What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[stray bullet]

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.

That's not evidence for creation. That's rhetoric. Horses and cows weren't created separately, they evolved separately, while sharing a common ancestor, which is why they share similar DNA.

 

[stray bullet]

the whole question is a bad joke.
first you set yourself up as the peer.. of my veiw.
and your not judge or jury of anyones but your own veiw.
so stay out my veiw.
if you think scientist will every ask a true question that proves creation happened your lying only to yourself.
so of course there is NO peerer veiwed "Proof of creation " but you fellows aren't the peer and neither are they. and everyone else who bother to ask the right questions come to the right conclusions from their view. which only proves we are all standing indifferent spaces.

But there is no evidence. This is all creationists do - go around in circles in avoiding talking about the subject. We want evidence of evolution - easy to get. You can check the fossil records, you can check DNA, you can check where and how a species lives.

You ask a creationist to prove creationism and all they do is argue against evolution. Read the topic for the ridiculous things people say. "I don'd understand this, so it must be GOD!!!" Honestly, people need to have some of their degrees/diplomas revoked.

Arguing against evolution is not an argument for creationism.
Saying you don't understand part of a theory of evolution is not an argument for creationism.

 

[stray bullet]

I'm not sure the OP is really understanding the philosophy of religion and thus creation. The positive evidence of creation is the universe itself (which would include both the natural and the supernatural in a religious world-view) It cannot be proved scientifically because the laws of science are also part of the created order and cannot prove their own origins. It cannot prove or disprove evolution either. Creation just is. Examination of the creation only proves what is already there, but cannot prove any further than that. Even the observations which lead to various theories about universal origins still won't be anywhere near the ballpark for proving or disproving creation- as the theories themselves still only deal with what is there and perhaps its history.

Waste of time.

No. Religion deals with meaning and realities that cannot be measured or known. One cannot measure or prove God. Science answers "how?" but not "why?"

Evolution is an explanation for how life came to be.
Creationism is an explanation for how life came to be.

Evolution says that life came about over billions of years through various processes.
Creations saying that life came about over 6 days through God's processes in the natural world.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not evidence for creation.

More specifically, they are products of the creation week.

What is it you're looking for in instant creation?

Missing links? non-missing links? I don't think so.

Not even microlinks existed at the time, since no offspring were created with their parents.

So the creation week doesn't even speak of microevolution -- so it sure doesn't speak of macro.

That's rhetoric.

One man's rhetoric is another man's doctrine.

Horses and cows weren't created separately,

Ya ... ya, actually, they were.

... they evolved separately, while sharing a common ancestor,

Either that, or they didn't.

... which is why they share similar DNA.

Either that, or they share similar DNA because of ontological reduction.

If you disagree, which is your prerogative, take my snowman challenge and let's see if you'll answer it:

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?

 

[ContraMundum]

No. Religion deals with meaning and realities that cannot be measured or known. One cannot measure or prove God. Science answers "how?" but not "why?"

I have no idea why you disagree with me and then state something in agreement. Weird.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

As I said before- the atheists on this thread want natural evidence for creation- our point is simple: you are the evidence. The universe is the evidence. That's common logic from a creation point of view. It is the follow-up questions where we all hit a brick wall. We agree we exist. We cannot agree as to why we exist. We might agree on how we exist (eg in the case of theistic evolutionists) but we cannot agree on why- neither the atheist nor the theist can prove that point- and we use different tools to find that out.

This is simple to me, but for some reason people just want to churn the same old butter - re-hash the same old boring arguments in the vain hope that someone will change their mind.

 

[stray bullet]

More specifically, they are products of the creation week.

What is it you're looking for in instant creation?

Missing links? non-missing links? I don't think so.

No. The topic is about the evidence for creation. Thus far, no one has offered any.

Not even microlinks existed at the time, since no offspring were created with their parents.

So the creation week doesn't even speak of microevolution -- so it sure doesn't speak of macrne man's rhetoric is another man's doctrine.Ya ... ya, actually, they were.Either that, or they didn't.Either that, or they share similar DNA because of ontological reduction.

