What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[crjmurray]

Define "real".

You need a definition for that? Then why are you here?

 

[juvenissun]

How would you define 'the correct sequence'. What we see in the fossil record is a sequence of life appearing that is completely compatible with evolution. So, not evidence specificially for creation.

The Bible says: plants before animal, marine life before terrestrial life, human is the latest. Would this be wonderful for a stone-age person to say? Is this a wonderful evidence of creation?

 

[juvenissun]

See above for the experiment I did looking for text from The Bible in human DNA.

Could you give an example of what you wish to see? I am still in the fog.

Are you trying to find something like: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in human DNA? Why would this be an evidence of anything?

However, if I guess you right, it is a very interesting idea indeed. If we found it in human DNA, we should find many other Bible texts in animal DNA as well.

 

[crjmurray]

The Bible says: plants before animal, marine life before terrestrial life, human is the latest. Would this be wonderful for a stone-age person to say? Is this a wonderful evidence of creation?

No

 

[juvenissun]

See above for the experiment I did looking for text from The Bible in human DNA.

I just found this: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dna-as-a-programming-language.7909894/

Is that what you said? If yes, you may talk to him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why did you assume I was ignorant? I never said you were.

I have yet to meet a creationist that was not either ignorant, dishonest or both. So it is not an assumption, it is a valid deduction.

OK then...whatever.

No, not "whatever". Please, you need to understand the nature of evidence to see why there is no scientific evidence for creationism. It is not the fault of supporters of evolution that there is no evidence for your beliefs. It is the fault of creationists.

OK...so you understand High School science. Don't we all?

Next!

That is only an indictment of the U.S. schools system. You have to apply yourself a little bit if you want to learn why you are wrong. But then, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

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.

This just goes to show how desperate some are to refuse to consider that the more likely possibility in the absence of any sensible explanation for how life began is that God created life. There are only two possibilities - either life was created or it wasn't. Since there is no reasonable explanation for how it could have got started on its own and plenty of valid reasons for rejecting such a notion, why not give God the benefit of the doubt, or is it just a continuation of the "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" mentality?
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This just goes to show how desperate some are to refuse to consider that the more likely possibility in the absence of any sensible explanation for how life began is that God created life. There are only two possibilities - either life was created or it wasn't. Since there is no reasonable explanation for how it could have got started on its own and plenty of valid reasons for rejecting such a notion, why not give God the benefit of the doubt, or is it just a continuation of the "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" mentatility?
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Who says that there is no reasonable explanation how life could arise naturally? Abiogenesis is a very hot research area in science today, granted we do not have all of the answers yet. But no one has come close to showing that it is impossible or even unreasonable. All that people have offered to date are either strawman arguments or very bad science in opposition to the concept.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Biblical creation would leave its mark on the world unless we had a God that deliberately created a world that looked exactly as if it had arisen by natural means over a long period of time, in which case the only testable prediction of that there is that there is a God. Unless God is out to deliberately fool us, there should be evidence of creation.

Others who set out to disprove Christianity came to the opposite conclusion when they had had time to do their research, so perhaps you are simply looking in the wrong places. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life..." so research His life; find out for yourself if He really is what He claims to be and if you find that He is, then put your trust in Him, rather than man's fallible ideas.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Abiogenesis is a very hot research area in science today, granted we do not have all of the answers yet. But no one has come close to showing that it is impossible or even unreasonable.

Really? I would have said the opposite was the case. How you ever looked at the statistical probabilities against life having started on it's own?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That is why they have scientific evidence that supports their beliefs.

And there you have it, the magic word "beliefs." Sounds like religion to me.

 

[Goonie]

And there you have it, the magic word "beliefs." Sounds like religion to me.

And lawyers believe in the law, oh it must be religion! Doctors believe in medicine, must be a religion! That person really believes in himself, he must be a god! Lol!

Believing in something does not = religion.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I think they're looking in the wrong place for the wrong evidence.

