What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[DerelictJunction]

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

Not here, no. Of course this thread isn't about evolution and the proponents of creationism have not provided any evidence of their claims.

So, since you have no evidence supporting your claims....bye.

 

[justlookinla]

Not here, no. Of course this thread isn't about evolution and the proponents of creationism have not provided any evidence of their claims.

So, since you have no evidence supporting your claims....bye.

It's almost if I'm.....dare I say it.....not wanted.

 

[mickiio]

Nawwww they just want you to tow the line. You know agree with them. After all they have "science" on their side --don't they? Just don't know there the difference between a "theory" and fact. Real scientific.

 

[mickiio]

Not here, no. Of course this thread isn't about evolution and the proponents of creationism have not provided any evidence of their claims.

So, since you have no evidence supporting your claims....bye.

No evidence you will accept. You haven't proven that Creationism wasn't the very mechanism God used to create life. All you do is repeat yourself.

As I've said no evidence that you will accept. You haven't even proven that evolution wasn't the very mechanizm God used to create life. All yiou do is repeat yourself.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

No evidence you will accept. You haven't proven that Creationism wasn't the very mechanism God used to create life. All you do is repeat yourself.

why have you quoting me without a remark.?

 

[mickiio]

Because it is true for Creationism as well. I thought it was well written.

 

[crjmurray]

No evidence you will accept. You haven't proven that Creationism wasn't the very mechanism God used to create life. All you do is repeat yourself.

So "prove ms wrong" is your evidence? I'm confused.

 

[lasthero]

Nawwww they just want you to tow the line. You know agree with them. After all they have "science" on their side --don't they? Just don't know there the difference between a "theory" and fact. Real scientific.

Do you know what a theory is?

 

[justlookinla]

Do you know what a theory is?

Here we go with the 'scientific' doublespeak. Always a fallback position for those who use the ploy to avoid discussing the issue in everyday language.

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you know what a theory is?

It is NOT proof.
People have theories about pretty much everything.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nawwww they just want you to tow the line. You know agree with them. After all they have "science" on their side --don't they? Just don't know there the difference between a "theory" and fact. Real scientific.

For the second time in this thread, I will mention my two threads dealing with the ERV evidence for evolution:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-evidence-for-human-evolution.7840464/

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

Also, "Evolution as Theory and Fact" is a wonderful essay written by Stephen Jay Gould that should help you understand the differences between the two.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[lasthero]

It is NOT proof.

No one ever said it was.

People have theories about pretty much everything.

In the colloquial sense, yeah. In the scientific sense, no.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is NOT proof.
People have theories about pretty much everything.

I have found that people usually don't understand what a scientific theory is, and how it differs from the colloquial use of the word. As mentioned in the post above, Stephen Jay Gould wrote a very good essay on the subject:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.​

 

[Aldebaran]

No one ever said it was.



In the colloquial sense, yeah. In the scientific sense, no.

Yes, in the scientific sense as well.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, in the scientific sense as well.

No.

You should take a look at Loudmouth's link.

 

[Loudmouth]

No evidence you will accept.

So far, it appears that you don't understand what evidence actually is. You think claims are evidence. That's not how it works.

You haven't proven that Creationism wasn't the very mechanism God used to create life.

You are shifting the burden of proof, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[justlookinla]

Interesting to watch the switch to 'sciencespeak' as seen commonly when the arguments of the Darwinists are exposed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, in the scientific sense as well.

As the old saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating (and if I had my preference, the proof of the scotch is in the sipping). If creationism is a scientific theory, then it needs to make specific testable predictions about biology, and geology in the case of YEC. For example, what pattern of similarities does creationism predict, and why? If an orthologous gene shared by chickens and humans differs by 25%, what should the comparison between that same mouse gene and chickens reveal? What does creationism predict, and why?

If creationism isn't able to make predictions, then it certainly isn't a scientific theory. Creationism certainly looks like a dogma to me since it doesn't matter what evidence creationism see, they always claim it is evidence for creationism after the fact.

 

[mickiio]

It's pretty simple really. We gave you evidence. The Creation is evidence for a Creator. You do not accept that as evidence, just as the quote I made did not accept the evidence for Evolution. Logar heads. Neither one of us agree because of our bias. The difference is I know I have a bias you just think there can be only one answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's pretty simple really. We gave you evidence. The Creation is evidence for a Creator.

That is begging the question. That is a logical fallacy, not evidence.

You do not accept that as evidence,

Because it isn't evidence. Not in any sense is it evidence. It is a logical fallacy.

"Your honor, the dead body is proof of murder, so please put John Smith in jail."

Is that evidence?