What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[crjmurray]

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.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Chicken Little]

Thanks for playing.

I mean really how can a christian
scientists look at the MTdna charts and not question it ? ( especially the old one, there is a new chart , just recently that only farts with one mtdna line just for giggles and revenge I suppose ) ;P
because if there is a christian in that field , really they don't believe the Bible or they don't want to fight about it. because it is obvious or it was for 10 or more years. .
I understand the second one. but it is sad.

 

[Xalith]

1). The fact that "the simple cell" is far too complicated, has too many parts that must work in tandem or the whole thing falls apart, means that SOMETHING had to have made it whole in the first place.

2). DNA is an information structure (and it is a binary one at that). Information does not happen without intelligence. Where'd the intelligence come from, before Man came about?

3). The Bible cannot be proven wrong (trust me, people tried and failed) on any point whatsoever. This includes 6-day creation.

4). You can't prove 6-day creation right either, because 1). nobody was there to observe it (except God Himself), 2). It is not reproduceable.

5). The Ecosystem is a very diverse puzzle that requires multiple parts to function simultaneously to work. For example, plants produce o2 and use co2 and the animals use o2 and give off co2. Take either out of the equation and the whole thing dies eventually. Also, many plants rely upon insects to pollinate, but yet the insects need the food from the plants. If either did not exist, the whole thing falls apart.

6). The Bible predicts some scientific truths that could not have been known when it was written (if it were known, others would have written of it too), unless the Bible is exactly what it claims to be -- inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by men. So if the Bible is what it claims it is... and it was true there... then would the Creation account not be true as well?

7). Evolution cannot be possible. Take a look at the many bird species. Each species of bird needs ALL of its parts simultaneously to survive and function. The bird just didn't "decide" to grow these parts over time. Take away any of the bird's unique features and the thing dies.

I could go on but I'll stop at that.

 

[crjmurray]

I mean really how can a christian
scientists look at the MTdna charts and not question it ? ( especially the old one, there is a new chart , just recently that only farts with one mtdna line just for giggles and revenge I suppose ) ;P
because if there is a christian in that field , really they don't believe the Bible or they don't want to fight about it. because it is obvious or it was for 10 or more years. .
I understand the second one. but it is sad.

You can read the title and the OP right? Do you understand what this thread is about?

 

[crjmurray]

1). The fact that "the simple cell" is far too complicated, has too many parts that must work in tandem or the whole thing falls apart, means that SOMETHING had to have made it whole in the first place.

2). DNA is an information structure (and it is a binary one at that). Information does not happen without intelligence. Where'd the intelligence come from, before Man came about?

3). The Bible cannot be proven wrong (trust me, people tried and failed) on any point whatsoever. This includes 6-day creation.

4). You can't prove 6-day creation right either, because 1). nobody was there to observe it (except God Himself), 2). It is not reproduceable.

5). The Ecosystem is a very diverse puzzle that requires multiple parts to function simultaneously to work. For example, plants produce o2 and use co2 and the animals use o2 and give off co2. Take either out of the equation and the whole thing dies eventually. Also, many plants rely upon insects to pollinate, but yet the insects need the food from the plants. If either did not exist, the whole thing falls apart.

6). The Bible predicts some scientific truths that could not have been known when it was written (if it were known, others would have written of it too), unless the Bible is exactly what it claims to be -- inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by men. So if the Bible is what it claims it is... and it was true there... then would the Creation account not be true as well?

7). Evolution cannot be possible. Take a look at the many bird species. Each species of bird needs ALL of its parts simultaneously to survive and function. The bird just didn't "decide" to grow these parts over time. Take away any of the bird's unique features and the thing dies.

I could go on but I'll stop at that.

1. Argument from incredulity.

2. Assertion.

3. Silly.

4. So you admit you have no evidence?

5. Argument from ignorance. Not ignorance on the part of science, just on you.

6. Another assertion.

7. Not the topic of the thread.

Evidence for creationism. Let's try that.

