What is the evidence for creationism?

JohnR7 said:

You can call a horse a pig if you want. But that don't make it a pig. You can call genetics evolution if you want. But that don't make genetics evolution.

Click to expand...

You can call existence evidence of creation if you want and you can claim that creation is an intelligent and sentient process and insert God as the intelligent, sentient agent but all you have is three blind assumptions, each built upon the other, none of which fit with the evidence.

Oncedeceived said:

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

Click to expand...

Are you offering scripture as evidence of creationism?

Wow, I guess we are all mistake if evolution was to prevail.
I will go with common sense as proof of creationism

YoungJoonKim said:

Wow, I guess we are all mistake if evolution was to prevail.
I will go with common sense as proof of creationism

Click to expand...

How does one conclude that subscribing to an ancient tale about a completely unevidenced, non-physical, benevolent, ever-existing, entity whipping up life by his "spoken" word, and human life from dirt and his own breath, constitute "common sense"?

Human life is not demonstrably different than other animal life. Dirt is not a component of human flesh. Most of the world doesn't believe that the Christian God exists. How do you assert that believing in contrary to this is common sense?

Sorry, YoungJoonKin - was that a joke?

truthmonger89 said:

Hmm... I smell something fishy. The theory of creationism has been used as an explanation for the origin of life for approximately 2000 years, yet it has only been in the last 100 years approximately that we have begun to study and understand genetics. If genetics is the evidence for the theory of creationism, how did anybody form the theory of creationism in the first place when they weren't aware of any evidence for it? What did creationists use to validate their theory for the 1,900 years before they found any evidence for it? An a priori assumption?

Click to expand...

Excellent point.

When science refers to evidence, it usually means a specific specimen or record. The bones of a Tyrannosaurus Rex and the strata where it is found are evidence. The lack of buffalo bones in the same strata means that T. Rex and buffalo did not live at the same time. Fossils can take other forms, like footprints or imprints of leaves.

The strict Creationist believes that all species on earth today were there from the beginning when God created them. No new species can arise, in this view, the only species change is extinction. No evidence has been found for this view in any part of the world.

Vaguely referring to genetics is not evidence.

I can think of at least one part of genetics that does support the idea that mutations can lead to species change. All new mutations are recessive, for any mutation it takes another mutation to make it dominant. When a mutation is not helpful in adapting to the environment, it tends to be gradually eliminated before a second mutation creates a dominant version.

Beastt said:

You can call existence evidence of creation

Click to expand...

That is like saying the existance of an orange is not evidence that oranges exist. Do you have a car? Would you consider your car to be evidence for the fact that you have a car? Unless you get off into some sort of wierd philosophy where you question your existance and the existance of the world we live in. Then creation is just assumed to exist. Because there is nothing to be gained if you try and say the world around us does not exist.

But if you want to say that it is all a product of your imagination, then go for it.

Dale said:

The strict Creationist believes that all species on earth today were there from the beginning when God created them.

Click to expand...

What makes you think you know what creationism is and what creationist believe?

truthmonger89 said:

If genetics is the evidence for the theory of creationism, how did anybody form the theory of creationism in the first place when they weren't aware of any evidence for it?

Click to expand...

All of science is evidence for creation. As knowledge increases then we have more evidence.
We have a better understanding of how God created the world we live in.

From the very beginning God has kept truth seperated from error,
so that people do not have any confusion as to what is true and what is error.

If people want to reject God, that is their choice to make.
Of course there will be consequences for having made the choice to reject God.
The problem then, is when people are deceived into thinking that there will not be a price to pay for their rebellion against God.

JohnR7 said:

All of science is evidence for creation. As knowledge increases then we have more evidence.
We have a better understanding of how God created the world we live in.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you sure would think so if God had indeed created the world we live in. So why, pray tell, haven't scientists discovered by now that the Christian god created the world, if the evidence is everywhere out there and self-evident?

JohnR7 said:

That is like saying the existance of an orange is not evidence that oranges exist. Do you have a car? Would you consider your car to be evidence for the fact that you have a car? Unless you get off into some sort of wierd philosophy where you question your existance and the existance of the world we live in. Then creation is just assumed to exist. Because there is nothing to be gained if you try and say the world around us does not exist.

But if you want to say that it is all a product of your imagination, then go for it.

Click to expand...

Your analogies are missing something. There is a difference between something existing and something being created. Just because something exists doesn't necessarily mean it was created. Various forces and properties may have come together resulting in a transformation of existing components, but that's not creation, it's transformation.

You're overlooking something here. This goes back to a question I asked earlier; "Have you ever witnessed the creation of anything? Or have you only witnessed transformations?"

