What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Loudmouth]

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

There are those double standards hard at work.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Assuming your conclusion is not evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I go with the evidence.

Enjoy the hike then.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are those double standards hard at work.

Then start a thread on it, like you intimated, and I'll be glad to pwn it.

 

[HitchSlap]

No argument there.

Assertions based on lack of evidence can take a hike.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Do you deny that rainbows exist?

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's take a look at these arguments. Imagine if creationists used the same argument in a court of law during a murder trial.

"To the jury, we ask that you find John Smith guilty for the murder of Jane Smith. The evidence is clear. Jane Smith is dead. What more evidence do you need?"

"It is tempting for the scientist to deduce the events of a crime from the crime scene findings. This activity, known as scenario building, is not only useless but also harmful. A person who does this will frequently find himself to be wrong when he learns more facts at a later date. Professor Alan Moritz, in his important paper describing mistakes made by forensic pathologists, calls this mistake “categorical intuitive deduction3.” Usually the experienced expert in pathology is the one often culpable of using this Sherlock-Holmes-style of reasoning, according to Dr. Moritz. A practitioner of “categorical intuitive deduction” does not realize that any number of situations can lead to the same findings."http://www.heartlandforensic.com/writing/forensic-science-and-the-scientific-method

 

[SkyWriting]

I really do have to wonder if they understand how evidence works.

Or if you are thinking. The claim is that something outside of nature "Created."

If it's outside of nature, then you don't have the proper tools to investigate.

 

[stray bullet]

Exactly.

By faith.

Which goes against all science. There is nothing wrong with believing something in faith - but faith does not tell us scientific things. Faith deals with that which cannot be measured.

 

[stray bullet]

No one called you an idiot, so I dont know why you feel that way.

God is not a creationist.

God created the world and used evolution in the process. Creationism is the invention of men.

 

[stray bullet]

Not according to the bible. Are you wiser than God?

By faith we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God, so that what is seen was made by things that are not visible. -Heb 11:3. If you followed Christ you would not oppose the truth which is what youre doing. Be humble and repent because we will all give an account to the Lord one day.

The bible does not support creationism. Genesis uses two contradicting stories of creation because of their meaning - not to put forth a theory on creation. There is no reason to take something literal, especially as creation is described in two contradicting stories.

 

[stray bullet]

The Bible says in Genisis and also in Hebrews how the world was made: he spoke it into existence. By his word.

Are you wiser than God? You say you are born again but you dont have faith in the scriptures I quoted? Either have faith or dont. Fear God.

I agree that God made the world. I don't believe in the man made theory of creationism.

 

[stray bullet]

Straybullet means "literalist/fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis" when says "Creationism", which of course is not fair use of the term. I can't believe he hasn't picked up on that.

I don't even know how you can take it literally since it has two creation stories. Genesis is several traditions combined into one book.

 

[stray bullet]

I don't think so. There are so many problems with trying to explain (just for example) how the first stars could have formed. Your comment implies that it is almost a done deal, when the actual reality is that it is nothing of the kind and so a person of the Christian faith would be entirely consistent by concluding that an all-powerful and all-knowing creator (Jesus) was the one who brought everything into being (the visible and invisible as it says in the Holy Scriptures).

Science is on going and so there are questions to be answer anytime we learn more. Science is inexhaustible because for every proof and theory, there is more to learn about it. This is opposed to creationism where there is no proof and there is nothing to learn. Creationism is the opposite of science.

Creationism is not the only way to believe God created the world, you are aware of that, right?

Of course we don't know exactly how He did it; our power and knowledge is nothing compared to His, but He did give us a very brief summary in the opening chapters of the Bible. Whether you prefer to place your faith in man's fallible ideas or trust the one who claimed to be God and clearly demonstrated Himself to be divine is, at the end of the day, your own personal choice, but you do have to make that choice, because Jesus made it clear that no-one can sit on the fence over this issue.
Mat 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

We don't know how God did it - that's we have science and we know God used evolution.

 

[stray bullet]

Well, first of all I would say that you have to consider the fact that since everyone now believes that the universe had a beginning, there are only TWO possibilities, either it was created or it created itself.

And these arguments have nothing to do with evidence for creationism.
God could have used creationism, however there is absolutely no evidence for this.
God could have used evolution, for which there is overwhelming evidence for this.

 

[stray bullet]

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?

That's the worst reason to believe in God. "Believe in me or go to hell."
Who would worship that God?

I wonder if all the Christians that preached turn or burn will get to watch all the atheists get welcomed into Heaven while the "Christians" get sent off to hell.

The atheists will say, "I didn't believe in God because they projected their cruelty onto you." God may say to them, "You have spent your life pursuing truth and you have found it, would you like to join me?"
To the Christians He may say, "You have spent your life worshiping a being of cruelty and spreading fear. I have a place for people that are into that. Hope you enjoy."

