What is the evidence for creationism?

[Nathan Poe]

Creationism does not necessitate 6,000 year old earth.

I am a Creationist and I do not claim a 6,000 year old earth. At least not in the same way it is presented in YEC.

Well then, you explain what you're attempting to prove, and I'll tell you what it take to convince me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well then, you explain what you're attempting to prove, and I'll tell you what it take to convince me.

Ok.
That Science supports the Creation narrative, that God created the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends upon your reason for creating it. Are you attempting to create just a working pocket watch or one that exactly mimicks a pocket watch created by man?

A pocketwatch, Beastt, a simple pocketwatch. You're telling me that if I held out my hand, blinked a pocketwatch into existence from [literally] nowhere and gave it to you. You still would look for evidence that it was manufactured somewhere?

What if it was an ice cube, instead? Or a widget? Or a picture of you when you were just 1 year old? Or a book with your entire family tree written down in it, going back 5 generations? Out of nowhere?

You're telling me it should show evidence of ex nihilo?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence for it?

Sure do --- especially since I'm claiming ex nihilo.

 

[JohnR7]

Well then, you explain what you're attempting to prove, and I'll tell you what it take to convince me.

We are trying to prove that it does not matter if your convinced or not.

Of course it might matter what we are able to convince the jury of

 

[AV1611VET]

Making outlandish claims -- including but not limited to a giant sky-daddy *POOF*ing everything into being -- would require at least an attempt to back it up.

It is backed up --- in writing.

Right -- because no such evidence exists. Why then believe in such mythology?

It's not mythology, Nathan; it's the miracle of creation, done by God, Himself, Who is doing everything He can to show people the way to eternal life before it's eternally too late.

Look at it this way: He is so desperate that you get saved, He is even sending people like me and JohnR7 to try and convince you guys of the Truth --- and that's desperate!

 

[Beastt]

A pocketwatch, Beastt, a simple pocketwatch. You're telling me that if I held out my hand, blinked a pocketwatch into existence from [literally] nowhere and gave it to you. You still would look for evidence that it was manufactured somewhere?

That's rather beside the point since you're attempting to present an analogy for something which has been the focus of literally ALL scientific scrutiny -- the universe itself. Certainly it has been analyzed, scrutinized, examined, observed, documented and explored.

What if it was an ice cube, instead?

Ice cubes contain things other than water such as trapped air bubbles, (one of the reasons water expands when it freezes). The content of the air bubbles can be examined to see if the contents are consistent with Earth's atmosphere, at what elevation and at what location. If it cannot be matched to any known Earth location, then we have potential evidence that it was not formed naturally on Earth.

Even if it doesn't contain air bubbles, this is a distinct indication that there is something special about this particular ice cube. There are always things which can be examined about anything offered to see if it is consistent with a natural process, a man-made process or a process other than those known. I know this doesn't help your analogy but that is because you've presented the analogy on false pretenses and that's what I'm attempting to point out. You're suggesting that there is no way to know whether something is created via strictly natural means or by supernatural means and I'm demonstrating that the only time this could be true is if the supernatural sentience behind the creation intended to be deceptive.

If you don't believe this then I invite you to keep tossing out examples of something physical which you think would not hold evidence about it's means of "transformation", (since "creation" is an abstract concept never witnessed).

Or a widget? Or a picture of you when you were just 1 year old? Or a book with your entire family tree written down in it, going back 5 generations? Out of nowhere?

Firstly, "nowhere" doesn't exist. No matter where you or anything else is, that is the place where it is. There isn't any "nowhere", except for a small town in Arizona by that name. But even Nowhere, Arizona exists in Arizona.

The "widget" must be defined. You can't hand someone something with indistinct properties. Any photograph will contain clues about it's origin. The film grain, (assuming a film camera since digitals didn't exist when I was one year old), the paper upon which the print exists, the size and shape of the silver halide crystals in the grain. Older films used silver halide crystals of a globular shape. Once it was determined that the shape of the crystals could be manipulated and that T-shaped crystals offered a less "grainy" look, films began utilizing T-shaped silver halide crystals. What shape do you suggest the crystals would be in the photo you suggest? All physical things give us areas to examine to determine the origin.

You're telling me it should show evidence of ex nihilo?

I'm telling you that unless it was produced with the specific intent of making it appear to have been formed via natural methods it would contain evidence of having been produced by methods unlike those known to natural methods. Everything holds evidence regarding its formation. You simply cannot manipulate the physical without leaving evidence of that manipulation. The manipulation itself is evidence of manipulation as well as the marks, contaminents, chemical traces, etc. left upon the physical matter being analyzed.

 

[AV1611VET]

The manipulation itself is evidence of manipulation as well as the marks, contaminents, chemical traces, etc. left upon the physical matter being analyzed.

That was a lot of fancy dancing, Beastt, but you're adding an air of facetiousness to the examples that's being disrespectful to its intent.

I suspect that you're trying to simply make it look like the question cannot be answered.

You can bring up halide crystals, air bubbles, and manufacturing marks all you want, but what I see in them is an attempt to sidestep the issue.

Nathan Poe had no problem answering it.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Exactly.

