What is the proof for creationism?

[sin_is_fun]

Not a single shred of proof exists for creationism.Creationists set the bar so high for evolution that they forget to provide a single evidence for creation.

Often the excuse they give is "it is only 2 options.Either evolution or creation" Thus by rejecting evolution,they think they prove creation.

Creation means only genesis to our friends.If the missing link cannot be provided,it directly proves Genesis is their belief.I dont understand how this is possible.Imagining evolution is false there are so many other options.For example

1.Nobody created the universe.It always existed.

If you ask 'how can anything exist without being created?' I will then ask you 'who created God?'If you ask 'how can anything always exist?' i will ask 'how can god always exist?'....

2. God of some other religion created the world.

3.World was created by an aliens who always existed.Just like 'god always existed' these aliens always existed.But they are not gods and they live in the boundary of this universe.

All these options are as valid as creationism.They dont have any proof,but so does creationism.

[otseng]

Not a single shred of proof exists for creationism.

It depends on what you mean by "proof". If you're talking about "conclusive proof" in which no doubt remains, then this is unachievable in practically any subject matter (except for possibly mathematics).

If you are talking about simply evidence and reasoning, then there are plenty of threads here to support creationism.

Creationists set the bar so high for evolution that they forget to provide a single evidence for creation.

What do you mean by "set the bar so high for evolution"?

Often the excuse they give is "it is only 2 options.Either evolution or creation" Thus by rejecting evolution,they think they prove creation.

Not so. Actually, practically all creationists accept certain parts of evolution (eg microevolution). By disproving one, it doesn't guarantee proving the other. Each position will need to be defended in its own court. Whether one court case wins or loses doesn't automatically mean the opposite outcome for the other.

Creation means only genesis to our friends.

Could you point out where this is the case on this forum?

If the missing link cannot be provided,it directly proves Genesis is their belief.

What "missing link" are you referring to?

I dont understand how this is possible.Imagining evolution is false there are so many other options.For example

1.Nobody created the universe.It always existed.

First off, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Secondly, it's been argued here that the universe could not have eternally existed.

If you ask 'how can anything exist without being created?' I will then ask you 'who created God?'If you ask 'how can anything always exist?' i will ask 'how can god always exist?'....

Common question asked by atheists, but totally irrelevant.

2. God of some other religion created the world.

This would still be called creationism.

3.World was created by an aliens who always existed.Just like 'god always existed' these aliens always existed.But they are not gods and they live in the boundary of this universe.

They couldn't be eternal if this universe is not eternal.

[sin_is_fun]

It depends on what you mean by "proof". If you're talking about "conclusive proof" in which no doubt remains, then this is unachievable in practically any subject matter (except for possibly mathematics). If you are talking about simply evidence and reasoning, then there are plenty of threads here to support creationism.

Evidence and reasoning in creationism???what evidence exists for creationsim?If reasoning goes against science and scientific evidence then it doesnt have much back up,does it?

What do you mean by "set the bar so high for evolution"?

I meant asking scientists "Did you observe evolution with your own eyes?" Asking for the full bones and skeletons of lucy the fossil ape,asking for hundreds and thousands of fossils etc.

from http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasonsprnt.htm

"I can remember in my high-school science class, the very first thing that I read out of my textbook was, "Science is based on observation." That statement is completely disregarded by anyone who claims that the Theory of Evolution is "science". The study of history is not a science because the person studying it cannot observe the past."

"There are no transitional forms found, only the end product. David Kitz said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."[2] David Kitts is an evolutionist. Even if one or two were found, they are suspect even among evolutionists and in order to prove evolution, you would need hundreds of thousands everywhere"

"Does 'Lucy' prove evolution? For that to be true the truth would be stretched extremely thin. Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape"

Not so. Actually, practically all creationists accept certain parts of evolution (eg microevolution). By disproving one, it doesn't guarantee proving the other. Each position will need to be defended in its own court. Whether one court case wins or loses doesn't automatically mean the opposite outcome for the other.

I agree completely with you.But some members in this forum have taken the approach of 'disproving evolution proves creationism'.That was what I pointed out For example

http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... php?t=1648

Creationism or design is the only logical counterpart to evolution. Its substance is immediately recognizable as the singular alternative. Whether you believe it is another thing. However, we either accidentally/coincidentally arrived on this earth, or we were put here.

