Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Subduction Zone]

Only to a point -- then your myopic science hits a snag it can't get around.

Let's make it tougher: much tougher.

It's the end of Day One of the creation week.

The only physical object in existence is a mass of sea water in the hollow of God's hand.

If one drop of that water was transported forward in time and put right in front of your for testing, what evidence would you look for to conclude it came into existence ex nihilo?

I say you have no evidence whatsoever.

What say you?

Amazing, claiming science is myopic while using blind faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I'm not mistaken wouldn't a good argument or evidence against evolution point to creationism? What other option would there be? Is there a third party? Its either creationism or evolution, right? If creationism is outside the realms of our science then science can neither prove or disprove it. therefor to make an argument for creationism would be to argue against evolution because evolution is in the realms of science.

Nope, that is a false dichotomy.

First when most creationists here claim "creation" they are talking about the myths from Genesis. They will laugh and call the creation myths what they are, myths, even though those have just as much evidence and are just as reasonable as theirs are. Second there is as much evidence that life has always been here as there is that it was created as in the Bible. Those are just a few of the scenarios possible if one goes by beliefs without any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are being very disingenuous.
Your OP is quite provocatively untrue.

As for evidence that creation by God is true, we are surrounded by it.
Open your eyes and your mind to the truth of creation.
Not only the marvels of this planet and its life but also a wonderful universe of ever
revealing complexities.
I do not need to defend creation for it is a given truth, unfortunately not seen nor believed by
those that are blind.

You do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. "Look around" is not a convincing argument.

No actually it is evolutionists who have a hard time defending their myths and fairytales that
all this came from nothing because it: could? wanted to? by chance?
The day evolutionists can show me some real tangible evidence that can prove the myth of
the evolution of life, species and myself, I will show you little green men on Mars.

Wrong again. Why do creationists keep bearing false witness against others? You really should learn what is and what is not evidence. We have the evidence, you simply do not understand the concept.

Why not learn what evidence is? If your beliefs are correct your knowledge will help make you a better debater. You will not keep making such obvious errors.

 

[Waggles]

You guys are so so righteous and smug.
Yet in the end you have no evidence.
After 200 years of Darwinism there is still no real tangible evidence for evolution.
Your "evidence" is still only supposition and a fanciful hypothesis at best.
At worst it is the deliberate and fraudulent manufacture of false science to give some
credence to a lie.
Nothing has changed since the Piltdown Man Hoax ... it still continues with another fraud 'Lucy'

 

[Waggles]

The absolute beauty and truth of the creation is that I and millions of others can actually know,
experience and interact with the Creator.

I guess evolutionists can venerate the dead bones of Charles Darwin, but its not the same.

 

[Jimmy D]

I would suggest you check out Reason to Believe's creation model, which does supply predictions.
Reasons To Believe : Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation
Reasons To Believe : Creation Model Passes Big Test

Impressive predictions.

1. Life appeared early in Earth’s history.
2. Life appeared under harsh conditions.
3. Life miraculously persisted under harsh conditions.
4. Life arose quickly.
5. Life in its minimal form is complex.

I won't offer an in depth critique of that article today as I'm on my phone. Suffice to say it misrepresents research into abiogenesis (1950s experiments failed!) and expresses incredulity that abiogenesis could occur.

Positive evidence for biblical creation is notable by it's absence.

Merely making a few vague statements based on the discoveries of science is not 'making predictions'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You guys are so so righteous and smug.
Yet in the end you have no evidence.
After 200 years of Darwinism there is still no real tangible evidence for evolution.
Your "evidence" is still only supposition and a fanciful hypothesis at best.
At worst it is the deliberate and fraudulent manufacture of false science to give some
credence to a lie.
Nothing has changed since the Piltdown Man Hoax ... it still continues with another fraud 'Lucy'

You really seem to believe this. If you knew anything at all about science this whole post of yours would be lies on your part. But you are still bearing false witness against your neighbor since you are making claims against others that you cannot substantiate. There is no fraud, there are no lies on the evolution side. The only ones that can be shown to be lying are groups such as ICR and AiG. And of course Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and Ken Ham.

 

[Jimmy D]

You guys are so so righteous and smug.
Yet in the end you have no evidence.
After 200 years of Darwinism there is still no real tangible evidence for evolution.
Your "evidence" is still only supposition and a fanciful hypothesis at best.
At worst it is the deliberate and fraudulent manufacture of false science to give some
credence to a lie.
Nothing has changed since the Piltdown Man Hoax ... it still continues with another fraud 'Lucy'

I suppose that when you get your scientific education from creationist propaganda websites such an attitude is understandable, if a little distasteful.

If you like some help in understanding why the evidence for the TOE is so compelling I'm sure it would be forthcoming.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A myth is simply a fact you choose to not believe.

That is obviously false; since many myths are contradictory, they can't all be factual.

The advantage of a supernatural explanation is that you can claim any old nonsense is a fact. The disadvantage of a supernatural explanation is that you can claim any old nonsense is a fact.

