Creationist evidence...

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Ok, I am an ardent Darwinian. Evolution is fact. But this constant creationism is something I know little about, simply because I find it so ridiculous I can't be bothered to check it out.
So, to all creationists, please gather as much evidence for your beliefs as you can posssibly find and as much evidence against evolution, and put it here.
This is different from the Creationists Please Provide Evidence thread. This thread is a personal plea to creationists to convince me that the whole thing is not ridiculous. Also, it is different in the sense that, if you are religious, give me evidence as to why your religion's interpretation or rejection of evolution is correct.
Also, as a side-note, if good evidence is provided, I will take religion and creationism seriously and look into converting to one which fits my views.
Thank you.

 

[camanintx]

Didn't we just go through this?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...055-creationists-please-provide-evidence.html

 

[Desert Snake]

Didn't we just go through this?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...055-creationists-please-provide-evidence.html

No, I think this might be interesting, because if creationism is COMPARED to evolution, as I think the OP is asking, it will make the argument more clear. Creationism is not wholly unscientific.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not to mention the flood evidence found worldwide...evolution apparently can't account for all the found fossils and their locations.

 

[Skwim]

Ok, I am an ardent Darwinian. Evolution is fact. But this constant creationism is something I know little about, simply because I find it so ridiculous I can't be bothered to check it out.
So, to all creationists, please gather as much evidence for your beliefs as you can posssibly find and as much evidence against evolution, and put it here.
This is different from the Creationists Please Provide Evidence thread. This thread is a personal plea to creationists to convince me that the whole thing is not ridiculous. Also, it is different in the sense that, if you are religious, give me evidence as to why your religion's interpretation or rejection of evolution is correct.
Also, as a side-note, if good evidence is provided, I will take religion and creationism seriously and look into converting to one which fits my views.
Thank you.

As I and others here have pointed out many times, creationists don't provide evidence for creationism, principally because there isn't any, instead they make spurious attacks on evolution. So don't be disappointed if any take you up on your request.

 

[camanintx]

Not to mention the flood evidence found worldwide...evolution apparently can't account for all the found fossils and their locations.

Such as?

 

[Desert Snake]

Such as?

Well that's the question, right? One side presents evidence, the other refutes it. I don't personally have a "belief" in the matter.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not to mention the flood evidence found worldwide...evolution apparently can't account for all the found fossils and their locations.

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and biological evolution does account for all fossils and their locations.

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, I am an ardent Darwinian. Evolution is fact. But this constant creationism is something I know little about, simply because I find it so ridiculous I can't be bothered to check it out.
So, to all creationists, please gather as much evidence for your beliefs as you can posssibly find and as much evidence against evolution, and put it here.
This is different from the Creationists Please Provide Evidence thread. This thread is a personal plea to creationists to convince me that the whole thing is not ridiculous. Also, it is different in the sense that, if you are religious, give me evidence as to why your religion's interpretation or rejection of evolution is correct.
Also, as a side-note, if good evidence is provided, I will take religion and creationism seriously and look into converting to one which fits my views.
Thank you.

Not to quibble... but as a Biologist I would advise you not to be an ardent Darwinian.
Darwin was a brilliant man, but he got some big things wrong and evolutionary science has progressed a great deal since the new synthesis. Plus it simply isn't scientific to be so ardent about an individual, no matter how impressive they are.

As a theist I have no problem accepting the evidence for evolution.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

Not to mention the flood evidence found worldwide...evolution apparently can't account for all the found fossils and their locations.

How about that, it only took three posts for a creationist to come in and do exactly the opposite of the goal of the thread. The whole point was to find evidence of divine creation, but every time all they can ever do is try to nit-pick evolution.

 

[elmarna]

in all the ways of life the capacity to understand & interpert can be defined in the beliefs that form the opinion what we will tend to percieve.
life is god. It is ever createing. it is moveing and in all that is involved I would never disagree with someone who feels the need to support it in a good way.
the fact that some wish to presonify life is to me a form of arogance,but, to them it may a way to feel they will have a better time connecting to a world that forms[not opinions] and responds in the mystery they tend to place it in.
Life came to be.
It still is.
Why creationist insist it is to be said is it makes the whole world of it maintained without "truths" like darwinisim. It is pure accptence and a faith that does not have to question.
It is not what you expect-it is what you accept.
I may do it differently & i refuse to paint it in how life came to pass...
I am not without letting gods world being worshiped just not likely the same way.
As for Darwinisum-I find science is not without it's revelations. I agree with him & do not tend to think he was not without the wonder & awe that came with him wanting to think it out!
So while science does have it's theorys i may not agree with it is willing to back up it's claims.
So place me with science[many scientists believe in god]
For those who want no questions answered let them have thier beliefs in creationisum.

