What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[mickiio]

There is PLENTY of STRONG, POSITIVE evidence for Creationism.
Lets start with Creationism does not go against any Laws of Science. As you well know a law is proven based on observations, and a theory is substantiated explanations. A theory should be thrown out if it goes against any laws. Creationism supports the II Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenetics, as well as every other law. Kinds produce kinds. There are variances in species of course! The animals had the genetic code for variances with in kinds. Show me evidence of crossing kinds. There is none.

Creationism supports a world wide flood. Whale bones were found in the Sahara Desert. Sea shells are on the Rocky Mountains. Many cultures have legends of a "flood". During a flood rocks and sediment pile up. Fossils are "frozen". We currently are not making fossils because of the air. Fossils need an environment with no air to form. This also supports the Theory of Creationism. The sediment then forms layers of soil. It would make sense that the small "less complex" animals would gravitate to the bottom of the floor. They were not able to swim as fast. This also explains why some "more complex" creatures will be also buried there, which (macro) Evolutionist do not enjoy seeing that bit of evidence. Let's just add a few more million years on to solve that problem.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

I don't see how this applies to creationism as it is defined in this thread.

For this discussion, I believe creationism is the assertion that the universe was created in the exact manner and order as stated in Genesis. As an aside, I have never seen anyone claim this without also claiming the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't see how this applies to creationism as it is defined in this thread.

For this discussion, I believe creationism is the assertion that the universe was created in the exact manner and order as stated in Genesis. As an aside, I have never seen anyone claim this without also claiming the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

So? What's the problem with that?

 

[DerelictJunction]

There is PLENTY of STRONG, POSITIVE evidence for Creationism.
Lets start with Creationism does not go against any Laws of Science. As you well know a law is proven based on observations, and a theory is substantiated explanations. A theory should be thrown out if it goes against any laws. Creationism supports the II Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenetics, as well as every other law. Kinds produce kinds.

The theory of evolution doesn't violate these "laws" either.

There are variances in species of course! The animals had the genetic code for variances with in kinds. Show me evidence of crossing kinds. There is none.

The theory of evolution specifically states that "crossing of kinds" (assuming I understand what you mean here) will not occur.
What aspect of Creationism eliminates the possibility of "crossing of kinds", such as birds with fur or fish that produce milk?

Creationism supports a world wide flood.

No it doesn't. The Flood had nothing to do with creation of the universe. Literal Biblical interpretation is the only thing that supports a world wide flood.

Whale bones were found in the Sahara Desert.

Why would you think the Sahara was always a land mass?

Sea shells are on the Rocky Mountains.

Yes. Generation after generation of sea shells all organized as if they grew on top of each other. How many generations do you think would grow in the 1 year of the Flood?

Many cultures have legends of a "flood".

Most cultures built their living areas near rivers and in flood plains.

During a flood rocks and sediment pile up. Fossils are "frozen".

This happens during local floods too.

We currently are not making fossils because of the air. Fossils need an environment with no air to form.

Animals get buried during local floods too. Have you never heard of a mudslide?

This also supports the Theory of Creationism.

In what way?

The sediment then forms layers of soil. It would make sense that the small "less complex" animals would gravitate to the bottom of the floor. They were not able to swim as fast.

There are large complex creatures in the lower sediment layers too.

This also explains why some "more complex" creatures will be also buried there, which (macro) Evolutionist do not enjoy seeing that bit of evidence.

Is that because "more complex" creatures can't swim fast either? What part of evolution theory states that creatures from a long time ago could not be complex?

Let's just add a few more million years on to solve that problem.

Derogatory insinuation that paleontologists just make things up without evidence is tantamount to calling them liars. That's a bit personal. How many paleontologists do you know?

 

[DerelictJunction]

So? What's the problem with that?

Nothing. It just makes the claim easier to refute.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

That would be a negative argument against modern cosmology. Creationism doesn't automatically become true just because you think you have disproven modern theories in science (which you haven't done, anyway).

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets start with Creationism does not go against any Laws of Science. As you well know a law is proven based on observations, and a theory is substantiated explanations. A theory should be thrown out if it goes against any laws. Creationism supports the II Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenetics, as well as every other law. Kinds produce kinds. There are variances in species of course! The animals had the genetic code for variances with in kinds. Show me evidence of crossing kinds. There is none.

What violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics are you talking about?

It would seem to me that Creationism breaks the law of biogenesis as much as anything else. Aren't you saying that the created complex species just appeared from nothing, or were made from non-life?

Also, you are using a negative argument against evolution. We are asking for positive evidence for creationism.

Creationism supports a world wide flood. Whale bones were found in the Sahara Desert. Sea shells are on the Rocky Mountains. Many cultures have legends of a "flood". During a flood rocks and sediment pile up. Fossils are "frozen". We currently are not making fossils because of the air. Fossils need an environment with no air to form. This also supports the Theory of Creationism. The sediment then forms layers of soil. It would make sense that the small "less complex" animals would gravitate to the bottom of the floor. They were not able to swim as fast. This also explains why some "more complex" creatures will be also buried there, which (macro) Evolutionist do not enjoy seeing that bit of evidence. Let's just add a few more million years on to solve that problem.

Where is the evidence that any of these fossils were buried during a recent global flood?

We will need positive evidence that these sediments are recent. We will need positive evidence that the fossils were buried all at once. We will need positive evidence that this flood was global. So far, you haven't presented any of that evidence.

 

[mickiio]

They were created in the beginning with distinct characteristics hence "Creationism". Creation - bible - flood I'm not sure why you don't see the connection.

 

[Loudmouth]

They were created in the beginning with distinct characteristics hence "Creationism".

That would be the claim. What we are asking for is positive evidence that support these claims.

 

[mickiio]

Which is what I gave you, whether you choose to see it that way is your choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is what I gave you, whether you choose to see it that way is your choice.

Where did you show us evidence that any creature was created by a deity?

 

[mickiio]

The Creation itself has a HUGE amount of evidence pointing to an intelligent organized Creator. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God". DNA structure in itself is it's own language. A painting is all the evidence you need for a painter.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Creation itself has a HUGE amount of evidence pointing to an intelligent organized Creator. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God". DNA structure in itself is it's own language. A painting is all the evidence you need for a painter.

Those are claims. What we are asking for is the evidence that backs these claims.

For example, where is the evidence that DNA is a language that was created by a deity?

 

[mickiio]

Can you prove a deity did not create the universe/earth?

 

[crjmurray]

Is there confusion about what positive evidence is?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you prove a deity did not create the universe/earth?

I don't have to disprove anything. You are the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you to present evidence to support your claim. That's how reason and logic work.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[DerelictJunction]

They were created in the beginning with distinct characteristics hence "Creationism". Creation - bible - flood I'm not sure why you don't see the connection.

Well, let me give you two examples.
Birds have hollow bones that help in flight but bats don't. Why wouldn't 2 created flying beings be optimized for flight in the same way?
What is Creationism's explanation for the lack of hollow bones in bats?

Sperm whales have to dive very deep to get some of their food. That would be much easier if they could breathe underwater like fish. Why wouldn't 2 creatures created to live underwater be optimized for that?

What is Creationism's explanation for the lack of gills on whales and porpoises?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is there confusion about what positive evidence is?

Apparently.

 

[mickiio]

There is nothing wrong with variety in Creation. You want variety in your food right?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is nothing wrong with variety in Creation. You want variety in your food right?

Do food recipes fall into a nested hierarchy?