An orange isn't created. All of the matter in an orange has existed for as long as the Earth has existed and well beyond. My car was transformed from raw materials, not created. Even your body is made up of components which have existed for as long as the matter of the universe has existed. And we have no real reason to believe that the basic components from which the universe is composed have been in existence for other than eternity.

In insisting that because the universe exists it must have been created you're assuming nothingness as the most likely default state. But since we have never known of, and cannot conceive of a true state of nothingness, this seems highly contrary to logic. The universe might well have always existed in one form or another. There is nothing to indicate that it was created aside from ancient documents written well after the Earth formed. And if you wish to fall back on that, then you must concede that the Qur'an also lays claim to knowing of the creation of the universe but attributes that event to Allah, not the Christian God. There are many books, all of which were written by men, with unverifiable claims to have access to one "creator" or another. But while insisting they have an inside line concerning creation, none can demonstrate that supposed knowledge. In fact, most demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding concerning how the transformations in the universe took place.

Both of these assertions seem to arise from the assumption that there was a "time", (for lack of a better word), when the universe didn't exist at all. And that seems a very unlikely situation indeed.

JohnR7 said:

All of science is evidence for creation. As knowledge increases then we have more evidence.
We have a better understanding of how God created the world we live in.

Click to expand...

Tell me what scientific theory addresses the actual creation of matter from nothing. What mechanism converts nothingness into matter?

JohnR7 said:

From the very beginning God has kept truth seperated from error, so that people do not have any confusion as to what is true and what is error.

Click to expand...

Yet those subscribing to beliefs in various gods and even those subscribing to the Christian God are unable to agree.

JohnR7 said:

If people want to reject God, that is their choice to make.

Click to expand...

Atheists do not reject God anymore than you reject Leprechauns, fairies and gnomes. We simply don't see any evidence to suggest that any of these supposed entities exist.

JohnR7 said:

Of course there will be consequences for having made the choice to reject God.

Click to expand...

The atheists need not worry about these supposed consequences because we don't reject God. In order to reject something you must first be aware of evidene that it exists. There is no credible evidence of the existence of God.

JohnR7 said:

The problem then, is when people are deceived into thinking that there will not be a price to pay for their rebellion against God.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps, the problem is when they are deceived into thinking that God exists, and that they must do the will of other men in order to escape the wrath of that supposed God.

Beastt said:

Are you offering scripture as evidence of creationism?

Click to expand...

So, I'm asking creationists to stop debunking evolution for a moment and explain to me why the theory of creationism works. Walk me through it step by step in layman's terms, explaining what the evidence is and how it fits together to form a comprehensive explanation of an omnipotent being creating everything.

Click to expand...

The OP wanted a step by step explanation of Creation and what evidence was there to support it. I was giving the Scripture and what I felt supported it.

Oncedeceived said:

The OP wanted a step by step explanation of Creation and what evidence was there to support it. I was giving the Scripture and what I felt supported it.

Click to expand...

All you do is take parts of scripture and interpret them in a way that seemingly correlates with modern science. Unless there is a verse in Genesis along the lines of "In the beginning, there was a superhot quasi-fluid quark-gluon plasma.", I don't see your evidence.

Chalnoth said:

So why, pray tell, haven't scientists discovered by now that the Christian god created the world, if the evidence is everywhere out there and self-evident?

Click to expand...

They have discovered evidence. DNA is evidence for a Creator and Creation. DNA we are told is the langage of God. It is the language God uses to create with.

Beastt said:

Tell me what scientific theory addresses the actual creation of matter from nothing. What mechanism converts nothingness into matter?

Click to expand...

What is this theory of "matter" from "nothing". Where does that theory come from? As a GAP I have not heard of this "nothing" theory.

Yet those subscribing to beliefs in various gods and even those subscribing to the Christian God are unable to agree.

Click to expand...

So your arguement is that people do not agree so that means there is no God?

I say just the opposite. People do not agree so it is clear that there is a God. When they do not agree, then it is clear who is and who is not approved by God.

1 Cor. 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

There is no credible evidence of the existence of God.

Click to expand...

That is sort of like saying there is no evidence for a brick wall, until you walk into that wall.
At that point you will have discovered all of the evidence that you will ever need.

Luke 8:25b He commands even the winds and water, and they obey Him!"

JohnR7 said:

They have discovered evidence. DNA is evidence for a Creator and Creation. DNA we are told is the langage of God. It is the language God uses to create with.

Click to expand...

"God's language" is a metaphor. It has nothing to do with the meaning you associate with it.

MrGoodBytes said:

"God's language" is a metaphor. It has nothing to do with the meaning you associate with it.

Click to expand...

So does that mean that evoluton is a metaphor. So there is no meaning to it and no association between evolution and genetics?