The best evidence for Creationism

[Loudmouth]

I just look at life and see design.

What evidence demonstrates that it was design created by a supernatural deity?

The process in those nine months was not ordered and directed by mindless natural chemicals or biological functions outside or inside itself. The fetus was knit together by God.

Again, where is your evidence?

We are his most precious creation, far beyond anything else we see. Just look at yourself in the mirror. Think, feel, laugh, love, create, plan,etc. These are all attributes of God, we are made in His image.

Evidence please.

This is enough evidence.

You didn't offer any evidence. You offered evidence-free assertions.

 

[NailsII]

Life!

I don't really have to look to the origins or to read Genesis. I just look at life and see design. I look at a new born baby who nine months prior was conceived by the union of his/her parents. It's a miracle, it's evidence. The process in those nine months was not ordered and directed by mindless natural chemicals or biological functions outside or inside itself. The fetus was knit together by God. We are his most precious creation, far beyond anything else we see. Just look at yourself in the mirror. Think, feel, laugh, love, create, plan,etc. These are all attributes of God, we are made in His image. This is enough evidence. Then you can look at the rest of the eco-sytem.

Yup, whenever I see cancer, HIV, Influenza, smallpox, malaria...

Hate, jealousy, greed - these are as much a part of any god's creation as anything else.

What about Hookworms?

There is no way that these could become parasites by accident or random chance. They must have been designed.

Digger waps - no accident could make them paralyse another animal so they can lay their eggs insode it, so the baby wasps can eat it from the inside out as they grow.

Monty Python - All things dull & ugly

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try this instead: It would seem that religion is all talk and violence (convert or die!) with no substance.

Then I'll take Wilson's post with a grain of salt, as I'm confident you will.

 

[Lillen]

I am a creationist. I am not sure of what evidence I should provide and what evidence can be presented without breaking this forum rules. Remeber every time I present evidence I have been warned for prozelyting. So i don't know what to show you. In my eyes, none of the christians post's is accepted by the scientifical community, except Reshna Caner's. 'NONE'!

 

[Lillen]

To me anekdots or witnessreports works as evidence. For it is also a subject to the scientifical mind.

The evidence, if we use standard defintion, are there! But they are dismissed by the scientifical community and explained by scientists in contrary to the bible.

For example, if I say that diamonds are just sugar and salt, it would provide you with a little more information why we don't trust science - In this case geology (?)!

 

[CabVet]

To me anekdots or witnessreports works as evidence. For it is also a subject to the scientifical mind.

You must believe in the Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot then, there are even photographs:

 

[Lillen]

Like i said, anekdots and witnessreports are also a subject in the scientifical mind!

 

[Lillen]

The scientist testemony around a test is an anekdot. And his students are testifying all the time, of how great discovery he made. It could be twisted in such way, right!?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am a creationist. I am not sure of what evidence I should provide and what evidence can be presented without breaking this forum rules.

Present the scientific evidence that convinced you that species came about through supernatural mechanisms.

Remeber every time I present evidence I have been warned for prozelyting.

I think that would be an indication that you are not presenting evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The scientist testemony around a test is an anekdot.

It is an experiment, not an anecdote. Scientific experiments produce repeatable data. This means that if you dispute the results of the experiment you can run it yourself and see if the scientists are right. You can not do this with an anecdote. That is why scientific evidence is more reliable than eye witnesses and anecdotes. To quote Dr. House, "People lie."

 

[Lillen]

It all depends on who you are asking! If tattoos go away through fasting and prayers, we could repete the data by allowing two or more tattooed persons get their fasting and prayers from christians. And through their anecdotes that tattoo's actually was removed by fasting and prayers we would have evidence for God's involvment. and christians would say hay "God exist", we proved it!

But if I am allowed to change my mind. I don't think you should make faith into science. Atleast not science in that since what you actually just know, without being able to perform what you like. If i know how to build a plane, that knowledge need to be done before I can take credit for it...

 

[Loudmouth]

It all depends on who you are asking! If tattoos go away through fasting and prayers, we could repete the data by allowing two or more tattooed persons get their fasting and prayers from christians. And through their anecdotes that tattoo's actually was removed by fasting and prayers we would have evidence for God's involvment. and christians would say hay "God exist", we proved it!