 

[Acim]

My version of Creationism reframes the debate. I believe ardent evolutionists would claim it is not fair. But IMO, Creationists themselves are limited (profoundly) if they think the conceptual framework of "creation" is restricted, in message, to one book (or doctrine) and only one.

I would argue that the (theoretical) existence of "Scientific Method" exemplifies the plausible existence of conscious designer within the framework we call "physical." Or whatever materialism science purports to study.

We cannot observe, with our physical eyes, this method, nor is it deemed an aspect of 'natural order.' And yet, this method and other systems of rationality that aid understanding (and ultimately conscious relationships), are patterns that are insisted upon. Overlaying the (study of) physical phenomenon.

So, part of my evidence would be Scientific Method itself. I understand this as aspect of Creation, and not (so much) that of evolution. To me, it is both, but the way in which the method is applied rather than say existing as a theoretical assertion (not needing to be used), is manifestation of Design, ongoing. Evolving not in the classical sense of the word.

For me, Creation is manifestation of Thought(s). Perhaps there is lots to say here and to explain "what I really mean" but in interest of keeping it concise, I will say as little as I can for now. I will add that I do believe we are making up the physical as we (conscious beings) go along. I will also add that to date, I have been unable to find another being in the physical who can provide objective (third party) evidence for existence of the human body. I believe my human body does exist and live as such. I make countless decisions operating under idea that I am in a human body, and yet I have no way of objectively proving this existence. I'm pretty much at point, intellectually, where it doesn't need to be proven, and bring it up as part of point that the human body is also a manifestation of thought(s), though in my understanding, I would call it miscreation. As bad as that may sound, I think of it as neutral rather than say 'sinful.'

Enough for now. I hope I provided evidence that was asked for.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Anyway, evolution should attempt to explain natural phenomena. Why not?

Yes, the Theory of Evolution does explain the natural phenomenon of biological evolution.

Using objective empirical evidence according to the scientific method.

Throwing out "flood evidence" and "can't account for all the found fossils and their locations" as if those were facts backed by empirical evidence is a typical Biblical Literalist Creationist tactic.

If you don't want to be confused with a Creationist, you may want to do some fact checking before posting such statements.

 

[Astrid000]

I think creationists accept what has been observed but deny that what is observed results in macroevolution.

Some of their proof is related to the positioning of the earth, its vital iron core, the fossil evidence being able to now be classified into holobaramins, the resulting distinction between apes and humans in the fossil record, water found in comets being unlike the water on earth, evolutionary theory has as much to do with luck as anything else, if not more, as well as Darwin being wrong about some things as previously suggested.

Creationists can provide some scientific evidence behind their claims as well as their refutes to currently held evolutionary views.

That is some of what they see.

These links says something about the clasifications of mankind and baraminology.

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?
Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think creationists accept what has been observed but deny that what is observed results in macroevolution.

Some of their proof is related to the positioning of the earth, its vital iron core, the fossil evidence being able to now be classified into holobaramins, the resulting distinction between apes and humans in the fossil record, water found in comets being unlike the water on earth, evolutionary theory has as much to do with luck as anything else, if not more, as well as Darwin being wrong about some things as previously suggested.

Creationists can provide some scientific evidence behind their claims as well as their refutes to currently held evolutionary views.

That is some of what they see.

These links says something about the clasifications of mankind and baraminology.

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?
Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms

Unfortunately, none of their so called "evidence" leads to the logical conclusion of Creationism.
The scientific method looks at where the all of the evidence leads.
Creationists hand pick their evidence to fit preconceived notions of Creationism.
That is in no way scientific.
That is pseudoscience.

 

[Acim]

Evolutionists fit 'evidence' into preconceived notions. Namely that the physical is real (and/or objectively observable).

Pseudoscience is value judgment and hardly 'scientific.'

 

[Skwim]

Evolutionists fit 'evidence' into preconceived notions. Namely that the physical is real (and/or objectively observable).

But that's the scope of real that they work with: the physical. Isn't it appropriate to work within the field you're examining? Should the physical not be real, assuming it is and working with those elements presented in it is still valid. But perhaps you can explain what you mean by "real" and why the physical falls so outside of it that the relationships of its elements are intrinsically untrustworthy.

Pseudoscience is value judgment and hardly 'scientific.'

No it isn't. It's work done outside the parameters of science and then passed off as if it were within them.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolutionists fit 'evidence' into preconceived notions. Namely that the physical is real (and/or objectively observable).

Pseudoscience is value judgment and hardly 'scientific.'

If there is no objective reality, there is no science.
There is only subjective perceptions and personal beliefs.

Now that is "hardly scientific".

 

[RomCat]

Believe first; then you will understand.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Allow the evidence to reveal the truth.