What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[DerelictJunction]

True.
Whatever it was, Jonah was a changed man after the incident.

Not so much. He was still upset at God for saving the Ninivans (Ninivians?). Same as the guy that didn't want to go in the first place.

 

[justlookinla]

Not so much. He was still upset at God for saving the Ninivans (Ninivians?). Same as the guy that didn't want to go in the first place.

He went from not wanting to go to wanting to go. He changed.

 

[Blue Wren]

There isn't any.

 

[DerelictJunction]

He went from not wanting to go to wanting to go. He changed.

Where does the Bible say that? Please supply the verse(s) that show Jonah had a desire to go to Nineveh (spelled it right that time...heh)?

 

[crjmurray]

Ok let's drop the whale guys. The OP is a very clear cut question, there's no reason to get derailed so easily.

 

[justlookinla]

Where does the Bible say that? Please supply the verse(s) that show Jonah had a desire to go to Nineveh (spelled it right that time...heh)?

Ok, he was willing to go to Ninevah.....that was a change.

 

[ContraMundum]

That is a claim, not evidence.

Evidence, but not proof. There is a subtle difference. You can pile tons of dead bones up and call it a fossil record, but what it records will still be debated. Secondly, there are serious problems with evolutionary theory that the "evidence" internet "authorities" (groupies) just can't and won't address. Such as mathematical probability and so forth.

I stand by the proper definition of proof: evidence that compels assent. You present your evidence. Fine. The jury is still hung. Get a better lawyer.

 

[ContraMundum]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"--Hitchen's Razor

Classic. Back at ya. If your origins view is so watertight- why can't the mathematicians get on board? The onus is still on your side, not mine.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

OK....then you have a serious problem with the question. What do you call people that believe in Creation? One would assume according to the rules of grammar "creationists". As cited earlier, even the Wiki article deals with different kinds of creationists. Why then the back-tracking and constant changing of the goal-posts?

Could it be that the people that want to argue with Creationists are prepared only to handle one version of Creationism and are ill-prepared for other versions?

 

[crjmurray]

Evidence, but not proof. There is a subtle difference. You can pile tons of dead bones up and call it a fossil record, but what it records will still be debated. Secondly, there are serious problems with evolutionary theory that the "evidence" internet "authorities" (groupies) just can't and won't address. Such as mathematical probability and so forth.

This is not the thread to discuss evolution. How are you not getting this? You want to discuss math? Here
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/mathematical-arguments.7890816/

Go math. And for funzies
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/fun-with-probability.7880849/

Strut your stuff there.

 

[crjmurray]

I stand by the proper definition of proof: evidence that compels assent. You present your evidence. Fine. The jury is still hung. Get a better lawyer.

Weeeheheeeeell the jury doesn't mean to brag but.....

 

[ContraMundum]

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

You're not reading, LM.

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

You are still showing that you have still not grasped the problem- it's a big thread and it could easy not have read though. I believe the science groupies (there's no scientists on this thread it appears) want a science debate about something that science can't debate. Again: it's asking us to clean a window with a hammer and a nail.

Bottom line: people who want to debate a topic usually use the tools and authorities for that topic. For example, if I wanted to debate building a house I would discuss materials, designs and tradesmen. If I wanted to debate sports I would use stats and history and sports medicine and science. If I wanted to debate biology and geology, I would use the scientific method as well as the usual things like observation etc. However, if I want to debate the existence of God, I would have to use canonized texts, inner reflection, empirical testimonies, logic (Socratic and Talmudic and others) and importantly the history of philosophy and religion.

I submit to you that all origins debates are in fact not about scientific evidence or the attempt to establish proof on the basis of the evidence. They are a rather roundabout way of debating the existence of God (because in theory God can use any method He likes both to bring about the universe and to order it). Hence, the problem is that people are asking for the wrong kind of evidence. Operating outside of established and naturally needed disciplines.

 

[ContraMundum]

This is not the thread to discuss evolution. How are you not getting this? You want to discuss math? Here
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/mathematical-arguments.7890816/

Go math. And for funzies
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/fun-with-probability.7880849/

Strut your stuff there.

You seem to be very unwilling to see anything other than what you want.

 

[ContraMundum]

Weeeheheeeeell the jury doesn't mean to brag but.....

Don't forget: I'm on the jury too.

 

[crjmurray]

You seem to be very unwilling to see anything other than what you want.

I don't know why you feel that way but it is in no way a response to my post.

 

[ContraMundum]

cjmurray....

The reason this thread will go around and around is because logic and common sense is suspended in the stead of the desire to push one's own barrow - both sides engage in this.

The positive evidence for the belief that God created (creationism) is and could only logically be a creation. There could be no other alternative answer. That is perhaps too simple but it is the only possible answer. So for the theistic creationist, you and the universe around you is the evidence. Thread finished. Question answered. It is funny how the simple can confound the wise.

But because that answer is not accepted for some bizarre reason, the thread must again turn towards the pulpit claims of the atheists, who simply aren't prepared or willing to discuss anything other than their understanding of science.

 

[crjmurray]

cjmurray....

The reason this thread will go around and around is because logic and common sense is suspended in the stead of the desire to push one's own barrow - both sides engage in this.

The positive evidence for the belief that God created (creationism) is and could only logically be a creation. There could be no other alternative answer. That is perhaps too simple but it is the only possible answer. So for the theistic creationist, you and the universe around you is the evidence. Thread finished. Question answered. It is funny how the simple can confound the wise.

But because that answer is not accepted for some bizarre reason, the thread must again turn towards the pulpit claims of the atheists, who simply aren't prepared or willing to discuss anything other than their understanding of science.

Right right right. The evidence for creationism is the creation but you can't explain how or why and sidenote: you're using a definition for creationism that literally no one else here is using. Yeah and I'm bizarre because I don't accept that as a satisfactory answer to the OP.

 

[ContraMundum]

Right right right. The evidence for creationism is the creation but you can't explain how or why and sidenote: you're using a definition for creationism that literally no one else here is using.

I'm using it, and I'm here, and I'm the only person using it in its pure form then.

If you want to change the question to the "how or why", then I don't know why you're unsatisfied with the trends in the thread? That seems to be where it's gone.

Yeah and I'm bizarre because I don't accept that as a satisfactory answer to the OP.

OK then. Tell me, what logically would be positive evidence for creationism? Would the first and most important evidence to be established be a creation or not? If not, why not?

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

Well, I don't know what Noah's flood actually looked like. The text literally teaches a world-wide flood, but the text could quite easily be taken in other ways. For me, the jury is out on the details but not on the ethical and moral truth. The evidence that you claim easily shows that there was no global flood is not something I have seen.

And what you do is exactly the same as what the Muslims do, though they are probably better at it.

No, Muslims copy us, we don't copy them. God forbid. And they don't all do it the same anyway.

 

[crjmurray]

I'm using is, and I'm here, and I'm the only person using it in its pure form then.

"Everybody is out of step but me" Sure buddy.