What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

Do your parents (or upbringers) agree with that, or are they scared too?

Their views are their views and are not germane. It has been years since I have asked what your grandchildren believe, and I am not too sure they would tell you the truth if you asked.

 

[AV1611VET]

Their views are their views and are not germane.

Got it.

We're scared.

You aren't.

Your parents aren't germane.

(Actually, if you read what started this whole subdiscussion, you are the one who said it was "scary." Implying that you are the one who is scared -- not us.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got it.

We're scared.

You aren't.

Your parents aren't germane.

(Actually, if you read what started this whole subdiscussion, you are the one who said it was "scary." Implying that you are the one who is scared -- not us.)

Some of you are scared. I did not say that all of you were. My parents are happy in their beliefs and are not pushing them on anyone else. That is why their beliefs do not matter. So how about your grandkids? Or are they not germane either?

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is that your so called "evidence" is not exclusive. The fossil record exclusively supports the theory of evolution. Creationists cannot come up with a consistent, non-contradictory, explanation of it.

You have no choice but shifting the goal. You asked: what is wrong with the evidence of fossils which supports evolution?

Is it proper to use this question as an argument of no evidence for creation?

Back to the goal of OP, could you tell me what do you expect to see so you would seriously consider the validity of creation? I think you could not.

In other words, you do not know what creation is, and yet you ask to see an evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no choice but shifting the goal. You asked: what is wrong with the evidence of fossils which supports evolution?

Is it proper to use this question as an argument of no evidence for creation?

Back to the goal of OP, could you tell me what do you expect to see so you would seriously consider the validity of creation? I think you could not.

In other words, you do not know what creation is, and yet you ask to see an evidence.

How am I shifting the goal posts? I was merely trying to explain to you your flaws in your approach to this problem.

In answer to your question I would need to see some valid evidence that only supports creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

My parents are happy in their beliefs and are not pushing them on anyone else.

This is one confusing conversation.

So you're parents didn't "push their beliefs" on you?

And could you be more specific as to who is/are "scared"?

You or some others?

And if "some others," does that include you?

(Why don't I just bug out of this scientific discussion before I go 404?)

 

[crjmurray]

(Why don't I just bug out of this scientific discussion before I go 404?)

Oh, thank you.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You asked for "evidence". In fact, you are asking "understandable evidence" which depends on your ability of understanding.

If so, there may be many "evidences" that you do not understand. So you can not say there is no evidence to support Creationism.

This is the nature of so-called evidence. So, use this word in your argument carefully.

As for the sea water on the earth, it is one of the strong evidence which convinced me the validity of Creationism. It took me a few decades to understand it. It is much more than just another conversation piece.

OK. But first we need to make sure where is the goal.
Creationism is: things are created.
What kind of evidence would support that?

So, there is a thing. We would trace it back to find its origin.
If we found an explainable origin, then it is not created.
But if we found no such origin, could we say it was created?

If not, then what do you expect to see in order to take is as an evidence of creation?
Do you expect to see something like a dove was created in the hand of a magician? Even you are convinced that is true creation, how about people who were not in the theater? How do you present any evidence to them? You would show the dove. Is the dove an evidence, or a proof of the creation?

God created the seawater of the earth when you were not there. Now, you see the water, and you ask: where is the evidence of creation? I said the seawater itself is an evidence. I did not say the existence of seawater is a proof. So, how do you expect me to continue the argument? I certainly can not ask God do it again.

If you can not pass this hurdle of finding what kind of evidence you expect to see, then making any further argument is simply a waste of time.

To give you a contrast: I know exactly what evidence I want to see on the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, no one can show me what I want to see.

You say that God created the seawater of the earth, and that therefore it is evidence of creation. However, if the earth had not been created but had arisen by natural processes, then we would also see seawater. If the earth had been created by an advanced alien intelligence (not a God), then we would see seawater.

In all reasonable theories of how the earth came to be, we expect to find seawater. Since the existence of seawater does not distinguish between these theories, it is not evidence for any of them in particular.

That's why I have been asking for specific evidence for creation. I.e. evidence that specifically supports theistic creation, but does not support any other theory. (Or at least supports creation much more strongly than it does other theories). I.e. something that simply doesn't make sense for any other theory other than creation.

Seawater doesn't work, because seawater is entirely consistent with non-theistic creation, or with the earth being created through natural processes without the presence of an intelligent creator. We need evidence that specifically supports creation.

 

[Chicken Little]

the whole question is a bad joke.
first you set yourself up as the peer.. of my veiw.
and your not judge or jury of anyones but your own veiw.
so stay out my veiw.
if you think scientist will every ask a true question that proves creation happened your lying only to yourself.
so of course there is NO peerer veiwed "Proof of creation " but you fellows aren't the peer and neither are they. and everyone else who bother to ask the right questions come to the right conclusions from their view. which only proves we are all standing indifferent spaces.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

the whole question is a bad joke.
first you set yourself up as the peer.. of my veiw.
and your not judge or jury of anyones but your own veiw.
so stay out my veiw.
if you think scientist will every ask a true question that proves creation happened your lying only to yourself.
so of course there is peerer veiwed Proof but you fellows aren't the peer and neither are they.

If the evidence can be provided, my opinion is meaningless. I have given reasons why the evidences provided so far do support creation. If you disagree with my reasoning about any particular piece of evidence, please say why. That is how discussion proceeds.

 

[Chicken Little]

you don't have evidence you have veiws and putty. and a lot of ice.
why ice ? they like Ice but they hate water , it is their view.

