What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Loudmouth]

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.

I mentioned biology and geology. At the very least, we are asking for evidence that species were created separately. That could entail an old or young Earth. If someone wants to argue for YEC, then they will need to provide the evidence for it.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Yes, he was willing to obey God. This is getting into apoligetics and has nothing to do with creation or evolution, so I'll just leave you with this.

Jon 3:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying,
Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and proclaim to it the proclamation which I am going to tell you."
Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three days' walk.

 

[justlookinla]

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?

Exhibit A. I present to you bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches, moths becoming moths. In every observation, the basic life form stays the same even though there may be minor changes.

Exhibit B. The claim is made a life form (unknown) becomes both a pine tree and human through the same process as in exhibit A. Exhibit A produces no such new life forms in it's process, therefore the claim of exhibit B fails using Exhibit A as supporting evidence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Exhibit A. I present to you bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches, moths becoming moths. In every observation, the basic life form stays the same even though there may be minor changes.

Exhibit B. The claim is made a life form (unknown) becomes both a pine tree and human through the same process as in exhibit A. Exhibit A produces no such new life forms in it's process, therefore the claim of exhibit B fails using Exhibit A as supporting evidence.

It it astounding that after participating in this forum for the length of time you have been here, you really think Exhibit A is the only evidence used to support the theory of evolution.

Besides, this thread is about evidence supporting Creationism. Got any?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Exhibit A. I present to you bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches, moths becoming moths. In every observation, the basic life form stays the same even though there may be minor changes.

Exhibit B. The claim is made a life form (unknown) becomes both a pine tree and human through the same process as in exhibit A. Exhibit A produces no such new life forms in it's process, therefore the claim of exhibit B fails using Exhibit A as supporting evidence.

Exhibit C: Comparative anatomy, embryology, the fossil record, DNA.

 

[mickiio]

Exhibit D: Does not go against ANY Laws of science.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Exhibit D: Does not go against ANY Laws of science.

Good thing the theory of evolution doesn't.

Now special creation of a man from dust or a woman from a rib...hmmm...possible violation of the conservation of energy/matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exhibit D: Does not go against ANY Laws of science.

A shooter on the grassy knoll would not go against any laws of science. Doesn't mean there was one.

Do you understand what evidence is?

 

[Job8]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

Ever since recorded history human beings have remained human beings (despite all the inhuman evil that many have done and are doing as we speak) and chimpanzees have remained chimpanzees. That is OBJECTIVE evidence. Bible history is also objective evidence, but not for those who prefer delusions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ever since recorded history human beings have remained human beings (despite all the inhuman evil that many have done and are doing as we speak) and chimpanzees have remained chimpanzees. That is OBJECTIVE evidence. Bible history is also objective evidence, but not for those who prefer delusions.

What about before recorded history? What about the other 2-3 billion years where we find life in the fossil record?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Ever since recorded history human beings have remained human beings (despite all the inhuman evil that many have done and are doing as we speak) and chimpanzees have remained chimpanzees. That is OBJECTIVE evidence. Bible history is also objective evidence, but not for those who prefer delusions.

If a human suddenly gave birth to something not human or a chimpanzee gave birth to something that wasn't a chimpanzee, that would falsify the theory of evolution. Evolution takes places in populations, not individuals, over a long periods of time. You don't live long enough to see it. The fossil record tells the story, as does comparative anatomy, embryology and DNA.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a human suddenly gave birth to something not human or a chimpanzee gave birth to something that wasn't a chimpanzee, that would falsify the theory of evolution.

I doubt that.

They would probably rig a vote and say it was "punctuated equilibrium."

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I doubt that.

They would probably rig a vote and say it was "punctuated equilibrium."

No, it would be falsified because evolution does not state or predict that this would happen.

 

[justlookinla]

It it astounding that after participating in this forum for the length of time you have been here, you really think Exhibit A is the only evidence used to support the theory of evolution.

Besides, this thread is about evidence supporting Creationism. Got any?

It's also astounding that after participating in this forum for the length of time you've been here, you really think Exhibit A supports the Darwinist evolutionary view that all life we observe today is the product of only naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[justlookinla]

Exhibit C: Comparative anatomy, embryology, the fossil record, DNA.

Nothing you've mentioned offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for how (the process) all life we observe today was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Good thing the theory of evolution doesn't.

Which theory of evolution, the one where bacteria become bacteria or the theory of evolution which has an alleged single life form from long ago becoming pine trees and humans?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Nothing you've mentioned offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for how (the process) all life we observe today was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Evolution makes predictions when it comes to the fossil record. Tiktaalik is a great example. A theory's ability to predict is a huge part of the scientific method. You do not understand what you're talking about.

Evidence doesn't care what you believe. It's still evidence

 

[mickiio]

Good thing the theory of evolution doesn't.

You are correct. "Evolution" as Natural Selection does follow the Laws of science, it is testable and verifiable; however when you "extrapolate" it into crossing kinds and start saying we came from monkeys over billions and billions of years, which there is minimal evidence for that... if any. THAT goes against the II Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. As well as Laws of probabilities with "mutations" that are always found to be weaker. Don't forget Laws of Physics. Plus don't forget all of those 'lovely holes" in the genetic make up, however I know this thread is dedicated to finding Evidence for Creationism. Lest the gag rule is put on me, as I have seen it put on my Creationist friends only, YOU did bring it up. I will give more evidence for Creationism.

Exhibit E: Probabilities Our "unique" design points to a unique intelligent designer.

Which comes to the next question:

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

That is a matter of faith. As is your belief that you came from electrified mud and monkeys.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it would be falsified because evolution does not state or predict that this would happen.

What about finding rabbits in the Precambrian?

 

[Loudmouth]

You are correct. "Evolution" as Natural Selection does follow the Laws of science, it is testable and verifiable; however when you "extrapolate" it into crossing kinds and start saying we came from monkeys over billions and billions of years, which there is minimal evidence for that... if any. THAT goes against the II Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

Did you forget to measure the entropy of the entire system over that same time period? Methinks you did.

Also, please read the opening post.

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?​