What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[AnotherAtheist]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?

 

[SkyWriting]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?
I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?

By definition, there cannot be.
If the events can't be repeated and observed by
an inquisitive investigator, then it is not within
the boundaries of the scientific method.

This goes for any area of science.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

By definition, there cannot be.
If the events can't be repeated and observed by
an inquisitive investigator, then it is not within
the boundaries of the scientific method.

This is incorrect. There would be evidence for creationism if we could find the specific consequences of creationism in the modern world. In the same way that geology can perform scientific inquiry into events that happened long ago by looking at the consequences (e.g. folded, angled, and layered sedimentary rocks) in the modern world.

When I was on this forum a few years ago, I did do an experiment that could confirm creationism, by looking for passages from The Bible in human DNA. The result was that I didn't find any such passages longer than would be expected by random chance. (I compared to randomly jumbled human DNA) But, had I found long sequences of The Bible in the DNA, that would have been evidence for creation. So, the evidence can exist.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is incorrect. There would be evidence for creationism if we could find the specific consequences of creationism in the modern world. In the same way that geology can perform scientific inquiry into events that happened long ago by looking at the consequences (e.g. folded, angled, and layered sedimentary rocks) in the modern world.

When I was on this forum a few years ago, I did do an experiment that could confirm creationism, by looking for passages from The Bible in human DNA. The result was that I didn't find any such passages longer than would be expected by random chance. (I compared to randomly jumbled human DNA) But, had I found long sequences of The Bible in the DNA, that would have been evidence for creation. So, the evidence can exist.

You just proved yourself wrong.
"by looking at the consequences (e.g. folded, angled, and layered sedimentary rocks) in the modern world."

As I just said, if you can't revisit the observations, it's not within the boundaries of the scientific method.
Folded rock is very much a mystery, and there are only theories on how it happened. Some theories say coldflow, some "hot" flow, some hard flow, some soft flow. Nobody knows how it happened. Some say it happened under high pressure conditions, some say low pressure conditions.

Waffle Rock, as it sits today at the entrance to the concourse for the Jennings Randolph Lake Observatory

The creationist "theory" is that a supernatural force created.
Science says "nature" can only act on already created matter and cannot build matter and energy from nothing.

Creationist "evidence" is that energy and matter exist at all. But I can't repeat or test such events myself.

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.…

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Already an attempt to derail the thread. Go see the geology thread for the geology of folded rocks. This thread is for positive objective evidence of creation.

There are many possible ways in which objective evidence of creation (theistic or not) could exist. E.g. if in the fossil record the full range of modern creatures suddenly appeared all at once, with no progression from simpler forms of life in earlier layers. That would be positive evidence for creation.

There was ample opportunity for creation to reveal itself once modern genetic science was developed. There are lots of ways that living things genetic codes could be which would imply creation. Of course, the genetic code supports evolution, but it logically could have supported creation.

There are lots of other possible ways that positive objective evidence for creation could have occurred and be found. Has any such evidence been found?

 

[DogmaHunter]

By definition, there cannot be.
If the events can't be repeated and observed by
an inquisitive investigator, then it is not within
the boundaries of the scientific method.

This goes for any area of science.

Soooo.....

If we can't repeat the eruption of a volcano (which we can't) and weren't there to observe the eruption, then we are unable to tell wheter such an eruption took place or not?

What are you smoking?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

 

[ChetSinger]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?

Fair question. 2,000 years ago Paul wrote:

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

Is that still true? I think it is, and one of the shining examples is life itself.

DNA itself doesn't do anything; it's just a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.

So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon it? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.

So I think this is a conundrum for abiogenesis. And since cells perform about 200 functions and need at least that many genes (plus switches, etc.), it's a conundrum multiplied by at least 200.

From what I've read, it's this very conundrum that led Antony Flew to deism. And led Eugene Koonin to punt the problem to the multiverse.

What do you think?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Fair question. 2,000 years ago Paul wrote:



Is that still true? I think it is, and one of the shining examples is life itself.

DNA itself doesn't do anything; it's just a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.

So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon it? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.

So I think this is a conundrum for abiogenesis. And since cells perform about 200 functions and need at least that many genes (plus switches, etc.), it's a conundrum multiplied by at least 200.

From what I've read, it's this very conundrum that led Antony Flew to deism. And led Eugene Koonin to punt the problem to the multiverse.

