What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[AV1611VET]

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

I don't think they're really interested in how God did it.

After all, every single Christian -- past and present -- totally agree on one thing:

In the beginning, God ...

Yet some here remain atheists.

So why do our differences of opinion count against us, while our agreements don't mean a thing to them?

It's because they're not really interested whether we agree or not.

They've already made up their own minds.

And only the Holy Spirit can get through to them at this point.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

Please note that the poster did not provide the entire definition, just the part that suited their POV.

Secondly, if indeed Harvard has settled on such a clumsy and narrow definition, it would be open to a rather robust challenge. Better check your sources champ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

That is not "calling you a sinner". That is a descriptive sentence. And don't worry, everybody sins so you should not worry if someone points out your since.

Again with the high school lectures. Oy Vey.

I am sorry if my lectures are too far past your comfort level. I don't think that I can simplify them to a middle school or elementary level.

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.

Wrong. I have. I have pointed out that various members here do not even understand the concept of evidence and offered to help them.

And no, all you did was to try to use a tautology, and rather poorly at that. The problem with your so called "evidence" is that it equally supports the other side. It is of no use in an argument at all. What you need is evidence unique to creationism. The theory of evolution has literally mountains of exclusive evidence supporting it.

 

[crjmurray]

Please note that the poster did not provide the entire definition, just the part that suited their POV.

Secondly, if indeed Harvard has settled on such a clumsy and narrow definition, it would be open to a rather robust challenge. Better check your sources champ.

And you'll defend it! That's just fantastic. So the Oxford dictionary and Harvard are wrong....why? Because you don't like the definition?

 

[crjmurray]

Please note that the poster did not provide the entire definition, just the part that suited their POV.

Secondly, if indeed Harvard has settled on such a clumsy and narrow definition, it would be open to a rather robust challenge. Better check your sources champ.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, and you try to use an incorrect definition of "observation". We can observe the evidence of evolution in many different ways.

Point out the part which was false.

Quote it again and I will.

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

And they were out of context. You interpreted what they said incorrectly. Once again, they do not accept the whole Garden of Eden myth. At best it is a morality tale on how "sin" entered the world. They know that people always died. They do not accept a worldwide flood. I am pretty sure that they would not accept the outrageous ages claimed for various patriarchs.

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.

"Scientism" is a false claim that certain theists make. There ain't no such animal as far as I can see.The accept common descent which is much closer to my beliefs than to yours. The only difference is that they believe God had a hand in evolution.



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.[/QUOTE]

 

[sfs]

Please note that the poster did not provide the entire definition, just the part that suited their POV.

No, I provided the part relevant to this discussion. Here is the entire definition:

1. Theol. The theory that God creates a soul for every human being at conception or birth. Opposed to traducianism.
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.
The first definition, which is the more traditional one, is hardly relevant.

Secondly, if indeed Harvard has settled on such a clumsy and narrow definition, it would be open to a rather robust challenge. Better check your sources champ.

The source is generally recognized as the most authoritative dictionary of the English language.

 

[ContraMundum]

I don't think they're really interested in how God did it.

After all, every single Christian -- past and present -- totally agree on one thing:

In the beginning, God ...

Yet some here remain atheists.

So why do our differences of opinion count against us, while our agreements don't mean a thing to them?

It's because they're not really interested whether we agree or not.

They've already made up their own minds.

And only the Holy Spirit can get through to them at this point.

Well, since we're giving opinions- both sides of this debate have individuals who seem rather desperate. There is a kind of insanity in saying "show me evidence for creation" while standing in it. The simple logic that says if we theorize the possibility of a Creator of the universe, what would we find? Answer: a universe. That should end the discussion on evidence immediately. In a creationist theory, we get exactly what we should expect. We are the evidence.

However, they soon change the subject into something altogether rather nebulous and difficult to pin down. There is at that point a rather desperate scramble to somehow disprove a theory that cannot be overturned and preach a theory that cannot be proven. All in the name of what? Science? What kind of worship is that?

