What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[OldWiseGuy]

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

Not so fast. Let the bible answer the question.

Jonah 1:17
Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

So it was a special creature created just for the purpose of swallowing Jonah. God also prepared other things in the story.

Jonah 4:6
And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.
Jonah 4:7
But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.
Jonah 4:8
And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live.

 

[ContraMundum]

Actually, I was referring to creationists, not all theists.

I believe in a God created universe. If I'm not a creationist, what am I then?

I hope the debate enthusiasts here will soon see the problem with their narrow interpretation of the term "Creationist" because most of the world's creationists aren't American/Australian literalists.

Also, the creationists have completely ignored what those philosophers and scientists have been saying.

I totally agree with that.

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.

Objective evidence is exactly what I think the universe itself is.

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.

I know. I've seen it. However, they do on occasion make valid points.

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.

Poor old Kent Hovind. I don't know what to do with that mess.

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

Do you think the documented times when distortion of the evidence happens on the part of evolutionists are true are not?

Because there have been doozies. Some might be honest mistakes. Some are obviously not.

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

Uncontested scientific evidence? There is none. Is that even logically possible? According to the older disciplines of logic and philosophy there is plenty. If one accepts it, according to the usually presented evidences for the existence of God, God exists.

My perhaps outdated (almost 20 years ago I was last at university and seminary) understanding is that natural science does not have nor rightfully could use the tools to answer the God question. Hence I am always rather perplexed as to why people would ask for evidence from nature as nothing in nature can prove its ultimate origin. Matter cannot via observation prove where matter came from. Only extrapolation and deep theory can attempt to deal with the question, and it is risky.

 

[ContraMundum]

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

I actually think only the people using one small definition out of many are out of step here. But you need to contribute more to this discussion I think. At present you are sniping.

 

[crjmurray]

I actually think only the people using one small definition out of many are out of step here. But you need to contribute more to this discussion I think. At present you are sniping.

And you're derailing the thread with philosophy and semantics.

 

[ContraMundum]

You seem to have contradicted yourself.

On the surface my beliefs could be paradoxical but I don't see any genuine contradiction, but if one is there, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Anyway, I haven't as yet gone into my beliefs on the matter. It would be the most massive derail in the history of derailings to do so.

 

[ContraMundum]

And you're derailing the thread with philosophy and semantics.

Perhaps. But I'm explaining why the question just doesn't work. It's my attempt to be irenic in order that the question could be asked properly. That seems to be the real problem here.

What are you doing?

 

[crjmurray]

Perhaps. But I'm explaining why the question just doesn't work. It's my attempt to be irenic in order that the question could be asked properly. That seems to be the real problem here.

What are you doing?

Trying to see if creationists can actually answer a very simple question.

 

[ContraMundum]

Trying to see if creationists can actually answer a very simple question.

...and you don't see that the question itself could be invalid? What kind of thinking is that?

 

[mickiio]

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.

Hmmm you must not have been reading the thread correctly.

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.

 

[mickiio]

...and you don't see that the question itself could be invalid? What kind of thinking is that?

Invalid and a trick question.

 

[ContraMundum]

Invalid and a trick question.

Well, he does have an ostrich as his avatar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sorry, the jury came in on that question over 200 years ago.

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

I don't think so. Muslims have been making your error much longer than you have, but thanks for admitting the mistake that you made.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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

No verse to support your statement. Maybe you should change your name to justmakeitup.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Hmmm you must not have been reading the thread correctly.

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.

As several people have stated before, this thread is about how the Earth wound up with the variety of life we have today and the evidence we have to support the idea of Creationism.
The specific form of Creationism being discussed is the Creationism that espouses the creation of everything in six 24-hour days as stated in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.
We are not discussing the idea that a God created the universe, because it is irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, I am willing to grant that a God created the universe, for the sake of this conversation.
Some people believe that He did this creating in 6 days, exactly as written in the Bible. Those people tend to attack evolution and the evidence for evolution because the theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to the literal reading of Genesis.

The OP is asking for positive evidence for this and only this version of Creationism. So far, no one has provided anything but an attack on evolution or assertions that they pretend are evidence.

Therefore, your statement regarding the organized nature of the universe and life, while possibly being a indicator of the existence of a god, is totally bleeding irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No verse to support your statement. Maybe you should change your name to justmakeitup.

