Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Jar, this meanspirited member basher message is not even worth a reply. Talk to someone else or act civil if you want responses from me.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

It supports my Biblical creation theory as evidence regardless of what/who else it supports. Can you agree to that? If not, why not? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

quote:

---

All too often the arguments for creationism seem to rest purely and simply on the 'evolution must be wrong because.....' format of negative "evidence"

​

Even if evolution was somehow shown to be false creationism would not have been proved to be true.

---

It boils down to a matter of context. Science is no different from math and history: these are tools which verify mankind's thoughts and beliefs. If it is believed or posited a pharoah existed 4000 years ago, for example, it can become verified by either science (archeology), math (dates) or History (recorded descriptions). The term creation or evolution is a misnomer, same as would be maths or creationism. The tool of investigation does not become the sole representative of creation or evolution, same as each tool must stay in the perimeters of its own treshold.I agree that creationism is not proven by pointing errors in one tool, such as evolution (science). But equally, it does not become disproven if science does not have any answers to this specific issue - and it does not. The latter, IMHO, is not subsequent to a lack of trying or the application of good minds; rather, it seems, the notion of proving creation, or the emergence of the universe, is not possible. Such are the indicators (not a single instance of origins identification has been successful todate of anything); and such is the logic (we have no outside view of the universe).This gives a very different scenario of 'Even if evolution was somehow shown to be false creationism would not have been proved to be true' - because creationism, as with any origin of anything, is equally non-provable. The situation would be different if science, math or history was able to prove anything in its origination: but this has never occured. One must give logical, scientific reasonings when asking that creationism be proven - specially when science cannot do so.Proving creationism: what does this mean - what proof is expected and what would satisfy here? We cannot expect an answer here - else we would have long ago pursued such a path. Lets determine then, what is NOT a proof of the universe or against Creationism. How life operates, functions and adapts is not a proof of life's emergence; how stars emerge is not a proof of how the universe emerged: these are related only to the operations and functions of already existing entities. We know nothing of the origins of anything, and this situation would have been different if we had success in determining the origin of a single factor - but we do not. We have not a clue where particles and energy comes from - or why, or from where. We cannot say, for example, that a set of conditions many million years ago inadvertantly became life: aside from no proof or examples of such a phenomenon anywhere and anytime, the basic premise is faulty: we still have not accounted where the notion of: set, conditions, many millions of years, the ignition factor of life, or what caused the development process of accumulated and continueing processes - comes from, how or why. Its like saying, we know how a car works, thus we figured out how the universe emerged. Yes, ultimately, its exactly like that.Nor can we expect such answers from science, math or history - which are tools found only THIS side of creation, and which cannot be applicable OUTSIDE the universe where the same criteria and products do not exist. Basically, this says, science can only make determinations of what is post-universe, namely about everything within the universe, but not of a premise precedent or outside the universe; your house keys don't apply where there is no house. Matter, energy, time, life, particles, forces, etc - are products inside of a universe scenario, so science stops at a certain point, same as does math and history. Nor can we say these always existed - these responses are not scientific determinations but inadequacies and retreats; we know for certain that the scenario represented on earth, for example, once never existed on earth, and does not exist anywhere in the known universe. That there would have been an actual emergence point of everything is not disputable - thus the infinity/eternity factor of retreat gets correctly tossed out of the menu. We have nit a clue is correct; we cannot know voluntarilly is also equally correct.We have to use all our imagination to come up with an analogy here when the issue is proving creationism or the universe emergence: how does a non-universal entity, non-corporeal (not made of matter), and who has never encountered matter or anything in this universe, explain a car? Where would that entity start and finish - with the car manual, the metals used to make the car, the fuel, energy, time, the particles which make those products, the design, knowledge from the mind of man such as Newton's theromodynamics? Nope - these are unknown factors to a being not of this universe - as is science, math and history. Likewise, we would not be able to deterine how that strange entity evolved or functions without any of those products.So its a matter of correct criteria and reasonability of the issue: science cannot ask for proof of creationism, exactly as a creationist cannot ask that of science. The tools of THIS side of the universe can only determine what is this side of the universe. Para- & Multi-universe scenarios do not assist here - this only moves the goal post further back. It is far better that science is seen as applicable to a post-universe scenario only, than to indulge in imaginitive and un-sceintific premises of random and causeless effects, thereby making science itself un-scientific and suffering loss of credibility.Creationism, which loses no credibility by lack of proof, is not about religions per se, even though this premise was introduced by one religion; but Creationism is about a Creator. And there is no lacking of logic or science here. Where there is no proof for or against, the sound premise has to apply. And random, no matter how well this is dressed up, is not a sound premise for the complexity which constitutes the universe. IMHO, until some totally new science or knowledge emerges, there is no alternative to the Creationism/Creator premise - it is a sound premise. What can be determined, is what is correct or reasonable on THIS side of creation. One can elect anomolies within any creation premise - which has no bearing on creation; this only effects the particular premise in question, and science, math and history are the best tools for determining and debating it. But this is limited to a post-universe scenario only.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Those two things - the appearance of design and the Bible's support for creationism - are, indeed, the two best pieces of evidence for creationism.