They aren't looking for evidence for creation because the possibility that God was the creator has been ruled out from the beginning.They won't accept anything as evidence if it goes against their worldview. They will either ridicule the sources or if they can't do that, come up with some highly-speculative ideas that cannot be disproven by experimentation.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

And lawyers believe in the law, oh it must be religion! Doctors believe in medicine, must be a religion! That person really believes in himself, he must be a god! Lol!

Believing in something does not = religion.

Really? Perhaps you ought to invest in a dictionary.

From the Oxford English Dictionary...

re·li·gion / Ñ rI'lIdZJn; NAmE Ñ / noun
1 the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them:
Is there always a conflict between science and religion?
2[C] one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods:
the Jewish religion * Christianity, Islam and other world religions * The law states that everyone has the right to practise their own religion.
3[sing.] a particular interest or influence that is very important in your life:[emphasis added]
For him, football is an absolute religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I would have said the opposite was the case. How you ever looked at the statistical probabilities against life having started on it's own?

Yes, most are very dishonest strawman arguments. All it takes to refute them is to point out the fallacy that they use.

I have yet to see a valid argument against abiogenesis, "odds arguments" always fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there you have it, the magic word "beliefs." Sounds like religion to me.

Nope, you don't understand the difference between faith and evidence. Religion is a faith based belief. Accepting reality is based upon evidence. The scientific method has a huge history of success. Not just in the theory of evolution.

 

[Aldebaran]

I have yet to meet a creationist that was not either ignorant, dishonest or both. So it is not an assumption, it is a valid deduction.

This is only a judgement on your part based on whether or not you agreed with the person you discussed the subject with. Isn't it quite possible that you just don't agree with their arguments?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Perhaps you ought to invest in a dictionary.

From the Oxford English Dictionary...

re·li·gion / Ñ rI'lIdZJn; NAmE Ñ / noun
1 the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them:
Is there always a conflict between science and religion?
2[C] one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods:
the Jewish religion * Christianity, Islam and other world religions * The law states that everyone has the right to practise their own religion.
3[sing.] a particular interest or influence that is very important in your life:[emphasis added]
For him, football is an absolute religion.

You need to understand that there are different usages of a word and the last is a colloquial use. You are grasping at straws. An honest person would simply admit that the other person was right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is only a judgement on your part based on whether or not you agreed with the person you discussed the subject with. Isn't it quite possible that you just don't agree with their arguments?

Nope, it is far more than a mere judgement call. It has always been demonstrable in my history that they are either ignorant of the science that they are opposing or dishonest. And sometimes both. The only arguments that I do not like are dishonest ones. For example it is quite common for creationists to lie by using quote mines. Quote mining is a form of lying. I can quote mine the Bible and point out at least 12 times that is says "There is no God" so the Bible must disagree with the existence of God. If I seriously said that I would be lying by quote mining. Many creationists will quote evolutionary scientists out of context and try to imply that the scientist meant something that he in actuality did not. That is an improper way to argue. It is dishonest to say the least.

 

[stray bullet]

The problem is and always will be this: what would be accepted as evidence? No matter what is given, it is rejected as evidence. Atheists tend to want answers according to their own personal parameters (usually forensic, which is utterly useless on this matter) and theism has a different discipline altogether. Some things in the known universe can not be measured in a test tube or through the scientific method. Creation itself is the evidence in a theistic world-view. End of story. What the atheist is really asking is this: "prove to me there is a God". He then takes us to the science lab and says "use these tools only". As I said before, you may as well trying cleaning a window with a hammer.

No, all you have to do is prove something, anything, but they can't. No matter which tools you could use, nothing is being shown. All evidence presented for creationism is based on "This seems too hard to do without God." And that is not evidence. That's the same type of thinking a pre-technology person would have in calling technology magic.

We find evidence for how the moon, stars, and other galaxies formed. We know from DNA what animals evolved from which. We can put together so much of our past based on facts.