What is the evidence for creationism?

[Oncedeceived]

If creation took a big hit (such as there is evidence of man from 20,000 years ago), then the “theory” based on the Biblical account is totally bankrupt and none of it is to be taken seriously.

That would only show that YEC is bankrupt in its formulation or interpretation. It could be a lack of understanding on the part of the one doing the interpreting or on the evidence that is used in determining it.

 

[MartinM]

Most certainly.

Then it can only be valid if reason itself is valid, and therefore can't be used to support the notion that reason is valid.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You can't assume that reason is valid in order to show why reason is valid.

Sorry but my quote button is not working.

Anyway, my point exactly.

 

[MartinM]

We all have the same “evidence” available to us. So, it’s a matter of how one interprets that evidence.

No, it isn't. The evidence base is not static. New data is coming in all the time, and no amount of interpretation will make a bad model give good predictions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived
Most certainly.

Then it can only be valid if reason itself is valid, and therefore can't be used to support the notion that reason is valid.

In the CWV reason is valid because there is truth and knowledge and it can be known to be. In a purely naturalistic worldview how do we know reason is valid or true?

 

[TeddyKGB]

We all have the same “evidence” available to us. So, it’s a matter of how one interprets that evidence.

Some interpretations are more reasonable than others.

Since one time events of history cannot be “proven” as a repeatable experiment, a certain amount of “faith” is involved on where that evidence leads. Like with the Grand Canyon, we all know the result of the canyons, but some may theorize is was carved by the river over millions of years, and others that it was a rapid catastrophic event soon after a global flood.

The Grand Canyon is far better explained by uniform processes than by a flood or its aftermath.

One may look at other geology and see different things depending on the lenses their looking thru. Before knowing all the facts you might tend to lean one way or the other, and in the process of uncovering certain evidences adjust your “faith” accordingly.
One might look at all the plants and animals that are on earth with all its complexity, beauty and harmony and start with the “faith’ that it was all created and part of some plan. Or, for some reason one might have “faith" that it all came about randomly.

One of those is not faith.

So I think theories start with some sort of opinion or “faith” about what the answer is, and then work backwards as to what you would expect to find if that were true. If you find things that “fit” with the theory (even thought it may not be the absolute truth) it helps bolster it. And, if things don’t “fit” then the theory is weakened.

That is in no uncertain terms NOT how the theory of evolution was developed.

Being wrong at a staggeringly fundamental level is not the best way to intelligently engage your opponents.

If I may speak for other creationist, I think for various reasons we were brought to the “faith” that we were created by a supreme being, and that the creator provided us with an account of how and when it was done. So we use that as our “theory” and work into the evidences from that framework. I think “naturalist” work in a similar manner.

You think wrong. And you also omit a huge swath of Christianity that does not accept your impossibly literalist interpretation of Genesis.

In summary, a theory (A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment) is not fact or it is no longer a theory.

That is not the proper scientific definition of 'theory.'

The Bible outlines the theory of creationism. Why it works is based on ones faith of the evidence (and how it’s viewed) that tends to support it.

Creationists also must ignore evidence. In fact, creationists ignore far more evidence than they use.

The thing about the two versions of origins is this:

• Evolution can take a big hit and the theory is adjusted and it keeps on ticking.

It depends on where the hit occurs. Common descent would be devastated by the discovery of a rabbit in Jurassic strata, for example.

A naturalist has to have “faith” that life came from non-life. If there’s no way for that to happen, then it shouldn’t be taken seriously.

When was it decided that there is no way for that to happen?

 

[keyarch]

No, it isn't. The evidence base is not static. New data is coming in all the time, and no amount of interpretation will make a bad model give good predictions.[/font]

1. I never said the evidence base is static, and that hardly seems relevant.
2. Your second comment sound pretty absolute. Are you sure?

