Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Jabar]

Too bad that isn't what the verse means. It says it was Allah that made it big not that Allah was expanding it now. More modern distortions to make the Quran fit science.

No it does not, and even if it does say that then it fits with modern science. Besides it never stated that he made it big, instead it says We its expanders. It is one that expands. So, it would mean that Allah expands the universe, i am not tampering with words.

 

[Faronator]

No it does not, and even if it does say that then it fits with modern science. Besides it never stated that he made it big, instead it says We its expanders. It is one that expands. So, it would mean that Allah expands the universe, i am not tampering with words.

But that's wrong.

 

[Shad]

No it does not, and even if it does say that then it fits with modern science. Besides it never stated that he made it big, instead it says We its expanders. It is one that expands. So, it would mean that Allah expands the universe, i am not tampering with words.

Wrong again. Looks like you have issues with reading comprehension. Here are the translations before Hubbles works. Clearly modern translations are using the discovery in their translation. More post hoc rationalizations. Again the verse just means Allah made it big, past tense, not expanding it currently.

With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.... " Yusufali

We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).... " Pickthal

And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.... " Shakir

 

[james bond]

Pain and suffering will be the ultimate evidence, but until then we have religiousforums.com.

I go away for a few months and likely not much has changed. Different players with their same scripts.

 

[shmogie]

If there was any such evidence you can believe we'd never hear the end of it.

There is no need for Creationists to provide evidence. The biogenesis/macro evolution model is so riddled with error, blatant conjecture, and scientific flaws that it can be very reasonably discredited. Those who hold to the model by faith, defend it, by faith. There are only two possibilities. Either geology, biology, and botany were created by intelligent design, or they in essence created themselves by use of the "magical ingredient" billions of years. There is absolutely no scientific proof for this. It is based upon raw conjecture, wishes and cyinicism

 

[Deathbydefault]

There is no need for Creationists to provide evidence.

There is if they want to be viewed as correct by any serious and rational person that cares about the issue of life's origins.

Currently, creationism is yet another example of how people can believe something with absolutely no logical basis or evidence.
It would be better if they defended it with evidence, lest they be called.... mean names.

 

[Zosimus]

There is if they want to be viewed as correct by any serious and rational person that cares about the issue of life's origins.

Currently, creationism is yet another example of how people can believe something with absolutely no logical basis or evidence.
It would be better if they defended it with evidence, lest they be called.... mean names.

Whereas what you believe has some sort of a logical basis?

For example, I couldn't help but notice that your signature contains "Hitchens's Razor." This is the claim that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Can you provide evidence for Hitchens' Razor? If not, then shouldn't we dismiss Hitchens' Razor under the rules laid down by Hitchens' Razor?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no need for Creationists to provide evidence. The biogenesis/macro evolution model is so riddled with error, blatant conjecture, and scientific flaws that it can be very reasonably discredited. Those who hold to the model by faith, defend it, by faith. There are only two possibilities. Either geology, biology, and botany were created by intelligent design, or they in essence created themselves by use of the "magical ingredient" billions of years. There is absolutely no scientific proof for this. It is based upon raw conjecture, wishes and cyinicism

Furthermore it is blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself as such.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Whereas what you believe has some sort of a logical basis?

I try to be as logical as I can in everything, be it beliefs or everyday life decisions.

For example, I couldn't help but notice that your signature contains "Hitchens's Razor." This is the claim that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Can you provide evidence for Hitchens' Razor? If not, then shouldn't we dismiss Hitchens' Razor under the rules laid down by Hitchens' Razor?

Hitchens razor is an attitude towards assertions in concern of the burden of proof.
If you assert something to me without meeting your BoP, I will dismiss your assertion as it is a waste of my time.

I dismiss creationism because it has not met, or has not even begun to meet, its BoP.
I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying I have been given absolutely no rational reason to believe it even might be true.

 

[Zosimus]

I try to be as logical as I can in everything, be it beliefs or everyday life decisions.

Hitchens razor is an attitude towards assertions in concern of the burden of proof.
If you assert something to me without meeting your BoP, I will dismiss your assertion as it is a waste of my time.

I dismiss creationism because it has not met, or has not even begun to meet, its BoP.
I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying I have been given absolutely no rational reason to believe it even might be true.

Well, if you try to be as logical as you can in everything, then you are failing miserably.

You claim that the BoP rests on the one making the claim.
Accordingly, by your own standard, the BoP for the claim "the BoP rests on the one making the claim" rests on YOU because YOU are the one making the claim.
Since you have not met your BoP, I dismiss Hitchens' Razor as it is a waste of my time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You claim that the BoP rests on the one making the claim.
Accordingly, by your own standard, the BoP for the claim "the BoP rests on the one making the claim" rests on YOU because YOU are the one making the claim.

Are you serious?

 

[Zosimus]

Are you serious?

Am I serious about rejecting self-refuting statements?

Yeah, I'm serious.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Am I serious about rejecting self-refuting statements?

Yeah, I'm serious.

So, to you, the burden of proof is a self-refuting statement?

Thanks for letting me know I should ignore all of your posts from this point on, then.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You claim that the BoP rests on the one making the claim.
Accordingly, by your own standard, the BoP for the claim "the BoP rests on the one making the claim" rests on YOU because YOU are the one making the claim.
Since you have not met your BoP, I dismiss Hitchens' Razor as it is a waste of my time.

Grasping at straws when all else fails, I see.

 

[james bond]

One of the best evidence is showing creation is the Earth and its environment happened very quickly.

The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:


I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
II. Life was suddenly created. Creatures were already in their adult state.
III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

 

[shmogie]

There is if they want to be viewed as correct by any serious and rational person that cares about the issue of life's origins.

Currently, creationism is yet another example of how people can believe something with absolutely no logical basis or evidence.
It would be better if they defended it with evidence, lest they be called.... mean names.

Those attributes you assign to creationism absolutely also applies to biogenesis/macro evolution. Absolutely no logical basis or evidence. How logical is life creating itself from some form chemicals floating around at the time ? As to evidence, nada

 

[Sapiens]

One of the best evidence is showing creation is the Earth and its environment happened very quickly.

The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:


I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
II. Life was suddenly created. Creatures were already in their adult state.
III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

In line with II, III and V, how long ago did these events take place? About how many generations of humans have there been?

 

[idav]

No it does not, and even if it does say that then it fits with modern science. Besides it never stated that he made it big, instead it says We its expanders. It is one that expands. So, it would mean that Allah expands the universe, i am not tampering with words.

Well of course Islam were astronomers using knowledge of science. Dang smart inidividuals, it would be you underestimating people, I think we have been dang smart for a long time. You have to assume they were idiots that didn't know how to read.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Those attributes you assign to creationism absolutely also applies to biogenesis/macro evolution. Absolutely no logical basis or evidence. How logical is life creating itself from some form chemicals floating around at the time ? As to evidence, nada

Yeah, no evidence at all...
None.
Nada.
Zilch.

Those idiot scientists were just wasting their time all these years.

 

[Zosimus]

Grasping at straws when all else fails, I see.

Grasping at straws? I don't think so. Rather than insult you back, let's try to break this down to see where exactly the disagreement lies.

You claim: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Q1: Is this a claim?
(I assume you will say yes. If not, this is where the disagreement lies).

Q2: Can you back up this claim with evidence?
(I assume you will say no. If not, then present the evidence that supports the claim).

Therefore, in accordance with your own rule, Hitchens' Razor, Hitchens' Razor can be dismissed without evidence.

Q.E.D.