity safe from evolution. Christianity does not need the false stories of Genesis. It get's along fine if those are merely treated as morality tales.

An allegorical Genesis 1 makes no sense.

If Genesis 1 is an allegory, then God is still creating the universe.

If God is still creating the universe, then, according to Peter, God is going to suddenly blow it up and create a New Heavens and a New Earth.

If God is going to create a NH and NE, are we going to have to wait another 14.7 billion years?

Or is God going to do it in an instant of time, in contradistinction to Genesis 1?

If so, why couldn't He have created this current universe in an instant of time as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

The one cool thing about this link is that it revealed that AronRa used to post on this site. He's a popular outspoken Atheist and vocal critic of creationism. Would you ever debate him head to head in person?

What do you think Post 74 was?

 

[justlookinla]

[

Yes, but I know what is true, I don't have to lie since I am not a creationist.

Who's a liar?

Please don't be a rude fool. I politely offered to help you so that others would not laugh at you so much and instead all you return is ignorance, cowardice and rudeness.

I posted a visual of the scientific method, asked you to respond with just a single example of the evidence you claim to have and offered to help you understand if your evidence passed the scientific method test. You seem to be disinterested of learning what scientific evidence is even when offered to you in the simplest manner.

Your response of course doesn't offer a bit of evidence you claim you have but instead contains personal attacks and typical 'yer a liar' response.

Duly reported.

 

[justlookinla]

Been down the rabbit hole with this poster before. All you'll get is argument ad-nauseam about the scientific method without them demonstrating they know how it works.

This is how it works.........

I'm guessing but they may know they are deliberately being dishonest

'Yer a liar' response? That's the position one takes when one doesn't have a valid argument against a proposition.

and think if they repeat what they hope is true over and over that it will become true and you'll be convinced. You politely offered to help them understand. Nothing more you can really do if they are unwilling to learn.

Learn what the scientific method is, apply it to Darwinistic evolution and get back to me and we'll see if you understand it. If not, I'll be glad to help.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, there is no one single "scientific method". But scientific evidence is well defined. justlook knows that he is wrong, but for some reason he seems to think that misleading people about the fact that evolution is a fact will somehow make Christianity safe from evolution. Christianity does not need the false stories of Genesis. It get's along fine if those are merely treated as morality tales.

Tell me what's wrong with this scientific method....

 

[DerelictJunction]

No evidence you will accept. You haven't proven that Creationism wasn't the very mechanism God used to create life. All you do is repeat yourself.

Uh...no. No evidence, as I said.
Saying that evolution is not supported by evidence (an incorrect statement, BTW) is not evidence for Creationism. Claiming that it is, would be like claiming that evidence against John Smith committing a murder is evidence for John Doe committing that murder.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Tell me what's wrong with this scientific method....

Nothing wrong with it. Your claim that it is not used is what is wrong....but you already know that and refuse to modify your claims.

 

[DerelictJunction]

It's pretty simple really. We gave you evidence. The Creation is evidence for a Creator. You do not accept that as evidence, just as the quote I made did not accept the evidence for Evolution. Logar heads. Neither one of us agree because of our bias. The difference is I know I have a bias you just think there can be only one answer.

However, your "evidence for a Creator" didn't differentiate your version of a Creator (one that speaks all things into existence in 6 days) from a Creator that used evolution.

As an aside, I disagree that your evidence for a Creator (not much more than an observance of organization in the physical world and a presumption of design) is enough to do more than tangentially support the idea of a Creator.

 

[justlookinla]

Nothing wrong with it. Your claim that it is not used is what is wrong....but you already know that and refuse to modify your claims.

I haven't seen it used in offering evidence for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Have you? If you have, would you please give the evidence which was offered which passed the test of the scientific method?

 

[DerelictJunction]

It is an evidence for Creationism because Creationism supports the Law. Some theories do not.

Created - Creation - by a Creator intelligent & organized

How does creation of everything out of nothing support the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Versus what - your claims that all life doesn't get old and die? It clearly follows the thermodynamic laws of entropy - no matter how much energy you continue to put into the system. There is no evolution - only infraspecific taxa mating with infraspecific taxa producing new infraspecific taxa. We must ignore all of nature to make claims of evolution. Must ignore the natural variation that occurs when infraspecific taxa mate - and instead pretend its only when things mutate from one to another.

Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. In neither case of infraspecific taxa mating with other infraspecific taxa within the species - are their missing links nor evolution involved. It all occurred by the natural process of the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. Nothing transitory in form is missing between any of them.

Why must we ignore how all of nature propagates in order to consider your theory?

EDIT:
You have never observed an Asian or African mutate into anything let alone into an Afro-Asian, nor a Husky or Mastiff mutate into anything, let alone into a Chinook. Why must we then pretend it happened that way in the past, instead of fitting the fossil record to our observations of the present?

No one is ignoring anything in order to consider "our" theory...not in this thread anyway.
Most of us are still waiting for someone to present evidence that positively supports Creationism. Most of the posts are side conversations because we have to do something while waiting for your side to come up with a collection of words that looks like it might be evidence.

Your "different breeds" nonsense is not evidence in support of Creationism. It is a failed attempt to provide evidence against evolution. As such, it doesn't really belong in this thread.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I haven't seen it used in offering evidence for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Have you? If you have, would you please give the evidence which was offered which passed the test of the scientific method?

You want to talk about it then open another thread. Stop muddying this one with your false claims about evolution theory. This is a thread about Creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

You want to talk about it then open another thread. Stop muddying this one with your false claims about evolution theory. This is a thread about Creationism.

What false claims?

 

[DerelictJunction]

What false claims?

Not going there in this thread. Start another one and get trounced there.