I can use reason because we have the ability to do so. We can use reason to determine truth or falsity.

To cut to the chase a bit, the TAG claims to be able to justify its own assumptions. That, as Godel claimed, is not possible. Thus, if you construct an argument that assumes reason, then that same argument cannot also justify reason.

 

[TeddyKGB]

It's not mythology, Nathan; it's the miracle of creation, done by God, Himself, Who is doing everything He can to show people the way to eternal life before it's eternally too late.

God is demonstrably not doing everything he can. He's, conveniently enough, doing everything apologists claim he can.

Look at it this way: He is so desperate that you get saved, He is even sending people like me and JohnR7 to try and convince you guys of the Truth --- and that's desperate!

But his desperation is never so profound that he considers doing it himself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ok.
That Science supports the Creation narrative, that God created the universe.

That's two different things -- If the "Creation narrative" you're referring to is the book of Genesis, you might end up having to prove YEC after all.

If all you want to prove is that God created the universe (without being all that specific as to who or how) then a religious conversion is in order -- and those tend to happen, more often than not, without solid evidence.

Basically, if you want to bring science into it, you have to scientifically prove the existence of God.

Good luck with that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's two different things -- If the "Creation narrative" you're referring to is the book of Genesis, you might end up having to prove YEC after all.

Why would I have to prove YEC?

If all you want to prove is that God created the universe (without being all that specific as to who or how) then a religious conversion is in order -- and those tend to happen, more often than not, without solid evidence.

I should clarify a little here, I should have said provide supportive evidence for the Christian God.

Anyway, what evidence would you accept that God exists?

 

[Oncedeceived]

To cut to the chase a bit, the TAG claims to be able to justify its own assumptions. That, as Godel claimed, is not possible. Thus, if you construct an argument that assumes reason, then that same argument cannot also justify reason.

This quote was taken out of context. You may want to read why I responded this way.

 

[Beastt]

That was a lot of fancy dancing, Beastt, but you're adding an air of facetiousness to the examples that's being disrespectful to its intent.

There's no fancy dancing here at all, AV, just answers that you appear not to like because they demonstrate the fallacious quality of your presentation. It's all about evidence and evidence is always present. That's what I've shown and it's what you seem to prefer not to address.

I suspect that you're trying to simply make it look like the question cannot be answered.

Actually, I'm showing you that the question can be answered. I answered it. The answer is, if the supernatural entity is able and desirous of practicing deception, then it's not impossible that it could fake the evidence of known natural methods. If the supernatural entity has no reason and no desire to be deceptive, then the evidence would show whether or not the object was made through known natural methods or not.

You can bring up halide crystals, air bubbles, and manufacturing marks all you want, but what I see in them is an attempt to sidestep the issue.

You ask a question, I present an answer and I'm side-stepping the question? That's simply unsupportable. I answered your question and gave you specifics to support my answer. And rather than face the fact that my answer is credible, supportable and accurate, you seem to want to side-step my answer by accusing me of side-stepping. That might work for you but if you're interested in truth, then you'll need to address my answer rather than hand-waving it.

Nathan Poe had no problem answering it.

Nor did I. I answered it quite fully and with examples. I offered to provide more examples if you wanted to present different objects. Apparently, my response was more compelling because you seem to feel the need to attempt to discredit my response by calling it "fancy dancing" rather than recognizing it to be completely accurate and completely supported.

 

[AV1611VET]

But his desperation is never so profound that he considers doing it himself.

.[bible]John 21:24-25[/bible]

 

[Beastt]

It is backed up --- in writing.

But not God's writing; the writing of men. And not just in one book but in several; all written by men. Many attributed to different gods and presenting inconsistent claims.

It's not mythology, Nathan; it's the miracle of creation, done by God, Himself, Who is doing everything He can to show people the way to eternal life before it's eternally too late.

This is really all he can do? Nothing done so far has been other than what men can do. What happened to omnipotence?

 

[USincognito]

You might be a Creationist if you think astronomers blew up Pluto a few weeks ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

But not God's writing; the writing of men.

You don't understand inspiration, do you? It is the act whereby God has His words put into writing, using human beings who write in their own words.

IOW, it's a form of dictation where the boss (Boss) gives the "secretaries" latitude in using their own words.

The full term for this is verbal plenary inspiration, and it differs from mechanical inspiration, or straight dictation.

And not just in one book but in several; all written by men.

The Bible is 66 books in one --- all written by men --- with God taking the credit (notice I said 'taking', not 'getting').

Many attributed to different gods and presenting inconsistent claims.

Would it be too much of an inconvenience to ask for an example of each?

This is really all he can do? Nothing done so far has been other than what men can do.

You're the perfect example of Jannes and Jambres --- (except they learned their lesson).

What happened to omnipotence?

What does omnipotence have to do with inspiration?

 

[Beastt]

You might be a Creationist if you think astronomers blew up Pluto a few weeks ago.

I didn't even know it was inflatable!

 

[AV1611VET]

You might be a Creationist if you think astronomers blew up Pluto a few weeks ago.

Blew up? No --- the pen is mightier than the sword.