The best evidence for Creationism

[Wiccan_Child]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

 

[FaithIsAll]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

The best evidence I think I ever heard for creationism came from a guy I saw on TV, I cant recall what he said exactly,
but if I remember right he made a pretty good case, it'll come to me and when it does I'll get back to you.
He said that he had dozens of followers so he must have known what he was talking about, a nice guy with fair hair.
His first name was Bent or Dent or something, I remember when he said he was a Doctor everyone laughed,
don't know why they laughed? it's not as if just anyone can go out and get a certificate saying they're a doctor can they.

 

[mkatzwork]

The best evidence I think I ever heard for creationism came from a guy I saw on TV, I cant recall what he said exactly,
but if I remember right he made a pretty good case, it'll come to me and when it does I'll get back to you.
He said that he had dozens of followers so he must have known what he was talking about, a nice guy with fair hair.
His first name was Bent or Dent or something, I remember when he said he was a Doctor everyone laughed,
don't know why they laughed? it's not as if just anyone can go out and get a certificate saying they're a doctor can they.

I vote this one of the funniest posts I think I've ever read on any forum ever. I almost spat coffee on my laptop.

 

[mathetes123]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

The best evidence for creationism is Creation.

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

[FaithIsAll]

The best evidence for creationism is Creation.

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I think the operative word is 'evidence'.

 

[mathetes123]

I think the operative word is 'evidence'.

It's right there staring you in the face. Look around you. Did what you see require an intelligent designer or did it come about by chance?

 

[mkatzwork]

It's right there staring you in the face. Look around you. Did what you see require an intelligent designer or did it come about by chance?

False dichotomy - if you're talking about the diversity of life. The evidence clearly shows it came about via a third option - natural selection through the preservation of favored races in the struggle of life. Chance had little to do with it (not nothing, but a very very long way from everything). The mutations may have been random, but the preservation of those mutations was most definitely not entirely random, which is the ENTIRE POINT.

It is the idea that the TOE is somehow "chance" that fundamentally underlines how most Creationists don't even begin to understand the thing they are trying to critique.

 

[mathetes123]

False dichotomy - if you're talking about the diversity of life. The evidence clearly shows it came about via a third option - natural selection through the preservation of favored races in the struggle of life. Chance had little to do with it (not nothing, but a very very long way from everything). The mutations may have been random, but the preservation of those mutations was most definitely not entirely random, which is the ENTIRE POINT.

It is the idea that the TOE is somehow "chance" that fundamentally underlines how most Creationists don't even begin to understand the thing they are trying to critique.

Chance has everything to do with the mutations. You can't get around the fact that the probability of evolution is next to nothing. Belief in evolution relies on nothing more than faith. To suggest that chance is the more likely source of creation as opposed to an intelligent designer is not reasonable or logical. Only intelligent sources create intelligence. It never comes about by chance.

 

[mkatzwork]

Chance has everything to do with the mutations.

Yes, it does. I agree. So does every rationally thinking person who has studied the TOE.

You can't get around the fact that the probability of evolution is next to nothing.

I think you probably meant to say nothing, not next to nothing, because that would imply that there is a small probability in your mind (however small) that it might be right. Heretic!

Belief in evolution relies on nothing more than faith.

Moving aside the notion that you're now using the concept of "faith" to denigrate science whilst using it to laud religion (a curious position) - you're just flat out wrong. Incorrect. In error. Barking up an entirely wrong tree.

Faith is belief in something without evidence, whilst the only reason the TOE exists is because the evidence was studied, very very carefully indeed over several hundred years, and it is still the best fit explanation.

I love when people ask for the "evidence of evolution". The theory derives FROM the evidence, and makes predictions about what we should find in terms of future evidence if the interpretation is correct, and many of those predictions have been shown correct already, in many fields of science. Darwin's book alone is jammed full of evidence, and it's predominantly understandable by the layman, which is partly why the book was such an immediate success.

So you are either a) mistaken and pretending to be otherwise, or b) deliberately misrepresenting other people - neither of which is particularly Christian. That, unfortunately for you, is not a false dichotomy, either.

To suggest that chance is the more likely source of creation as opposed to an intelligent designer is not reasonable or logical. Only intelligent sources create intelligence. It never comes about by chance.

Now you're into cosmology, abiogenesis and doing the usual dance that Creationists do like it's something we've not heard before.