 

[Leslie B]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

The positive evidence of creationism is....creation. It's very simple.

 

[Leslie B]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things unseen.

The bible says that no man is with an excuse if he claims he never knew God existed because the Lord gave creation as a testimony of his power and existence.

Wake up!

 

[AV1611VET]

It's very simple.

That's their problem.

God flies under their radar.

 

[Xalith]

1. Argument from incredulity.

Really? Howso? You have evidence to the contrary?

2. Assertion.

It is a fact that DNA is an information structure. That's fact. It contains information that tells the cells what to do, it is structured information, and it is ordered in a binary structure. That doesn't happen by accident.

3. Silly.

Really, now? So we're resorting to childish words instead of actually trying to refute a point?

4. So you admit you have no evidence?

I'm saying that Creation is outside of the scope of Science because true science is science you can observe, reproduce, and prove. If you can't do either of those 3, then what you're really doing, is a bunch of conjecture.

Therefore, no form of Creation (6-day or 'accidental came from nothing' or whatever you believe) cannot be determined or proved by REAL science. All you can do is "make guesses". Or, you know, believe the One who Would know and what He tells you. *shrugs*

5. Argument from ignorance. Not ignorance on the part of science, just on you.

Ahh, I see, the Ad Hominem attack. Attack the person making the argument, while ignoring the argument itself.

6. Another assertion.

"I can't prove what he's saying wrong... I know, what I'll do is call it 'Assertion'..."

7. Not the topic of the thread.

If the Ecosystem did not happen by Evolution (it couldn't have given what we know of life itself), then how exactly did it otherwise happen?

Evidence for creationism. Let's try that.

Why, so you can continue to use childish simple words, ignore what is said, and attack the person saying it?

EDIT: Why don't we just get down to the simple meat of the problem: You don't want to believe in God so you do everything you possibly can to attempt to disprove His existence, because admitting God exists would be to admit what He says is true, which would be to admit that you were wrong.

 

[crjmurray]

EDIT: Why don't we just get down to the simple meat of the problem: You don't want to believe in God so you do everything you possibly can to attempt to disprove His existence, because admitting God exists would be to admit what He says is true, which would be to admit that you were wrong.

Oh guess what? Looks like I believe in God. So let's try that evidence for creationism thing again.

 

[Xalith]

Oh guess what? Looks like I believe in God. So let's try that evidence for creationism thing again.

So.. if you believe in God (I'm sorry I mistook you for one of the Atheists in the thread, my apologies) ... but yet you don't believe in what He said?

I'm just trying to understand your beliefs here.

 

[crjmurray]

So.. if you believe in God (I'm sorry I mistook you for one of the Atheists in the thread, my apologies) ... but yet you don't believe in what He said?

I'm just trying to understand your beliefs here.

No need to understand anyone's beliefs. This is a thread for providing evidence in support of creationism.

 

[Xalith]

No need to understand anyone's beliefs. This is a thread for providing evidence in support of creationism.

... which I did, and a lot of my points you either vehemently shot down without actually arguing them, or attacked me while ignoring the posts, etc. I'm just trying to understand why you're doing that.

If you were an atheist (hence my earlier response to you), then that'd at least make some sense (no offense to atheists meant).

 

[crjmurray]

... which I did, and a lot of my points you either vehemently shot down without actually arguing them, or attacked me while ignoring the posts, etc. I'm just trying to understand why you're doing that.

If you were an atheist (hence my earlier response to you), then that'd at least make some sense (no offense to atheists meant).

You didn't provide any evidence for creationism. Hence the continued request for evidence....

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The positive evidence of creationism is....creation. It's very simple.

How does this argue FOR creation and not equally or more FOR the world and life forming through natural means without the involvement of a supernatural being?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Thank you for posting your evidence. I'll discuss your points

1). The fact that "the simple cell" is far too complicated, has too many parts that must work in tandem or the whole thing falls apart, means that SOMETHING had to have made it whole in the first place.