The point is that a creation theory still stands even if every point of scientific evidence supported evolution etc etc. No matter what happens, the idea that before everything there was God still stands. The real question is in fact whether or not God exists and if so, how does one find out? This forces the terrifying prospect for some that they must start to look within rather than without.

On the other side, we have some meshuganah on the creation side too. These are the guys who are so desperate they will challenge every single point of scientific discovery if it contravenes their theology. Rather than see theological possibilities within the canon that science is supporting, all science is a threat. Already Creationists see the flaws in that kind of thinking and as such there is now diversity in the field, and rightly so.

 

[ContraMundum]

The source is generally recognized as the most authoritative dictionary of the English language.

Awful definition..

Here's a better one:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creation

And another:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/creation

..and so forth.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, and you try to use an incorrect definition of "observation". We can observe the evidence of evolution in many different ways.

See steps 4 and 5 for observation....and which is lacking

Quote it again and I will.

No, you made the claim. You said "You made a false description of evolution". Now, instead of trying to evade, actually point out my false claim.

And they were out of context. You interpreted what they said incorrectly. Once again, they do not accept the whole Garden of Eden myth. At best it is a morality tale on how "sin" entered the world. They know that people always died. They do not accept a worldwide flood. I am pretty sure that they would not accept the outrageous ages claimed for various patriarchs.

Nope, the quote was not out of context.

I'd suggest folks not take your word for what BioLogos believes and actually check it out for themselves.

https://biologos.org/about-us/

"Scientism" is a false claim that certain theists make.

It's certainly at odds with Godless Darwinist evolution (one of the several views of evolution).

There ain't no such animal as far as I can see.The accept common descent which is much closer to my beliefs than to yours. The only difference is that they believe God had a hand in evolution.

"The only difference"? That's an insurmountable difference between Godless Darwinism and theistic evolution.

Thing is, don't mislead people by saying that folks at BioLogos believes in evolution. We now see that their view of evolution differs tremendously from your view of evolution. When you say 'evolution', it means one thing, when they say 'evolution' it means another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, since we're giving opinions- both sides of this debate have individuals who seem rather desperate. There is a kind of insanity in saying "show me evidence for creation" while standing in it. The simple logic that says if we theorize the possibility of a Creator of the universe, what would we find? Answer: a universe. That should end the discussion on evidence immediately. In a creationist theory, we get exactly what we should expect. We are the evidence.

And back to the tautology again, after complaining about high school level science. Once again that evidence supports all beliefs so it is hardly valid as "evidence".

However, they soon change the subject into something altogether rather nebulous and difficult to pin down. There is at that point a rather desperate scramble to somehow disprove a theory that cannot be overturned and preach a theory that cannot be proven. All in the name of what? Science? What kind of worship is that?

What? No. There is nothing nebulous about the concept of evidence that supports only one side of the argument. And the theory of evolution could be overturned, it is was wrong.

The point is that a creation theory still stands even if every point of scientific evidence supported evolution etc etc. No matter what happens, the idea that before everything there was God still stands. The real question is in fact whether or not God exists and if so, how does one find out? This forces the terrifying prospect for some that they must start to look within rather than without.

First off there is no "creation theory". You keep complaining about "high school level science" and then continually show that you do not understand high school level science. Theories need to not only be testable, but to have been tested many times. That is why we demand evidence from people on your side.

On the other side, we have some meshuganah on the creation side too. These are the guys who are so desperate they will challenge every single point of scientific discovery if it contravenes their theology. Rather than see theological possibilities within the canon that science is supporting, all science is a threat. Already Creationists see the flaws in that kind of thinking and as such there is now diversity in the field, and rightly so.

There are some somewhat reasonable creationists. But none come to mind right now.

 

[crjmurray]

Awful definition..

Here's a better one:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creation

And another:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/creation

..and so forth.

CreationISM

 

[ContraMundum]

And back to the tautology again, after complaining about high school level science. Once again that evidence supports all beliefs so it is hardly valid as "evidence".

...and still you cannot refute it. Tautology or not, it stands. Some things just are too simple, aren't they?

First off there is no "creation theory". You keep complaining about "high school level science" and then continually show that you do not understand high school level science. Theories need to not only be testable, but to have been tested many times. That is why we demand evidence from people on your side.