What do you think?

I think you are repeating a tired old PRATT.

This is just another species of the fallacious "irreducible complexity" nonsense, which in itself is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Is that still true? I think it is, and one of the shining examples is life itself.

DNA itself doesn't do anything; it's just a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.

So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon it? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.

Why do either of them need to 'come first'? Putting things into a linear order is often used to attempt to criticise evolution, but there is no reason why things cannot evolve in parallel. Neither is there any necessity that either DNA nor the enzymes that act upon it were in anything like their present form when life started. It could easily have been neither of them that came first: RNA world, or other replicating molecules, and DNA/enzymes only happened in later stages.

So I think this is a conundrum for abiogenesis. And since cells perform about 200 functions and need at least that many genes (plus switches, etc.), it's a conundrum multiplied by at least 200.

So, you are answering my thread asking for positive evidence FOR creation by giving evidence AGAINST abiogenesis. OK, but do you know of any positive evidence for creation?

From what I've read, it's this very conundrum that led Antony Flew to deism. And led Eugene Koonin to punt the problem to the multiverse.

What do you think?

I am wondering why you didn't give me any postive supporting objective evidence for creationism, but instead gave me negative evidence arguing against natural abiogenesis.

And a spinning globe is specific positive evidence for creationism that doesn't support other theories equally much or more ... because?

 

[Loudmouth]

By definition, there cannot be.
If the events can't be repeated and observed by
an inquisitive investigator, then it is not within
the boundaries of the scientific method.

That's wrong. Way wrong. What happened in the past is the hypothesis. You don't have to repeat the hypothesis. Repeatability refers to the observations that you test the hypothesis with. The observations would be the evidence found in the present.

 

[Loudmouth]

You just proved yourself wrong.
"by looking at the consequences (e.g. folded, angled, and layered sedimentary rocks) in the modern world."

As I just said, if you can't revisit the observations, it's not within the boundaries of the scientific method.

You can look at any of these geologic formations repeatedly.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fair question. 2,000 years ago Paul wrote:



Is that still true? I think it is, and one of the shining examples is life itself.

DNA itself doesn't do anything; it's just a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.

So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon it? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.

So I think this is a conundrum for abiogenesis. And since cells perform about 200 functions and need at least that many genes (plus switches, etc.), it's a conundrum multiplied by at least 200.

From what I've read, it's this very conundrum that led Antony Flew to deism. And led Eugene Koonin to punt the problem to the multiverse.

What do you think?

Did you read the opening post? You did exactly what the opening post asked you not to do.

 

[ChetSinger]

Why do either of them need to 'come first'? Putting things into a linear order is often used to attempt to criticise evolution, but there is no reason why things cannot evolve in parallel.

But there is no evolution at this stage. There are just chemicals; DNA doesn't reproduce itself. And am I to believe that somehow there are hundreds of proteins surrounding a DNA molecule that just so happens to have their specifications inside it? And while this is going on, where does the ribosome come from?

Neither is there any necessity that either DNA nor the enzymes that act upon it were in anything like their present form when life started. It could easily have been neither of them that came first: RNA world, or other replicating molecules, and DNA/enzymes only happened in later stages.

Just as easily? Really? That's the hypothesis. But where are the experiments to support it?

So, you are answering my thread asking for positive evidence FOR creation by giving evidence AGAINST abiogenesis...

Yes, I can understand that. But it's a subject that interests me. And isn't evidence against abiogenesis also evidence for engineering? If I find the proverbial watch in the forest, I think it's existence is evidence both against it's natural construction and in favor of it's engineering.

But I tell you what; I'll come up with what I think is a more pro-engineering argument and post it soon.

 

[Loudmouth]

But there is no evolution at this stage. There are just chemicals; DNA doesn't reproduce itself. And am I to believe that somehow there are hundreds of proteins surrounding a DNA molecule that just so happens to have their specifications inside it? And while this is going on, where does the ribosome come from?

Where is the positive evidence for creationism?

This isn't a thread about attacking abiogenesis or evolution. This is a thread about presenting positive evidence for creationism.

Just as easily? Really? That's the hypothesis. But where are the experiments to support it?

Take your own words and apply it to creationism.

And isn't evidence against abiogenesis also evidence for engineering?

No. That is a false dichotomy.