If the first life form was a cell that suddenly appeared without any prior history of (e.g.) evolving molecules, then your argument would count against natural abiogenesis. However, all theories of abiogenesis (and potentially other theories that we haven't thought of) that I know of posit that the earliest form of life were self-replicating molecules that existed without a cell. Hence, your argument doesn't apply to those theories, let alone argue FOR creation.

2). DNA is an information structure (and it is a binary one at that). Information does not happen without intelligence. Where'd the intelligence come from, before Man came about?

That information can arise without intelligence can be demonstrated by evolution, either natural or synthetic. Whether or not we have evidence of or consistent models of abiogenesis, we have a lot of evidence for evolution and can see in the genetic record that additional information can be acquired over time. Without any need for intelligence. Hence, a claim that information cannot arise without intelligence does not match the evidence.

And again, this is evidence AGAINST evolution, not FOR creation.

3). The Bible cannot be proven wrong (trust me, people tried and failed) on any point whatsoever. This includes 6-day creation.

Geological evidence etc. shows that the earth is far older than suggested by a literal reading of the Bible. The Bible has a number of contradictions in it http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html, and where there is a contradiction, both versions can't be true. The Bible also claims a worldwide flood, which does not fit the evidence we see. And The Bible claims that all organisms appeared at once, while the fossil record shows that organisms appeared in a steady progression, simple to more advanced, over eons. The argument forcreation by Bible infallibility doesn't hold, because we have strong evidence that the Bible is false in at least some aspects. Many Christians believe that The Bible should not always be taken literally, but that much of it is allegory. Quite often for creation.

4). You can't prove 6-day creation right either, because 1). nobody was there to observe it (except God Himself), 2). It is not reproduceable.

Nobody can prove anything, the whole point of science and evidence is to find the most likely hypothesis. Six day creation is a theory that makes predictions, i.e. that all animals and plants appeared at the same time. The evidence we have, e.g. the fossil record, shows that animals and plants didn't appear at the same time. If creation had happened, it would have left evidence of its consequences (unless you posit a God who deliberately seeded the earth with evidence that it arose by natural means ... for some reason) behind, and it could be observed in that way. In the same way that slow geological processes can be observed by the evidence that they leave behind.

But, this isn't on topic of the thread, i.e. this isn't evidence FOR creation.

5). The Ecosystem is a very diverse puzzle that requires multiple parts to function simultaneously to work. For example, plants produce o2 and use co2 and the animals use o2 and give off co2. Take either out of the equation and the whole thing dies eventually. Also, many plants rely upon insects to pollinate, but yet the insects need the food from the plants. If either did not exist, the whole thing falls apart.

No theory of natural abiogenesis suggests that anything like the current complex ecosystem emerged at once. And hence your argument doesn't argue against current theories of natural abiogenesis, let alone all possible theories of natural abiogenesis. It doesn't argue FOR creation at all, unless you can give evidence that the current complicated ecosystem arrived at once. As an example, cyanobacteria (very far from the start of life according to all theories of natural abiogenesis) don't need any of these cycles to occur, don't need help with reproduction, etc. (And it's theorised that it was cyanobacteria that first created an oxygen rich earth as the cyanobacteria produced oxygen, and there was not yet anything to consume it).

6). The Bible predicts some scientific truths that could not have been known when it was written (if it were known, others would have written of it too), unless the Bible is exactly what it claims to be -- inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by men. So if the Bible is what it claims it is... and it was true there... then would the Creation account not be true as well?

Evidence for God and evidence that The Bible is the true word of God would be evidence for creation. However, when I go and check claims of scientific truths in the Bible, they are all very highly dependent on interpretation, and could just as easily be interpreted as scientific mistruths. E.g. the following site: https://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

As an example:

7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."

Saying that the morning stars 'sang together' seems to be a bit of a loose fit with the emission of radio waves at a single pitch. The statement fits better to a claim that it's said that the stars produced audio which was a recognisable melody, and different stars harmonised. Clearly they don't. Going through the evidence, we have ambiguous statements that are interpreted to be scientific truths when they could equally be interpreted as other things. We don't find a statement such as 'And lo the Lord spoketh until Moses and told him that the unit of inheritance in cells is deoxyribonucleic acid and the Lord commandeth the DNA to form a double helix structure, and the Lord saw that it was good.'

