What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[ContraMundum]

This only shows that you do not know what evidence is. There are different types of evidence.

a) You're being rude. b) I know there are different types of evidence. Doesn't change a thing. You seem to be continually trying to steer the argument into a place for you to preach your somewhat narrowed point of view on the discussion. I'm not interested in high school science and internet-learned logic traps which to me are a waste of time. It's just too juvenile.

Secondly, you make absurd claims yourself. Scientists never disagree on the evidence? On what planet does that happen, because it's not Earth.

My nephew humoring me? He's not an arrogant venerator of his own mind like some atheists I know. The kid is way to smart for that and he knows me better than you.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

From what internet rubbish bin did you retrieve that awful definition from?

Seriously?

So, Christians and theists who believe in creation by a Creator yet who also think "Creation Science" is really a desperate attempt to prop up moribund fundamentalism are not creationists?

Is the world that confused about things now? Creationists are now all the same.

Even the Wiki is better than that!

 

[justlookinla]

It is not pompous. Most creationists, not theists, do not understand what evidence is.

In the scientific world, evidence is based on the scientific method.....

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/

The folks at BioLogos do not embrace the evolutionary view that they're the product of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanism.....

"At BioLogos, we present the Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins. Like all Christians, we fully affirm that God is the creator of all life—including human beings in his image. We fully affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. We also accept the science of evolution as the best description for how God brought about the diversity of life on earth.

But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too."
​

This only shows that you do not know what evidence is.

See above.

There are different types of evidence. One of them is "scientific evidence". And there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

There is no scientific evidence for Darwinism either.

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.

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.

See graphic above for scientific 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.

Well...if this ad-hominem comment were directed at me I'd report it.

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.

There are several flavors of evolution, not just one.

 

[crjmurray]

From what internet rubbish bin did you retrieve that awful definition from?

Seriously?

So, Christians and theists who believe in creation by a Creator yet who also think "Creation Science" is really a desperate attempt to prop up moribund fundamentalism are not creationists?

Is the world that confused about things now? Creationists are now all the same.

Even the Wiki is better than that!

The link sfs provided brought me to Harvard's website. So congratulations. You're now known as the guy that called Harvard an internet rubbish bin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

a) You're being rude. b) I know there are different types of evidence. Doesn't change a thing. You seem to be continually trying to steer the argument into a place for you to preach your somewhat narrowed point of view on the discussion. I'm not interested in high school science and internet-learned logic traps which to me are a waste of time. It's just too juvenile.

No, I am being honest. You are wrong. I am trying to help you. I am not the one that is taking this discussion to a high school level. That is your sin. You don't want to learn how science works and yet you oppose it. That is not only arrogant, that is rude on your part.

Secondly, you make absurd claims yourself. Scientists never disagree on the evidence? On what planet does that happen, because it's not Earth.

That is not what I said. You need to read what I write and not what you want to believe that I wrote.

My nephew humoring me? He's not an arrogant venerator of his own mind like some atheists I know. The kid is way to smart for that and he knows me better than you.

And he still was probably humoring you. So far you have failed to get your ideas across here. You need to learn the basics of science if you want to debate science.

 

[sfs]

From what internet rubbish bin did you retrieve that awful definition from?

Seriously?

The Oxford English Dictionary.

So, Christians and theists who believe in creation by a Creator yet who also think "Creation Science" is really a desperate attempt to prop up moribund fundamentalism are not creationists?

For most speakers of English, no.

 

[sfs]

The link sfs provided brought me to Harvard's website. So congratulations. You're now known as the guy that called Harvard an internet rubbish bin.

Oxford, actually, but I access it through Harvard. I guess Oxford is the rubbish bin and Harvard is the garbage truck . . .? Or something like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the scientific world, evidence is based on the scientific method.....

Nice picture. It is too bad that you do not understand it.

The folks at BioLogos do not embrace the evolutionary view that they're the product of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanism.....

