What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[justlookinla]

Repeating your error does not make it true.

What is the error? You keep making these accusations without pointing out the error.

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

I immediately asked you after you made the statement. You said...."You made a false description of evolution". I immediately asked you what was false. Your response.....post it again.

No, you're now in your typical evasion mode, refusing to face your accusation against me. Not only will you not point out the 'false description of evolution' you claimed I made, you'll also not point out the error I asked about above.

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.

You're changing your claim. You said....."Most Christians accept the theory of evolution. Like this group of Christian scientists:" and then referenced the BioLogos site. You made a misleading statement, for the view of evolution which BioLogos embraces is far from the view of evolution of Godless Darwinism.

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.

I'm simply pointing out there is a particular view of evolution which eliminates any theistic involvement in the process which created all life we observe today.

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Robert Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
​

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.

The terminology is proper. Darwinism is Godless, eliminates theistic influence, in the process of the mechanism which produced all life we observe today.

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.

Do you embrace the meaning of evolution as defined by the folks at BioLogos? Of course you don't, their evolutionary view is irreconcilability in opposition to your evolutionary view (there are various views on evolution). Yet you continue to make the same misleading claim, over and over and over.

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

"We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. "

"We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history."

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God."

"We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order."​

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

Ahh...apart from the little snipe at the end you are finally starting to see the conundrum which begins with the question itself. I have stated on this thread that by definition it is impossible to prove via physical evidence the Creator of the universe (and thus establish a workable and irrefutable scientific creationism) because that would have to be from outside the creation- no physical evidence would be sufficient evidence on its own. As stated, it's asking us to clean a window and handing us a hammer and a nail with which to do it.

As for making empty claims, some are easily disproven. Your example of flying by flapping arms is easy to disprove. I can just ask you to do it for me. You couldn't and you'd owe me a fiver and beer. Other claims are be harder to disprove. eg. Prove that a person in a coma no longer loves their spouse. That kind of thing.

The question is: can you live with that? Is it possible for you to live knowing that science can't prove everything?

I hope you used a microwave oven.

What am I, a barbarian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the error? You keep making these accusations without pointing out the error.



I immediately asked you after you made the statement. You said...."You made a false description of evolution". I immediately asked you what was false. Your response.....post it again.

No, that was more than one post back.

No, you're now in your typical evasion mode, refusing to face your accusation against me. Not only will you not point out the 'false description of evolution' you claimed I made, you'll also not point out the error I asked about above.

Wrong again, that is your specialty. And yes, I pointed out your errors more than once. You tend to Gish here. If you want to go over anything in detail bring it up in one post. When you cover multiple topics you only get a low level response.

You're changing your claim. You said....."Most Christians accept the theory of evolution. Like this group of Christian scientists:" and then referenced the BioLogos site. You made a misleading statement, for the view of evolution which BioLogos embraces is far from the view of evolution of Godless Darwinism.

Sorry, they accept the theory of evolution. They may say that God had a hand in it, but that is the only noticeable difference in their beliefs.

I'm simply pointing out there is a particular view of evolution which eliminates any theistic involvement in the process which created all life we observe today.

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Robert Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism​

There is no elimination there. You are reading things into that that are not there. If evidence is found for the intervention of a go it will be incorporated into the theory. You made false charges.

​

The terminology is proper. Darwinism is Godless, eliminates theistic influence, in the process of the mechanism which produced all life we observe today.

Sorry, it is not because it is an attempt to prejudice peoples views of it. To be fair you would have to call all of science "Godless".

Do you embrace the meaning of evolution as defined by the folks at BioLogos? Of course you don't, their evolutionary view is irreconcilability in opposition to your evolutionary view (there are various views on evolution). Yet you continue to make the same misleading claim, over and over and over.

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

"We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. "

"We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history."

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God."

"We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order."​

The only difference I have is that there is no need to bring a god into the mix. It seems rather superfluous. That being said Darwin's theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God nor was it ever meant to. If you have to believe in a literal Genesis story then yes, that version of God is refuted, but that is not even the "Christian God" it is only the God of some Christians. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahh...apart from the little snipe at the end you are finally starting to see the conundrum which begins with the question itself. I have stated on this thread that by definition it is impossible to prove via physical evidence the Creator of the universe (and thus establish a workable and irrefutable scientific creationism) because that would have to be from outside the creation- no physical evidence would be sufficient evidence on its own. As stated, it's asking us to clean a window and handing us a hammer and a nail with which to do it.