---

Does it not boil down to 'cause and effect'- deficient in any other scenario or alternative? And implicit here is that the cause has to be transcendent of the effect. If the effect is deemed a self-graduating one by virtue of time and energy accumulative factors - then the cause becomes negated and superfluous.

I just want to know when you feel is the best approximate date for the creation event? How do you come to this conclusion?Great post, outside of a few minor wordings I very much agree with you.

quote:

---

I just want to know when you feel is the best approximate date for the creation event? How do you come to this conclusion?

---

1. Not 6000 years! But this figure is applicable to speech endowed humans. At least, this is what is said in the OT, and thus far not disputable.2. The age of the universe understanding is as per science today, and agreed to by most creation upholing scientists. I have heard math calcs, based on Genesis, which is almost the same as most rekonings, about 15 B years. It utilises hedy criteria based on counting time from a vantage point of the start of creation, looking at this end point, and how it would appear from this point looking back, taking into account the light traversing factors to and fro.The age of the universe does not come under an outside the universe premise, and is best determined by mankind, and encumbent upon us. There is not going to be any assistance from anywhere else - humans are the supreme mind in the universe. What is debatable is how today's science understandings fit with any religion's premise.

How do you know this? I also assume you mean "supreme" after God?Furthermore if a bunch of semi-bald, self-centred, somewhat intelligent apes is the best God can come up then I'd have to wonder if he's either rubbish or not trying hard enough.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Ray writes:
Evolution claims to be making no statement about God, unlike Creationism.

​

Iceage writes:

​

True

---

This needs better contemplation. Evolution was introduced in Genesis, listing species emerging chronologically, also signifying adaptation and repro means (the 'seed', and its ability to cater to every transmission mentioned in Darwin's evolution). While evolution says nothing about Gd - Genesis says a lot about Evolution.I have also debated in this forum that the categorising of life forms in Genesis, from a creationist POV, is the correct one, as opposed to darwin's method of skeletal and biological imprints. Genesis allocated all speech endowed humans as 'one' category/species/kind; genesis is correct - speech, not any other factor, separates humans from all other life. The factor of speech is totally disregarded by darwin - as if it were not a unique factor on this planet!The other factor concerns life origins. Genesis says all life first emerged as dual-gendered ('Man and woman created he them'/Gen). This, to me, appears correct and with no alternative. The issue of two perfectly synced life forms of exactly the same kind appearing independently in the same spacetime, is outside the odds of possibility and coherence, and has never been witnessed. The aspect of ameoba cells and some life forms being single gendered or non-gendered does not impact here, being an error of perspective only. There is no place a counter gender can emerge, save from an original dual-gendered life form. Indeed even gay tendencies are incorporated in Genesis, and contradicing darin's mode.The notion that speech was prevalent for 100s of 1000s of years as grunts and coos, and developed to today's speech, is without any substance, while all evidences negate this premise, supporting only Genesis' version of human history. In fact there is no history per se before 6000 - meaning no speech endowed humans.Yes, Genesis says a lot about evolution, and save for a creation rejectionist premise, has not been dented in any of its provisions. I find rejectionists seccumbing to unscientific premises in their debating methods, which is a pity if not a desperation, because it is beginning to sound like a very orthodox, dogmatic religious sect - its as if one religion cannot ever admit the prevailing of another religion's provisions over its own!I credit darwin for his research, but not the conclusions drawn from it. The more correct science is vested with Genesis - which should not be seen as terrible news. Genesis is real science when its texts are understood, and almost every scientific theory aligns with it!

