What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[ChetSinger]

Again, arguing against natural abiogenesis. And repeating the argument that life must have emerged as we see it now, without having some pathway towards that. BTW: Do you know what a ribozyme is?

I said ribosome, not ribozyme.

Evidence against natural abiogenesis is ... evidence against natural abiogenesis. It doesn't support any other hypotheses unless there is only one possible other hypotheses. As well as theistic creation, we also have atheistic creation (e.g. advanced technical aliens) various versions of panspermia, and possibly other theories of how life started that we haven't thought of.

I think creation supersedes aliens and panspermia because while they move the problem into outer space, they don't solve it because physical laws seem to be the same out there. Creation moves the problem into a higher dimension.

 

[Loudmouth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact just the billions of Ooparts and unanswered questions alone should make one question all those screeching
'the undeniable facts of evilution' together with recorded history prove creation.

Which of those questions is answered by positive evidence for creationism?

Is the question in the opening post too hard for creationists to understand?

 

[Loudmouth]

I said ribosome, not ribozyme.

A ribosome is a type of ribozyme. Ribozymes are RNA molecules that have enzymatic properties.

I think creation supersedes aliens and panspermia because while they move the problem into outer space, they don't solve it because physical laws seem to be the same out there. Creation moves the problem into a higher dimension.

We are asking for positive objective evidence, not what you think.

 

[ChetSinger]

Are you suggesting that DNA repair mechanisms couldn't have evolved? That sounds like an argument from incredulity to me. You can't personally see how it would have evolved, so you assume it must have been designed. Here is a readable abstract (article behind paywall) which summarises some research looking at how DNA repair mechanisms could have evolved.

I'm saying they had to be there at DNA's origin, so that DNA could survive from generation to generation without major damage. Which would be expected as part of a well-engineered life form.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying they had to be there at DNA's origin, so that DNA could survive from generation to generation without major damage.

Where is the evidence to back what you say?

Which would be expected as part of a well-engineered life form.

What wouldn't we expect as part of a well-engineered life form?

 

[ChetSinger]

BTW: chance or engineering is a false dichotomy. Evolution through natural selection through eons of time is very, very, far from chance.

There is no evolution or natural selection unless something's already alive.

 

[crjmurray]

Boop

 

[Chicken Little]

Which of those questions is answered by positive evidence for creationism?

Is the question in the opening post too hard for creationists to understand?

yes or we just don't like your questions.

you have no positive proof for evilution either that you all have contrived out of pure ignorance of creation. .

 

[crjmurray]

yes or we just don't like your questions.

you have no positive proof for evilution either that you all have contrived out of pure ignorance of creation. .

Great we're ignorant. Nooooow, explain in detail what evidence we are ignorant of.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There is no evolution or natural selection unless something's already alive.

You were talking about DNA repair systems. These are the product of evolution.

I'm saying they had to be there at DNA's origin, so that DNA could survive from generation to generation without major damage. Which would be expected as part of a well-engineered life form.

Why would we expect early life to be a 'well-engineered life form'? All it has to do is survive.

Can we go back to the topic of asking if there is any positive objective evidence that specifically supports creationism?

 

[ChetSinger]

You were talking about DNA repair systems. These are the product of evolution.

And I think they preceded evolution because they were necessary at the origin of DNA. Ergo, they were designed in.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

And I think they preceded evolution because they were necessary at the origin of DNA. Ergo, they were designed in.

Do you have any evidence that DNA repair systems arose before the first replicating molecules? (Which might have not been DNA) If you don't then you haven't satisified the theme of this thread.

 

[ChetSinger]

Do you have any evidence that DNA repair systems arose before the first replicating molecules? (Which might have not been DNA) If you don't then you haven't satisified the theme of this thread.

Your term "first replicating molecules" is too vague for me to reply.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Your term "first replicating molecules" is too vague for me to reply.

It, in my opinion, describes what we know about the origin of life. We theorise that there must have been replicating molecules, but we don't know what they were. Since we don't know what they were, we can say very little about how they would have worked.

Now back to the topic on hand. Is there any positive objective evidence supporting creation?

BTW: As well as athestic creation and panspermia, it could be that life in the universe is one big time loop, with at one point in time a civilisation developed time travel, went back in time, and seeded life into a dead early universe. I think that's extremely unlikely, but personally find that more believeable a theory of how life started than literal Biblical creation.

 

[ChetSinger]

It, in my opinion, describes what we know about the origin of life. We theorise that there must have been replicating molecules, but we don't know what they were. Since we don't know what they were, we can say very little about how they would have worked.

Well, I can't reply regarding a molecule that you yourself say you know very little about.

BTW: As well as athestic creation and panspermia, it could be that life in the universe is one big time loop, with at one point in time a civilisation developed time travel, went back in time, and seeded life into a dead early universe. I think that's extremely unlikely, but personally find that more believeable a theory of how life started than literal Biblical creation.

OK, but that's a philosophical decision you make. The Biblical creation model says that we are the product of a higher-dimensional intelligence. I think that's more believable than a time paradox.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Well, I can't reply regarding a molecule that you yourself say you know very little about.

It's not just me. There is no scientific consensus concerning how life first emerged, due to lack of evidence.

OK, but that's a philosophical decision you make. The Biblical creation model says that we are the product of a higher-dimensional intelligence. I think that's more believable than a time paradox.

Which is fair enough.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes or we just don't like your questions.

you have no positive proof for evilution either that you all have contrived out of pure ignorance of creation. .

Once again, this thread is asking for positive evidence for creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evolution or natural selection unless something's already alive.

This thread isn't about evolution or natural selection. It is about positive evidence for creationism.

Do you think that scientists at a conference for evolution only talk about the absence of evidence for creationism? Do you think all of their presentations detail how creationists have not produced evidence for the production of a specific gene, and then conclude that in the absence of evidence for creationism, that it just had to evolve?

Can you find one scientist arguing for evolution that is solely using a negative argument like you are?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your term "first replicating molecules" is too vague for me to reply.

We could use your terms.

"And I think [DNA repair mechanisms] preceded evolution because they were necessary at the origin of DNA."--ChetSinger

What evidence do you have that:

1. they were created by a deity.

2. they were necessary for life.

 

[Chicken Little]

Once again, this thread is asking for positive evidence for creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with this thread.

that would be you assuming science in any form your or ours scientist grew something or at least a brain and finally ask the right questions. billions of OOparts are the best proof someone isn't asking the right questions to get the right answers because someone don't want the right answers.
in the mean time I ain't holding my breath.