To show scientific accuracy of the Bible we need statements that are unambigiously expressing scientific truths that couldn't have been known at the time. E.g. for one that could easily have been known at the time by mankind:

11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

If someone cuts themselves and all their blood drains out, they die. That blood has a role in life and is needed for it is not some deep scientific insight that people in 3000BC couldn't have known.

And so on for the other examples.

7). Evolution cannot be possible. Take a look at the many bird species. Each species of bird needs ALL of its parts simultaneously to survive and function. The bird just didn't "decide" to grow these parts over time. Take away any of the bird's unique features and the thing dies.

This is an argument AGAINST evolution, not FOR creationism.

And even then it's wrong. If we took the crest away from a cockateil, why would it not be able to survive and function? If we took the impressive tail away from a peacock, would it not be able to survive? If we took the colour away from a budgie, would it not be able to survive?

And what's all this 'taking away from'. How has that got anything to do with evolution, where traits develop, or atrophy due to natural selection and other processes?

... which I did, and a lot of my points you either vehemently shot down without actually arguing them, or attacked me while ignoring the posts, etc. I'm just trying to understand why you're doing that.

That is how evidence works. If someone proposes evidence, it needs to be considered very carefully to see if it is true, and if it supports the claims that it is claimed to. Only the evidence that can pass this process is used to support the theories that form part of the scientific consensus about things.

If you were an atheist (hence my earlier response to you), then that'd at least make some sense (no offense to atheists meant).

To me that looks like a compliment to atheists. That we do not accept evidence uncritically, but examine it carefully and evaluate its reliability and that it does support the argument that it is claimed to support.

Also, please note that I believe that I have given proper thought and consideration to your claims, have done additional research myself, and have not just dismissed them out of hand but explained why I feel they should be dismissed.

 

[AV1611VET]

How does this argue FOR creation and not equally or more FOR the world and life forming through natural means without the involvement of a supernatural being?

No missing links.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No missing links.

Claims of missing links is an argument AGAINST evolution, it does not argue FOR creation.

If you want to argue that 'missing links' argue against evolution, please start a thread on that topic.

 

[crjmurray]

Thank you for posting your evidence. I'll discuss your points



If the first life form was a cell that suddenly appeared without any prior history of (e.g.) evolving molecules, then your argument would count against natural abiogenesis. However, all theories of abiogenesis (and potentially other theories that we haven't thought of) that I know of posit that the earliest form of life were self-replicating molecules that existed without a cell. Hence, your argument doesn't apply to those theories, let alone argue FOR creation.



That information can arise without intelligence can be demonstrated by evolution, either natural or synthetic. Whether or not we have evidence of or consistent models of abiogenesis, we have a lot of evidence for evolution and can see in the genetic record that additional information can be acquired over time. Without any need for intelligence. Hence, a claim that information cannot arise without intelligence does not match the evidence.

And again, this is evidence AGAINST evolution, not FOR creation.



Geological evidence etc. shows that the earth is far older than suggested by a literal reading of the Bible. The Bible has a number of contradictions in it http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html, and where there is a contradiction, both versions can't be true. The Bible also claims a worldwide flood, which does not fit the evidence we see. And The Bible claims that all organisms appeared at once, while the fossil record shows that organisms appeared in a steady progression, simple to more advanced, over eons. The argument forcreation by Bible infallibility doesn't hold, because we have strong evidence that the Bible is false in at least some aspects. Many Christians believe that The Bible should not always be taken literally, but that much of it is allegory. Quite often for creation.