Could you point out where this is the case on this forum?

Where did I say it was in this forum?

First off, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Secondly, it's been argued here that the universe could not have eternally existed.

Evolution doesnt assume God created universe.Thus we cannot say it has nothing to do with creation of universe.

I mentioned that 'universe always exists is a dubious argument'

All these options are as valid as creationism.They dont have any proof,but so does creationism.

[Common question[/url] asked by atheists, but totally irrelevant.

Only creationism is relevent I guess

God of some other religion created the world.
This would still be called creationism.

But not biblical creationism.

They couldn't be eternal if this universe is not eternal.

They created the universe,hence universe is not eternal.Earlier they lived at the place where religions claim god lives.After they created universe they migrated there.

[steen]

If you are talking about simply evidence and reasoning, then there are plenty of threads here to support creationism.

Well, creationists claim that Evolution is scientifically incorrect. SO where is the SCIENTIOFIC proof for creationism? Is it anything but wishful thinking presented as "facts"?

Creationists set the bar so high for evolution that they forget to provide a single evidence for creation.

What do you mean by "set the bar so high for evolution"?

I suspect that it is that creationists claim the science is wrong because xyz. They then forget that even by normal scientific standards, creationism doesn't pass the bar. When they then raise it further, creationism falls even further behind.

Often the excuse they give is "it is only 2 options.Either evolution or creation" Thus by rejecting evolution,they think they prove creation.

Not so. Actually, practically all creationists accept certain parts of evolution (eg microevolution).

Ah, so where is the thing that separates this 'microevolution" from the SToE?
.....

[Jose]

If you are talking about simply evidence and reasoning, then there are plenty of threads here to support creationism.

Sorry to keep needling you on this, but I can't help myself. We are asking for creationists to go to the next step beyond (1) "here is an observation" and (2) "here is my reasoning." But, they stop here. As I recall, this has pretty much been the case with the other threads here. Sure, we can develop a reasoned argument that biblical creation could account for this or that...but we never test the reasonableness of that argument. We never ask whether that explanation fits with other facts. We don't acknowledge that alternative explanations have not been ruled out, and then try to rule them out.

There appears to be a fundamental difference between scientists' and creationists' understandings as to what constitutes evidence.

[otseng]

There appears to be a fundamental difference between scientists' and creationists' understandings as to what constitutes evidence.

I'm going to ask this point first since this is probably at the heart of the issue. What would constitute as valid evidence?

Sure, we can develop a reasoned argument that biblical creation could account for this or that...but we never test the reasonableness of that argument.

What would constitute a valid test?

We never ask whether that explanation fits with other facts. We don't acknowledge that alternative explanations have not been ruled out, and then try to rule them out.

I don't think either creationism or evolution can be ruled out. Like you mentioned in the ToE thread: "This isn't an issue that can be 'won' by debate. It's more a discussion of evidence." So, we're not trying necessarily to rule something out, but to allow the readers to come to their own conclusion based on the evidence/arguments from each side.

Evidence and reasoning in creationism???what evidence exists for creationsim?

You can start here and it'll go off into a bunch of other threads.

What do you mean by "set the bar so high for evolution"?

I meant asking scientists "Did you observe evolution with your own eyes?"

Usually this question is asked when people claim that evolution has been "proven". Here on this forum, nobody has to "prove" anything, logical arguments are sufficient.

I agree completely with you.But some members in this forum have taken the approach of 'disproving evolution proves creationism'.That was what I pointed out For example
http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... php?t=1648

Creationism or design is the only logical counterpart to evolution. Its substance is immediately recognizable as the singular alternative. Whether you believe it is another thing. However, we either accidentally/coincidentally arrived on this earth, or we were put here.

I don't think nikolayevich said "proving" one "disproves" the other. I interpret his statement as these are basically the only two models to explain life. To which I also believe this.

Could you point out where this is the case on this forum?

Where did I say it was in this forum?

Why then would it be relevant here?

I mentioned that 'universe always exists is a dubious argument'

I agree that it is a dubious argument.

[Jose]

There appears to be a fundamental difference between scientists' and creationists' understandings as to what constitutes evidence.