Jonah took a vow of obedience as a prophet of God. He repented in the fish's belly, knowing that God would save him. Upon his prayer of repentance God rescued him. He then willingly went to Nineveh, thankfully fulfilling his vow of obedience.

"But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed." Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9).

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence, but not proof.

It is a claim, not evidence. There is a major 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 guess we need to revisit the opening post once again.

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?​

Is this too hard for people to comprehend? It clearly states that positive evidence is NOT evidence against evolution. It is clear as day.

I stand by the proper definition of proof: evidence that compels assent.

I stand by the proper definition of claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

You present your evidence.

Is the title of the thread too difficult to understand?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Perhaps you should check out my threads on the ERV evidence that supports evolution.

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

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-evidence-for-human-evolution.7840464/

The positive evidence for the belief that God created (creationism) is and could only logically be a creation.

The positive evidence for the belief that Leprechauns create rainbows is and could only logically be a rainbow. Does the existence of rainbows prove that Leprechauns create them? Or do you have to assume the conclusion to get there?

What you are doing is called "begging the question". This is where you assume your conclusion is true, and site your conclusion as the evidence. This is a logical fallacy, so it isn't logical at all.

What we need is a statement of what we should and shouldn't see in the creation if it was created by a deity. These predictions need to be backed by verifiable facts. For example, what types of similarities should we see between living species and fossil species? When we compare genomes, what patterns of similarity should we see, and why? What mixture of characteristics should we see in fossils, and why? These types of predictions and observations are evidence.

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.

Would it be fair to say that no matter what we observe in the universe you will claim that it is the product of a creative act? How do you differentiate between what nature produces and what God produces?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

I grasp the problem of begging the question just fine. Perhaps you haven't grasped the problem that your argument has? Do you understand that you are committing a logical fallacy?

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.

We are discussing biology and geology. We are asking for the positive evidence found in the fields of biology and geology that support creationism. Simply pointing to the existence of biology and geology is not positive evidence for creationism.

It is a rather simple concept. Events in the past have consequences in the present. If creationism is true, then it should have consequences in both biology and geology. We should see certain things if creationism is true, and not see other things. Evidence is a set of observations that fits what we should see if creationism is true. More importantly, you have to have a set of potentially falsifiable predictions in order to have evidence.

Let's use DNA fingerprinting as an example. If the forensic scientist concluded that the DNA matched the defendant no matter what the DNA sequence is, would that be a very good test? Would that be evidence? No. In order for a DNA test to be valid there has to be a potential for a mismatch. With creationism, we have a situation where apparently any observation will be claimed as evidence for creationism. It is unfalsifiable. Therefore, creationism can't have evidence because it is a dogma.

If you want to show that creationism is not dogmatic, then we need to see some potentially falsifiable predictions.

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.

Not for creationists it isn't. For those who have accepted evolution, it is all about the evidence. It appears that you are projecting.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Prosecuting attorney: In my closing argument I will present the only evidence that needs to be presented in the murder of Joan Smith. The evidence is the dead body. The dead body is the only logical evidence needed to convict John Smith. I ask the jury to find John Smith guilty.

If you were on that jury, would you be convinced?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Perhaps you should check out my threads on the ERV evidence that supports evolution.

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

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-evidence-for-human-evolution.7840464/



The positive evidence for the belief that Leprechauns create rainbows is and could only logically be a rainbow. Does the existence of rainbows prove that Leprechauns create them? Or do you have to assume the conclusion to get there?

What you are doing is called "begging the question". This is where you assume your conclusion is true, and site your conclusion as the evidence. This is a logical fallacy, so it isn't logical at all.

What we need is a statement of what we should and shouldn't see in the creation if it was created by a deity. These predictions need to be backed by verifiable facts. For example, what types of similarities should we see between living species and fossil species? When we compare genomes, what patterns of similarity should we see, and why? What mixture of characteristics should we see in fossils, and why? These types of predictions and observations are evidence.



Would it be fair to say that no matter what we observe in the universe you will claim that it is the product of a creative act? How do you differentiate between what nature produces and what God produces?

I originally thought, and have written twice, that the OP was requesting the evidence for YEC only. Your post seems to be about the evidence that a god created the universe regardless of how that god performed the task.

I see no way that such evidence could be provided considering the possibility that a god could have initiated the Big Bang or even the multiverse from which the Big Bang initiated.