What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[crjmurray]

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.

I can work on that for you.

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.

I'll be looking forward to the math.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You see millions of years, I see a catastrophe or flood that caused the sediment to settle.

There is no geological evidence suggesting a world wide flood. If there was a world wide flood, we'd find all these different fossils in the same layer of rock. Science doesn't have a bias, it's neutral. It goes by what the evidence tells them.

 

[mickiio]

There is no geological evidence suggesting a world wide flood. If there was a world wide flood, we'd find all these different fossils in the same layer of rock. Science doesn't have a bias, it's neutral. It goes by what the evidence tells them.

Actually Darwinists are quite biased. Science is drawing conclusions from observations. It would be tough to be totally "non biased" on that. Especially if you call yourself an "Evolutionist" because that already is naming your bias.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Actually Darwinists are quite biased. Science is drawing conclusions from observations. It would be tough to be totally "non biased" on that. Especially if you call yourself an "Evolutionist" because that already is naming your bias.

I don't know anybody who calls themselves an "Evolutionist" or "Darwinist". That's a label you put on people who understand the theory. I don't know anyone who calls themselves these things. I would think scientists would like to be called what they are based on their field of study (Biologist, Paleontologist, geologist, etc).

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence has been piling up for 150+ years. So much so that it is a fact.
If you think you can falsify the theory, science welcomes with you with open arms. Instant Nobel Prize if you can do it.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Despite the fact that flood sediments we see don't settle the way they have in the fossil records, and we also see many things in the fossil records which are impossible if they were all laid down in a single catastrophic event?

 

[mickiio]

Despite the fact that flood sediments we see don't settle the way they have in the fossil records, and we also see many things in the fossil records which are impossible if they were all laid down in a single catastrophic event?

I did not say every fossil record is from one catastrophic event, however that being said, you do need the environment to have the absence of air to have a fossil record that does not disintegrate.

 

[Kylie]

I did not say every fossil record is from one catastrophic event, however that being said, you do need the environment to have the absence of air to have a fossil record that does not disintegrate.

Yes you did. You specifically said it was a catastrophe or flood that caused the sediment to settle. Singular, not plural.

 

[mickiio]

Not every fossil record. Obviously there are other fossil records made by lava , ect. And yet there ARE plenty of fossil records that point to a world wide flood.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Not every fossil record. Obviously there are other fossil records made by lava , ect. And yet there ARE plenty of fossil records that point to a world wide flood.

Such as?

 

[Kylie]

Not every fossil record. Obviously there are other fossil records made by lava , ect. And yet there ARE plenty of fossil records that point to a world wide flood.

Show me several deposits located in different places around the world and show me how they could only have been caused by a single worldwide flood.

 

[ContraMundum]

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?

Are you making a point for me or against my pov?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not every fossil record. Obviously there are other fossil records made by lava , ect. And yet there ARE plenty of fossil records that point to a world wide flood.

No, there clearly are not any such records. At best flood advocates come up with poor explanations of deposits that are easily refuted. Meanwhile there are formations that clearly elude the ability of flood believers to explain.

 

[ContraMundum]

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?

Ahem. Riiiight.

OK...let's play that game then. How on earth is this a logical fallacy? If I were to believe in the existence of writers, what would be the first thing I would look for? Answer: written characters arranged in coherent words and sentences with grammar, syntax and some kind of intelligible meaning. That would be the positive evidence of the existence of writers. Fine. How on earth is that a logical fallacy?

I know that people who debate on the internet think they are some kind of mensa-worthy genius because they consult rabbi Google but seriously, that is far from a logical fallacy.

As I said, the question you ask is plain poor. It's garbage. Your question needs to be re-stated otherwise you will never be happy with the answers given (which is really what you actually want!)

The question could be compared to a person who walks on to the tennis court and insists that the game must be played by hitting the rackets over the fence while using the balls to bat them. Blindfolded. While unconscious. Then the players say "first of all that's not how we play tennis and secondly it's not possible". To which the first person storms off in a hissy fit saying "these people are morons".

I could ask an equally stupid question of atheists- show me positive evidence of an empty universe before space-time began.

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.

Actually, it is positive evidence for creationism. It's the very first piece of evidence. It's the irrefutable evidence. However, it is also posited as evidence for evolution and other fancied theories.

Just because you say it isn't evidence doesn't make it so. Apply simple theory to creationism. What would be expect of a Creator? A creation. What do we find? A creation. Exhibit A. What also would we expect from a Creator that would be deemed an intelligent Creator? Order out of chaos, rules governing the creation and so forth. Exhibit B.

How is that not "logical"?

The fact is (and you need to embrace this despite the inner pain it may cause) that all sides of the argument start at the same place with the same set of testable facts.

Now, have you got a better question so we can move on?

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.

....*facepalm*

...and that proves.....?