 

[juvenissun]

You say that God created the seawater of the earth, and that therefore it is evidence of creation. However, if the earth had not been created but had arisen by natural processes, then we would also see seawater. If the earth had been created by an advanced alien intelligence (not a God), then we would see seawater.

That's why I have been asking for specific evidence for creation. I.e. evidence that specifically supports theistic creation, but does not support any other theory. (Or at least supports creation much more strongly than it does other theories). I.e. something that simply doesn't make sense for any other theory other than creation.

Alien "created" the amount of seawater is still a creation. So, is the possibility of alien existence a good evidence of creation? Do we have some evidences of alien existence? If we do, would you take it as an evidence of creation?

"Natural processes" and "other theories" are proven not able to give such amount of seawater to the earth.

What other type of evidences of creation you can think of? I am not asking you for the evidence. I am asking you for the type of evidence you like to see. If you can say it, then it would be my part to find it for you.

 

[juvenissun]

How am I shifting the goal posts? I was merely trying to explain to you your flaws in your approach to this problem.

Admit it. It is easy to see:

The goal was: Provide evidence of creation.
You shifted it to: Prove fossils are not evidences of evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

Admit it. It is easy to see:

The goal was: Provide evidence of creation.
You shifted it to: Prove fossils are not evidences of evolution.

Actually, he asked how the fossil record supports creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Admit it. It is easy to see:

The goal was: Provide evidence of creation.
You shifted it to: Prove fossils are not evidences of evolution.

Wrong. Your side has been unable to come up with any evidence that supports only creationism. To illustrate your flaw I gave an example, I gave an example of how the fossil evidence only supports the theory of evolution. I could have given an example of how the precession of Mercury supports only the theory of relativity.

So once again, what evidence do you have that is exclusive to creationism only. I hope you understand your error now. Giving you an example of evidence that is exclusive to only one side of an argument is not even close to moving the goalposts. If you are going to copy the phrase that someone else uses the least you can do is to understand the correct way to use that phrase.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Alien "created" the amount of seawater is still a creation. So, is the possibility of alien existence a good evidence of creation? Do we have some evidences of alien existence? If we do, would you take it as an evidence of creation?

"Natural processes" and "other theories" are proven not able to give such amount of seawater to the earth.

How have they been proven to not be able to give sufficient seawater to the earth? By whom, and where has the research been published?

What other type of evidences of creation you can think of? I am not asking you for the evidence. I am asking you for the type of evidence you like to see. If you can say it, then it would be my part to find it for you.

As I mentioned, evidence that all animals and plants appeared at once would be evidence of creation.

The word of the Creator written in our DNA would be evidence of creation.

There is no need for the evidence to fit my preconceptions, just that it be strong objective evidence that positively supports creation. What have you got? So far it seems to be 'seawater'.

 

[juvenissun]

As I mentioned, evidence that all animals and plants appeared at once would be evidence of creation.

The word of the Creator written in our DNA would be evidence of creation.

God creates everything in a timely sequence, not all at once. May be the correct sequence is an evidence? If it is, then you already have it.

I don't understand the DNA request. What is the word or no word in our DNA?

 

[stray bullet]

This topic demonstrates the point set out by the OP - there is no evidence for creationism.
We have seen the following arguments:
"Because the bible says so"
"Because we weren't there and can't know"
"Because I don't understand this about evolution"

The first argument is silly because it assumes you must take the bible "literally" and yet I can find many passages that the person will deny need to be taken literally. This is the sole reason people believe in creationism. There is no evidence for it.

The second argument is silly because we deduce things all the time to determine what happened. Accidents occur, discoveries are made, people are convicted based on the evidence in the present that shows what happened in the past. We correct things, put people in jail, and learn about ourselves based on what exists in the present without observing the past.

The third, and most common argument, is the worst of all, because it goes against logic. Imagine three roommates leave together and come home at the same time to find a lamp broken. The first roommate is a creationist and says that God, using purely supernatural means, took the lamp off the table and smashed it on the floor. The second roommate asks what evidence is there, and the first says in the absence of people, God must have done it. The second points out that the dog could have knocked it over. The first says the dog was not able to get into the room with the door closed, therefore God did it. The third roommate points out the cat was home because there is a fresh poop in the litter box. He points out the cat could have easily gotten on the table and knocked off the lamp. The first roommate says that no one was there and so there is no way of knowing whether or not the cat did it. Therefore, his belief that God supernaturally destroyed the lamp is as valid as the belief the cat did it.

The roommates spend the afternoon gathering evidence for what happened. Roommate 1 refuses to give any reason for believing God did it. He simply pokes holes in other people's arguments and actually presents that as evidence of his absurd belief.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

God creates everything in a timely sequence, not all at once. May be the correct sequence is an evidence? If it is, then you already have it.

How would you define 'the correct sequence'. What we see in the fossil record is a sequence of life appearing that is completely compatible with evolution. So, not evidence specificially for creation.

I don't understand the DNA request. What is the word or no word in our DNA?

See above for the experiment I did looking for text from The Bible in human DNA.

you don't have evidence you have veiws and putty. and a lot of ice.
why ice ? they like Ice but they hate water , it is their view.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm not sure the OP is really understanding the philosophy of religion and thus creation. The positive evidence of creation is the universe itself (which would include both the natural and the supernatural in a religious world-view) It cannot be proved scientifically because the laws of science are also part of the created order and cannot prove their own origins. It cannot prove or disprove evolution either. Creation just is. Examination of the creation only proves what is already there, but cannot prove any further than that. Even the observations which lead to various theories about universal origins still won't be anywhere near the ballpark for proving or disproving creation- as the theories themselves still only deal with what is there and perhaps its history.

Waste of time.