What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[JonFromMinnesota]

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

Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor. Our closest cousins are chimpanzees and bonobos. More distant cousins of gorillas and orangutans.
Minimal evidence? Really?
Transitional fossils for human evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Human Chromosome #2 says hi: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Y 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.

The second law of thermodynamics creationist argument has been demolished long ago. You should stop using it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

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

Why would an intelligent designer give us an appendix, a tail bone, wisdom teeth, terrible night vision?
Doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

 

[Job8]

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

A figment of the imagination which should be disregarded. Let's focus on THE OBJECTIVE PROOF. Produce an EVOLVING gorilla that speaks basic English (or Hebrew) and is progressing nicely towards full humanity.

 

[mickiio]

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?​

You did bring it up. I will give more evidence for Creationism.

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

I'm the one not reading the thread correctly? And what evidence did you discuss?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm the one not reading the thread correctly? And what evidence did you discuss?

I don't think there is any positive evidence for creationism, so what evidence would I discuss?

Also,

"Probabilities Our "unique" design points to a unique intelligent designer."

What are those probabilities? Let's see your math.

 

[Loudmouth]

A figment of the imagination which should be disregarded.

For anyone keeping score, we have a creationist who refuses to address the fossil evidence. We have been told over and over that creationists use the same evidence, but this is obviously false. Creationists ignore the fossil evidence.

Let's focus on THE OBJECTIVE PROOF. Produce an EVOLVING gorilla that speaks basic English (or Hebrew) and is progressing nicely towards full humanity.

Did you also forget to 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?​

 

[Aldebaran]

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).

Modern theories don't need to be disproven since they haven't been proven yet. Just like NASA's latest theory about how Mars lost its oceans due to a "catastrophic event". Some "science" that is! I guess every impact crater on the moon was created by a catastrophic event as well, even though nobody was there to experience it, let alone consider it to be a catastrophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor. Our closest cousins are chimpanzees and bonobos. More distant cousins of gorillas and orangutans.

Notice how you subtly removed the word "monkeys" from your post?

After saying we don't come from monkeys, you make a list of animals that we are related to -- near and far -- but no mention of where monkeys fit in.

So monkeys are farther away from us than our "more distant cousins:" gorillas and orangutans? and don't even rate an honorable mention?

 

[Black Dog]

Modern theories don't need to be disproven since they haven't been proven yet. Just like NASA's latest theory about how Mars lost its oceans due to a "catastrophic event". Some "science" that is! I guess every impact crater on the moon was created by a catastrophic event as well, even though nobody was there to experience it, let alone consider it to be a catastrophy.

The term theory is used differently in science than in colloquial english. Please learn the difference. Once you do, you will understand why your post doesn't make sense.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Notice how you subtly removed the word "monkeys" from your post?

After saying we don't come from monkeys, you make a list of animals that we are related to -- near and far -- but no mention of where monkeys fit in.

So monkeys are farther away from us than our "more distant cousins:" gorillas and orangutans? and don't even rate an honorable mention?

Because we don't come from monkeys. You don't understand how evolution works. You have demonstrated that on multiple occasions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because we don't come from monkeys. You don't understand how evolution works. You have demonstrated that on multiple occasions.

What monkeys?

You [conveniently] left them out of your reply.

How do you know our common ancestors were not monkeys as well?

If "monkey" is just a catch-phrase for a variety of primates, then how is it that term suddenly disappears as one goes up the ladder?

I'm supposed to believe I'm some kind of mammal, and that I come from mammals.

Yet when it comes to monkeys, I'm supposed to believe I'm some kind of mon... I mean ... primate.

My pointed question to you (or anyone) is simply this:

How do you know we didn't come from monkeys, when you haven't even seen our common ancestor(s)?

 

[Black Dog]

Because we don't come from monkeys. You don't understand how evolution works. You have demonstrated that on multiple occasions.

I'm new to this forum, and I find it a bit confusing. Some of the creationists on this site don't seem to understand the most basic aspects of science, let alone evolution. Yet they have made thousands of posts, presumably many in discussions in creation based threads. In all that time, hasn't anyone here explained the basics to them?

 

[mickiio]

Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys. We share a common ancestor. Our closest cousins are chimpanzees and bonobos. More distant cousins of gorillas and orangutans.
Minimal evidence? Really?

Don't forget we have a heart most like a pig and skin like a pigs too.

The second law of thermodynamics creationist argument has been demolished long ago. You should stop using it.

No because the second law of thermodynamics is still in existence. It will be here awhile. As will the first.

"Probabilities Our "unique" design points to a unique intelligent designer."

What are those probabilities? Let's see your math.

Thank you.

Why would an intelligent designer give us an appendix, a tail bone, wisdom teeth, terrible night vision?
Doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

Your opinion not mine.

I don't think there is any positive evidence for creationism, so what evidence would I discuss?

Maybe you shouldn't post in this thread then.

 

[Black Dog]

No because the second law of thermodynamics is still in existence. It will be here awhile. As will the first.

I think you misunderstand Loudmouth's point. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply the way creationists want it to because among other reasons, the earth isn't a closed system.

If you visit the link he provided, I'm sure it will be explained in more detail.

 

[mickiio]

The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.

 

[crjmurray]

Don't forget we have a heart most like a pig and skin like a pigs too.

No because the second law of thermodynamics is still in existence. It will be here awhile. As will the first.
Thank you.

Your opinion not mine.
Maybe you shouldn't post in this thread then.

No seriously, show us the math. I would legitimately like to see it.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Tell me about the evidence for the HOW, the process, which produced Tiktaalik.

 

[justlookinla]

The term theory is used differently in science than in colloquial english. Please learn the difference. Once you do, you will understand why your post doesn't make sense.

Now comes the word games.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.

A simple google search will bring you to several explanations to why the second law of thermodynamic creationist argument is complete nonsense.

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/thermo.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/claim-law-thermodynamics-disproves-evolution-nope/

This argument is simply an attempt to trip someone up in a debate who has limited to no knowledge on thermodynamics. They don't seem to care that this argument has been shot to pieces over and over again.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Tell me about the evidence for the HOW, the process, which produced Tiktaalik.

As far as predicting it?
Well you take what you know about how evolution works. You predict how old this fossil would be, where it would be found and what it would look like. So Dr Shubin and his team got out a geological map, picked a place in Canada and after 5 years of searching, they found exactly what they predicted. Boom, accurate predictions. A huge part of the scientific method. That wasn't that hard was it?

 

[crjmurray]

Tell me about the evidence for the HOW, the process, which produced Tiktaalik.

Don't you have this same conversation going in enough threads? Let this one stay on topic.