quote:

---

How do you know this? I also assume you mean "supreme" after God?

---

The first part is manifest: no other life form travelled to the moon and back. The second part says a complexity is only possible from a superior complexity: unless you have alternative evidence?

The recent discussion does not seem pertinent to the topic, so permit me to note once again that this thread is for discussing what are the most convincing evidences for creation theory.For example, someone might say, "I think sea fossils atop mountain peaks are the most convincing evidence for creation theory." And someone might respond, "I disagree, because the appearance of design applies to the entire universe across the board, and is much more significant and convincing."Anyone who would like to discuss something else should propose a new thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Once again Buz simply refuses to support his assertions and instead misrepresents what was posted.There was no member bashing in my post, I simply pointed out that your wholistic approach just means that the best support for Biblical Creationism is a collection of false and meaninless statements.As a matter of fact, in Message 65 you said "Feel free to critique my wholistic approach perse. " That is exactly what I am doing.You need to stop misrepresenting what others post Buz because as everyone can see, in Message 68 I critique your holistic approach.I cannot help it if you assert that the best evidence for Creation Theory is a collection of false allegations and meaningless assertions.AbE:I happen to believe that the Universe is created, but base that belief on faith and the appearance of continuity at the most basic level.The thread asks for "Most convincing evidence for creation theory" though and I must in all honesty say that the evidence for any creation theory is at best, weak. I must admit that my belief in creation is NOT based on any strong evidence, but rather a belief that there is a GOD who is the Creator.Edited by jar, : add my take on creation

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Simply asserting this doesn't make it true. An assertion is not evidence.Where is the evidence that the appearance of design is produced by an invisible Designer. Which is why no-one has done so: we have no need to emulate the debating tactics of Creationists. Declaring yourself right is really the best you can do?Yeah, I suppose it is.

Well, no, look. Ray's right about this. You gotta give it to him.If there were only two pieces of evidence in the entire world - the Bible and the appearance of design in the natural world - creationism would be the most logical explanation. The appearance of design does suggest design. I mean, that's how we know the difference between a river rock and a flint arrowhead.In the context of this thread - the best evidence for creationism - it's true that the best evidence is the appearance of design in the natural world and the testimony of the Bible. Those are the two best things they have.Outside of the context of this thread, the Bible's testimony is rendered unreliable by independent evidence; and the conjecture of a designer to explain the appearance of design is enormously contradicted by a vast weight of evidence on our side. So it's not to say that creationism is true, because it's obviously not; neither of their two best pieces of evidence actually amounts to anything. The appearance of design in nature is better explained by a natural process that results in the appearance of design - a process we have abundant, independent evidence for.But none of that is relevant to the question right now - the best evidence for creationism. It's the appearance of design in nature and what the Bible says. Their best evidence isn't very good, it pretty much sucks compared to the mountain of evidence for evolution, but it is the best that they have.

To get back on topic........Are you claiming that the existence of speech is the most convincing evidence for creation theory?

I said (message 22) You said in response BUT in message 19 you said So no misrepresentation at all then? Agreed. Actual design is never apparent design but that does not make apparent design necessarily actual design.
What exactly is your point? I agree that the appearance of design is the best evidence that creationists have for their views. For what it is worth I feel that I have been one of the few people trying to stay broadly on topic in this thread. Oh well.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.