Evidence for Creationism?

[DanieltheDragon]

Taking evolution, Big Bang, and abiogenesis out of the equation. What is the evidence for creationism?

Can creationism stand on its own merit?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 383 by DanieltheDragon]

You are, of course, correct. I still wish he'd engage.

[Clownboat]

But your claim leads to falsehoods. If it didn't I would consider adopting it.

Why do I say this...?
Because you cannot prove that unicorns are not real, you should therefore believe in them.

Such a notion would have a person believing in all sorts of falsehoods, therefore I cannot change my idea of what a 'truth' is.

Eh Unicorns you can not prove exist can prove my claim wrong? Que?
I don't care if there is unicorns or not, but where on earth do you get that this argument or claim leads to falsehood since you can not prove or disprove unicorns any more than I can?

I trust the readers realize that I'm talking about your claim where you said you believe things until they are shown to be false. This way of believing things leads to falsehoods.

My reality shows these things to be real to me every day.

Yes well to use your own words. "your claim leads to falsehoods" since you can not prove consciousness to be real.

Non sequitur. Why do I need to prove consciousness is real?

I only agree with you because my reality is the same, but I can't prove it either. So if reality is only what we can prove then consciousness is a flying unicorn.

Any readers here able to explain what Hector is talking about here?

And if you and me are right about consciousness and we accept that as truth because it is OUR reality, then how can we sit here and say that those who claim to in their reality to have met God, angels, ghosts or aliens is not telling the truth?

I don't claim they are not telling the truth. I don't believe such claims as of yet due to them not meeting the burden of proof.

Chemical process in the brain.

If love is just a chemical process in the brain.

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
"With an irresistible cocktail of chemicals, our brain entices us to fall in love."

I don't think morals are are a real thing, more of a concepts.

Well if morals are not real then it is wrong to say that torture, child molestation, slavery etcs is wrong for then its all subjective and we have no more morals than animals who will do whatever they can get away with. I do not agree with you.

You are demonstrably wrong. Ready to be shown why?
Clownboat: "Child molestation and slavery are wrong".
There... I said it! Show that my statement is wrong.

Was there a point to asking these questions?

I will show you the point if you answer them,

Hector... I did answer your questions. Still not sure why you asked them and I don't think you know why you did either. Please don't pretend that I did not answer them though. That is just dishonest.

Reality is demonstrated right in front of us every day. You asking me to show you what it is, is like asking me to show you the sun.

No rather I am asking you to think about how much you accept as truth which you can not prove, so you understand the argument for faith and God has more validity than you give it.

Faith leads to false beliefs. Faith is required to believe in all the false religions. Sure if there just happens to be one true religion, then faith in that one instance would lead to a true belief, but in every other instance, faith is the required mechanism to believe in falsehoods.

This faith you refer to... you keep it! I'll stick with logic and reason.

[Kenisaw]

The theory of evolution does not make the exact same claim that Creationists do.

You have failed to apprehend my argument. I never claimed they make the exact same claims. I merely point to the rational and reasons for their respective claims.

Try as I might over the years, I have never found anything about a creationism claim that I considered rational or reasonable. But I am always willing to listen to the argument.

More importantly, only one (evolution) is supported by a literal mountain of data and evidence.

The Creationist would, no doubt; claim the same thing for their theory using the exact same mountain of evidence. So you should see by now that it isn't the evidence that is in question at all, but the conclusions, and more accurately it is the process itself by which they come to these faulty conclusions.

I'm afraid that is grossly inaccurate. Creationists do not use the empirical data and evidence to support their claims. They try very hard to discount the evidence in an attempt to weaken the theory of evolution. They also completely ignore large portions of the evidence entirely. For example, creationists ignore huge swathes of geological data. They claim all sedimentary layers come from one flood, which is impossible given all we know about hydraulics and hydrology. They ignore the layers with coarser particles that exist on top of finer particle layers, which is hydraulically impossible in just one flood event. They claim radiometric dating can't be counted on, and make up pseudo differences like observational verses historical science to justify that claim, while ignoring the mathematical impossibility that radioactive decay rates could have varied over time.

They don't use the evidence to reach a different conclusion, and they have no alternative explanation that fits all of the billions on facts and data points that verify the theory of evolution. To claim otherwise is patently false.

It is a theory that has even been independently verified by a completely different line of research (genetics) years after it was already a completed and verified concept.

Notice that the concept comes first then the evidence.

What are talking about? The phenomena comes first. It is noticed and observed. Then a hypothesis is created to try to explain the phenomena. In the case of evolution many people noticed how certain species resembled other species, and also how their proximity to each other on the planet mirrored how closely they compared. That's when the idea of descent with modification first came to be, AFTER the phenomena was noted. Are there any other basics of science that we should go over before continuing this discussion? And no I don't say that to be crass, because knowing the core tenants of how this stuff works matters when trying to discuss topics related to it...

This is the case with both belief systems. The fact that someone else comes along and verifies that it is a complete concept only spotlights the similarities of the two. Genetics hasn't proven much of anything with regards to these theories.

Again, you seem to lack knowledge here. Genetics does nothing to support the claim of creationism. That field completely verified the scientific theory of evolution. The tree of life, created via examination of fossils by biological and morphological fields, was reconstructed via genetic studies of the DNA of living things. The two bodies of work found the same thing. Neither has any data or empirical evidence that supports the claim of a god creature making all living things just as you see them today.

It's as if the Catholic church's rigorous examination of the facts concerning miracles confirms someone is a saint. "Where two or three are gathered..."proves that this is a verified concept. Yeah, and angels, demons, the doctrine of election are all verified concepts as well. So what? This is where belief steps in and informs us all that this is reality; this is a fact. Sorry, but they both fail miserably to prove anything other than that they are both concepts, theories, etc.

It appears that you are yet another person who thinks "theory" has just one meaning. A scientific theory is not some lowly concept. Don't take my word for it, look up the difference between an everyday theory and a scientific one.