What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[DerelictJunction]

Of course.

Why do you think so many pregnant women took Thalidomide?

If anyone can believe false things by faith, then how is faith "evidence" of anything, much less "evidence of things unseen"?

 

[Loudmouth]

The conclusions drawn from evidence that we have in respect of the creation/evolution argument refer to things that have happened in the past and so can only ever be guesswork.

Forensic evidence is also from the past. Why can't we use evidence in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past?

What we have is creationists claiming that God would plant all of this evidence for evolution for apparently no reason.

The conclusions you ultimately come to will therefore be influenced by how much weight you give to any particular criteria and whether you think it supports or refutes your own particular beliefs. This is well demonstrated by the experience of Dr Gary Parker, a strong supporter of evolution, who used to teach the subject in his biology classes at university, but when he became a creation scientist, he remarked that he was amazed that he hadn't been able to see all the evidence for creation (until after his conversion). Dr Parker is not the only academic that this has happened to, so it's not an isolated incident.

So what evidence does Dr. Parker point to in support of creationism? What evidence should we look for that creationism would produce but evolution would not?

 

[Loudmouth]

The same evidence you have.

Then please tell us why the twin nested hierarchy points to creationism. Why would creationism produce a nested hierarchy for both morphology and DNA comparisons? Why would creationism look just like evolution when it doesn't have to?

 

[DerelictJunction]

This is a fallacious argument so it's not relevant. The quote is about forensic evidence, using our experience of the way things usually happen to produce a probable scenario, to which extent it is repeatable (by comparing with similar crime scenes), but even then it's not foolproof. In your example, what about if someone had a grudge against John Smith and set him up by deliberately planting false evidence? Watch the movie, "Witness for the prosecution" and you'll see that things aren't always what they seem. The conclusions drawn from evidence that we have in respect of the creation/evolution argument refer to things that have happened in the past and so can only ever be guesswork. The conclusions you ultimately come to will therefore be influenced by how much weight you give to any particular criteria and whether you think it supports or refutes your own particular beliefs. This is well demonstrated by the experience of Dr Gary Parker, a strong supporter of evolution, who used to teach the subject in his biology classes at university, but when he became a creation scientist, he remarked that he was amazed that he hadn't been able to see all the evidence for creation (until after his conversion). Dr Parker is not the only academic that this has happened to, so it's not an isolated incident.

(bolding mine)
All the evidence for creation that Dr. Parker is now seeing, does not seem to be appearing in this thread any time soon.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Where is the evidence that it was created by a deity?

Where is the evidence that it was not? It makes more sense to attribute creation to God than to a pile of fanciful ideas that require endless fudge factors to even keep the naturalistic idea for the origin of the universe afloat. It sounds very much like the wilful denial referred to in the Bible to me. I just hope for your sake, that you are right and I am wrong, because if not, you are going to be in big trouble on the great Day of Judgement. Are you prepared for that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is the evidence that it was not?

You are the one claiming that it was created. If you can't provide the evidence, then your claim is dismissed until you can produce evidence.

It makes more sense to attribute creation to God than to a pile of fanciful ideas that require endless fudge factors to even keep the naturalistic idea for the origin of the universe afloat.

When has magical poofing ever made sense?

It sounds very much like the wilful denial referred to in the Bible to me.

Willful denial of what evidence?

I just hope for your sake, that you are right and I am wrong, because if not, you are going to be in big trouble on the great Day of Judgement. Are you prepared for that?

I only reject one more deity than you do. When you understand why you reject the existence of all those thousands of other gods, you will understand why I don't believe in your deity.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Then please tell us why the twin nested hierarchy points to creationism. Why would creationism produce a nested hierarchy for both morphology and DNA comparisons? Why would creationism look just like evolution when it doesn't have to?

Maybe because creation does have some common ground with evolution. Creation scientists have never said that life doesn't change (to adapt to its environment), but its the scale of the changes that cause the disagreement as far as I understand the issues and the fact that creation scientists look for a common designer (God) and not common descent.

I've just had a look on a creationist web site and they have many articles on this subject, but this one caught my eye. I've highlighted some of the more relevant parts...

