Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

You are misguided that to describe in terms of how things are chosen is not advanced science. And besides my interest for science is limited, but creation science is great, for example the dna world theory. But you have to be able to get the confidence and credibility of it right. Be able to evaluate the evidence.

Can you rephrase this or something?

 

[Thief]

I made it clear that I didn't know of any evidence like this, but wanted to know if there was any I was not aware of. No trolling here.

but you are still here.....knowing there will be no proof.
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment....

verifiable?....creation as verifiable?

I think you knew better at the op

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

but you are still here.....knowing there will be no proof.
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment....

verifiable?....creation as verifiable?

I think you knew better at the op

Creation is verifiable. Decisions and how thery are made is a matter of fact issue. Scientists simply aren't looking for evidence of decisions because of ideological reasons, that explains the lack of evidence we have for creation.

 

[Thief]

Creation is verifiable. Decisions and how thery are made is a matter of fact issue. Scientists simply aren't looking for evidence of decisions because of ideological reasons, that explains the lack of evidence we have for creation.

I would agree to the extent of point....
7billion people, each with a unique life, which in turn will produce a unique spirit.
then to have all and everyone fail to survive the last breath?......I think not.

there is no mystery to life.
we are here to learn all that we can before we die.
we then stand from the dust and take form in spirit, as we truly are.

denial leaves Man as a complete mystery with no purpose or resolve.

science will not follow this line of belief.
it's not the result of an experiment.

I just thought about it.....and that's the conclusion I arrived at.

 

[leibowde84]

but you are still here.....knowing there will be no proof.
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment....

verifiable?....creation as verifiable?

I think you knew better at the op

Through this thread I've learned about why people believe in creationism. That's enough for me.

 

[Thief]

Through this thread I've learned about why people believe in creationism. That's enough for me.

are you done here?
or maybe you have another question

 

[Ultimatum]

Cre·a·tion·ism
krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun

1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Is there any? I often hear creationists lean on arguments from ignorance or the present lack of scientific understanding, but I've never heard of any verifiable evidence for it.

What do you mean? Standard dictionaries are designed for a particular purpose, and they neither aim to or are capable of encompassing the full denotations and connotations of words across various cultures, subcultures, and specialized disciplines.

But it is using the words "rather" and "such as".
It is presenting it as fact when, actually, it's a vile definition for Creationism.

That's not how the definition read to me at all. Origin of living organisms includes explaining biodiversity

No it doesn't.

the definition made a point of saying "such as" to make it obvious that evolution is an example of a naturalistic explanation.

Apples and oranges.

 

[leibowde84]

are you done here?
or maybe you have another question

Nope. I'm still learning more and more about why people believe what they do. What's your problem?

 

[Thief]

Nope. I'm still learning more and more about why people believe what they do. What's your problem?

the style of question on your part....
what's your problem?
if you would REALLY like to learn from other people.....
stop asking for something verifiable
it's not appropriate

faith requires no proving

 

[McBell]

the style of question on your part....
what's your problem?
if you would REALLY like to learn from other people.....
stop asking for something verifiable
it's not appropriate

faith requires no proving

Of course it is appropriate.
The only reason to think otherwise is because you know you have nothing to offer up but your belief.

 

[leibowde84]

the style of question on your part....
what's your problem?
if you would REALLY like to learn from other people.....
stop asking for something verifiable
it's not appropriate

faith requires no proving

I'm not asking anyone to prove their faith. I'm asking them for supporting evidence that leads them to believe what they do. If it is based on faith/personal experience alone, that is perfectly fine. So, I'm not sure your argument here is valid. You are merely assuming that I have some kind of malicious intent. But, that is nothing but pure speculation and erroneous assumption on your part.

 

[Robert.Evans]

A moon which perfectly masks the suns disc, allowing us to observe the corona, investigate the composition of a star, and hence much of the visible universe.. yet another staggering coincidence perhaps!?

Even many atheist cosmologists have remarked on how curious it is, that the universe so lends itself to our investigation. It's something that is so inherent to our world we take it for granted. Just as God himself, these answers are meant for the curious to find. They are not there to be proven to the uninterested.

Yes, what teh moon shows is the son sitting in the midst of the throne of God. Now it is not strange that peopl e should cheer at such a things, even though they don't really know why they do. The existence of God is revealed all over for those who will accept it as Romans tells us. Even the Christ story is revealed in the stars for those that can read it, every night. It sounds silly to people now, I know, but nevertheless, there it is.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not boring. Just highly unconvincing. I will have you look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation . I recommend this just for your own good rather than for the debate. And if everything checks out for you then fine. Just want you do read into it a little bit.

I did you the service of having a quick look at the links. Philosophical arguments I think. I find it interesting that those who don't believe always think there right becasue they can't see an INVISIBLE God.

They never then stop to think what they are left with - Luck and blind chance.

It could be, it just could be, that there is a God and those who don't understand are blind. Then everything is explained. We have our T.O.E. don't we. That is, after all, the easy answer. Why explain it away?

Have to say though, somewhat disrespectful of you to post them. You are a materialist it seems. Time will tell my friend. Then you will see I am right.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So basically there is no verifiable evidence for creationism. Okee dokee.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I did not agree wit you. I said "if God is everything ..." which is in no way agreeing with you. So, you are wrong. If you can't even find the quote, I have to assume you are just being stubborn.

Havn't looked.
Okay, so you say "if " God is everything, which suggests you don't think he is, is that right? If so, what is everything else ( in this long-winded conversation)

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is what I believe.

How can he always have been all powerful, exactly the way he is now? Why do you think he shows us things simple here that evolve into something complex?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

faith requires no proving

That's why it's such a dubious and unreliable thing.

 

[leibowde84]

How can he always have been all powerful, exactly the way he is now? Why do you think he shows us things simple here that evolve into something complex?

Why wouldn't he always have been able to be all-powerful? Isn't God eternal? And, I don't think God "shows us things simple here that evolve into something complex". Evolution doesn't apply to single entities "evolving" into something better. It is a process that takes a ridiculous amount of time that points to subtle changes in entire species.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why wouldn't he always have been able to be all-powerful? Isn't God eternal? And, I don't think God "shows us things simple here that evolve into something complex". Evolution doesn't apply to single entities "evolving" into something better. It is a process that takes a ridiculous amount of time that points to subtle changes in entire species.

There is, was, an Existence that just "Is". The thing we think of as God comes later. All complex things have to be explained. The universe evolves as does life, it has to develop over time. Why does he show you that? It does what it has always done ever since it said, I am.

 

[leibowde84]

There is, was, an Existence that just "Is". The thing we think of as God comes later. All complex things have to be explained. The universe evolves as does life, it has to develop over time. Why does he show you that? It does what it has always done ever since it said, I am.

These are all just assumptions based on your belief though. In other words, these are claims that have yet to be supported. Can you support these claims?