Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I originally thought, and have written twice, that the OP was requesting the evidence for YEC only. Your post seems to be about the evidence that a god created the universe regardless of how that god performed the task.
I see no way that such evidence could be provided considering the possibility that a god could have initiated the Big Bang or even the multiverse from which the Big Bang initiated.
No verse to support your statement. Maybe you should change your name to justmakeitup.
Prosecuting attorney: In my closing argument I will present the only evidence that needs to be presented in the murder of Joan Smith. The evidence is the dead body. The dead body is the only logical evidence needed to convict John Smith. I ask the jury to find John Smith guilty.
If you were on that jury, would you be convinced?
It it astounding that after participating in this forum for the length of time you have been here, you really think Exhibit A is the only evidence used to support the theory of evolution.Exhibit A. I present to you bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches, moths becoming moths. In every observation, the basic life form stays the same even though there may be minor changes.
Exhibit B. The claim is made a life form (unknown) becomes both a pine tree and human through the same process as in exhibit A. Exhibit A produces no such new life forms in it's process, therefore the claim of exhibit B fails using Exhibit A as supporting evidence.
Exhibit A. I present to you bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches, moths becoming moths. In every observation, the basic life form stays the same even though there may be minor changes.
Exhibit B. The claim is made a life form (unknown) becomes both a pine tree and human through the same process as in exhibit A. Exhibit A produces no such new life forms in it's process, therefore the claim of exhibit B fails using Exhibit A as supporting evidence.
Good thing the theory of evolution doesn't.Exhibit D: Does not go against ANY Laws of science.
Exhibit D: Does not go against ANY Laws of science.
Ever since recorded history human beings have remained human beings (despite all the inhuman evil that many have done and are doing as we speak) and chimpanzees have remained chimpanzees. That is OBJECTIVE evidence. Bible history is also objective evidence, but not for those who prefer delusions.What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?
Ever since recorded history human beings have remained human beings (despite all the inhuman evil that many have done and are doing as we speak) and chimpanzees have remained chimpanzees. That is OBJECTIVE evidence. Bible history is also objective evidence, but not for those who prefer delusions.
Ever since recorded history human beings have remained human beings (despite all the inhuman evil that many have done and are doing as we speak) and chimpanzees have remained chimpanzees. That is OBJECTIVE evidence. Bible history is also objective evidence, but not for those who prefer delusions.
I doubt that.If a human suddenly gave birth to something not human or a chimpanzee gave birth to something that wasn't a chimpanzee, that would falsify the theory of evolution.
I doubt that.
They would probably rig a vote and say it was "punctuated equilibrium."
It it astounding that after participating in this forum for the length of time you have been here, you really think Exhibit A is the only evidence used to support the theory of evolution.
Besides, this thread is about evidence supporting Creationism. Got any?
Exhibit C: Comparative anatomy, embryology, the fossil record, DNA.
Good thing the theory of evolution doesn't.
Nothing you've mentioned offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for how (the process) all life we observe today was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.
You are correct. "Evolution" as Natural Selection does follow the Laws of science, it is testable and verifiable; however when you "extrapolate" it into crossing kinds and start saying we came from monkeys over billions and billions of years, which there is minimal evidence for that... if any. THAT goes against the II Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated systemGood thing the theory of evolution doesn't.
That is a matter of faith. As is your belief that you came from electrified mud and monkeys.Where did you show us evidence that any creature was created by a deity?
What about finding rabbits in the Precambrian?No, it would be falsified because evolution does not state or predict that this would happen.
You are correct. "Evolution" as Natural Selection does follow the Laws of science, it is testable and verifiable; however when you "extrapolate" it into crossing kinds and start saying we came from monkeys over billions and billions of years, which there is minimal evidence for that... if any. THAT goes against the II Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated systemto degenerate into a more disordered state.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?