As for making empty claims, some are easily disproven. Your example of flying by flapping arms is easy to disprove. I can just ask you to do it for me. You couldn't and you'd owe me a fiver and beer. Other claims are be harder to disprove. eg. Prove that a person in a coma no longer loves their spouse. That kind of thing.

The question is: can you live with that? Is it possible for you to live knowing that science can't prove everything?



What am I, a barbarian?

There is no conundrum. There are certain beliefs that can be shown to be wrong. Such as a literal interpretation of Genesis. Evolution itself does not refute God, nor was it ever meant to. Who knows what sort of "creationist" you are, I have not judged that yet. I would hardly call the people at Biologos creationists. The term "creationist" is usually reserved for those that believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

What sort of creationist are you?

 

[crjmurray]

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

Think. For. Yourself.

(edited because you are not Australian as I assumed)

Yeah. If someone says "I'm a creationist" then that is what I and most people will think of them as. If you are using some weird obscure definition then that's not my fault.

 

[justlookinla]

No, that was more than one post back.

You're in total evasion mode now. You make these accusations then don't have the ability to support them.

Wrong again, that is your specialty. And yes, I pointed out your errors more than once.

Where? Post number please.

You'll not do that though, you'll simply keep making baseless accusations.

You tend to Gish here. If you want to go over anything in detail bring it up in one post. When you cover multiple topics you only get a low level response.

I'm simply asking you to face your accusations concerning my posts.

Sorry, they accept the theory of evolution. They may say that God had a hand in it, but that is the only noticeable difference in their beliefs.

They don't 'may say it', they say it. And that's a far cry from the Godless Darwinist evolution view. Two completely different views of how all life we observe today was produced.

​

There is no elimination there. You are reading things into that that are not there. If evidence is found for the intervention of a go it will be incorporated into the theory. You made false charges.

Here's another chance for you to evade. What false charge? Identify it.

​

Sorry, it is not because it is an attempt to prejudice peoples views of it. To be fair you would have to call all of science "Godless".

Not at all. This is concerning the process whereby all life was created. Either it was theistic or it was Godless. Darwinism's conclusion is that it was Godless.

The only difference I have is that there is no need to bring a god into the mix.

And that difference is light years apart from the view which does bring God into it.

It seems rather superfluous. That being said Darwin's theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God nor was it ever meant to. If you have to believe in a literal Genesis story then yes, that version of God is refuted, but that is not even the "Christian God" it is only the God of some Christians. Do you understand the difference?

Sure it does. God is not needed, wanted or allowed in Darwinist evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're in total evasion mode now. You make these accusations then don't have the ability to support them.

Nope, I called you out. I offered you a reasonable option. You ran away from it. I am not the one that is running away.

Where? Post number please.

Nope. You ran away from me for years over evidence. When you bring up your claims one at a time I will gladly go over them in depth.

You'll not do that though, you'll simply keep making baseless accusations.

That is your game. Or have you forgotten how many times you ran away form my offer to help you with the concept of evidence.

I'm simply asking you to face your accusations concerning my posts.

And I offered you a reasonable solution. You ran away.

They don't 'may say it', they say it. And that's a far cry from the Godless Darwinist evolution view. Two completely different views of how all life we observe today was produced.

They make only one unjustifiable claim, unlike you, you make endless ones. They still have no evidence for their God, but at least they are not opposing reality.

Here's another chance for you to evade. What false charge? Identify it.

I told you what you did. Don't tell me that you did not understand that? You made the false charge that scientists eliminate any theistic involvement. Is your reading comprehension that poor? If that is the case you need to warn me ahead of time. This is a huge problem of yours. There should be no explanation to many posts and yet you can't understand them. I am not the one with a problem here.

​

Not at all. This is concerning the process whereby all life was created. Either it was theistic or it was Godless. Darwinism's conclusion is that it was Godless.

If you want to claim that a God had a hand in it then the burden of proof is upon you. The theory of evolution does not claim it is was either. It only covers what the evidence says. You are reading into it that it is "Godless" because it refutes your own personal God. That does not mean that evolution is Godless. Are the various theories that I mentioned "Godless"? None of them invoke a God at all.

And that difference is light years apart from the view which does bring God into it.

No, once again you are making claims about evolution that are just not true. The theory does not deny a god, it simply shows that there was no need for a god. I know that that bothers you to no end, but that is a fact. And that lack comes from your side. If they want to claim that a god exists the burden of proof is upon them. Once again, there is no claim that god does not exist in evolution. You are reading that into the theory.

Sure it does. God is not needed, wanted or allowed in Darwinist evolution.

Wrong, simply not needed. And once again, if you want to claim a god is needed the burden of proof is on your side.