That is a strawman. Perhaps it would help your cause if you knew what you were arguing against.

​

There is no scientific evidence for Darwinism either.

Do you mean the theory of evolution? You could not be more wrong. But thanks for showing that you did not understand your pretty picture. I can help you with the concept of evidence. Too bad that you are too afraid to learn.

See graphic above for scientific evidence.

Major fail. The graphic did not define scientific evidence. The graphic was a flow chart for the scientific method. That is amazing ignorance on your part.

Well...if this ad-hominem comment were directed at me I'd report it.

It is not an ad hominem. He has both shown that he has no understanding of what scientific evidence is and ran away from the offer of help. You need to learn how to use that term properly.

There are several flavors of evolution, not just one.

Here we are discussing the theory of evolution. You are the one that has a strange concept of evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

Oxford, actually, but I access it through Harvard. I guess Oxford is the rubbish bin and Harvard is the garbage truck . . .? Or something like that.

Ah, so a definition by Oxford approved by Harvard. Rubbish bin indeed.

 

[ContraMundum]

No, I am being honest. You are wrong. I am trying to help you. I am not the one that is taking this discussion to a high school level. That is your sin. You don't want to learn how science works and yet you oppose it. That is not only arrogant, that is rude on your part.

Dude, you're judging me, my family and you have now called me a sinner. If there's anyone on this thread that needs religion, it's you. The reform of the character is the best part of religion. It might help you realize why I don't spend quality time on people who have no respect.

So far you have failed to get your ideas across here. You need to learn the basics of science if you want to debate science.

I haven't even shared my "ideas" with you. I haven't debated science at all- I've avoided it. You're still trying to steer my points into a debate I haven't entered into. I'm trying to get you to think beyond the "science" and to the foundations of existence itself- philosophy and it's Queen, theology. The reason real scientists (not internet groupies and elitists) study philosophy and must have a basis in humanities first (or at least did in the glory days before cost cutting came into universities) is so they can understand and correctly interpret what they see.

Apparently, you have either forgotten this or just don't care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude, you're judging me, my family and you have now called me a sinner. If there's anyone on this thread that needs religion, it's you. The reform of the character is the best part of religion. It might help you realize why I don't spend quality time on people who have no respect.

Where did I call you a sinner? And pointing out your rudeness is hardly being judgmental. I was polite to you at the start but the rudeness came from you first.

I haven't even shared my "ideas" with you. I haven't debated science at all- I've avoided it. You're still trying to steer my points into a debate I haven't entered into. I'm trying to get you to think beyond the "science" and to the foundations of existence itself- philosophy and it's Queen, theology. The reason real scientists (not internet groupies and elitists) study philosophy and must have a basis in humanities first (or at least did in the glory days before cost cutting came into universities) is so they can understand and correctly interpret what they see.

This thread is about the positive evidence for creationism. If you don't have any what are you doing here in the first place. Don't blame me for your deficiencies.

Apparently, you have either forgotten this or just don't care.

Please, you seem to know very little about science. They need to understand the history of science too so that they can appreciate how it is done. Understanding the concept of scientific evidence is a basic that creationist actively refuse too grasp. You should not be making false accusations against me when you have these huge flaws of your own.

 

[justlookinla]

Nice picture. It is too bad that you do not understand it.

I understand you have little evidence for certain evolutionary claims based on the method in the graphic.

That is a strawman. Perhaps it would help your cause if you knew what you were arguing against.

No, that's pointing out you're making misleading claims about the folks at BioLogos. Per the BioLogos site.

Do you mean the theory of evolution? You could not be more wrong. But thanks for showing that you did not understand your pretty picture. I can help you with the concept of evidence. Too bad that you are too afraid to learn.

I mean the form of evolution promoted by Darwinism. There are different forms of evolution, you know.

Major fail. The graphic did not define scientific evidence. The graphic was a flow chart for the scientific method. That is amazing ignorance on your part.

