What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[ContraMundum]

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 think you would agree that evidence itself is not science. All human experience and development begins with hard evidence in some respect. Evidence leads to speculation, which may or may not become proven fact.

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.

From your point of view, perhaps. I think the problems are in the details. I believe evolution as currently taught is an interesting and daring yet still fallible theory and sadly it has fanatical adherents who tend to be overly triumphant about it. To claim that it alone can explain all homology seems rather jumping the gun. There are some big questions still to be answered and the theory needs to be entirely consistent with no missing evidence at all as well as actually highly probable for it to be a done deal. At present it is still too muddy and uncertain for me.

Most disturbing to me is how evolution triumphalists seem to think that if evolution were proven true then that means there could not be a God. Apart from the intellectual void that such a leap would require it seems rather an abuse of science. It becomes an excuse because it can't logically be a reason.

 

[ContraMundum]

I have yet to see a valid "odds argument" against the theory of evolution.

I've heard a few and most importantly there is a psychological element to the acceptance of various odds arguments. I don't have the time to go into it now but one man's reasonable probability is another man's near-impossibility- even with raw numbers.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

Uh. No.

I read the rest of your post and I don't think you realize that I was arguing from an a priori pov. "If there was...we would see". You are now countering with a point that would be true if I was presenting an a posteriori argument. So no logical fallacy cookie reward for you today.

Still, you were close so not a bad attempt. Way better than most. High five for effort.

What we need is a statement of what we should and shouldn't see in the creation if it was created by a deity.

Good luck with that!

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.

Suddenly I feel like you are about to launch on an argument for ID. Weird.

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?

Bingo. That would in fact be the only possible answer- because it is the launching pad for all theories and beliefs within the wide world of theism. The poor OP'er must fell utterly unsatisfied. Should have asked a better question or one better defined.

How do you differentiate between what nature produces and what God produces?

It actually wouldn't matter other than for mere interest's sake. In my belief, nature is created complete with self-replicating life forms and all observable laws and phenomena etc.

 

[Jimmy D]

Probabilities are the elephant in the room for evolutionary theory as well- and why I reject evolution as currently presented.

We've had threads on the subject and this hasn't proven to be the case so far. Can we see your maths or are you going to continue to evade? If you can't back this statement up it can be disregarded as fantasy.

Most disturbing to me is how evolution triumphalists seem to think that if evolution were proven true then that means there could not be a God. Apart from the intellectual void that such a leap would require it seems rather an abuse of science. It becomes an excuse because it can't logically be a reason.

Wake up mate, it has been proven true, time and again for over a century, there's no doubt about it at all. The only people who can't grasp this fact are clinging to religious dogmas that don't measure up to reality, (which is fine when it doesn't affect the less fortunate), whatever floats your boat.

To address your first point, why can't you get it into your head that the TOE is NOT implying there is no God, Buddha, Allah or whoever. Many Christians are scientists and have no trouble accepting reality without losing their faith. For example:

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. :

"I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer."

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

It does support it, just not as well as other evidence, which you neither address nor apparently understand. No one here is saying that a god didn't initiate or control evolution. We're just saying that there is no evidence that a god did anything with regard to the evolution of life.

If you have any evidence for the influence upon evolution by any god, now would be a good time to present it. No one else has done anything except provide poorly thought out objections to the theory of evolution. You've never supported any other claim you've put forth, but maybe this is your lucky day.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

You did understand the OP, didn't you? Where's your positive evidence for creation of life by a god?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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?

Not important to the subject at hand. Perhaps you actually didn't understand the OP. Your past antics do point to a tendency toward myopic reading comprehension.
Where's your evidence of the creation of life by a god?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

Please name the system that you consider to be isolated and how that isolation prevents the increase in order that occurs with life. Thermodynamic mathematics are not required. A simple description will do.

As well as Laws of probabilities with "mutations" that are always found to be weaker.

This is not true. If you disagree, please support your statement with the probabilities regarding mutations.

Don't forget Laws of Physics.[

I didn't. Have you? Without some sort of explanation, this statement seems like a non-sequitur. You may as well have said "Don't forget the laws of Paris, France."

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.

I'm a fan of lovely. Please provide an example of holes in the genetic make up.

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.

If you give even one piece of evidence that is not a criticism of evolution, it would be more than you have provided thus far.

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

Unique as compared to what? What is the "usual" design, from which our design is uniquely distinguishable? Additionally, what does the uniqueness of our design have to do with probabilities?

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

Maybe. That depends on how you define faith.
If you define faith in the way the author of Hebrews defines it, "The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen", then you are incorrect. The evidence for evolution is not "unseen" and the substance of that evidence is observed rather than "hoped for".

Where is your evidence for the creation of life by a god?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

No theory is "proven", but you know this already.
No matter. I wrote back because I think it's hilarious that you believe the impact of a meteor or comet upon another astronomical object is not catastrophic to either one.

