What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[ContraMundum]

Actually speculation precedes evidence in science.

Uh...no. Scientists are part of nature too- I said all things in nature, not just people in lab coats. Evidence precedes speculation, which leads to curiosity, which leads to science (which then ends up where you start)

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.

Yeah, we know. The problem that there is still no evidence for intermediary forms just gets explained away- without any forensic support. The problem that there is no record or possibility of one species birthing another just gets explained away- without any forensic support. The problem or probability just gets buried in throwing out larger time estimates- without any proof. We know.

We'll never agree because everything gets explained away according to the narrow dogma of scientism. In 100 years we'll both look back and scratch our heads.

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.

OK...well, I've seen it. Not important.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

You're a mathematician?

I bet you're not. Right?

If not, what are you possibly going to contribute that you did not Google?

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.

I never said that was the case- it often is, but is not always.

Go argue with someone else.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So you take it on "faith".

He said we don't know. I don't understand why some people can't accept the "I don't know answer" It's being honest.
How can you have faith in something you don't have an answer too?

 

[Black Dog]

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.

That's just a failure of your imagination. Little changes over a short period of time will add up to big changes over long periods of time. And to say the earth is only 6000 years old is just an ignorance of the facts due to a failed American educational system. Everything points to it being far older than that, from ice cores to the geologic layers, to the fossils. And nothing points to a young earth, except some stories in an old book, and some crazy explanations which are supported not by evidence, but by lies, which have been thoroughly debunked. Visit ironchariots.org.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's just a failure of your imagination. Little changes over a short period of time will add up to big changes over long periods of time.

The example I like to use for this is "To say microevolution is proven but not macroevolution is like saying I can drive my car to my friends house down the street but it's impossible for me to drive across the country to visit my grandma".

 

[Black Dog]

The example I like to use for this is "To say microevolution is proven but not macroevolution is like saying I can drive my car to my friends house down the street but it's impossible for me to drive across the country to visit my grandma".

That is good. Is it OK if I use it sometime?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That is good. Is it OK if I use it sometime?

Yes, of course you can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Actually mickiio was right. The Earth is a closed system. The problem is that the laws that he tried to apply deal with isolated systems.

A closed system allows energy to enter and leave but not matter. There can very easily be local decreases in entropy in a closed system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Then don't make foolish replies that beg for such a response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh...no. Scientists are part of nature too- I said all things in nature, not just people in lab coats. Evidence precedes speculation, which leads to curiosity, which leads to science (which then ends up where you start)

It depends upon what sort of evidence that we are talking about. With scientific evidence the hypothesis comes first.

Yeah, we know. The problem that there is still no evidence for intermediary forms just gets explained away- without any forensic support. The problem that there is no record or possibility of one species birthing another just gets explained away- without any forensic support. The problem or probability just gets buried in throwing out larger time estimates- without any proof. We know.

What are you talking about? There are all sorts of intermediary froms.

We'll never agree because everything gets explained away according to the narrow dogma of scientism. In 100 years we'll both look back and scratch our heads.

Now you have shown your ignorance again. There is hardly any "dogma" in evolution. It only looks that way to the ignorant because it is very likely that the theory is correct.

OK...well, I've seen it. Not important.

What do you mean here? You don't seem to realize that a global flood (which is part of a literal interpretation of Genesis) was shown to be wrong long before the theory of evolution came along.

 

[lasthero]

Now that your through calling me a dumb ass, I hope you feel better. Which is a flame btw --against thread rules.

Pretty sure censor bypassing is, too.

 

[lasthero]

Your Theory breaks down when it crosses "kinds".

What's kind?

 

[mickiio]

What's kind?

It's a classification system of "like" animals. More properly known as a family.

 

[lasthero]

It's a classification system of "like" animals. More properly known as a family.

That's pretty vague. All animals are 'like' each other in at least some way.

How do you determine whether two animals are the same kind?

 

[mickiio]

No it's the scientific classification. Here's an example:

 

[TheQuietRiot]

So you take it on "faith".

Nope.

I don't know is not a statement of faith.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

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 didn't say, or even imply that your rear end is dumb.

Pratt means in this context, point refuted a thousand times.

And if you spend long enough on this forum you will have seen the macro vs micro point has satisfied this criteria.

 

[justlookinla]

The example I like to use for this is "To say microevolution is proven but not macroevolution is like saying I can drive my car to my friends house down the street but it's impossible for me to drive across the country to visit my grandma".

Actually, no. Of course the issue is now being pushed aside and the new issue of an analogy has been introduced. Now we can argue about the analogy instead of the real issue.....no evidence, based on the scientific method, for macro evolution by only naturalistic mechanisms.

Take as much time as you wish for the guesses and suppositions of macro evolution, the premise still isn't based on evidence based on the scientific method. The only evidence we have for evolution, based on the scientific method, is for micro evolution....bacteria becoming bacteria, etc, etc. No example can be given based on evidence based on the scientific method for any life form becoming a completely different life form produced by only naturalistic mechanisms (basically mutation and natural selection) as claimed by Darwinist evolution (macro evolution).

All Darwinists have are haystacks (links, book titles) with alleged evidence in them (needles), but when asked repeatedly they never....never.....offer a link with any referenced content for the evidence, based on the scientific method, for their view of how pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. It's always, 'here's the haystack, find the needle' and when asked to actually give content, their dialog commonly include 'no you find it' along with accusations of being lazy, ignorant, never researching anything for yourself, etc.

So, we have a thread which asks the question about positive evidence for creation in an attempt to present creation as unsupportable for lack of positive evidence. The truth is, the same folks who embrace Darwinist evolution as an explanation of how all life we observe today was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago can neither off positive evidence for their particular view of evolution. In fact, creationism would be closer to real science because of the fact that intelligent design can be shown by the scientific method much easier than Darwinism's guesses and suppositions.

 

[justlookinla]

And if you spend long enough on this forum you will have seen the macro vs micro point has satisfied this criteria.

Where? When? Post number?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Where? When? Post number?

Well, over the years the argument has cropped up in hundreds of threads that I've read.

Hence why its a point refuted a thousand times.