 

[ContraMundum]

There is no conundrum. There are certain beliefs that can be shown to be wrong. Such as a literal interpretation of Genesis. Evolution itself does not refute God, nor was it ever meant to. Who knows what sort of "creationist" you are, I have not judged that yet. I would hardly call the people at Biologos creationists. The term "creationist" is usually reserved for those that believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

"Usually reserved" is sad, but perhaps true nonetheless. I guess most Muslims are "usually" regarded as terrorist sympathizers too.

I disagree with a literalist interpretation of Genesis, but think the written words to be accurate nonetheless. It's complex, and not something people here would encounter that often.

What sort of creationist are you?

It's complicated. I tend to hold to current orthodox Jewish understandings of the matter, which is such a foreign way of thinking to many that it would take pages to describe. Perhaps this will be a primer. I will look for a suitable summary of it online and pm it to you.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, I called you out. I offered you a reasonable option. You ran away from it. I am not the one that is running away.

Nope. You ran away from me for years over evidence. When you bring up your claims one at a time I will gladly go over them in depth.

One at a time....

You said...."You made a false description of evolution"

I then asked...."Point out the part which was false"

You then went immediately into evasion mode and have continued there.

That is your game. Or have you forgotten how many times you ran away form my offer to help you with the concept of evidence.

And I offered you a reasonable solution. You ran away.

I haven't forgotten that after many months of your claims, you've offered nothing. And continue to do so.

They make only one unjustifiable claim, unlike you, you make endless ones. They still have no evidence for their God, but at least they are not opposing reality.

The reality that God was involved in producing all life we observe today? Is that reality to you?

I told you what you did. Don't tell me that you did not understand that? You made the false charge that scientists eliminate any theistic involvement.

Quote me. I haven't said that. Of course you'll go right along and not face your words, your accusations, as you've done repeatedly in this thread. (See beginning of post for one example).

​

If you want to claim that a God had a hand in it then the burden of proof is upon you.

The folks at BioLogos claim that God had a hand in it, as contrasted to your particular evolutionary view that God did not have a hand in it. Two very very different evolutionary views.

The theory of evolution does not claim it is was either.

Darwinist evolution disallows, rejects, eliminates and bans any involvement of God in the creation of all life.

It only covers what the evidence says.

Certain views of evolution certainly has evidence, based on the scientific method, for their views. Unfortunately the particular evolutionary view of Darwinist evolution doesn't enjoy support with evidence based on the scientific method.

You are reading into it that it is "Godless" because it refutes your own personal God. That does not mean that evolution is Godless. Are the various theories that I mentioned "Godless"? None of them invoke a God at all.

Darwinist evolution is Godless because it eliminates God from the process, as contrasted to the view of the BioLogos folks.

No, once again you are making claims about evolution that are just not true. The theory does not deny a god, it simply shows that there was no need for a god.

Darwinism not only promotes the view there was no need for God, any attempt to include God in the process is quickly rejected. The claim that all life is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms isn't supported by evidence, based on the scientific method. That particular evolutionary view is just another faith-based view of creation.

I know that that bothers you to no end, but that is a fact. And that lack comes from your side. If they want to claim that a god exists the burden of proof is upon them. Once again, there is no claim that god does not exist in evolution. You are reading that into the theory.

Yes, there is a claim that only naturalistic processes created all life we observe today.

Wrong, simply not needed. And once again, if you want to claim a god is needed the burden of proof is on your side.

If you wish to claim, or promote, your particular evolutionary view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today, the burden of proof is on your side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One at a time....

You said...."You made a false description of evolution"

I then asked...."Point out the part which was false"

You then went immediately into evasion mode and have continued there.

Is this "one at a time"? If so why doesn't your post stop here. Please if you don't understand a simple demand how are you going to understand an answer?

I haven't forgotten that after many months of your claims, you've offered nothing. And continue to do so.

Now you are not telling the truth. You ran away for many months. The offer has always been there. It always scared you.

The reality that God was involved in producing all life we observe today? Is that reality to you?

There is no evidence for that. That is what this thread is about. No one has offered any evidence yet that supports that claim.

Quote me. I haven't said that. Of course you'll go right along and not face your words, your accusations, as you've done repeatedly in this thread. (See beginning of post for one example).

Yes you did:

"I'm simply pointing out there is a particular view of evolution which eliminates any theistic involvement in the process which created all life we observe today. "

There is no "elimination" of theistic involvement. What there is is no observation of theistic involvement. That is a big difference and I just showed that you were not telling the truth.

​

The folks at BioLogos claim that God had a hand in it, as contrasted to your particular evolutionary view that God did not have a hand in it. Two very very different evolutionary views.

