What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[mickiio]

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

Maybe logic escapes you. Here is a painting. LOGIC states SOMEONE painted it. Sorry you cannot make that simple connection. Logic states someone killed him.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Your honor, we've observed bacteria becoming bacteria so please conclude that an unknown life form became both pine trees and humans.

Is that scientific evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe logic escapes you. Here is a painting. LOGIC states SOMEONE painted it.

We aren't talking about a painting. It seems the logic escapes you.

Logic states someone killed him.

Just as the evidence shows that something caused species to come into being. What you need is evidence demonstrating that God was that cause. Do you have any?

 

[mickiio]

Do you know what a theory is?

Yes I do. The trouble is you conveniently tie in the "extrapolation" Evolution into the small scale Evolution which IS provable and wrap them up in a nice combined little bundle and ask us to accept the same science in Darwinism Evolution as Natural Selection. One is good science and one is terrible. "Oh but they are both the same," you say... just add millions of years on and it will take care of any discrepancies you say." Bad science I say. If you tell a lie long enough you will get a lot of people to think it is fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I do. The trouble is you conveniently tie in the "extrapolation" Evolution into the small scale Evolution which IS provable and wrap them up in a nice combined little bundle and ask us to accept the same science in Darwinism Evolution as Natural Selection.

It isn't extrapolation. It is interpolation since we have the end points of evolution. Those endpoints are all of the living species we have today. The points in between are the common ancestors and transitional fossils. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what we should see at the end points, and those predictions have been amazingly accurate.

One is good science and one is terrible. "Oh but they are both the same," you say... just add millions of years on and it will take care of any discrepancies you say." Bad science I say. If you tell a lie long enough you will get a lot of people to think it is fact.

What discrepancies?

 

[mickiio]

Your Theory breaks down when it crosses "kinds".

 

[mickiio]

It isn't extrapolation. It is interpolation since we have the end points of evolution. Those endpoints are all of the living species we have today. The points in between are the common ancestors and transitional fossils. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what we should see at the end points, and those predictions have been amazingly accurate.



What discrepancies?

Look up your transitional fossil record. What should be an amazing amount of transitional kinds, as there is when you get diverse species, there is none. Your Theory does not follow the Law of biogenetics at that point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your Theory breaks down when it crosses "kinds".

I guess we need to revisit 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?​

Is there still something about that very simple post that you are having a tough time understanding?

 

[Loudmouth]

Look up your transitional fossil record. What should be an amazing amount of transitional kinds, as there is when you get diverse species, there is none.

There shouldn't be any transitional kinds if creationism is true, yet there are.

Also, how do you calculate the number of transitional fossils that there should be? I would love to see that math.

Your Theory does not follow the Law of biogenetics at that point.

Again, read the opening post. How does creationism follow the Law of biogenetics, whatever that is. What does creationism say that life came from? In the case of humans, wasn't it non-living mud and dust?

 

[Black Dog]

Now comes the word games.

I can sincerely assure you, I am not playing word games. Sometimes words can have more than one meaning, depending on how they are used. If you don't believe me, open a dictionary and start reading the definitions for words. Trust me, it won't be long before you find a word that has multiple meanings.

Hint: Look up the word "duck".

 

[singpeace]

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?

First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and more....

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

 

[mickiio]

There shouldn't be any transitional kinds if creationism is true, yet there are.

The few there are, are questionable at the least, fraudulent at worst.

Also, how do you calculate the number of transitional fossils that there should be? I would love to see that math.

Way more then there are. They should not be difficult to find...of course if it is true.

Again, read the opening post. How does creationism follow the Law of biogenetics, whatever that is. What does creationism say that life came from? In the case of humans, wasn't it non-living mud and dust?

Nice question. God "breathed" the breath of life into them hence created in complex, complete kinds. It's interesting because God said "let there be light" before the stars were created. Do you know that if you look at the smallest atom on the smallest scale possible that you will see light? Creationism supports organized to chaos. Life begets Life. God (life) created life.

 

[Black Dog]

The few there are, are questionable at the least, fraudulent at worst.
Way more then there are. They should not be difficult to find...of course if it is true.

Nice question. God "breathed" the breath of life into them hence created in complex, complete kinds. It's interesting because God said "let there be light" before the stars were created. Do you know that if you look at the smallest atom on the smallest scale possible that you will see light? Creationism supports organized to chaos. Life begets Life. God (life) created life.

Do you sincerely believe this?

Much of modern antibiotics and vaccines are based on the theory of evolution. When your doctor prescribes antibiotics for a loved one, are you going to eschew modern medicine, and instead rely on the bible? I'm willing to bet you go with solution that is based the theory of evolution, and not the solution based on your religious beliefs. Am I wrong?

 

[Black Dog]

First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and more....

http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

That article is written by Duane Gish. He is a dishonest man, who used dishonest methods to argue his points. For instance, if I may paraphrase, Mr. Gish loves to say "Evolution says an ape evolved into a man, show me where apes are evolving into men today", when he knows perfectly well that evolution takes place over long periods of time, and we would obviously not see such a transformation happen in our lifetimes. In fact, it would prove the TOE incorrect if we could see apes evolving into man.

 

[mickiio]

Do you sincerely believe this?

Yes I do. It is a matter of Faith. Do you sincerely believe you came from electrified mud?

Much of modern antibiotics and vaccines are based on the theory of evolution. When your doctor prescribes antibiotics for a loved one, are you going to eschew modern medicine, and instead rely on the bible? I'm willing to bet you go with solution that is based the theory of evolution, and not the solution based on your religious beliefs. Am I wrong?

As I have said before, I have no problem with Evolution on the smaller scale. It is a provable science. Natural selection -no problem. That is a fact. It's when you extrapolate the theory into crossing "kinds" and descending from animals I take issue. I also have problems with how the carbon dating has been so misused, because how are you supposed to date with two variables missing? We don't know the atmosphere was the same as it is now. In fact the atmosphere has not yet even reached equilibrium. Seems that equilibrium would have reached by now with an old earth. Which again goes towards evidence for Creation, because it is evidence for a young earth which the bible supports.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Yes I do. It is a matter of Faith. Do you sincerely believe you came from electrified mud?

Science can't tell us for sure how life originated. It is a question that is still being researched, still being solved.

We simply don't know.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

As I have said before, I have no problem with Evolution on the smaller scale. It is a provable science. Natural selection -no problem. That is a fact. It's when you extrapolate the theory into crossing "kinds" and descending from animals I take issue. I also have problems with how the carbon dating has been so misused, because how are you supposed to date with two variables missing? We don't know the atmosphere was the same as it is now. In fact the atmosphere has not yet even reached equilibrium. Seems that equilibrium would have reached by now with an old earth. Which again goes towards evidence for Creation, because it is evidence for a young earth which the bible supports.

Micro vs Macro is unfortunately for you, a PRATT.

It is akin to saying you can walk a mile but not a hundred.

No originality in creationist arguments any more.

 

[mickiio]

Science can't tell us for sure how life originated. It is a question that is still being researched, still being solved.

We simply don't know.

So you take it on "faith".

 

[mickiio]

Micro vs Macro is unfortunately for you, a PRATT.

It is akin to saying you can walk a mile but not a hundred.

No originality in creationist arguments any more.

Now that your through calling me a dumb ass, I hope you feel better. Which is a flame btw --against thread rules. Do you have something specific you'd like to say about my evidence or should I quote you what this guy has been quoting all day?

I guess we need to revisit 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?​

Is there still something about that very simple post that you are having a tough time understanding?

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

Just for the record, the "you dumb, me smart" stuff just doesn't go far with me.