What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Loudmouth]

No. I'll just let anyone who wants to find what they're looking for look through it for their particular area of interest.

So I take it that even you can't find a single piece of positive evidence on that website?

 

[Loudmouth]

This idea is just a myth, designed to try to discredit the Book of Genesis. It is one story told by God.

Genesis was written by men.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

God is not a creationist

So how do you get round the idea that Jesus (God) taught that man and woman where there from the beginning? [my emphasis]

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Genesis was written by men.

Written yes, but God was the author.

 

[Loudmouth]

So how do you get round the idea that Jesus (God) taught that man and woman where there from the beginning? [my emphasis]

Even in the literal interpretation of the Bible, people are not there from the beginning. Moses is the traditional author of Genesis, and he definitely wasn't there at the beginning.

 

[Loudmouth]

Written yes, but God was the author.

According to whom? More humans?

 

[Aldebaran]

This is a discussion board. Care to discuss?

You asked for evidence. I gave you a link to it, and now you want to pretend to not see it. Can't help you with that.

 

[Aldebaran]

According to whom? More humans?

Who wrote your science theories?

 

[Loudmouth]

You asked for evidence.

On a discussion board, this means that people need to present and discuss the evidence, not share a bare link.

I gave you a link to it, and now you want to pretend to not see it. Can't help you with that.

It isn't my job to present positive evidence for creationism. That's your job.

 

[crjmurray]

Dismissing it all after such a short time? Come on! Science takes a little more work than that. Keep reading.

Well that's what I do with bullcrap.

 

[Aldebaran]

So I take it that even you can't find a single piece of positive evidence on that website?

You can take whatever you want. I gave you the place to look for whatever you are looking for. If you're not willing to do that, then that's your prob.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Where's the evidence for that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Who wrote your science theories?

Fallible humans. At least scientists don't pretend to speak for a deity. Also, scientists give evidence for their claims instead of claiming they don't need evidence because they are God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where's the evidence for that?

As usual, creationists try every trick in the book to avoid having to give evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can take whatever you want. I gave you the place to look for whatever you are looking for. If you're not willing to do that, then that's your prob.

If what I present from that site is an attack on evolution instead of positive evidence for creationism, can I say that you misled us?

 

[sfs]

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

I skipped down to the first section on biology, "Life Was Suddenly Created". There I read in the first paragraph, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed." This is false. The Second Law says absolutely nothing about a conversion mechanism. What's the point of engaging with sources that simply make up falsehoods about science? Skipping a little further ahead to genetics, I read, "Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring." Okay, that's enough. Gish is either flat-out lying about the science or simply making things up without caring whether they're true.

So, do you have any evidence for creation that's actually, well, true? And is there anything in there that is evidence for creation, rather than some kind of claim that evolution couldn't be true?

 

[Aldebaran]

Fallible humans. At least scientists don't pretend to speak for a deity. Also, scientists give evidence for their claims instead of claiming they don't need evidence because they are God.

Did any of the Christians here claim they were God?

 

[Loudmouth]

I skipped down to the first section on biology, "Life Was Suddenly Created". There I read in the first paragraph, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed." This is false. The Second Law says absolutely nothing about a conversion mechanism. What's the point of engaging with sources that simply make up falsehoods about science? Skipping a little further ahead to genetics, I read, "Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring." Okay, that's enough. Gish is either flat-out lying about the science or simply making things up without caring whether they're true.

So, do you have any evidence for creation that's actually, well, true? And is there anything in there that is evidence for creation, rather than some kind of claim that evolution couldn't be true?

Not to mention that both are an attack on natural processes instead of positive evidence for creationism, which is what the thread is asking for.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

Looks like a good article. I'll have to save it for when I've finished reading "Dismantling the Big Bang" (Quite technical, so takes some understanding in places) and "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist (easier to read and very thought-provoking). PS. I'd recommend getting your hands on Spike Psarris's excellent DVDs entitled, "What you aren't being told about astronomy" (there are two available at the moment, with a third due out very soon).

 

[Loudmouth]

Did any of the Christians here claim they were God?

They claim to speak for God. They also claim that since they speak for God that they don't need to present any evidence for their claims.