Wrong again, they believe that God had a hand in it, that is different from claiming that God had a hand in it. They cannot show any evidence of God's hand being involved. And the view that I supports simply reports the facts. There is no evidence of any god having a hand in evolution. If there was such evidence the theory would change and acknowledge that fact.

Darwinist evolution disallows, rejects, eliminates and bans any involvement of God in the creation of all life.

And there you just made a false claim again. No, it observes that there is no evidence of such involvement. Subtleties seem to give you a huge problem. These are very important subtleties.

Certain views of evolution certainly has evidence, based on the scientific method, for their views. Unfortunately the particular evolutionary view of Darwinist evolution doesn't enjoy support with evidence based on the scientific method.

Wrong again. But to understand how you are wrong you would have to learn what evidence is in the first places and so far you have been afraid to do so.

Darwinist evolution is Godless because it eliminates God from the process, as contrasted to the view of the BioLogos folks.

Repeating your error will not make it correct.

Darwinism not only promotes the view there was no need for God, any attempt to include God in the process is quickly rejected. The claim that all life is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms isn't supported by evidence, based on the scientific method. That particular evolutionary view is just another faith-based view of creation.

Prove it. The problem is that no one on your side has ever shown a need for god. The evidence supports that life needs no god. It seems that you should be mad at lazy creation "scientists" that can't find valid evidence that supports their beliefs.

Yes, there is a claim that only naturalistic processes created all life we observe today.

It is much more than a claim. It is the only that is supported by evidence.

If you wish to claim, or promote, your particular evolutionary view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today, the burden of proof is on your side.

It has been proven. The problem is that you use the ostrich defense. My statement is supported by the fact that over 90% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution and over 99% of those that fully understand the theory accept the theory of evolution. The number of biologists and paleontologists that accept creationism is a low fraction of one percent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Usually reserved" is sad, but perhaps true nonetheless. I guess most Muslims are "usually" regarded as terrorist sympathizers too.

I disagree with a literalist interpretation of Genesis, but think the written words to be accurate nonetheless. It's complex, and not something people here would encounter that often.

You seem to have contradicted yourself.

It's complicated. I tend to hold to current orthodox Jewish understandings of the matter, which is such a foreign way of thinking to many that it would take pages to describe. Perhaps this will be a primer. I will look for a suitable summary of it online and pm it to you.

I will take a look at it.

 

[justlookinla]

Is this "one at a time"? If so why doesn't your post stop here. Please if you don't understand a simple demand how are you going to understand an answer?

Yes, I posted one of your accusations. You didn't face it then and you're not facing it now.

Now you are not telling the truth. You ran away for many months. The offer has always been there. It always scared you.

I asked for evidence, based on the scientific method, for months and I'm still asking for it. Maybe one day you'll actually post the evidence, but I doubt it. You can't post something which doesn't exist.

There is no evidence for that. That is what this thread is about. No one has offered any evidence yet that supports that claim.

That's what BioLogos claims. Your attempt to equate the evolutionary view of BioLogos with non-theistic evolutionary views fails.

Yes you did:

"I'm simply pointing out there is a particular view of evolution which eliminates any theistic involvement in the process which created all life we observe today. "

There is no "elimination" of theistic involvement. What there is is no observation of theistic involvement. That is a big difference and I just showed that you were not telling the truth.

You apparently cannot face the words, the accusation, you make. You said, concerning an alleged comment I made......"You made the false charge that scientists eliminate any theistic involvement". As we can see by your failed attempt, I said no such thing. Again you make false accusations and of course you'll again simply ignore your error.

Wrong again, they believe that God had a hand in it, that is different from claiming that God had a hand in it.

What?

They cannot show any evidence of God's hand being involved. And the view that I supports simply reports the facts. There is no evidence of any god having a hand in evolution. If there was such evidence the theory would change and acknowledge that fact.

Likewise, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And there you just made a false claim again. No, it observes that there is no evidence of such involvement. Subtleties seem to give you a huge problem. These are very important subtleties.

If you can find where Darwinist evolution allows, embraces, includes and permits any involvement of God in the production of all life, please reference it. Otherwise, my statement stands. Darwinist evolution disallows, rejects, eliminates and bans any involvement of God in the creation of all life

Wrong again. But to understand how you are wrong you would have to learn what evidence is in the first places and so far you have been afraid to do so.

I've tried to help you repeatedly understand the scientific method, posting a graphic for you to examine and learn from. It would help if you'd simply review the graphic and learn from it.

Repeating your error will not make it correct.

