Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

Faith based rhetoric with no substance or credibility of any kind.

logic pure and simple,.....like a tree falling in a forest.

 

[vombatus]

It is sad when people deny the evidence before their eyes. As the Bible rightly states: God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [who deny God] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20)

Look, rusra02, tell me what "evidence before my eyes" I'm supposed to be missing, and I'll tell you if I deny it (and if I do, why). But yet again you witter on about "evidence" while failing completely to say what it consists of.

 

[rusra02]

Ok, but these are merely claims. What evidence do you have to back up that all complex entities have a creator?

What evidence do you have that they do not? One can see a house and know that "every house is constructed by someone." The evidence for an intelligent designer and builder is discerned by what is before our eyes. What should we conclude when confronted with brilliantly designed and constructed animals, plants, chemicals, DNA, etc. that no intelligent scientist nor engineer could create, but to discern "the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrew 3:4) I believe to deny such evidence is, as the Bible says, "inexcusable". (Romans 1:20)

 

[vombatus]

" The evidence for an intelligent designer and builder is discerned by what is before our eyes. What should we conclude when confronted with brilliantly designed and constructed animals, plants, chemicals, DNA, etc. that no intelligent scientist nor engineer could create, but to discern "the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrew 3:4) I believe to deny such evidence is, as the Bible says, "inexcusable". (Romans 1:20)

[With apologies to the addressee for butting in.]
OK, rusra02, I think I'm getting there. Your idea of "evidence" is the mere existence of things that, in your view, are too complex to arise without a designer. This is a well-known logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity".

What evidence do you have that they do not?

Shifting the burden of evidence is another well-known fallacy.

One can see a house and know that "every house is constructed by someone."

Yes, and one can also see and consult flesh-and-blood architects and builders. The designer you invoke seems conspicuous only by his complete absence from our experience.

 

[rusra02]

[With apologies to the addressee for butting in.]
OK, rusra02, I think I'm getting there. Your idea of "evidence" is the mere existence of things that, in your view, are too complex to arise without a designer. This is a well-known logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity".
Shifting the burden of evidence is another well-known fallacy.
Yes, and one can also see and consult flesh-and-blood architects and builders. The designer you invoke seems conspicuous only by his complete absence from our experience.

What you accept as proof or reject is your decision. Calling evidence fallacy doesn't change the evidence. Each person can draw their own conclusions. I consider these "logical fallacies" you claim to be nothing but false arguments used to discourage ones from examining the evidence for themselves.

 

[leibowde84]

and your lack of understanding is 'ours'?

Yes. Humans as a species have just begun to understand the cosmos via the scientific method. So, we all lack understanding.

 

[Skwim]

What evidence do you have that they do not? One can see a house and know that "every house is constructed by someone." The evidence for an intelligent designer and builder is discerned by what is before our eyes. What should we conclude when confronted with brilliantly designed and constructed animals, plants, chemicals, DNA, etc. that no intelligent scientist nor engineer could create, but to discern "the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrew 3:4) I believe to deny such evidence is, as the Bible says, "inexcusable". (Romans 1:20)

This amounts to begging the question.

FYI: Begging the Question is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn't already assumed to be true.

 

[leibowde84]

This amounts to begging the question.

FYI: Begging the Question is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn't already assumed to be true.

Thank you. Exactly right. He is literally saying "because everything that is complex has a creator, everything complex has a creator". Circular to say the least.

 

[leibowde84]

What evidence do you have that they do not? One can see a house and know that "every house is constructed by someone." The evidence for an intelligent designer and builder is discerned by what is before our eyes. What should we conclude when confronted with brilliantly designed and constructed animals, plants, chemicals, DNA, etc. that no intelligent scientist nor engineer could create, but to discern "the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrew 3:4) I believe to deny such evidence is, as the Bible says, "inexcusable". (Romans 1:20)

Nice straw man. I am in no way claiming that there is no creator, which you erroneously asked me to prove. My position us that we have no way of knowing yet. The burden is on you, as I am merely claiming that we have no evidence that a creator is necessary. You, otoh, are claiming evidential proof that "all complex things have a creator", yet have provided nothing more than the pathetic analogy to man-made inorganic structures or machines. Which, obviously, are completely irrelevant.

So, what proof do you have that complex NATURAL ORGANIC organisms have a creator by necessity? Ready and willing to consider.

 

[Paleo]

There isn't any that I know of.
You can not prove nor disprove it but if there was proof what point would there be to the ol' 'having faith'?

 

[leibowde84]

There isn't any that I know of.
You can not prove nor disprove it but if there was proof what point would there be to the ol' 'having faith'?

Ruso is claiming this as evidence/reasoning that supports his position. In actuality, he is merely assuming his conclusion in his evidence. Man made creations are not relevant at all and the mention of such is nothing more than a cop out. If he thinks that there is evidence that natural organisms are, by necessity, created without resorting to inorganic, man made mechanisms and/or structures, I am all ears. But, there is no evidence of this beyond obviously flawed subjective inference, unsupported by any verifiable evidence beyond "it just seems right" (which is pathetic at best).

There isn't any that I know of.
You can not prove nor disprove it but if there was proof what point would there be to the ol' 'having faith'?

 

[McBell]

the hall of mirrors trick doesn't work on God

So why are you trying it?

 

[Thief]

Yes. Humans as a species have just begun to understand the cosmos via the scientific method. So, we all lack understanding.

no glory in being human....

 

[Thief]

So why are you trying it?

?????
that's YOUR tactic....not mine

 

[Thief]

Thank you. Exactly right. He is literally saying "because everything that is complex has a creator, everything complex has a creator". Circular to say the least.

I saw the science demo in a documentary...
the odds of ALL of this life coming together as it has......is astronomically unlikely.

unless there is an intelligent mind behind it

 

[Tiberius]

the hall of mirror trick doesn't work on God.

Why not?

 

[Thief]

Why not?

consider the words....in the beginning

Someone had to be first

 

[leibowde84]

no glory in being human....

What do you mean by glory?

 

[leibowde84]

I saw the science demo in a documentary...
the odds of ALL of this life coming together as it has......is astronomically unlikely.

unless there is an intelligent mind behind it

Can you provide the name of the specific documentary? Most that I've seen say the opposite. That it is almost inevitable that life exists elsewhere in the universe. There are billions of earth like planets in our own galaxy. Multiply that by trillions of galaxies. Seems silly to assume anything else.

 

[McBell]

?????
that's YOUR tactic....not mine

Yeppers, I predicted this very denial...
You really do need a new song and dance.