You would demonstrate that starvation and praying removes tattoos, but how would you demonstrate that there was an actual supernatural factor occuring in the experiment? How would you disprove the null hypothesis, that praying to a non-existent God causes neurological changes which then help to remove tattoos?

 

[Lillen]

Another example is if we collect the data of which I was within the experimental group. - The following words cured me "I bind you the spirit of accusation in the name of Jesus". That was the experiment which shows two things, evil spirits do exist, and it shows that the afflicted can be healed from it. And if they can be healed of it God is not nonexistant. This can be tested, and proven. Once again, made through faith to an anecdote and later also testified by witnessreports. But for the science, it could be twisted into a scientifical experiment. Go exorcisten, go!!

 

[Lillen]

For creation, we can observe that the rainbow is there. And Noa is within the experimental group, what he observed was a coventant God made to all mankind, that He (God) will not destroy all living through another flood. The rainbow is there to observe for everyone. It an be tested (spray water before a light) and it can be retested (spray once again with water infront of a light bulb). It is there for everyone to observe. If I choose to break my own faith, It could be twisted into a science in one way or another. Not even the most fundamental scientist would disagree, Faith can be explained by science!!!

 

[Trogool]

For creation, we can observe that the rainbow is there. And Noa is within the experimental group, what he observed was a coventant God made to all mankind, that He (God) will not destroy all living through another flood. The rainbow is there to observe for everyone. It an be tested (spray water before a light) and it can be retested (spray once again with water infront of a light bulb). It is there for everyone to observe. If I choose to break my own faith, It could be twisted into a science in one way or another. Not even the most fundamental scientist would disagree, Faith can be explained by science!!!

Just like the existence of clouds is proof that the world was created from the corpse of the giant, Ysmir, amirite?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Another example is if we collect the data of which I was within the experimental group. - The following words cured me "I bind you the spirit of accusation in the name of Jesus". That was the experiment which shows two things, evil spirits do exist, and it shows that the afflicted can be healed from it. And if they can be healed of it God is not nonexistant. This can be tested, and proven. Once again, made through faith to an anecdote and later also testified by witnessreports. But for the science, it could be twisted into a scientifical experiment. Go exorcisten, go!!

It can be tested, yes, but such tests have never come back positive. Confirmation bias, assuming correlation implies causation, and a host of other statistical fallacies plague humans' 'common sense' notions of how probability works.

You said the words, and you were healed. But, does that mean the words heal you? Or that you happened to be healed around the same time you said the words?

For creation, we can observe that the rainbow is there. And Noa is within the experimental group, what he observed was a coventant God made to all mankind, that He (God) will not destroy all living through another flood. The rainbow is there to observe for everyone. It an be tested (spray water before a light) and it can be retested (spray once again with water infront of a light bulb). It is there for everyone to observe.

Consider what you're saying. The rainbow exists because of well-understood physical laws - essentially, the sunlight streams through a wall of water droplets, and gets diffracted into an aesthetically pleasing bow of colour. Awesome, yes, but it happens because of physical laws.

You can say that it happens because God makes it happen, that it's a covenant to Noah, etc, but there's no evidence for that. Meanwhile, we've basically solved the mystery of the rainbow - we know how it's formed, what they do, etc. Nowhere is God needed in the explanation.

 

[Non sequitur]

For creation, we can observe that the rainbow is there. And Noa is within the experimental group, what he observed was a coventant God made to all mankind, that He (God) will not destroy all living through another flood. The rainbow is there to observe for everyone. It an be tested (spray water before a light) and it can be retested (spray once again with water infront of a light bulb). It is there for everyone to observe. If I choose to break my own faith, It could be twisted into a science in one way or another. Not even the most fundamental scientist would disagree, Faith can be explained by science!!!

You can't test the source of your argument...


Noah... part of the experimental group.

Observing a "covenant God made to all mankind"... is science.

A rainbow... therefore creation.

 

[Lillen]

No, like i said i don't want to make faith in to science. But for those who wish, go ahead and go! In the end we works from to contrastes "God exist" and "God do not exist". If we assume God exist we can varify everything through the bible, if we assume God don't exist, we still cannot hire a construction company to create a world...

 

[Lillen]

I am not only insane, I am also reading the christian bible each and every day. It is the patterns of the rainbow making me marvel, and can't understand how laws of physics create it. To me physical explination of the rainbow is pure nonsense. But you can always try to talk sense to me...