What's the error? Identify it. (We both know you're not going to do that).

Prove it. The problem is that no one on your side has ever shown a need for god. The evidence supports that life needs no god.

What evidence? Post it.

It seems that you should be mad at lazy creation "scientists" that can't find valid evidence that supports their beliefs.

"Lazy creation 'scientists'" is nothing more than your usual ad-hominem verbiage.

It is much more than a claim. It is the only that is supported by evidence.

What evidence? Post it.

It has been proven.

Where? When? Actually post content instead of wild and unsupported claims.

The problem is that you use the ostrich defense. My statement is supported by the fact that over 90% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution and over 99% of those that fully understand the theory accept the theory of evolution. The number of biologists and paleontologists that accept creationism is a low fraction of one percent.

And yet more wild, unsupported, out of thin air claims.

 

[sfs]

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.

That's a different word. Different words have different meanings. Sometimes words that are closely related etymologically have very different meanings.

 

[sfs]

Obviously. The "ism" is poorly defined. Think for yourself for a minute.

Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs.

A person who holds that the universe is created is what?

Someone who holds that the universe is created. There's a perfectly good English phrase for such a person; there just doesn't happen to be a special word.

A creationist? Would that seem fair?

Fair? What on earth does fairness have to do with word usage? Words mean what people use them to mean, not what you want them to mean.

His beliefs about how creation happened would be called what? Creationism? Does that work for you?

No, it doesn't work at all. You seem not to understand how language works. (See, this is why a good grounding in the humanities is important.) If someone says that it's humid today, do you reply, "Why yes, there is a lot of humor today"?

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?

Yes, it seems accurate, since it reflects ordinary usage of the word. I've been discussing creationism for decades, and that is indeed overwhelmingly the most common meaning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Usually reserved" is sad, but perhaps true nonetheless. I guess most Muslims are "usually" regarded as terrorist sympathizers too.

I disagree with a literalist interpretation of Genesis, but think the written words to be accurate nonetheless. It's complex, and not something people here would encounter that often.



It's complicated. I tend to hold to current orthodox Jewish understandings of the matter, which is such a foreign way of thinking to many that it would take pages to describe. Perhaps this will be a primer. I will look for a suitable summary of it online and pm it to you.

I see, you merely try to put a Bible spin on reality, at least to some degree. So do you also interpret the Noah's Ark story as a local flood? Because it is extremely easy to show that there was no global flood. And what you do is exactly the same as what the Muslims do, though they are probably better at it. Those that are not totally crazy reinterpret reality and put a Koran spin on it. Not too impressive in my book.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Why not? Why can't we produce evidence for something outside of our universe? At one time, we defined the universe as our solar system. We later defined the universe as the Milky Way. At each step, we were able to find evidence of something outside of that universe, so why not now?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Actually, I was referring to creationists, not all theists. Also, the creationists have completely ignored what those philosophers and scientists have been saying.

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.

What we are asking for is objective evidence. If there is no objective evidence, then all the creationists have to do is say so. They would also need to explain why all of the objective evidence we do have is consistent with natural processes. That is the challenge laid out in the opening post.

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

The problem is that creationists don't address the same evidence. They ignore it. For example, instead of dealing with transitional fossils they will make claims that the fossils are forgeries, or other such nonsense. I have discussion after discussion where creationists either ignore the evidence or misrepresent the evidence. If you want a specific thread, this is a good one:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

Another example is Kent Hovind's quite famous claim that two parts of one mammoth dated thousands of years apart when using carbon dating. Turns out, they were two separate mammoths.

http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html

We could go on and on with examples of creationists distorting and ignoring the evidence.

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.

It appears that the jury has already made their mind up before looking at the evidence, and they ignore the evidence to maintain that conclusion.

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.

Where is the evidence that God did anything with the universe?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

A can confirm what sfs is saying here. Scientists are trained to produce scientific data. There two types of evidence in science: empirical evidence and not empirical evidence. The evidence itself is judged by the experiments that produced it and the hypotheses the evidence is used to test. What scientists look for is independence between the scientist, empirical data, and hypothesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do realize that you have no contributed anything positive to this thread? You are the critic on the sidelines, nothing more.

Where have you presented positive, objective evidence in support of creationism?

It would seem to me that all of your posts have been criticisms.

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.

That requires the assumption that a Divine Creator produced the creation. You are assuming your conclusion. That isn't evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The opening post is asking those who don't accept evolution, don't accept an old earth/universe, and believe in a recent global flood (or a combination of those beliefs) to produce evidence to back those claims. We call this group of people "creationists". The term was already defined for this thread, even if tacitly.