You define everything according to your prejudices- do you have anything interest to say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

See steps 4 and 5 for observation....and which is lacking

Repeating your error does not make it true.

No, you made the claim. You said "You made a false description of evolution". Now, instead of trying to evade, actually point out my false claim.

The time to complain was when I pointed out your error. Now it is too late.

Nope, the quote was not out of context.

I'd suggest folks not take your word for what BioLogos believes and actually check it out for themselves.

https://biologos.org/about-us/

Of course it was. They have all of the beliefs that I listed. You want them to take Genesis literally. They do not do that.

It's certainly at odds with Godless Darwinist evolution (one of the several views of evolution).

I have never heard of "Godless Darwinist evolution". Nor have I heard of "Godless relativity" or "Godless quantum dynamics". Perhaps if you tried to honestly describe what you were arguing against you might get somewhere.

"The only difference"? That's an insurmountable difference between Godless Darwinism and theistic evolution.

No, not really. Especially since there is no such thing as "Godless Darwinism". Again, proper terminology. I would get in incredible trouble here is I insulted creationists by calling creationism "braindead creationism". You should use proper terminology even if you can get away with insults that I can't.

Thing is, don't mislead people by saying that folks at BioLogos believes in evolution. We now see that their view of evolution differs tremendously from your view of evolution. When you say 'evolution', it means one thing, when they say 'evolution' it means another.

Oh please. I doubt if I could find a post of yours where you didn't post something misleading. And I have been consistent in my use of the word "evolution" You are the one that tries to change it in some weird fashion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...and still you cannot refute it. Tautology or not, it stands. Some things just are too simple, aren't they?

No, it doesn't stand. The same argument supports the existence of unicorns.

You define everything according to your prejudices- do you have anything interest to say?

No, I will use valid sources for my definitions. It looks like you are projecting your flaws upon others.

 

[ContraMundum]

CreationISM

Obviously. The "ism" is poorly defined. Think for yourself for a minute. A person who holds that the universe is created is what? A creationist? Would that seem fair? His beliefs about how creation happened would be called what? Creationism? Does that work for you?

So, when someone makes the postulation that all Creationists hold: " 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."...does that seem accurate? Especially since anyone with more than ten minutes to spare soon will discover that there's plenty of differing kinds of creationists, as I pointed out.

So, the definition is rubbish. Don't worry- dictionaries do change and it will catch up eventually.

 

[crjmurray]

Obviously. The "ism" is poorly defined. Think for yourself for a minute. A person who holds that the universe is created is what? A creationist? Would that seem fair? His beliefs about how creation happened would be called what? Creationism? Does that work for you?

So, when someone makes the postulation that all Creationists hold: " 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."...does that seem accurate? Especially since anyone with more than ten minutes to spare soon will discover that there's plenty of differing kinds of creationists, as I pointed out.

So, the definition is rubbish. Don't worry- dictionaries do change and it will catch up eventually.

Hilarious.

 

[ContraMundum]

No, it doesn't stand. The same argument supports the existence of unicorns.

Then refute it. We'll be waiting. I think you are a result of creation. Prove me wrong.

Enjoy. I'll make a cup of tea.

No, I will use valid sources for my definitions. It looks like you are projecting your flaws upon others.

Yes, now you're an armchair psychologist too. A man of many degrees and talents indeed!

 

[ContraMundum]

Hilarious.

Are all Creationists accurately described in the definition? Yes or no?

Think. For. Yourself.

(edited because you are not Australian as I assumed)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then refute it. We'll be waiting. I think you are a result of creation. Prove me wrong.

As far as being useful "evidence" it failed. Also it is up to the person making the positive claim to support their claim. I can claim that I can fly by flapping my arms real hard. Prove me wrong. You keep trying to drag this argument below even a high school level.

Enjoy. I'll make a cup of tea.[/quote]

I hope you used a microwave oven.

Yes, now you're an armchair psychologist too. A man of many degrees and talents indeed!

Yes, we all dabble a bit. But that looks like you were evading a valid point. Thank you.