I'm going to ask this point first since this is probably at the heart of the issue. What would constitute as valid evidence?

"Evidence" is facts, observations, data--objectively observable (albeit with the aid of instruments in many cases). The sort of evidence I look for is either (1) findings/observations/data that can be interpreted only in one way, thereby forcing us to the conclusion, or (2) findings/observations/data that fulfill the criteria of a test of the model (see below). Of course, data that test a model are most powerful if they rule it out. If the data do not rule out a model, they are consistent with it, but not proof that the model is right. A model can never be proven, because the formal possibility exists that new data will force us to abandon the model and re-think our explanation.

Sure, we can develop a reasoned argument that biblical creation could account for this or that...but we never test the reasonableness of that argument.

What would constitute a valid test?

I'd suggest using the official Scientific Method. State the model explicitly, identify predictions that are made by that model, and then look for data that determine whether those predictions are borne out. If the data contradict the predictions, then the model is wrong, or the predictions were wrong, or the test was performed improperly, or... It's good to do a bazillion tests, to get as much insight into the model as possible.

We never ask whether that explanation fits with other facts. We don't acknowledge that alternative explanations have not been ruled out, and then try to rule them out.

I don't think either creationism or evolution can be ruled out. Like you mentioned in the ToE thread: "This isn't an issue that can be 'won' by debate. It's more a discussion of evidence." So, we're not trying necessarily to rule something out, but to allow the readers to come to their own conclusion based on the evidence/arguments from each side.[/quote]No, we really are trying to rule something out. The basic tenet of ID is that their arguments rule out evolution. They don't rule out evolution, though--just the incorrect model that the ID folks put forward. ID aside, however, that's how science works: we rule out alternatives. That is possible only if we state those alternatives, and assess whether they are equally well supported by the data, or whether there are data that are in conflict with them.

Still, using evidence to rule out alternative hypotheses is discussion of evidence. It's not "debate" in the sense of being "won" by the person with the most persuasive rhetoric. It's "won" by the hypothesis that is not ruled out by evidence.

With respect to evolution or creation, the predictions are so completely different that it should be easy to determine which one fits the data better. [Though, as we've said before, the act of creation is tricky to test, but the Flood makes clear predictions. Many Christians include the Flood as a part of the creation model, so we can evaluate the biblical creation model by evaluating the predictions made by the flood model.]

Evidence and reasoning in creationism???what evidence exists for creationsim?

You can start here and it'll go off into a bunch of other threads.

Most of these discussions are of the sort I mentioned earlier: "observation X can be explained by reasoning Y." That's not evidence; it's formulating the model. The evidence is the data that test the predictions of the model.

What do you mean by "set the bar so high for evolution"?

I meant asking scientists "Did you observe evolution with your own eyes?"

Usually this question is asked when people claim that evolution has been "proven". Here on this forum, nobody has to "prove" anything, logical arguments are sufficient.

I beg to differ. Logical arguments are not valid unless they are grounded in evidence. Certainly, this is so for evaluating evolution. Evolution is science; it's based on data. Without the data, there's nothing we can say about evolution. Even for the discussions on biblical interpretation, we use evidence: which passages say what. Now, it may be that we don't need to "prove" our arguments, but in the context of distinguishing between creation and evolution, and in the context of scientific discourse, it's pretty much a matter of providing evidence to disprove one or the other. Presumably, that's why so many creationists say "no one saw it happen" or "it's too complex."

I don't think nikolayevich said "proving" one "disproves" the other. I interpret his statement as these are basically the only two models to explain life. To which I also believe this.

As noted above, it's either/or in the context of distinguishing two alternate models. In the Great Scheme of Things, there may be other models, but in the CvsE debate, we're distinuishing between two choices. It's just that they are choices that rely upon wildly different criteria of "proof" and "evidence."

[micatala]

otseng wrote:

sin_is_fun wrote:
otseng wrote:
What do you mean by "set the bar so high for evolution"?

I meant asking scientists "Did you observe evolution with your own eyes?"

Usually this question is asked when people claim that evolution has been "proven". Here on this forum, nobody has to "prove" anything, logical arguments are sufficient.


