Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[bravoandi]

Is that based on arguments from ignorance though? For example, "how could something come from nothing", "how could evolution work so beautifully", complexity of life, etc.?

Apparently your god made the universe from nothing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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?

God has supported them to me. Will that do?

 

[McBell]

God has supported them to me. Will that do?

A simple "No" would have sufficed.

 

[Thief]

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.

no assumption here....
you know.....the word 'verifiable' is a line drawn....
and cannot be met.

no one is going to 'verify' creation.

you just have to think about it.

now if, you were willing to risk changing your mind about your beliefs....
then you might consider dropping the need to 'verify'.

what happens if a line of sound reasoning 'proves' greater than your own?
a change in your spirit?

 

[Thief]

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

you don't trust your own thoughts?....or mine?
who then do you believe in?

 

[McBell]

you don't trust your own thoughts?....or mine?
who then do you believe in?

No. no.
Verifiability.

now I shall wait for another of your cookie cutter sermons....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

you don't trust your own thoughts?....or mine?
who then do you believe in?

I would be worried by delusional thoughts.

 

[Thief]

I would be worried by delusional thoughts.

shall we consider our avatars?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

shall we consider our avatars?

Doctor Evil is a real person though, I've seen him in a film.

 

[leibowde84]

no assumption here....
you know.....the word 'verifiable' is a line drawn....
and cannot be met.

no one is going to 'verify' creation.

you just have to think about it.

now if, you were willing to risk changing your mind about your beliefs....
then you might consider dropping the need to 'verify'.

what happens if a line of sound reasoning 'proves' greater than your own?
a change in your spirit?

I'm open to changing my view, but arguments from ignorance are not sound reasoning.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm open to changing my view, but arguments from ignorance are not sound reasoning.

Can we verify a single cell accidentally morphing into a human being? Conjecture is all we have either way at this point

 

[Thief]

I'm open to changing my view, but arguments from ignorance are not sound reasoning.

so display what you are looking for....
why keep us guessing about what you would accept as .....sound reasoning

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I'm not saying I"m right. Obviously I believe that I am right otherwise I wouldn't have the beliefs or lack thereof that I do.

However those aren't philosophical arguments. Neither of the things I posted are even arguments. They are well documented phenomenon. I just wanted you to note how similar your own case is to those well documented phenomenon. It is "possible" that those phenomenon and the similarities to your case are simply coincidence? I suppose in that we don't have all of the absolute answers.

When you say all we have left is "luck and chance" that isn't true either. All we have left is the reality of the situation. Luck doesn't seem to exist. Probability exists. Most everything is subject to probability. In this way chance doesn't exist either. What we are left with is the unknown. That is all we are left with. Questions without answers. It allows us to seek out those answer and see what is the truth. I'm not content with just putting god in the blank space.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Can we verify a single cell accidentally morphing into a human being? Conjecture is all we have either way at this point

We have ample evidence that this is the case. We know evolution happens. We have documented speciation. We have DNA evidence along with fossil evidence to back that up. If we don't make exceptions up that we don't have evidences for that is where the evidence points.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We have ample evidence that this is the case. We know evolution happens. We have documented speciation. We have DNA evidence along with fossil evidence to back that up. If we don't make exceptions up that we don't have evidences for that is where the evidence points.

Has it ever been observed, tested, measured? quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Has it ever been observed, tested, measured? quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that?

Old fashioned scientific methods are often old fashioned. We use proper modern tools and techniques. The method of empirical evidence gathering may change but the principles behind it does not. So yes we have.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Old fashioned scientific methods are often old fashioned. We use proper modern tools and techniques. The method of empirical evidence gathering may change but the principles behind it does not. So yes we have.

So, observation, measurement, repeatable experiments still count for something- can we repeatedly observe and measure a single cell randomly acquiring millions of significant improvements until it becomes a human?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So, observation, measurement, repeatable experiments still count for something- can we repeatedly observe and measure a single cell randomly acquiring millions of significant improvements until it becomes a human?

We have observed, measured, and repeated the evidences for it yes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We have observed, measured, and repeated the evidences for it yes.

That wasn't the question was it?

Likewise paranormal investigators can observe, measure, repeat the evidences for what they claim. Just not for the claim itself


I can observe, measure, repeat an experiment where plants thrive with added CO2, light acts as a wave and a particle, liquids that turn to gas under a certain temperature

I cannot do this for ghosts, bigfoot or evolution, I can only make academic arguments from subjective circumstantial evidence

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can we verify a single cell accidentally morphing into a human being? Conjecture is all we have either way at this point

While the science about how things are chosen is lacking in many respects, it seems to me you could do more to actually have some knowledge about how things are chosen, how creation actually works. You could try to get some science about human beings creating for example. Seeing as that evolutionists generally don't believe in the human soul either, they about as much object to this science as they object to creationism at large.