 

[ContraMundum]

In any case, this says it all.

Very good!

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

OK- STOP. Really getting over this pompous stuff over "theists don't know what evidence means" which is really saying "theists are stupid" Try to show some respect here and understand that theists and philosophers have been discussing and debating the nature of evidence, proof and assent for centuries before science came to be venerated.

Evidence is not what you think it is either. a) Evidence is not necessarily nor always "scientific" (natural/material). b) Evidence in itself is open to debate and is not necessarily "true" or "proof". c) Evidence is rarely self-validating. d) Evidence doesn't always compel assent.

Ever heard of a hung jury? This is a group of people who when presented with the same evidence disagree on what it proves.

By the haughty ill-logic of some on this forum, that means that the jury is too stupid to understand the nature of evidence. The fact of the matter is that the presented evidence was not enough to compel assent. End of story.

So, if you want to convince others of your point of view, perhaps your evidence is not as convincing to others as it might be to you. Remember that world-views and other factors are filters through which we interpret facts and evidence.

Case in point: I watched a science documentary with my self-proclaimed atheist nephew recently. It was by a well known scientist and presented an old universe point of view. At the end of it, I said "wow, that was so Biblical and the science guy has a totally different interpretation of the theories he presented" and my nephew said "how could you possibly see that as Biblical?". I explained my point of view and he said he'd never heard of that way of thinking before. Neither of us disagreed with what was presented. I saw it as a testimony of the creator, he didn't. Neither of us contested the findings of science.

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

I've seen plenty of evolution groupies and atheist preachers/elitists do that too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK- STOP. Really getting over this pompous stuff over "theists don't know what evidence means" which is really saying "theists are stupid" Try to show some respect here and understand that theists and philosophers have been discussing and debating the nature of evidence, proof and assent for centuries before science came to be venerated.

It is not pompous. Most creationists, not theists, do not understand what evidence is. Now it may not be due to a lack of intelligence. Creationists force themselves to look less intelligence by believing something that is clearly not true. Most Christians accept the theory of evolution. Like this group of Christian scientists:

https://biologos.org/

Evidence is not what you think it is either. a) Evidence is not necessarily nor always "scientific" (natural/material). b) Evidence in itself is open to debate and is not necessarily "true" or "proof". c) Evidence is rarely self-validating. d) Evidence doesn't always compel assent.

This only shows that you do not know what evidence is. There are different types of evidence. One of them is "scientific evidence". And there is no scientific evidence for creationism. As I told you the concept is not a hard one to learn. It is an unbiased approach to evidence. Scientists are not perfect and at times they will deny the evidence of others. The concept of scientific evidence makes it very hard for people to deny the evidence that they disagree with but still exists.

Ever heard of a hung jury? This is a group of people who when presented with the same evidence disagree on what it proves.

By the haughty ill-logic of some on this forum, that means that the jury is too stupid to understand the nature of evidence. The fact of the matter is that the presented evidence was not enough to compel assent. End of story.

Sorry, buy until you understand what evidence is you are in no position to make such a statement. And also you need to realize that no matter what evidence is supplied that some people will never admit the truth.

So, if you want to convince others of your point of view, perhaps your evidence is not as convincing to others as it might be to you. Remember that world-views and other factors are filters through which we interpret facts and evidence.

In the world of science there is no need of convincing. It is only those that are relatively ignorant that we are trying to help. You get terribly offended when your ignorance is pointed out to you. Perhaps you could try to learn once.

Case in point: I watched a science documentary with my self-proclaimed atheist nephew recently. It was by a well known scientist and presented an old universe point of view. At the end of it, I said "wow, that was so Biblical and the science guy has a totally different interpretation of the theories he presented" and my nephew said "how could you possibly see that as Biblical?". I explained my point of view and he said he'd never heard of that way of thinking before. Neither of us disagreed with what was presented. I saw it as a testimony of the creator, he didn't. Neither of us contested the findings of science.

Perhaps he was humoring you.

I've seen plenty of evolution groupies and atheist preachers/elitists do that too.

Really? That is rather rare in the world of evolution. The evidence for the theory of evolution is ubiquitous so I see no need to just "rah rah" the science. Perhaps you did not understand the argument.

 

[sfs]

Straybullet means "literalist/fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis" when says "Creationism", which of course is not fair use of the term. I can't believe he hasn't picked up on that.

That's pretty much what the word "creationism" means at present:
"Creationism: ... 2. The belief that mankind and all kinds of living organism, or, more widely, the earth and the physical universe generally, originated in specific acts of divine creation as related in the Bible or other sacred book rather than by natural processes as described by science, in particular evolution. Cf. creation science."

There are those that are trying to reclaim the word and apply it to those who accept the relevant science ("evolutionary creationism"), but that's still an uphill struggle.