Nothing. We're still on square one.

Besides, don't tell me you actually have a set of unbeatable criteria that would disprove a Creator. You'd be the first in history.

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.

Second facepalm.

Then why oh why are you asking for evidence of something you already believe can't have evidence. That's disingenuous and in internet jargon might be called "trolling".

Seriously- do you see that you just called yourself out?

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

Creationism, atheism, evolutionism all have sacred cows that are basically dogma. Next.

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

Projecting? Dude, people project so much on this thread that you would think it's a forum for cinema employees. But I'm not one of them.

 

[ContraMundum]

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

...and still open to interpretation (scientific and more) and still not proof until it compels assent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...and still open to interpretation (scientific and more) and still not proof until it compels assent.

Which is why you should really learn what scientific evidence is. It is more clear cut. It has a more precise definition. And lastly it tells us that there is no scientific evidence for creationism, this is not due to evolutionary scientists, it is due to the lack of action of creation "scientists".

 

[ContraMundum]

Which is why you should really learn what scientific evidence is. It is more clear cut. It has a more precise definition.

I do in fact already know that, but also know that while science should be precise and clear cut it isn't always. To my knowledge (and remember I'm out of university almost 20 years ago) there are differing grades of scientific speculation, and even when it is at its most credible it is not infallible.

I also know scientists disagree with each other often and accept that science itself is is a work in progress.

And lastly it tells us that there is no scientific evidence for creationism, this is not due to evolutionary scientists, it is due to the lack of action of creation "scientists".

....then why ask for evidence if you already don't believe there could be any?

 

[Goonie]

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?

Repeatedly, you will find if you take a look at the older posts that every argument has been made. You will get a distinct sense of deja vu as you continue reading threads on evolution vs creation as all the same arguments are made, evidence presented, absurd arguments refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do in fact already know that, but also know that while science should be precise and clear cut it isn't always. To my knowledge (and remember I'm out of university almost 20 years ago) there are differing grades of scientific speculation, and even when it is at its most credible it is not infallible.

No one has even made the claim that scientists are infallible. And please, you need to watch your terminology, you should not conflate scientific speculation with scientific evidence.

I also know scientists disagree with each other often and accept that science itself is is a work in progress.

Yes, it is. As far as evolution goes it is pretty much a done deal. All that is being worked on now are the details. No one is bothering to "prove evolution" any longer. That was done over a hundred years ago.

....then why ask for evidence if you already don't believe there could be any?

Perhaps I would like to be pleasantly surprised. Or perhaps a creationist could shock me and admit the truth.

 

[ContraMundum]

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

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

Probabilities are the elephant in the room for evolutionary theory as well- and why I reject evolution as currently presented. Often a lot of what I see postulated by scientists I consider as taking real liberties with extrapolation often with untested and imagined entities as a basis. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact I like it. I recall someone said Einstein was a fan of the imagination too- and it does play a role in human development. Remembering of course that mathematicians and logicians have a role in testing those theories as they are developed, something which seems to get entirely discarded in the origins debate (on both sides!)

However, the mathematics and time of it all are really the problem (for me) with the evolution model. Add into that concerns with time itself. The idea that a room full of monkeys with typewriters would eventually produce War and Peace, organize its printing, sale and the launch party seems more likely.

However, there is an elephant in the room for the Ken Ham/Creation Science people too. There are theological problems with their literalism and those theological problems are highlighted by- get this- the science! So science ends up messing with bad theology. I love the irony. Perhaps that is why their version of origins is fly-paper for almost qualified neo-atheists and "scientism" elitists. On the other hand, they occasionally make interest points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probabilities are the elephant in the room for evolutionary theory as well- and why I reject evolution as currently presented. Often a lot of what I see postulated by scientists I consider as taking real liberties with extrapolation often with untested and imagined entities as a basis. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact I like it. I recall someone said Einstein was a fan of the imagination too- and it does play a role in human development. Remembering of course that mathematicians and logicians have a role in testing those theories as they are developed, something which seems to get entirely discarded in the origins debate (on both sides!)

However, the mathematics and time of it all are really the problem (for me) with the evolution model. Add into that concerns with time itself. The idea that a room full of monkeys with typewriters would eventually produce War and Peace, organize its printing, sale and the launch party seems more likely.

However, there is an elephant in the room for the Ken Ham/Creation Science people too. There are theological problems with their literalism and those theological problems are highlighted by- get this- the science! So science ends up messing with bad theology. I love the irony. Perhaps that is why their version of origins is fly-paper for almost qualified neo-atheists and "scientism" elitists. On the other hand, they occasionally make interest points.

I have yet to see a valid "odds argument" against the theory of evolution. Practically everyone ever given is simply a strawman argument at best. Identify the strawman and there is no need to do any math to refute the argument.