What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[crjmurray]

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?

Let's not feed the troll. Let's see if someone can answer the OP satisfactorily.

 

[justlookinla]

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?

As far as offering evidence on HOW, the process, which produced Tiktaalik from the alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Simply because some try to offer evolution as a monolithic term based on evidence, doesn't mean it's a monolithic term based on evidence. A major flaw of Darwinist evolution (one of the several views of evolution) is the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. The fact is, no such evidence exists.

This major flaw will not simply fade into the background.

 

[crjmurray]

Simply because some try to offer evolution as a monolithic term based on evidence, doesn't mean it's a monolithic term based on evidence. A major flaw of Darwinist evolution (one of the several views of evolution) is the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. The fact is, no such evidence exists.

This major flaw will not simply fade into the background.

That's very nice but this thread is about creationism and evidence for it, not evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

That's very nice but this thread is about creationism and evidence for it, not evolution.

Folks should not mention the word "evolution" then. Especially as a monolithic term.

 

[Rick Otto]

Just so everybody knows,... I own a lab coat.

 

[Kylie]

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.

You've answered your own question here.

If the earth is getting lots of energy from the sun, you can't say that the earth is a closed system. You CAN say that the Earth/sun is a closed system, and when we look at that, we see that the 2ndLoTD holds.

 

[crjmurray]

Folks should not mention the word "evolution" then. Especially as a monolithic term.

That's fine. All I'm asking, is instead of people clogging up the thread with attacks and defenses against evolution (however anyone is defining it) let's try and get an answer to the OP.

 

[justlookinla]

Just so everybody knows,... I own a lab coat.

I got a chemistry set when I was 10. Never mix potassium nitrate, sulphur and sugar and 'melt' it with a match.

 

[justlookinla]

That's fine. All I'm asking, is instead of people clogging up the thread with attacks and defenses against evolution (however anyone is defining it) let's try and get an answer to the OP.

The bottom line, in my opinion, to the OP question is that it's based on faith.

 

[crjmurray]

The bottom line, in my opinion, to the OP question is that it's based on faith.

Faith is the evidence or you have faith with no evidence?

 

[justlookinla]

Faith is the evidence or you have faith with no evidence?

Faith is the evidence of what?

 

[crjmurray]

Faith is the evidence of what?

Evidence for creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Evidence for creationism.

How do you get that?

 

[crjmurray]

How do you get that?

Your response to the OP is "it's based on faith". Does that mean:

A) The evidence for creationism is faith

Or

B) There is no evidence but it is taken on faith that creationism is true

 

[justlookinla]

Your response to the OP is "it's based on faith". Does that mean:

A) The evidence for creationism is faith

Or

B) There is no evidence but it is taken on faith that creationism is true

It means there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, that God created humanity. It's a faith based view.

 

[crjmurray]

It means there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, that God created humanity. It's a faith based view.

Good, a response that actually answers the OP.

 

[Black Dog]

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.

This is excellent, I see where your misunderstanding is. Just because someone arbitrarily says two different things are "essentially" the same, does not make it so. So, you can't arbitrarily say "A is essentially B, and thus theory B also applies to A". It would be like someone arbitrarily declaring "evil spirits are essentially germs, so the Germ Theory of disease says evil spirits cause disease."

 

[justlookinla]

Good, a response that actually answers the OP.

A typical example of my postings on the forum.

 

[mickiio]

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.

No Creationists have no problem with the evidence in the fossil records. We use the same fossil records you do. It is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence we differ on. You have a bias towards your theory and I have a bias towards mine. You see millions of years, I see a catastrophe or flood that caused the sediment to settle.

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

I can work on that for you.

Faith is the evidence or you have faith with no evidence?

For Creationism we need a Creator. Our Creator is God. It takes "faith" to believe in God. There is plenty of evidence to back up the God of the bible if you choose to see it, but you have a bias towards something different so you don't see it. You would rather believe in electrified mud - in "perfect conditions" no less (also life from life btw) then God.