I beg to differ. Logical arguments are not valid unless they are grounded in evidence.

And I would beg a small difference. Logical arguments are relevant in the case that one can show an argument is logically inconsistent with itself.

I would say that this sometimes occurs in the C vs E debate. I think a reasonable case can be made that the biblical basis for creationism based on the contention that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the only possible valid interpretation is logically inconsistent, under the additional assumptions that

A. If an interpretation is valid, it is valid for all times and for all people.
B. The solar system is heliocentric.

My logic is (following the Copernicus vs Darwin thread) that Martin Luther's (and others') literal interpretation of the Bible was that Copernicanism was unbiblical. Assuming A, this should be true today as well. Most YEC creationists insist Genesis 1 is literally true and inconsistent with evolution, but don't accept (at least no one on this forum has stated this outright, although Otseng hinted it might be so ) that the solar system is geocentric. Thus, they are inconsistent in their application of literalism to the Bible.

Yes, I am oversimplifying more than a bit, but so far, no one on any of the threads where I have brought this up has really dealt straightforwardly with this issue (in my view). Either I get reasons why Evolution can't be true, often based on Genesis, without any mention of Copernicus, or I get reasons why we need not accept Luther's interpretation, without applying the full implications of this reasoning to the interpretation of Genesis. At this point, my sense is creationists are trying to have it both ways, insisting on a literal interpretation when that supports their view, but allowing for non-literal interpretations either when they feel they have no choice or when it does not matter to the issues that are important to them.

[sin_is_fun]

I'm going to ask this point first since this is probably at the heart of the issue. What would constitute as valid evidence?

Wrong question.We build a theory based on evidence.Building a theory first and searching for evidence for that theory is not valid.So instead of asking "what evidnce exists for creationism and evolution?" we should as 'which theory fits the evidence we have in hand?Evolution of creationism?"

What would constitute a valid test?

If the results of the tests are repeatable/predictable it is a valid test.

You can start here and it'll go off into a bunch of other threads.

If creationism is a valid argument then scientific journals will publish it.Since it doesnt get published it is not science.Hence it has no proof.These threads show no evidence which is acceptable by scientists.

Usually this question is asked when people claim that evolution has been "proven". Here on this forum, nobody has to "prove" anything, logical arguments are sufficient.

I did not comment on members on this forum.I gave my examples from some creationism websites.we are discussing all things that are christian.

don't think nikolayevich said "proving" one "disproves" the other. I interpret his statement as these are basically the only two models to explain life. To which I also believe this.

that is what I tried to disprove.There are no two models.One is a scientific theory which has evidence.The other option doesnt have any acceptable scietific proof.If it has proof it would have been accepted by courts atleast.

Could you point out where this is the case on this forum?

Where did I say it was in this forum?

Why then would it be relevant here?

Because we discuss not only about this forum but also about christianity which is not limited to this forum.It is a world wide phenomena.

[sin_is_fun]

I'm going to ask this point first since this is probably at the heart of the issue. What would constitute as valid evidence?

Wrong question.We build a theory based on evidence.Building a theory first and searching for evidence next is not science.So instead of asking "what evidence exists for my theory?" we should ask 'which theory fits the evidence we have in hand?"

What would constitute a valid test?

If the results of the tests are repeatable/predictable it is a valid test.

You can start here and it'll go off into a bunch of other threads.

If creationism is a valid argument then scientific journals will publish it.Since it doesnt get published it is not science.Hence it has no proof.These threads show no evidence which is acceptable by scientists.

Usually this question is asked when people claim that evolution has been "proven". Here on this forum, nobody has to "prove" anything, logical arguments are sufficient.

I did not comment on members on this forum.I gave my examples from some creationism websites.we are discussing all things that are christian.

don't think nikolayevich said "proving" one "disproves" the other. I interpret his statement as these are basically the only two models to explain life. To which I also believe this.

that is what I tried to disprove.There are no two models.One is a scientific theory which has evidence.The other option doesnt have any acceptable scietific proof.If it has proof it would have been accepted by courts atleast.

Could you point out where this is the case on this forum?

Where did I say it was in this forum?

Why then would it be relevant here?

Because we discuss not about this forum but about christianity which is not limited to this forum.It is a world wide phenomena.