The best evidence for Creationism

[DaneaFL]

Whoa. Love this one!

"You insist on letting your own natural, depraved mind "think" through the process of determining what is real and what is not."

You know, cuz your mind totally doesn't just deal with interpreting things...

You just couldn't make this stuff up...

I just don't understand what creation science is trying to accomplish...

They've freely admitted that science itself is useless, that evidence is never conclusive because its from the "fallen" physical world which is of course controlled by satan, and furthurmore, our minds arent even capable of understanding the natural world because we are all "depraved."

So if we cant trust science, evidence, reality, or even our own minds, then why do they try to use sciencey sounding memes and attempt to use physical evidence and logical thinking when we cant rely on those things anyway?

 

[DaneaFL]

And you could provide us evidence, if we did wax concerned?

I mean, if I had a change of mind and asked you for evidence, you would provide some for me?

Or, in reality, do you have just as much evidence for creationism as I do?

That is ... none?

That's what you want us to do, isn't it?

Ask you for evidence for creationism, so you can lecture us on how misguided we are?

Oh dont tease me... you know as well as i do that you wouldnt ever ask me for evidence.
Although id jump for joy if you ever actually did.

But You dont believe in evidence remember? Why even waste time proposing that particular hypothetical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why even waste time proposing that particular hypothetical.

Why not ... you guys waste time making up evidence for everything else.

I think currently the moon is in the lead with six sets of evidence.

But the stuff we really need evidence for ... like curing cancer ... they can't seem to find anything that works.

(My electric toothbrush spins faster, though.)

 

[Non sequitur]

Why not ... you guys waste time making up evidence for everything else.

I think currently the moon is in the lead with six sets of evidence.

But the stuff we really need evidence for ... like curing cancer ... they can't seem to find anything that works.

(My electric toothbrush spins faster, though.)

You should remind children in a cancer ward that, on the bright side of things is, their toothbrushes spin faster.

Then, pull out your soap box and talk about how "science makes up evidence".

Oh, then pray for them.

 

[DaneaFL]

Im going to assume thats last comment was just tounge-in-cheek hyperbole toward what you see as a problem of science wasting time on unimportant things.

I know you must be joking because we all know that science has erradicated mumps, polio, and deadly flu outbreaks in the developed world.

And ironically the only fatalities from these diseases today in the civilizaed world are caused by people like you who rejected science and refused to vaccinate their children who subsequently died.

Look it up. These diseases have actually been on the rise lately due to anti-science idiots who would rather put their chances on prayer. Go jesus!

 

[Greg1234]

Why would he care about reality? I think we've already uncovered that these creationists have no concern for whats actually real.

I'm guessing by "real" you mean look at the world and consider it to be under the control of sub-atomic particles and not God? Perhaps then we can make theories on origins which only pertain to a particle (lets call it the God particle) and call that reality.

And ironically the only fatalities from these diseases today in the civilizaed world are caused by people like you who rejected science and refused to vaccinate their children who subsequently died.

That's not true.

Look it up. These diseases have actually been on the rise lately due to anti-science idiots who would rather put their chances on prayer. Go jesus!

Riiiiight. That's why they're on the rise.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not think that an electric toothbrush is a vote for evolution?

No, sir, I don't.

And with that, I probably should bow out of this thread.

 

[DaneaFL]

Do you have any evidence at all for Creationism? Because that is what this thread is suppose to be about. Or do you really think that there is no scientific evidence for Creationism?

Well of course theres no scientific evidence for creationism... i think we are way past that argument by now. AV and I agree on at least THAT point.

The question now is "can we trust reality, evidence, and our own ability to reason."

The neo-creationist position as explained by dad answers this question with a resounding NO. This world is controlled by satan so any physical explanations for things are invalid.

So the best and only evidence youll ever need for creationism is the bible. You cant trust anything else anyway.

Whats wrong? The bible not good enough for you? I think god would be displeased at your lack of faith.

 

[Guy1]

Actually, there is plenty of evidence. There is no conflict between the natural record and the written record. They both come from God.

Where might this be?

 

[mkatzwork]

Actually, there is plenty of evidence. There is no conflict between the natural record and the written record. They both come from God.

I am a creationist, and I say that the best evidence for Creationism is no evidence.

If there is no evidence -- yet we are here -- then that speaks of creatio ex nihilo.

