What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[AnotherAtheist]

When God created the animals in Genesis 1, they did not come with missing links.

In fact, they were not physically linked in any way; which is what evolution teaches.

God put horses here and cows over there, and they were not joined by a common ancestor.

A lack of common ancestors between living things would be evidence AGAINST evolution, but would not argue against other hypotheses such as time paradoxes where time-travelling future beings brought living things from the future to the past. So, it's not evidence FOR creation as there is no dichotomy.

But even then, there is plenty of evidence for common ancestry in the genetic record, e.g. ubiquitous genes. So, your post fails to answer the OP on two counts.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

The abundant ocean water on the earth.

Is that an evidence to you? Or it may be one too hard for you to see.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The abundant ocean water on the earth.

Is that an evidence to you? Or it may be one too hard for you to see.

How does that specifically support the theory of creation rather than other theories that the earth came to be by natural means? Particularly since H20, as water, ice, or vapour, is very common in the solar system. http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a14555/water-worlds-in-our-solar-system/

 

[AV1611VET]

A lack of common ancestors between living things would be evidence AGAINST evolution, but would not argue against other hypotheses such as time paradoxes where time-travelling future beings brought living things from the future to the past. So, it's not evidence FOR creation as there is no dichotomy.

But even then, there is plenty of evidence for common ancestry in the genetic record, e.g. ubiquitous genes. So, your post fails to answer the OP on two counts.

I wan't answering the OP -- I was answering Post 55:

How does this argue FOR creation and not equally or more FOR the world and life forming through natural means without the involvement of a supernatural being?

The fact that a horse and a cow were created separately is an argument FOR creation and not equally or more FOR the world and life forming through natural means without the involvement of a supernatural being.

Take my snowman challenge:

I build a snow ape, then build a snowman.

Two questions:

1. What am I demonstrating, since I built the snowman ex materia from snow on the ground, instead of building him from snow taken from the ape?
2. Since the snowman has at least 95% of the same materials as the snow ape, how can you say I didn't make the snowman from the snow ape?

Here are my answers:

1. Instant creation.
2. There's plenty of snow on the ground left over for the snowman.

Let's see your answers.

 

[juvenissun]

How does that specifically support the theory of creation rather than other theories that the earth came to be by natural means? Particularly since H20, as water, ice, or vapour, is very common in the solar system. http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a14555/water-worlds-in-our-solar-system/

You asked for "evidence". In fact, you are asking "understandable evidence" which depends on your ability of understanding.

If so, there may be many "evidences" that you do not understand. So you can not say there is no evidence to support Creationism.

This is the nature of so-called evidence. So, use this word in your argument carefully.

As for the sea water on the earth, it is one of the strong evidence which convinced me the validity of Creationism. It took me a few decades to understand it. It is much more than just another conversation piece.

 

[crjmurray]

I wan't answering the OP -- I was answering Post 55:The fact that a horse and a cow were created separately is an argument FOR creation and not equally or more FOR the world and life forming through natural means without the involvement of a supernatural being.

Take my snowman challenge:

I build a snow ape, then build a snowman.

Two questions:

1. What am I demonstrating, since I built the snowman ex materia from snow on the ground, instead of building him from snow taken from the ape?
2. Since the snowman has at least 95% of the same materials as the snow ape, how can you say I didn't make the snowman from the snow ape?

Here are my answers:

1. Instant creation.
2. There's plenty of snow on the ground left over for the snowman.

Let's see your answers.

Don't derail the thread so soon.

 

[crjmurray]

You asked for "evidence". In fact, you are asking "understandable evidence" which depends on your ability of understanding.

If so, there may be many "evidences" that you do not understand. So you can not say there is no evidence to support Creationism.

This is the nature of so-called evidence. So, use this word in your argument carefully.

As for the sea water on the earth, it is one of the strong evidence which convinced me the validity of Creationism. It took me a few decades to understand it. It is much more than just another conversation piece.

And don't lecture people.

 

[juvenissun]

And don't lecture people.

A master can lecture with just a few words.
I like to be lectured. What lecture can you give?

 

[crjmurray]

A master can lecture with just a few words.
I like to be lectured. What lecture can you give?

There's no need for lecturing juvey. Just explain your evidence in support of creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see evidence is still a very scare subject for creationists. No evidence that supports creationism exclusively has been given. At least the OP was kind enough not to ask for scientific evidence. That concept drives the opposition nuts here. Since to have scientific evidence one must have a testable theory or hypothesis and testable means that one could state an observation that would refute the hypothesis. Very very scary stuff if you believe in unsupported Bible stories.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You asked for "evidence". In fact, you are asking "understandable evidence" which depends on your ability of understanding.

If so, there may be many "evidences" that you do not understand. So you can not say there is no evidence to support Creationism.

This is the nature of so-called evidence. So, use this word in your argument carefully.

As for the sea water on the earth, it is one of the strong evidence which convinced me the validity of Creationism. It took me a few decades to understand it. It is much more than just another conversation piece.

Why don't you try explaining your evidence, and see how far we get?

I wan't answering the OP -- I was answering Post 55:The fact that a horse and a cow were created separately is an argument FOR creation and not equally or more FOR the world and life forming through natural means without the involvement of a supernatural being.

This isn't evidence for creation, if you say 'the fact that a horse and a cow were created separately' then that is an assumption that creation happened. Anything that leads from that is just circular reasoning.

What this thread is asking for is strong objective evidence that specifically supports the theory of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very very scary stuff if you believe in unsupported Bible stories.

Is that why you don't believe in unsupported Bible stories?

(I ask because the Bible has been known to literally scare the Hell out of people.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that why you don't believe in unsupported Bible stories?

