Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Dierotao proposed an identical thread. Since IamJoseph ran into a bug while attempting to edit this post, and in the interest of finally getting this thread promoted, I'm pasting Dierotao's proposal into IamJospeph's opening post:From Dierotao:

---

Having read through much of Doddy's "Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory" thread, I thought it would only be fair to see what the creationists on this forum consider their most convincing evidence for the origins of the universe/life/humans/etc.
Perhaps there is something you usually like to bring out to challenge an evolutionist? Or perhaps you are open to evolutionary theory, but there is this glaring problem you see that causes you to remain a creationist. Perhaps your even an evolutionist, but in your open mindedness, you would like to share a good argument you have heard from a creationist.I would like as much detail as possible in your answers. So rather than rattling off a quick list of things, I would prefer to see one example in detail. Perhaps you could even include the evolutionist belief on that matter, and then conclude with why you still believe the creationist argument (any links to more detailed sources would be helpful as well).I would also ask that we behave as gentlemen or ladies here. Doddy's thread contained a great deal of creationist bashing, I hope here we can present our ideas in a more mature manner.

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Test edit feature...Edited by Admin, : Change OP to describe agreed on topic.

I suppose 'Evolution's Failures' is comprehensive enough, and includes the main factor I wanted to be debated, namely a reponse to the thread which accepts only those factors which are posiitive to Evolution - and thereby deems any negative factors out of context.Here I wanted evolutionists to debate two things, namely what is 'right' about Creationism, and what is 'wrong' about evolution. I find many evolutionist arguements lacking when they cannot identify what is 'right' about Creationism, and wrong' about evolution, in the mode it is presently accepted.Edited by IamJoseph, : spelling

Yes, it should be focused to a definitive issue. My suggestion is not just evolution - this is only one aspect of life and the universe, and not an answer to everything. My focus is what is 'right' in Creationism - which is emperitive, required knowledge in determining what is wrong. How about, WHAT'S POSITIVE ABOUT CREATIONISM?

Yes, this should do it. Thanks a lot.

"you need to change the title and the opening post before I can promote this thread."I'm not sure what you want me to do - where is this thread I should change?

Looks like there was a bug. I thanked AW but it did'nt appear.

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.

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.

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

It is not a just asserting situation that a design should have a designer: there is no alternative to this premise. Science makes conclusions with far less credible evidences, assuming any vague imprint which can be aligned with a preferred theory as a fact - even while those evidences could point to a 1000 other directions. The correct path of reason and determination is as follows:Imagine that Darwin's TOE, and the Random assumption never happened, and the situation is examined anew. Would you still conclude there is no designer behind a complex design - even when no designer can be proven? Then imagine that today's neo science says there is a design but no designer - even when the NO DESIGNER premise cannot prove any alternative: Darwin's Random does not tell us how life evolved, and begins in a post design scenario! This is the same as saying a car comes from metal which became a car by itself - there is no car maker - and it is proven because the car maker cannot be proven. But nor can Mr. Random prove his premise!Random is based not on reason or science - but only to uphold the most unscientific prmise imaginable. This comes from a premise of 'not knowing' - which is an unacceptable situation for human minds: not knowing is a far more intollerable situation than knowing bad news. A preferred falsehood triumphs reason here. And not knowing where one comes from is the ultimate slap in the face for humans - it is akin to an offspring seeking his/her biological parents separated from it. Here, it is easy to slip in an anomoly - to escape the unacceptable alternative. This is what happened with the Random assumption being accepted as science.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

An empty assertion since an intelligent life form in another galaxy could possibly say the same thing about the first space faring that they endeavored in attempting also.Those intelligences could also be far in advance of our own as well so supreme is hardly a fair term in such a large theatre as the universe.

---

Then you should put your reasoning on 'HOLD' - and wait till ET knocks on your door. This has not occured for 4.5 Billion years.

quote:

---

While some might see the Bible as positive evidence, they have to provide some reason for it to be given anymore weight than the Norse Mythology or any other creation myths.

---

Sure. Science has to remain as a science; math and history must also remain true to itself. But not proving does not culminate in another unproven being proven, because proving is relative to man's vocab at a given time. The flat earth was not unscientific, relative to that generation's vocab: you would have concluded the same 4000 years ago. Also, one cannot ask unreasonable proofs as the condition to countenance an ubsurdity.When genesis says vegetation and life were already created, yet nothing grew before the rains came (meaning there was life but it was static/'nothing grew') - it is not anti-science, but requires contemplation based on an agreed preamble of reasoning. Today science recognises that the moon was pivotal in life's activation, by virtue of early period impacts which created a soup of the admixture of minerals subsequent to ocean level increases which resulted in waves a 1000 times greater than today.But the problem comes from poor science being imposed here, to ratify another poor premise held. Life could still not emerge solely by these actions, but had to be pre-designed to effect that result. It did not happen elsewhere, despite all the mixed conditions imaginable. Life did not emerge because of H2O: the impacting of water and minerals had to be 'receptive' (pre-designed) to each other. Water would not produce life on Mars or Jupiter. Genesis is pointing to a pattern and system how it occured only. It is telling that all the ingredients and properties for life was 'set' - and this is how it occured. The static (inactive) life became dynamic (active) life, subsequent to the triggering by the Moon and rain, upon an already pre-designed situation: there is no alternative to this, but aheistic neo science has bypassed this logic.Its the same as your mobile starts to work when you insert batteries and a chip. It does not mean the battery and chip created your mobile: they are 'receptive' to each other in a critical mode - which means a pre-design scenario was in place; the battery and chips would be inactive on Jupiter. Creationism is expressed very well in genesis - it is not understood when there is a preferred agenda which does not examine the situation with an agreed preamble, and has subsequently lapsed into a design without a designer. It is chaos, self-contradicting, non-science and non-logic.Equally, vegetation was not created by the sun, and genesis correctly points to this fact: the sun's luminosity appears 'AFTER' vegetation was created; the sun's luminosity sustains life same as does food and water - these are mutually receptive. Nor does the sun create light - it produces light only because light per se was pre-existant of the stars, else the stars could not produce light. Genesis correctly says Light is the first entity. Can one pour water from a jar into a glass - before water existed?

quote:

---

Now, given that NONE of the evidence presented supports ID or Creationism. That leaves you in a bit of a pickle doesn't it?

---

The reverse is the case. The one in a pickle is EFFECT WITHOUT A CAUSE. Whatever we know and not know, does not negate tht Random cannot be a cause for a complexity: this is the only scientific preamble. And this remains a sound premise even without proof. Creationism, as opposed religions, remains a sound scientific premise.