 

[justlookinla]

It does support it, just not as well as other evidence, which you neither address nor apparently understand. No one here is saying that a god didn't initiate or control evolution. We're just saying that there is no evidence that a god did anything with regard to the evolution of life.

No, the evidence, which is based on the scientific method, for the view of evolution which observes bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches and moths becoming moths doesn't in any way support the view which claims the same process produced pine trees and humans from the same alleged single life form of long ago. The second evolutionary view (Darwinist evolution) only has guesses and suppositions as their support. Darwinism will say, well given enough TIME it happened. But that's a subjective conclusion, with no evidence, based on the scientific method, to support the additional guess of time.

All the evolutionary process has been shown to do is produce similar life forms, not vastly different life forms seen in life today.

If you have any evidence for the influence upon evolution by any god, now would be a good time to present it.

I've pointed out several times my view is a faith-based view. So is the Darwinist evolutionary view.

No one else has done anything except provide poorly thought out objections to the theory of evolution.

Actually, the objections were to a particular view of evolution within the several views of evolution. Darwinist evolution.

You've never supported any other claim you've put forth, but maybe this is your lucky day.

I've never claimed to have scientific evidence for some of my views. It's time you actually be transparent and admit there's no scientific evidence for the HOW, the process, of an alleged single life form of long ago producing both pine trees and humans in the particular evolutionary view you're espousing either. You claims keep ending in failure.

 

[justlookinla]

You did understand the OP, didn't you? Where's your positive evidence for creation of life by a god?

Don't have any. Mine is a faith-based view. How many times do I gotta say that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Modern theories don't need to be disproven since they haven't been proven yet.

You have just demonstrated that you don't understand how the scientific method works.

You don't prove theories, at least in the absolute sense. All theories have to be potentially falsifiable. That is, they need to make predictions about what observations you won't observe. No one seems to be able to do this for creationism.

Just like NASA's latest theory about how Mars lost its oceans due to a "catastrophic event". Some "science" that is!

Huh?

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.

You do realize that past events leave evidence that we can observe in the present, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The entire system would need to include the Sun if you are going to claim that there is a violation of the 2nd law of thermondynamics. You have to account for all inputs of energy.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Reference?

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

And the energy input from the Sun is still in existence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Don't have any. Mine is a faith-based view. How many times do I gotta say that?

Then your reason for posting in this thread has no bearing on the subject matter in this thread? Just here to distract from that subject matter?
Why do you feel the need to distract from a request for positive evidence for creationism?

 

[justlookinla]

Then your reason for posting in this thread has no bearing on the subject matter in this thread? Just here to distract from that subject matter?
Why do you feel the need to distract from a request for positive evidence for creationism?

Just pointing out faith based views aren't objective evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you would agree that evidence itself is not science. All human experience and development begins with hard evidence in some respect. Evidence leads to speculation, which may or may not become proven fact.

Actually speculation precedes evidence in science.

From your point of view, perhaps. I think the problems are in the details. I believe evolution as currently taught is an interesting and daring yet still fallible theory and sadly it has fanatical adherents who tend to be overly triumphant about it. To claim that it alone can explain all homology seems rather jumping the gun. There are some big questions still to be answered and the theory needs to be entirely consistent with no missing evidence at all as well as actually highly probable for it to be a done deal. At present it is still too muddy and uncertain for me.

What are these supposed flaws? I hear these claims but no one ever comes through with anything but misunderstandings about what the theory says at best.

Most disturbing to me is how evolution triumphalists seem to think that if evolution were proven true then that means there could not be a God. Apart from the intellectual void that such a leap would require it seems rather an abuse of science. It becomes an excuse because it can't logically be a reason.

I have not seen that. It only shows that the book of Genesis cannot be read literally, but we already knew that before the theory of evolution came along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've heard a few and most importantly there is a psychological element to the acceptance of various odds arguments. I don't have the time to go into it now but one man's reasonable probability is another man's near-impossibility- even with raw numbers.

Then you do not understand the math of the arguments. All of them that I have seen have been based upon a false premise n evolution. When the error is shown the arguments fall apart. To those that do not understand the theory they may seem to be impressive. For those that understand the theory of evolution better those arguments are laughable at best.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Just pointing out faith based views aren't objective evidence.

Wonderful! You've just eliminated any positive evidence for creationism.

Now all you have to do is go to a thread where evidence supporting evolution is being presented and support your claim that the evidence being presented is, in fact, faith based. You have failed spectacularly in doing so thus far.

 

[justlookinla]

Wonderful! You've just eliminated any positive evidence for creationism.

Now all you have to do is go to a thread where evidence supporting evolution is being presented and support your claim that the evidence being presented is, in fact, faith based. You have failed spectacularly in doing so thus far.

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, being presented.