(I ask because the Bible has been known to literally scare the Hell out of people.)

The lack of evidence, the countless contradictions, the bad morals of the Bible all led to my loss of belief in the Bible.

The Bible is not so scary once you take a look at the "man behind the curtain".

 

[AV1611VET]

The lack of evidence, the countless contradictions, the bad morals of the Bible all led to my loss of belief in the Bible.

Yet, looking back, you said:

Very very scary stuff if you believe in unsupported Bible stories.

So you're saying that you aren't scared, but everyone else is?

The Bible is not so scary ...

Not to you, anyway?

... once you take a look at the "man behind the curtain".

You're looking behind the wrong curtain.

The "man behind the curtain" lived in Oz.

Try the man who lived in Uz instead.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Or will that scare the Hell out of you too?

 

[ScottA]

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?

Under the circumstances, you should not expect to find any. The fact that you have come up with none, is right on the mark. But there is a reason why it evades you: The created universe exist like a bubble within the greater reality unbeknownst to any who only look outward (called outer darkness).

The kingdom of God is within you. You must look inward. You will not find validity out in the world or in others, unless you first validate it within yourself.

There are other pursuits that will tell you the same, but still look in the wrong places: nature is "created" and therefore not at the core or root; philosophy is [only] of the mind and knows nothing more than you do; intellect is [only] the philosophy of others; inner peace is a loop going nowhere; other gods are outward, the creation of other people. The One True God is within you. Call on Him, and He will answer. But be patient, your whole life is a part of His plan. He has given you time, give Him time as well.

 

[juvenissun]

Why don't you try explaining your evidence, and see how far we get?

OK. But first we need to make sure where is the goal.
Creationism is: things are created.
What kind of evidence would support that?

So, there is a thing. We would trace it back to find its origin.
If we found an explainable origin, then it is not created.
But if we found no such origin, could we say it was created?

If not, then what do you expect to see in order to take is as an evidence of creation?
Do you expect to see something like a dove was created in the hand of a magician? Even you are convinced that is true creation, how about people who were not in the theater? How do you present any evidence to them? You would show the dove. Is the dove an evidence, or a proof of the creation?

God created the seawater of the earth when you were not there. Now, you see the water, and you ask: where is the evidence of creation? I said the seawater itself is an evidence. I did not say the existence of seawater is a proof. So, how do you expect me to continue the argument? I certainly can not ask God do it again.

If you can not pass this hurdle of finding what kind of evidence you expect to see, then making any further argument is simply a waste of time.

To give you a contrast: I know exactly what evidence I want to see on the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, no one can show me what I want to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet, looking back, you said:So you're saying that you aren't scared, but everyone else is?

Not everyone else, but quite a few people are scared. You can tell since they try to use their beliefs as a threat.

Not to you, anyway?

I am pretty much cured of that. When you are brought up as youngster being taught nonsense one does not throw it away over night. If you were born in a Muslim family do you think that you would have been able to throw off the shackles of that belief?

You're looking behind the wrong curtain.

The "man behind the curtain" lived in Oz.

Try the man who lived in Uz instead.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Or will that scare the Hell out of you too?

There is no real difference. And why would it matter if he was from Oz,Uz, Az,Ez,Iz or sometimes Yz? They are all pretty much the same.

 

[crjmurray]

OK. But first we need to make sure where is the goal.
Creationism is: things are created.
What kind of evidence would support that?

So, there is a thing. We would trace it back to find its origin.
If we found an explainable origin, then it is not created.
But if we found no such origin, could we say it was created?

If not, then what do you expect to see in order to take is as an evidence of creation?
Do you expect to see something like a dove was created in the hand of a magician? Even you are convinced that is true creation, how about people who were not in the theater? How do you present any evidence to them? You would show the dove. Is the dove an evidence, or a proof of the creation?

God created the seawater of the earth when you were not there. Now, you see the water, and you ask: where is the evidence of creation? I said the seawater itself is an evidence. I did not say the existence of seawater is a proof. So, how do you expect me to continue the argument? I certainly can not ask God do it again.

If you can not pass this hurdle of finding what kind of evidence you expect to see, then making any further argument is simply a waste of time.

To give you a contrast: I know exactly what evidence I want to see on the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, no one can show me what I want to see.

Rambling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. But first we need to make sure where is the goal.
Creationism is: things are created.
What kind of evidence would support that?

So, there is a thing. We would trace it back to find its origin.
If we found an explainable origin, then it is not created.
But if we found no such origin, could we say it was created?

If not, then what do you expect to see in order to take is as an evidence of creation?
Do you expect to see something like a dove was created in the hand of a magician? Even you are convinced that is true creation, how about people who were not in the theater? How do you present any evidence to them? You would show the dove. Is the dove an evidence, or a proof of the creation?

God created the seawater of the earth when you were not there. Now, you see the water, and you ask: where is the evidence of creation? I said the seawater itself is an evidence. I did not say the existence of seawater is a proof. So, how do you expect me to continue the argument? I certainly can not ask God do it again.

If you can not pass this hurdle of finding what kind of evidence you expect to see, then making any further argument is simply a waste of time.

To give you a contrast: I know exactly what evidence I want to see on the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, no one can show me what I want to see.

The problem is that your so called "evidence" is not exclusive. The fossil record exclusively supports the theory of evolution. Creationists cannot come up with a consistent, non-contradictory, explanation of it.

And you have shown countless times that you do not understand the nature of scientific evidence. Or you refuse to look at it. So one more time what is the exclusive evidence that supports creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you are brought up as youngster being taught nonsense one does not throw it away over night.

Do your parents (or upbringers) agree with that, or are they scared too?