Cladistics assumes that its units for comparison can be arranged in a nested hierarchy.22 Evolutionists assume that evolution is the only viable explanation for a pattern of nested hierarchy. Hennigians go a step further, and then say that that makes evolution a viable process theory which gives cladistics real-world meaning, justifying its use in systematics.23 However, this is demonstrably untrue. Patterns of nested hierarchy in nature are not dependent on evolutionary assumptions since they were recognized well before naturalistic evolution was accepted by the scientific community:

“Although it is not in principle demonstrable from external evidence (Panchen, 1992), the existence of a single, irregularly branching hierarchy of relationships among biological taxa has been considered an empirical fact by Brady (1985), based on its historical emergence as the predominant means to represent patterns of taxonomic grouping used by pre-evolutionary systematists during the early 19th century. That this occurred prior to the general acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community is clear evidence that a hierarchical conception of the Natural System is not dependent on an evolutionary process theory (Crow, 1926; Platnick, 1982).”24

If evolution was not required to conceive of life as a nested pattern, then life’s nested pattern is accommodated by evolution, not predicted or verified by it. When Hennig tries to establish the theoretical priority of evolution on nested hierarchy,23 he fails to see his anachronistic and ill-founded assumption of naturalism. Darwin assumed the nested pattern of life that had already been demonstrated independently of evolution. He then constructed an explicitly naturalistic explanation for its origin.

However, evolution does not demand a nested pattern because it can accommodate other patterns just as easily, if not more so.25 For instance, transposition (also known as lateral gene transfer) would provide a much faster mechanism than common descent for disseminating new genes/structures throughout the biosphere. Evolutionists would still assume descent with modification occurred because it provides the mechanism for biological novelty. But widespread transposition would add so much noise to any nested pattern assumed to be congruous with descent with modification that the nested pattern would be lost. Evolutionists don’t accept transposition as a widespread phenomenon, especially in multicellular life, simply because patterns that suggest transposition are not observed.

Moreover, not even common descent requires a nested pattern.26 Since characters are assumed to have independent phyletic histories and rates of evolution, there is no guarantee that even close sister taxa will have relatively similar morphology in comparison to more distantly related organisms. Moreover, transformation within a lineage (anagenesis) does not produce a nested pattern because the transformation that supposedly occurred was not caused by a branching event. Homoplasy confuses the issue even further because it can make distantly related creatures more morphologically similar than supposed sister taxa. Common descent has access to a veritable grab-bag of explanations that need not produce a nested pattern.

Pattern cladists, though they dismiss evolution as theoretical justification for cladistics, still believe it is the only viable explanation for it. However, common design also explains such a pattern, and with potentially more force.27 If life is designed to send a robust message that it is the product of one designer, nested hierarchy does the job. Even if the message receiver (us) has vastly incomplete comprehension of the data (through species extinction, or inability to investigate all the data), a nested pattern unifies life, is filled with homoplasies, and also presents large enough morphological gaps between different life forms to foil common descent. Life thus sends a unified non-naturalistic message: it is the product of one designer who designed life to resist naturalistic explanations for its origin.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You are the one claiming that it was created. If you can't provide the evidence, then your claim is dismissed until you can produce evidence.

You are the one claiming it had a naturalistic beginning. If you can't provide the evidence, then your claim is dismissed until you can produce the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe because creation does have some common ground with evolution.

Why would it have to? Why would separate creation look just like evolution? Why couldn't God make a group of species that have a mixture of avian and mammal features? Why do we only see the mixture of features that evolution predicts we should see? Why does DNA produce the same pattern when it doesn't have to?

Creation scientists have never said that life doesn't change (to adapt to its environment), but its the scale of the changes that cause the disagreement as far as I understand the issues and the fact that creation scientists look for a common designer (God) and not common descent.

Why would a common designer produce a nested hierarchy? Cars, buildings, paintings, and books that have common designers do not fall into a nested hierarchy, so why would life need to if life were separately created? Why do we see the only pattern of shared and derived characteristics that evolution would produce?

This is the problem. Creationists avoid this evidence. They don't interpret it. They won't even acknowledge it. Evolution does explain it.

Cladistics assumes that its units for comparison can be arranged in a nested hierarchy.22 Evolutionists assume that evolution is the only viable explanation for a pattern of nested hierarchy. Hennigians go a step further, and then say that that makes evolution a viable process theory which gives cladistics real-world meaning, justifying its use in systematics.23 However, this is demonstrably untrue. Patterns of nested hierarchy in nature are not dependent on evolutionary assumptions since they were recognized well before naturalistic evolution was accepted by the scientific community:

“Although it is not in principle demonstrable from external evidence (Panchen, 1992), the existence of a single, irregularly branching hierarchy of relationships among biological taxa has been considered an empirical fact by Brady (1985), based on its historical emergence as the predominant means to represent patterns of taxonomic grouping used by pre-evolutionary systematists during the early 19th century. That this occurred prior to the general acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community is clear evidence that a hierarchical conception of the Natural System is not dependent on an evolutionary process theory (Crow, 1926; Platnick, 1982).”24

If evolution was not required to conceive of life as a nested pattern, then life’s nested pattern is accommodated by evolution, not predicted or verified by it. When Hennig tries to establish the theoretical priority of evolution on nested hierarchy,23 he fails to see his anachronistic and ill-founded assumption of naturalism. Darwin assumed the nested pattern of life that had already been demonstrated independently of evolution. He then constructed an explicitly naturalistic explanation for its origin.

