What is the evidence for creationism?

[AV1611VET]

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.

IOW, no evidence exists, right? And if no evidence exists, why would anyone even ask for evidence (especially repeatedly), if none exists?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Actually not. In the CWV it is within rationale that we can trust our reason.

If you can not trust your reasoning power then how do you expect me to accept your conclusions? If there really is no thing as truth or true or at least that we can not know it; then we are each in a world separate from one another and your view nor mine really means a thing.

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.

So you are resting on an a priori assumption without basis. You are in actuality saying that it works because it works and I don't have to give a reason why.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

I have seen magicians create pigeons ex nihilo on command. Surely God could do it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Exactly.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

I have seen magicians create pigeons ex nihilo on command. Surely God could do it.

No, you haven't --- not ex nihilo. The pigeons already exist and, like rabbits, are docile and don't move around when confined. That's why they're the animals of choice among magicians.

I'm talking a bona fide ex nihilo creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, Oncedeceived, I hope I didn't run everybody off.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you haven't --- not ex nihilo.

How do you know this? Why do you assume that it isn't ex nihilo?

The pigeons already exist and, like rabbits, are docile and don't move around when confined. That's why they're the animals of choice among magicians.

Watches already exist as well, and they are less docile than pigeons and rabbits.

I'm talking a bona fide ex nihilo creation.

So why rule out David Copperfield?

 

[Loudmouth]

IOW, no evidence exists, right?

Evidence of ex nihilo creation? no, it doesn't exist. So why would one conclude that it occurred?

And if no evidence exists, why would anyone even ask for evidence (especially repeatedly), if none exists?

If no evidence exists, why say it happened to begin with?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, Oncedeceived, I hope I didn't run everybody off.

No worries, they will return.

It wasn't you I am sure. Things come up. I really should be cleaning my kitchen but I keep coming back here instead. I like it so much better than cleaning my kitchen.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know this? Why do you assume that it isn't ex nihilo?

For two reasons:

1. You said he was a magician, not God.
2. Even so, God rested on the 7th day, meaning no more creation ex nihilo.

Watches already exist as well, and they are less docile than pigeons and rabbits.

But that has nothing to do with my scenario.

So why rule out David Copperfield?

He uses mirrors --- does answering my question come to mind at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence of ex nihilo creation? no, it doesn't exist. So why would one conclude that it occurred?



If no evidence exists, why say it happened to begin with?

Third time:

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's a pity you won't defend your signature --- even against a hypothetical.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Third time:

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?

Absolutely none whatsoever. So why create a pocketwatch in that fashion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolutely none whatsoever.

Why then the continual requests for evidence from us?

So why create a pocketwatch in that fashion?

So you can see that it's time to quit asking for evidence of the Creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Absolutely none whatsoever. So why create a pocketwatch in that fashion?

Nathan Poe,

What would you consider to be evidence for Creation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Rather what would you accept as evidence?

 

[SarcasmDispenser]

Why then the continual requests for evidence from us?

...

So you can see that it's time to quit asking for evidence of the Creation.

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

 

[Beastt]

Third time:

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's a pity you won't defend your signature --- even against a hypothetical.

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?

If all you want is something which resembles a pocket watch and functions as a time-piece, then there should be multiple points of evidence showing that it was not created by any known means. There would be no reason to have tool marks on any of the parts as would be found on a manufactured pocket watch. Since we're obviously insinuating something made by God, it should keep perfect time which is something no man-made pocket watch can do. There should be no imperfections in the parts, even when subjected to various methods of imaging which penetrate the surface of the parts.

On the other hand, if your intent was to completely fool anyone who examined the watch, then you could fake the tool marks, intentionally make the time-piece inaccurate to mimick the slight error in a man-made time piece and intentionally produce the imperfections one would find in the parts of any such man-made device.

So the question becomes, are you simply trying to create a working time piece or are you a trickster?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why then the continual requests for evidence from us?

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.

So you can see that it's time to quit asking for evidence of the Creation.

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

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan Poe,

What would you consider to be evidence for Creation?

If you're referring to Creationism, let's start with something supporting a young (6,000 y.o) Earth -- preferably something PRATT-less.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you're referring to Creationism, let's start with something supporting a young (6,000 y.o) Earth -- preferably something PRATT-less.

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.