 

[japhy]

If we take the creation story of Genesis literally, how do we explain the amazing complexities found inside organisms such as humans? Are you formed from clay or dirt? Just because when we decay we become like dirt does not mean that we are made of them. If God could have made creatures out of the clay of the ground, why not leave them that simple? Instead, we're complex, with nervous systems and organs and cells and DNA...

Our complexity speaks to the difficulty it takes for such an organism to exist, let alone survive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists also must ignore evidence. In fact, creationists ignore far more evidence than they use.

IMO, the evidence for creation is creation itself.

How does one produce evidence for something created ex nihilo?

 

[MartinM]

1. I never said the evidence base is static, and that hardly seems relevant.

Of course it's relevant. Science isn't all about coming up with a model that fits the existing data. That's just what you have to do to get in the door. A scientific model must make predictions about future data to be successful.

2. Your second comment sound pretty absolute. Are you sure?

Yes.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Anyway, my point exactly.

And Martin's point is that it is you who is trying to do just that.

 

[TeddyKGB]

IMO, the evidence for creation is creation itself.

Don't insult me, please. That isn't even decent rhetoric.

How does one produce evidence for something created ex nihilo?

You can start by showing that special creation is a better explanation for the diversity of life than is evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If we take the creation story of Genesis literally, how do we explain the amazing complexities found inside organisms such as humans? Are you formed from clay or dirt? Just because when we decay we become like dirt does not mean that we are made of them. If God could have made creatures out of the clay of the ground, why not leave them that simple? Instead, we're complex, with nervous systems and organs and cells and DNA...

Our complexity speaks to the difficulty it takes for such an organism to exist, let alone survive.

What is your alternative? That humans have evolved from non-living matter? In both cases complexity is solely a question of how. God making humans from clay or dirt is hardly different from the alternative in simple terms. It is far more complex than what you are stating concerning complexity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't insult me, please. That isn't even decent rhetoric.

You can start by showing that special creation is a better explanation for the diversity of life than is evolution.

Let's try this another way. If I create a pocketwatch ex nihilo into the palm of my hand, what evidence would exist that points to that watch being brought into existence in that fashion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And Martin's point is that it is you who is trying to do just that.

WE both are making that assumption and each is based on our worldview. I am claiming that reason to reason rests on the ability to do so with conviction and where that conviction is based.

 

[MartinM]

In the CWV reason is valid because there is truth and knowledge and it can be known to be. In a purely naturalistic worldview how do we know reason is valid or true?

We don't know. Indeed, we can't know, since reason is based upon axioms which, by definition, are impossible to prove. I submit that you're in the same position, however.

We assume that reason works for one very simple reason - it seems to work. We could be wrong, of course. Then again, I might just be a brain in a jar, imagining this whole world. In order to have a meaningful discussion with anyone, I have to assume that we exist in a shared reality, and I have to assume that it's possible to discuss that reality in a meaningful fashion.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Let's try this another way. If I create a pocketwatch ex nihilo into the palm of my hand, what evidence would exist that points to that watch being brought into existence in that fashion?

It depends. Could you create an identical pocketwatch while I observe? Could I film you creating a pocketwatch?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's try this another way. If I create a pocketwatch ex nihilo into the palm of my hand, what evidence would exist that points to that watch being brought into existence in that fashion?

If it was done under the right circumstances so that deception and prestidigitation (always wanted to use that word in this forum) could be ruled out and it was repeatable then you would have strong evidence that watches can be created ex nihilo. Otherwise, it is just an unevidenced claim.

 

[TeddyKGB]

WE both are making that assumption and each is based on our worldview. I am claiming that reason to reason rests on the ability to do so with conviction and where that conviction is based.

You are using reason to justify reason. You can cloak it in whatever flowery theology you like, but that's still what you're doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends. Could you create an identical pocketwatch while I observe? Could I film you creating a pocketwatch?

No --- to both questions.

But let's say I did create an identical watch, and you did film it --- big deal --- I asked for evidence for the first watch, not the second.