Steps 4 & 5 in the graph will reveal that you have no scientific evidence for certain claims of Darwinism each and every time you apply it to your guessess and suppositions.

It is not an ad hominem. He has both shown that he has no understanding of what scientific evidence is and ran away from the offer of help. You need to learn how to use that term properly.

'Yer ignorant', 'yer stupid' isn't complimenting the person.

Here we are discussing the theory of evolution. You are the one that has a strange concept of evolution.

Which form of evolution? The form in which bacterica produce bacteria and is supported by the scientific method, or the form of evolution which makes claims about the process where all life was produced only by a naturalistic mechanism from an alleged single life form of long ago and isn't supported by the scientific method? You do understand the difference between the two, don't you?

 

[sfs]

I'm trying to get you to think beyond the "science" and to the foundations of existence itself- philosophy and it's Queen, theology. The reason real scientists (not internet groupies and elitists) study philosophy and must have a basis in humanities first (or at least did in the glory days before cost cutting came into universities) is so they can understand and correctly interpret what they see.

Apparently, you have either forgotten this or just don't care.

You seem to be using words in an idiosyncratic way again. For me, "real scientists" are the men and women sequencing and interpreting genomes, finding new elementary particles, finding new exoplanets, modeling galaxy formation and the like. Do you not consider them real scientists? Because most of those people don't study philosophy and don't have much of a basis in the humanities. A few do, to be sure, but that has little to do with the quality of their science. And the reason they don't spend a lot of time studying humanities isn't cost-cutting: it's the time required. To be really successful at science usually requires a deep commitment to mastering a very large body of knowledge, technique and culture. There simply isn't time to do a lot of studying of humanities as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand you have little evidence for certain evolutionary claims based on the method in the graphic.

You would be wrong.

No, that's pointing out you're making misleading claims about the folks at BioLogos. Per the BioLogos site.

Hardly. You made a false description of evolution and tried to downplay what the people of BioLogos believe. They do not accept the Adam and Eve story, they know that there never were only two people. They do not accept the Noah's Ark story of a worldwide flood.

I mean the form of evolution promoted by Darwinism. There are different forms of evolution, you know.

If someone is talking about some non-standard version of evolution the burden is upon him or her to make it clear what they are talking about. Darwinian evolution is the default. It has been that way for over one hundred years.

Steps 4 & 5 in the graph will reveal that you have no scientific evidence for certain claims of Darwinism each and every time you apply it to your guessess and suppositions.[/qoute]

What? You have to be kidding. The theory of evolution has been tested thousands of times using those steps.

'Yer ignorant', 'yer stupid' isn't complimenting the person.

That is a strawman. Identifying where someone's education is lacking and offering to help is not insulting. When someone is wrong it is not correct to compliment them. You don't tell little Johnny Good job" when he writes 2 + 2 = 5.

Which form of evolution? The form in which bacterica produce bacteria and is supported by the scientific method, or the form of evolution which makes claims about the process where all life was produced only by a naturalistic mechanism from an alleged single life form of long ago and isn't supported by the scientific method? You do understand the difference between the two, don't you?

That is all Darwinian evolution. Your denial will not change that fact.

 

[ContraMundum]

You seem to be using words in an idiosyncratic way again. For me, "real scientists" are the men and women sequencing and interpreting genomes, finding new elementary particles, finding new exoplanets, modeling galaxy formation and the like. Do you not consider them real scientists?

That's exactly what I mean by real scientists. Nothing idiosyncratic about it. I compare real scientists to the science venerating people here who claim to speak for it.

Because most of those people don't study philosophy and don't have much of a basis in the humanities.

As I mentioned, they used to. In fact, most who attended a private school (in my country that means privately funded) would have been compelled to study those disciplines prior to graduation. YMMV.