And so can anyone else; consequently all supernatural explanations are equally valid and equally useless. Pick the one you feel most comfortable with (typically the one you grew up with) and reject the others, other than making you feel better, it makes no difference.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You guys are so so righteous and smug.

 

[lesliedellow]

You guys are so so righteous and smug.
Yet in the end you have no evidence.
After 200 years of Darwinism there is still no real tangible evidence for evolution.
Your "evidence" is still only supposition and a fanciful hypothesis at best.
At worst it is the deliberate and fraudulent manufacture of false science to give some
credence to a lie.
Nothing has changed since the Piltdown Man Hoax ... it still continues with another fraud 'Lucy'

The one and only thing creationists are good at is singing to themselves the song they wrote themselves, and which they want to hear.

Reality has got less than nothing to do with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The one and only thing creationists are good at is singing to themselves the song they wrote themselves, and which they want to hear.

 

[lesliedellow]

Even if one is prepared to tolerate that excuse for a hymn, Jermiah's metaphor, borrowed by Paul, says zilch about the physical origin of homo sapiens.

 

[Larniavc]

I would suggest you check out Reason to Believe's creation model, which does supply predictions.
Reasons To Believe : Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation
Reasons To Believe : Creation Model Passes Big Test

Impressive predictions.

1. Life appeared early in Earth’s history.
2. Life appeared under harsh conditions.
3. Life miraculously persisted under harsh conditions.
4. Life arose quickly.
5. Life in its minimal form is complex.

I won't offer an in depth critique of that article today as I'm on my phone. Suffice to say it misrepresents research into abiogenesis (1950s experiments failed!) and expresses incredulity that abiogenesis could occur.

Positive evidence for biblical creation is notable by it's absence.

Merely making a few vague statements based on the discoveries of science is not 'making predictions'.

I dunno, if a creationist can show that the first life was complex (after giving a definition of complex) they would be moving in the right direction.

Of course I would not believe that even if it could be demonstrated because as an atheist I believe in the sanctity and divinity of Darwin.

 

[pitabread]

At worst it is the deliberate and fraudulent manufacture of false science to give some credence to a lie.

But why? This is something I've never understood is why would scientists go through all the trouble to concoct the theory of evolution if it's simply a lie? What would be the purpose behind it?

Especially when you consider that you're talking about a scientific theory that has spanned cultures, languages, religious beliefs, generations, country borders, etc. And most importantly that human civilization depends on biology; everything from medical impacts to agriculture to environmental/ecological conservation. Given the current theory of evolution is an applied science, and therefore it seems to odd to continue to foster a so-called 'lie' if there is potentially something better out there. There would be real vested interested both with respect to economy, and human health and well-being to adopt the most accurate paradigm possible.

I mean, I understand the creationist motivation to keep fostering creationism; it's a core part of certain religious beliefs. And it's primary revenue generator for creationist organizations.

But evolution? I don't get it. There is no reason to foster the 'lie' that creationists claim it is.

Nothing has changed since the Piltdown Man Hoax ... it still continues with another fraud 'Lucy'

When creationists bring up fraud and evolution they invariably seem to point to one of the same three things (Piltdown man being one of those).

Considering the millions of papers published on biological evolution and amount of experiments, observations, fossils, etc, that have been produced in favor of the theory of evolution, you'd think you guys could come up with some more diverse examples of so-called 'fraud'. Y'know, if there was any credence to that idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

But evolution? I don't get it. There is no reason to foster the 'lie' that creationists claim it is.

It's diabolical, isn't it?

 

[SkyWriting]

That is obviously false; since many myths are contradictory, they can't all be factual.

The advantage of a supernatural explanation is that you can claim any old nonsense is a fact. The disadvantage of a supernatural explanation is that you can claim any old nonsense is a fact.

And so can anyone else; consequently all supernatural explanations are equally valid and equally useless. Pick the one you feel most comfortable with (typically the one you grew up with) and reject the others, other than making you feel better, it makes no difference.

Well matter doesn't just appear out of nothing.
So if you see something, it must be from God.

 

[pitabread]

It's diabolical, isn't it?

The need for creationists to foster the belief that evolution is a 'lie'? I suppose you could call that diabolical.

Given the dependency creationist organizations have on donations from believers, I can certainly see their motivation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The need for creationists to foster the belief that evolution is a 'lie'?

No.

You said this:

There is no reason to foster the 'lie' that creationists claim it is.

I claim there is a reason: a diabolical reason.

Evolution is a lie of the devil, and he will use it to get scientists to take the Mark during the Tribulation period.

In my opinion.

 

[pitabread]

No.

I was being deliberately facetious. I knew what you meant.

Evolution is a lie of the devil, and he will use it to get scientists to take the Mark during the Tribulation period.

In my opinion.

Uh huh.

To me this only reinforces the desperation of the creationist position. Not only does one have to contend with the fact that the natural sciences don't support creationist claims, but now there is the invention of a supposed supernaturally-driven global conspiracy to explain it.

It's some fantastical story telling, I'll give you that.