Nobody can prove anything, the whole point of science and evidence is to find the most likely hypothesis. Six day creation is a theory that makes predictions, i.e. that all animals and plants appeared at the same time. The evidence we have, e.g. the fossil record, shows that animals and plants didn't appear at the same time. If creation had happened, it would have left evidence of its consequences (unless you posit a God who deliberately seeded the earth with evidence that it arose by natural means ... for some reason) behind, and it could be observed in that way. In the same way that slow geological processes can be observed by the evidence that they leave behind.

But, this isn't on topic of the thread, i.e. this isn't evidence FOR creation.



No theory of natural abiogenesis suggests that anything like the current complex ecosystem emerged at once. And hence your argument doesn't argue against current theories of natural abiogenesis, let alone all possible theories of natural abiogenesis. It doesn't argue FOR creation at all, unless you can give evidence that the current complicated ecosystem arrived at once. As an example, cyanobacteria (very far from the start of life according to all theories of natural abiogenesis) don't need any of these cycles to occur, don't need help with reproduction, etc. (And it's theorised that it was cyanobacteria that first created an oxygen rich earth as the cyanobacteria produced oxygen, and there was not yet anything to consume it).



Evidence for God and evidence that The Bible is the true word of God would be evidence for creation. However, when I go and check claims of scientific truths in the Bible, they are all very highly dependent on interpretation, and could just as easily be interpreted as scientific mistruths. E.g. the following site: https://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

As an example:



Saying that the morning stars 'sang together' seems to be a bit of a loose fit with the emission of radio waves at a single pitch. The statement fits better to a claim that it's said that the stars produced audio which was a recognisable melody, and different stars harmonised. Clearly they don't. Going through the evidence, we have ambiguous statements that are interpreted to be scientific truths when they could equally be interpreted as other things. We don't find a statement such as 'And lo the Lord spoketh until Moses and told him that the unit of inheritance in cells is deoxyribonucleic acid and the Lord commandeth the DNA to form a double helix structure, and the Lord saw that it was good.'

To show scientific accuracy of the Bible we need statements that are unambigiously expressing scientific truths that couldn't have been known at the time. E.g. for one that could easily have been known at the time by mankind:



If someone cuts themselves and all their blood drains out, they die. That blood has a role in life and is needed for it is not some deep scientific insight that people in 3000BC couldn't have known.

And so on for the other examples.



This is an argument AGAINST evolution, not FOR creationism.

And even then it's wrong. If we took the crest away from a cockateal, why would it not be able to survive and function? If we took the impressive tail away from a peacock, would it not be able to survive? If we took the colour away from a budgie, would it not be able to survive?

And what's all this 'taking away from'. How has that got anything to do with evolution, where traits develop, or atrophy due to natural selection and other processes?



That is how evidence works. If someone proposes evidence, it needs to be considered very carefully to see if it is true, and if it supports the claims that it is claimed to. Only the evidence that can pass this process is used to support the theories that form part of the scientific consensus about things.



To me that looks like a compliment to atheists. That we do not accept evidence uncritically, but examine it carefully and evaluate its reliability and that it does support the argument that it is claimed to support.

Also, please note that I believe that I have given proper thought and consideration to your claims, have done additional research myself, and have not just dismissed them out of hand but explained why I feel they should be dismissed.

Good job. You put thought and effort into a response. A response to someone that didn't understand the OP.

 

[AV1611VET]

Claims of missing links is an argument AGAINST evolution, it does not argue FOR creation.

If you want to argue that 'missing links' argue against evolution, please start a thread on that topic.

When God created the animals in Genesis 1, they did not come with missing links.

In fact, they were not physically linked in any way; which is what evolution teaches.

God put horses here and cows over there, and they were not joined by a common ancestor.

They were joined by a common creator.

Thus I submit that the evidence you're looking for is right under your feet -- the earth.

The whole universe speaks of instant creation.

Evolution tries to silence that voice by saying everyone (and everything) is related to everyone (and everything) else in some manner.

The atoms that make up this earth never got here from a central point in the universe 4.57 gigayears ago.

Earth and its components have never been outside of its orbital plane of existence -- except maybe when it rested in the hollow of God's hand.