You've made your mind up before you even looked into it, as this sentence shows - "more likely source of creation". Creation of itself implies a creator. I don't look at the world around me and hear strains of Haydn. It isn't a creation to me. Nothing created it. You are begging the question - practically demonstrating a dictionary-worthy example, in fact.

Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You jump from "chance has something to do with evolution" to "evolution is just chance" which, if you'd ever read On The Origin of Species (which you clearly haven't, because I'm being reasonable and assuming that you're intelligent, and no intelligent person could read it and say what you're saying).

If you're going to try and critique it, you should read it, understand what it says, and THEN go at it. What's even better about that is that you will be taken seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

I am a creationist, and I say that the best evidence for Creationism is no evidence.

If there is no evidence -- yet we are here -- then that speaks of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[mkatzwork]

I am a creationist, and I say that the best evidence for Creationism is no evidence.

If there is no evidence -- yet we are here -- then that speaks of creatio ex nihilo.

So you say the best evidence of Creation would be no evidence at all - so perhaps you should start destroying Bibles? I'm pretty sure that (against any kind of scientific reasoning, though) most creationists consider the Bible as crucial evidence....you can't have your cake and eat it, no matter how much Latin you can bring to the table.

Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum...

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

Evolutionist. But a theistic evolutionist.

The evidence I'd pick which, in theory, could be used to support "creationism" would be DNA. Specifically the way in which DNA itself actually works. In some ways it almost works like a language, or like computer programing.

I put creationism in inverted commas because I don't think such evidence would actually disprove evolution, or prove that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago in only six days. But - again, in theory - it would show that life is organised and intended to funtion in a specific way.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I am a creationist, and I say that the best evidence for Creationism is no evidence.

If there is no evidence -- yet we are here -- then that speaks of creatio ex nihilo.

This reminds be vaguely of a particular form of Muslim philosophy that came from the Ash'arites: they basically argued that God's creation is so huge and magnificent that we mere humans couldn't possibly comprehend how He did it, or how it works. Therefore science, and all our attemps to comprehend the world, are ultimately useless. We cannot rely on evidence or reason, only divine revelation.

It was a disasterous philosophy that marked the begining of the end for the Golden Age of Islam. We should be wary of repeating their mistakes.

 

[AV1611VET]

they basically argued that God's creation is so huge and magnificent that we mere humans couldn't possibly comprehend how He did it, or how it works.

I not only know how He did it, I know when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were -- some by name; all thanks to those Bibles mkatzwork thinks I should be destroying.

 

[Davian]

I not only know how He did it, I know when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were -- some by name; all thanks to those Bibles mkatzwork thinks I should be destroying.

You really know how he did it? Do tell.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really know how he did it? Do tell.

It's called creatio ex nihilo ... creation out of nothing.

God spoke and it came into existence.

 

[Keachian]

It was a disasterous philosophy that marked the begining of the end for the Golden Age of Islam. We should be wary of repeating their mistakes.

We should be wary of repeating our own mistakes as Western Christians as well.

 

[mkatzwork]

I not only know how He did it, I know when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were -- some by name; all thanks to those Bibles mkatzwork thinks I should be destroying.

I notice you omitted to rebut the point...

You said that the best evidence would be no evidence, yet you then say the Bible is evidence, because it tells you everything. So clearly you are contradicting yourself...

Also creation ex nihilo isn't what the Bible claims at all- it says in the beginning was the Word - not nothing. Is God nothing? Is the Word nothing?

Genesis 1 actually only says this:

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

He "created the heavens and the earth". It doesn't actually exclude the possibility of something prior that fulfills the human concept of 'something' as opposed to the human concept of nothing, or 'nihilo', which only started to seriously be a concept with Parmenides, although his ideas were a little strange even to Plato and Aristotle.

It doesn't say "God created everything" and doesn't say "nothing" existed prior - it doesn't actually have anything specific to say on the subject. So even theologically you're on shaky grounds...and I would posit you don't even really understand what you mean philosophically by the idea of "nothing" anyhow.

 

[AV1611VET]

I notice you omitted to rebut the point...

I don't really care to rebut ... appealing to another tongue to make your point is a real turn-off to me.

But for the record, the OP asked a question, and I answered it as truthfully as I could.

If that's not good enough, present something better, so I won't take your posts with a grain of salt.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's this stuff?

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

It looks like the bar code for a box of spaghetti.