Would you allow us to use the absence of evidence for creationism as evidence for abiogenesis?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

But there is no evolution at this stage. There are just chemicals; DNA doesn't reproduce itself. And am I to believe that somehow there are hundreds of proteins surrounding a DNA molecule that just so happens to have their specifications inside it? And while this is going on, where does the ribosome come from?

Again, arguing against natural abiogenesis. And repeating the argument that life must have emerged as we see it now, without having some pathway towards that. BTW: Do you know what a ribozyme is?

Just as easily? Really? That's the hypothesis. But where are the experiments to support it?

Why are you asking for evidence supporting natural abiogenesis on a thread specifically asking for positive objective evidence specifically supporting creation?

Yes, I can understand that. But it's a subject that interests me. And isn't evidence against abiogenesis also evidence for engineering? If I find the proverbial watch in the forest, I think it's existence is evidence both against it's natural construction and in favor of it's engineering.

Evidence against natural abiogenesis is ... evidence against natural abiogenesis. It doesn't support any other hypotheses unless there is only one possible other hypotheses. As well as theistic creation, we also have atheistic creation (e.g. advanced technical aliens) various versions of panspermia, and possibly other theories of how life started that we haven't thought of.

But I tell you what; I'll come up with what I think is a more pro-engineering argument and post it soon.

Will this argument contain positive objective evidence specifically supporting creation?

 

[ChetSinger]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?

OK, here's something that I think is a pro-engineering argument.

In cells, DNA is easily and regularly damaged. The reasons include oxidation, radiation, hydrolyis, poisons, etc. I think evidence of engineering is the repair mechanisms that fix damaged and even broken DNA.

Here's some background info on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

I'll focus on a particular repair method I've learned about. Did you know that DNA conducts electricity, and that a repair mechanism uses that feature? Here's how it works: first, two enzymes attach themselves to the DNA. Then one of them fires an electron toward the second one. If the second one receives the electron it means that the strand is unbroken and it detaches. But if it doesn't it walks toward the first one, finds the break, and fixes it.

I think that in itself is amazing. But what's even more amazing is the specifications for those enzymes just happen to be in that very DNA itself. Chance, or engineering?

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, here's something that I think is a pro-engineering argument.

In cells, DNA is easily and regularly damaged. The reasons include oxidation, radiation, hydrolyis, poisons, etc. I think evidence of engineering is the repair mechanisms that fix damaged and even broken DNA.

Why do you think it is evidence?

I'll focus on a particular repair method I've learned about. Did you know that DNA conducts electricity, and that a repair mechanism uses that feature? Here's how it works: first, two enzymes attach themselves to the DNA. Then one of them fires an electron toward the second one. If the second one receives the electron it means that the strand is unbroken and it detaches. But if it doesn't it walks toward the first one, finds the break, and fixes it.

I think that in itself is amazing. But what's even more amazing is the specifications for those enzymes just happen to be in that very DNA itself. Chance, or engineering?

Where is the evidence for an intelligent deity taking part in this process?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

OK, here's something that I think is a pro-engineering argument.

In cells, DNA is easily and regularly damaged. The reasons include oxidation, radiation, hydrolyis, poisons, etc. I think evidence of engineering is the repair mechanisms that fix damaged and even broken DNA.

Here's some background info on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

I'll focus on a particular repair method I've learned about. Did you know that DNA conducts electricity, and that a repair mechanism uses that feature? Here's how it works: first, two enzymes attach themselves to the DNA. Then one of them fires an electron toward the second one. If the second one receives the electron it means that the strand is unbroken and it detaches. But if it doesn't it walks toward the first one, finds the break, and fixes it.

I think that in itself is amazing. But what's even more amazing is the specifications for those enzymes just happen to be in that very DNA itself. Chance, or engineering?

Are you suggesting that DNA repair mechanisms couldn't have evolved? That sounds like an argument from incredulity to me. You can't personally see how it would have evolved, so you assume it must have been designed. Here is a readable abstract (article behind paywall) which summarises some research looking at how DNA repair mechanisms could have evolved.

BTW: chance or engineering is a false dichotomy. Evolution through natural selection through eons of time is very, very, far from chance.

 

[Chicken Little]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact just the billions of Ooparts and unanswered questions alone should make one question all those screeching
'the undeniable facts of evilution' together with recorded history prove creation.