A few do, to be sure, but that has little to do with the quality of their science. And the reason they don't spend a lot of time studying humanities isn't cost-cutting: it's the time required. To be really successful at science usually requires a deep commitment to mastering a very large body of knowledge, technique and culture. There simply isn't time to do a lot of studying of humanities as well.

Totally agree.

 

[justlookinla]

You would be wrong.

How so? You apparently do not understand that observation is an essential part of the process of the scientific method.

Hardly. You made a false description of evolution

Point out the part which was false.

and tried to downplay what the people of BioLogos believe.

I copied and pasted verbatim what the BioLogos folks believe, directly from their website.

They do not accept the Adam and Eve story, they know that there never were only two people. They do not accept the Noah's Ark story of a worldwide flood.

Your claim was that 'they accept evolution'. That was misleading on your part for you didn't point out that they do not accept the 'scienceism' view of evolution, but rather embraced a God ordained, theistic view of evolution. Since I've pointed the fact out to you several times, I can only conclude you're purposely posting misleading claims concerning the views of BilLogos.

If someone is talking about some non-standard version of evolution the burden is upon him or her to make it clear what they are talking about. Darwinian evolution is the default. It has been that way for over one hundred years.

No, Darwinian evolution isn't the default. The default is the form of evolution used in medical advances, for example, today. This is a form of evolution which is based on the scientific method, observable, measurable, reproducible. In contrast, the form of evolution of Darwinism isn't based on the scientific method, it's chock full of guesses, suppositions, could be's and might have been's.

 

[sfs]

As I mentioned, they used to. In fact, most who attended a private school (in my country that means privately funded) would have been compelled to study those disciplines prior to graduation.

I don't think there's been a time within the last century or more that most scientists had a real grounding in philosophy or any other humanities discipline. (Mind you, I do have a background in the humanities, but I'm an odd duck as a scientist.)

 

[ContraMundum]

Where did I call you a sinner?

"I am not the one that is taking this discussion to a high school level. That is your sin"

Please, you seem to know very little about science. They need to understand the history of science too so that they can appreciate how it is done. Understanding the concept of scientific evidence is a basic that creationist actively refuse too grasp. You should not be making false accusations against me when you have these huge flaws of your own.

Again with the high school lectures. Oy Vey.

You do realize that you have no contributed anything positive to this thread? You are the critic on the sidelines, nothing more. I actually think you have not shown much appreciation for the subject. At least I tried to point out the obvious- a Divine Creator's only possible evidence must be a creation itself. To discard the universe itself as positive evidence for creation is a form of madness. As yet, no one has addressed, nor can they.

 

[crjmurray]

"I am not the one that is taking this discussion to a high school level. That is your sin"



Again with the high school lectures. Oy Vey.

You do realize that you have no contributed anything positive to this thread? You are the critic on the sidelines, nothing more. I actually think you have not shown much appreciation for the subject. At least I tried to point out the obvious- a Divine Creator's only possible evidence must be a creation itself. To discard the universe itself as positive evidence for creation is a form of madness. As yet, no one has addressed, nor can they.

Actually loudmouth addressed it with his unicorn rainbow scenario. It's just a silly argument. Try providing actual evidence that addresses the OP.

 

[ContraMundum]

I don't think there's been a time within the last century or more that most scientists had a real grounding in philosophy or any other humanities discipline. (Mind you, I do have a background in the humanities, but I'm an odd duck as a scientist.)

Well, I have three scientists in my family. All studied humanities and philosophy in particular (private school educations) and one did it at tertiary level as well. Interestingly, all are rather devout theists but all reject fundamentalism.

I think it may be a difference of demographics but I understand your experience too. I recently had a discussion with a Creation Scientist who has written some rather reasonable books on the matter- but when the discussion got onto theology and philosophy he calmly stated that he was not terribly qualified in that area. Unlike others on this thread, he respected that those of us who have studied and are professionals in those disciplines as having some kind of input into the discussion from the perspective of our own learning.

Reminds me a lot about the tension between faith, the humanities and science brought out by Carl Sagan.