However, evolution does not demand a nested pattern because it can accommodate other patterns just as easily, if not more so.25 For instance, transposition (also known as lateral gene transfer) would provide a much faster mechanism than common descent for disseminating new genes/structures throughout the biosphere. Evolutionists would still assume descent with modification occurred because it provides the mechanism for biological novelty. But widespread transposition would add so much noise to any nested pattern assumed to be congruous with descent with modification that the nested pattern would be lost. Evolutionists don’t accept transposition as a widespread phenomenon, especially in multicellular life, simply because patterns that suggest transposition are not observed.

Moreover, not even common descent requires a nested pattern.26 Since characters are assumed to have independent phyletic histories and rates of evolution, there is no guarantee that even close sister taxa will have relatively similar morphology in comparison to more distantly related organisms. Moreover, transformation within a lineage (anagenesis) does not produce a nested pattern because the transformation that supposedly occurred was not caused by a branching event. Homoplasy confuses the issue even further because it can make distantly related creatures more morphologically similar than supposed sister taxa. Common descent has access to a veritable grab-bag of explanations that need not produce a nested pattern.

Pattern cladists, though they dismiss evolution as theoretical justification for cladistics, still believe it is the only viable explanation for it. However, common design also explains such a pattern, and with potentially more force.27 If life is designed to send a robust message that it is the product of one designer, nested hierarchy does the job. Even if the message receiver (us) has vastly incomplete comprehension of the data (through species extinction, or inability to investigate all the data), a nested pattern unifies life, is filled with homoplasies, and also presents large enough morphological gaps between different life forms to foil common descent. Life thus sends a unified non-naturalistic message: it is the product of one designer who designed life to resist naturalistic explanations for its origin.

Things such as cars, paintings, buildings, books, and dinner ware that have a common designer do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy, and that's exactly what we see.

"The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

 

[AV1611VET]

If anyone can believe false things by faith, then how is faith "evidence" of anything, much less "evidence of things unseen"?

They need a set of Boolean standards, don't they?

 

[Loudmouth]

They need a set of Boolean standards, don't they?

We don't use double standards like you do.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one claiming it had a naturalistic beginning. If you can't provide the evidence, then your claim is dismissed until you can produce the evidence.

Did you read the opening post?

Getting creationists to provide evidence for their claims appears to be impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one claiming it had a naturalistic beginning. If you can't provide the evidence, then your claim is dismissed until you can produce the evidence.

It seems that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. I can help you with that concept. There is massive evidence for the theory of evolution. There is no reliable evidence that I know of for creationism. And if something can support more than one idea it is not really evidence for that idea.

What exclusive evidence do you have for creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read the opening post?

Getting creationists to provide evidence for their claims appears to be impossible.

That is because they know there isn't any.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is because they know there isn't any.

I really do have to wonder if they understand how evidence works. Imagine if I started a thread where I made the claim that unicorns create rainbows. My evidence? Well, rainbows, of course. Since we observe rainbows this is untouchable evidence that there are unicorns, and that unicorns create rainbows.

And this is considered cutting edge evidence in creationist circles. Assume your conclusion, and then cite your conclusion as the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't use double standards like you do.

Yours are more like:

1. If Science says it, but the Bible disagrees: go with Science.
2. If Science doesn't say it, but the Bible does: it probably didn't happen.
   
3. If Science doesn't say it, and the Bible doesn't say it: it probably didn't happen.

In any case, this says it all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you read the opening post?

Getting creationists to provide evidence for their claims appears to be impossible.

That's because you live within the evidence threshold.

You're standing on it, breathing it, using it to make our lives better.

Does a fish know it's wet?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no reliable evidence that I know of for creationism.

No argument there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Imagine if I started a thread where I made the claim that unicorns create rainbows. My evidence? Well, rainbows, of course.

I would ask you to show me that in your peer-reviewed, consensus of opinion documentation.

If you couldn't, I would then ask you if you know this by faith.

If you answered YES, then I would respect your faith.

And I would consider you sincere, but sincerely wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yours are more like:

1. If Science says it, but the Bible disagrees: go with Science.

I go with the evidence.