I cannot think of another field or idea or anything really, that has ardent supporters claiming both ends of the 'evidence spectrum' as crucial territory, and this in itself points to the ridiculousness of creationism for me.

AV claims that there should be, and is, no evidence of creation, nothing is evidence for creation, and that this is how it should be.

Norman basically claims that everything is evidence for creation (the natural record and the written record).

You can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.

And that's how we both get treated ... automatically wrong.

Keyword: automatic.

With me, I'm 'backwater' ... with Norman, he's 'brainwashed.'

It's not what we say that counts ... it's what we are.

 

[mkatzwork]

And that's how we both get treated ... automatically wrong.

Keyword: automatic.

With me, I'm 'backwater' ... with Norman, he's 'brainwashed.'

It's not what we say that counts ... it's what we are.

If Evolution is supposedly 'a house divided', as per Norman's thread title, then what is the house of Creationism? You have completely opposite views of what the evidence should be for essentially the same concept (the universe had a creator).

I don't think either of you are automatically wrong; but one of you has to be wrong.

 

[mkatzwork]

Clearly what you believe creationism is and what I believe creationism is, is not the same. Also clearly you could care less what I believe, so why are we having this conversation?

It's not about whether I care or not, it's about who has the accurate picture of the universe. By simple necessity at least one of you has to be wrong, and that's before we even start talking about alternative theories...

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not about whether I care or not, it's about who has the accurate picture of the universe. By simple necessity at least one of you has to be wrong, and that's before we even start talking about alternative theories...

Here's the deal, katz:

The OP asks...

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

Norman says everything.

I say nothing.

And you are not the tiebreaker ... God is.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

 

[mkatzwork]

Clearly what you believe creationism is and what I believe creationism is, is not the same. Also clearly you could care less what I believe, so why are we having this conversation?

Incidentally, now you know how we feel when you misrepresent the theory of Evolution...you clearly don't actually care less about what evolution says when you repost, copied and pasted, your "amoebas into horses" etc. straw men, and it's annoying...see how?

I believe "creationism" has many forms depending on who you are talking to. It can refer to the Christian creation story (both young earth and old earth), it can refer to a supposed science that gets dressed up as "Intelligent Design" - where "we won't tell you who the designer is, we'll just heavily imply it's the Judeo-Christian God" and various other facets. I don't see it as a single idea, it has multiple heads.

 

[mkatzwork]

Archaeology confirms a lot of what we read in our Bible. Also the study of DNA and population genetics is helping us to understand the generations that we read about in our Bible. A lot of physics comes from a Hebrew version of Creationism. The big bang theory for example.

Yawn.

Same thing is also said by Muslims about the Qur'an, the Mormons about the Book of Mormon. Again, you can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.

 

[Greg1234]

Yawn.

Same thing is also said by Muslims about the Qur'an, the Mormons about the Book of Mormon. Again, you can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.

I think you should first mean Yawn, the same thing could be said about Genesis and 1 John, Psalms and Jeremiah, Hosea and Revelation, Isaiah and Corinthians, the Levites and the Christians.

 

[Keachian]

Norman says everything.

I say nothing.

And you are not the tiebreaker ... God is.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

I don't understand what Romans 14:5 has to do with God being the tiebreaker, Paul doesn't then go on to say that God says one or the other but that if one holds one view he does it for the glory of God and if someone hold another view he does it for the glory of God, therefore we shouldn't look upon each other's observances with disdain but glorify God more for the fact that we are able to be individuals and still worship the one God.

Yes I did paraphrase, but that's the argument that Paul is taking in a nutshell.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Archaeology confirms a lot of what we read in our Bible. Also the study of DNA and population genetics is helping us to understand the generations that we read about in our Bible. A lot of physics comes from a Hebrew version of Creationism. The big bang theory for example.

Archeology destroys just about everything in the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand what Romans 14:5 has to do with God being the tiebreaker, Paul doesn't then go on to say that God says one or the other but that if one holds one view he does it for the glory of God and if someone hold another view he does it for the glory of God, therefore we shouldn't look upon each other's observances with disdain but glorify God more for the fact that we are able to be individuals and still worship the one God.

Yes I did paraphrase, but that's the argument that Paul is taking in a nutshell.

The tie will be broken when we get to Heaven.

That's what I mean.