If you disagree, which is your prerogative, take my snowman challenge and let's see if you'll answer it:

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?

The topic is about evidence for creationism.

Building an object from snow that looks like an ape and building an object from snow that looks like a human has nothing to do with evidence.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

Why would anyone want to discuss anything of substance with you? If you make rash assumptions about people like that you don't deserve my time.

 

[stray bullet]

I have no idea why you disagree with me and then state something in agreement. Weird.

Creationism cannot be defended on the basis that religion is different from science. Creationism is an explanation of how.

 

[stray bullet]

As I said before- the atheists on this thread want natural evidence for creation- our point is simple: you are the evidence. The universe is the evidence. That's common logic from a creation point of view. It is the follow-up questions where we all hit a brick wall. We agree we exist. We cannot agree as to why we exist. We might agree on how we exist (eg in the case of theistic evolutionists) but we cannot agree on why- neither the atheist nor the theist can prove that point- and we use different tools to find that out.

This is simple to me, but for some reason people just want to churn the same old butter - re-hash the same old boring arguments in the vain hope that someone will change their mind.

We can agree that we came from God, but to support creationism is to give a how of God created us.

 

[ContraMundum]

No. The topic is about the evidence for creation. Thus far, no one has offered any.

Because it's a poorly worded question to ask theists. It's like me asking you to prove God doesn't exist according to the disciplines of theology. Wrong question, right?

The evidence for creation by definition HAS to be the universe itself. End of story, pack up your bags, go home and put up your feet. The trouble is that this is not the real question, is it? The real question is "prove the universe came into being by the work of God", and the response could equally be "prove God didn't do it." Debate over- for the sane. The nutcases can debate it forever if they wish. Nothing will change.

See what I mean? We're talking about possibilities that pre-date the known universe, and as such no one, not even the evolutionist, has anything but theories.

 

[ContraMundum]

Creationism cannot be defended on the basis that religion is different from science.

Yes it can. Because science can't falsify it, therefore it is the wrong disciple for this question.

 

[ContraMundum]

We can agree that we came from God, but to support creationism is to give a how of God created us.

If we came from God, we are created. Do you mean to label all creation positions as merely six day young earth creation? Is that what you mean by creationism?

 

[AV1611VET]

The topic is about evidence for creationism.

Then take my apple challenge:

I present to you an apple that was created ex nihilo.

How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism cannot be defended on the basis that religion is different from science. Creationism is an explanation of how.

Creationism explains what was done, when it was done, Who did it, how it was done, where it was done, why it was done, what order it was done in, how long it took to do it, why it took that long, and who the eyewitness were.

And it is [true] science's job to explain why there is no physical evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would anyone want to discuss anything of substance with you? If you make rash assumptions about people like that you don't deserve my time.

I have been doing this for quite some time. This is neither an assumption nor is it rash. You could always surprise me and be the first creationist that I have met that is neither ignorant or dishonest. Of course education is a cure for ignorance so while you are here you may learn something.

 

[ContraMundum]

I have been doing this for quite some time. This is neither an assumption nor is it rash. You could always surprise me and be the first creationist that I have met that is neither ignorant or dishonest. Of course education is a cure for ignorance so while you are here you may learn something.

Do you think you have anything to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think you have anything to learn?

Of course I have more to learn. That is one reason that I enjoy coming here since I can learn quite a bit from others. Sadly I do not see to many creationists learning anything.

 

[ContraMundum]

Of course I have more to learn. That is one reason that I enjoy coming here since I can learn quite a bit from others. Sadly I do not see to many creationists learning anything.

What do you think Creationists need to learn from you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think Creationists need to learn from you?

They don't have to necessarily learn from me. I never made that claim. I am ready to help them to learn. I do not assume that creationists cannot learn. It is clear that they are wrong. Questions like the one the OP asked here shows that even creationists know that they are wrong. They do tend to get angry about that fact.