What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Aldebaran]

I asked for a discussion of the evidence. Where did you provide that?

Go to the link, find the place that addresses your particular concerns, and then come back here and present it so we can discuss it. It's not difficult.

 

[Loudmouth]

See Post #345

You already admitted that it was an attack on evolution.

"What you just posted is an example of an evolutionist getting defensive when his favorite theory is challenged."--post #351

 

[Loudmouth]

Go to the link, find the place that addresses your particular concerns, and then come back here and present it so we can discuss it. It's not difficult.

I will go with the examples that sfs has already presented. Both are an attack on alternate theories and do not meet the criteria set forth by the opening post.

The example that Derelictjunction used is also a perfect example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See Post #345

Yes, you were mistaken. Are you admitting that now?

 

[Aldebaran]

You already admitted that it was an attack on evolution.

"What you just posted is an example of an evolutionist getting defensive when his favorite theory is challenged."--post #351

A challenge is an "attack"? So much for that discussion you claim to want.

 

[Loudmouth]

A challenge is an "attack"?

Yes.

So much for that discussion you claim to want.

So much for that positive evidence for creationism that you claimed to have. All of the examples have turned out to be challenges to evolution instead of positive evidence for creationism, as asked for in the opening post.

As suspected, you misled us.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, you were mistaken. Are you admitting that now?

I just showed you my prediction of what would be said when I presented the requested evidence. It wasn't a difficult prediction to make.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes.

Ok, so why do "attack" people who believe in Creation? Do our beliefs really bother you so much that you become intolerant?

 

[Loudmouth]

I just showed you my prediction of what would be said when I presented the requested evidence. It wasn't a difficult prediction to make.

Even you admitted that they were challenges of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, so why do "attack" people who believe in Creation? Do our beliefs really bother you so much that you become intolerant?

And still we can't get a single example of positive evidence for creationism.

 

[Aldebaran]

Even you admitted that they were challenges of evolution.

That's right. I said they "challenged" it. Is it a problem for you when one of your pet theories is challenged? If it is, then you obviously have your mind made up to reject any evidence of Creationism as an "attack" on evolution. That's not being very open-minded or scientific of you, and you're obviously not interested in having a discussion.

 

[Aldebaran]

And still we can't get a single example of positive evidence for creationism.

I see you forgot again. That's ok. I'll keep reminding you: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just showed you my prediction of what would be said when I presented the requested evidence. It wasn't a difficult prediction to make.

No, you made an obvious error and people called you out on that. If I tell a group of mathematicians that 2 + 2 = 5 I could predict that I would be called out on that too. Your prediction only confirmed that you knew what you linked was not the evidence asked for.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see you forgot again. That's ok. I'll keep reminding you: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

I will keep reminding you that you already described that page as a challenge to evolution instead of positive evidence for creationism.

"What you just posted is an example of an evolutionist getting defensive when his favorite theory is challenged."--post #351

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you forgot again. That's ok. I'll keep reminding you: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

Being dishonest and repeating your error does not help your side at all.

 

[Aldebaran]

I will keep reminding you that you already described that page as a challenge to evolution instead of positive evidence for creationism.

"What you just posted is an example of an evolutionist getting defensive when his favorite theory is challenged."--post #351

What else could it be? C and E don't go together. Face it!

 

[Loudmouth]

What else could it be? C and E don't go together. Face it!

It could have been positive evidence for creationism, which is what you claimed it was at the start. As it turns out, it isn't, by your own admission.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

See Post #345

If you wouldn't mind, could you offer what you see as the strongest evidence for creationism from this article? Thanks.

 

[DerelictJunction]

See Post #345

See post http://www.christianforums.com/thre...for-creationism.7909671/page-18#post-68665744

How about addressing my questions on the evidence you provided instead of arguing with other posters on whether it should be considered evidence or not.

 

[Aldebaran]

If you wouldn't mind, could you offer what you see as the strongest evidence for creationism from this article? Thanks.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.