Is there evidence for Creation? Logically? Yes!

How do you qualify evidence for Biblical created kinds or Baramins, LOGICALLY when you look at direct evidence, and ask the question, is it consistent?

The only evidence you could expect is for animal kinds to shows signs of always being the same kinds. After all, that is the fundamental difference between special creation and evolution.

So if you find a fossil of a spider supposedly 300 million years old, that is confirmation evidence that such a creature has produced according to it's genetic make-up. (X=X) Law of Identity. Which is what the bible states. Think about it, the only alternative is to say, "This particular fossil should not look like a spider", which is a bit like saying; "If Tiger Woods is a top golfer we should expect him to not be able to correctly swing a golf club". That's actually OPPOSITE logic. (fallacious).

So when we ask, is there evidence for created kinds? The answer is yes (Generally no change in morphology) or no,(change).

Of course, evolutionists say there is no evidence of created kinds or God or Intelligent Design. But they have to then qualify what would be evidence of created kinds? The problem is, if morphological stability is not an example of evidence for kinds, what would be? Are they saying  evolutionary CHANGE would be evidence for a special creation since that is the only remaining option? There are only two options, an animal kind has fundamentally changed in some way or has remained the same, apart from superficial changes such as size.

Think about it- what are evolutionists then saying if it is not evidence? Would we expect fossilized Pine trees to NOT look like Pine trees if the bible is true? (If your answer is "no" then according to the excluded middle, the only option left is, "yes", which proves logically that a fossilized pine tree is confirmation evidence for biblical kinds. This evidence is compounded by the fact that the pine or any other unchanged organism, will always have a complete absence of any evolutionary history, as we would of course expect had evolution not occurred and creation is true.

According to the law of the excluded middle, either the evidence is consistent with animals kinds or it is not.

There are only two logically sound POSSIBLE answers;

1. It would look like a preserved Pine if the bible was right. (as is obvious)
2. It would NOT look like a Pine. (opposite logic, like saying a baseball should NOT be round)

(Anything beyond a "yes" or "no" answer is extraneous to logic and therefore invalid.)

Remember we are only determining if a specific fossil you find is either consistent or not consistent, as evidence is counted as confirmation evidence if it is expected to exist, according to your theory.

 In regards to proposed histories, the name of the game is inductive reasoning because we can't repeat what truly happened, we can only join dots, clues from the evidence. There is plenty of evidence for biblical kinds because the induction of basically unchanged organisms, is vast, so the evidence is directly relevant to the claim.(Because we would expect to see this if the bible is right.)

The Value Of Evidence For Evolution

"The greater the claim is, the evidence must also be correspondingly greater".

We can see why such an axiom holds truth, from the following examples.

1. (Grand claim) I can fly like superman, without wings. EVIDENCE; a photograph of me flying.

2. (Small claim)I can jump pretty high. EVIDENCE; a photograph of me jumping pretty high.

As you can see, for obvious reasons we would DEMAND quite logically, much more from the person claiming that they can fly, than from the person claiming that they can jump pretty high. We would expect evidence-demands to differ, logically because it is an established fact that men can't fly. 

It is also an established fact, according to operational science and recorded history, that humans only reproduce humans.

Only according to propositional or historical science do we allegedly change so much biologically as to become a different kind of animal.

Therefore the value of evidence for biological evolution is dependent upon Inductive Reasoning.

Induction is very weak. A simple example is this;

Pretend we had a claim that there are no mountains on earth, and the person claiming this, had an induction of evidence of 10, million pieces of evidence. He had 10 million photographs of the earth, wherein there were no mountains in the background, only flat plains.

Would 10 million pieces of evidence disprove there are mountains?

No. Because even 10 million pieces of evidence can't disprove a fact, as a fact is based on proven deduction.

It is very important to remember that when they PROPOSE that an ape-like creature slowly developed into humans over time, that this is only inductive proposition, it is by no means proof.

Many evolutionary "evidences" of the past that were used to "prove" evolution are not not even believed to be true to modern scientific evolutionists. Lineages that were supposed to prove evolution are now abandoned in favour of different lineages.

It is very important to remember that evolution as a claim, is a very large claims that goes against the facts. Not only this, but the falsification evidence for evolution is re-labelled, as "evolution evidence".

The evidence for evolution, in quality, is of a poor quality. The Theory itself, it's hypothetics, are very sophisticated and the Theory does contain factually proven elements such as natural selection and mutations and so forth. It is not the scientists that I am blaming, nor am I rejecting facts within the Theory, but of those aforementioned propositional elements there can be no question that a tally of consistencies can not be held as proof or fact pertaining to so grandiose a claim.

Plenty of evidence for God's existence

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I define evidence as, That which should follow if a concept is true.

So, for example, if I were to believe that leaves fell from trees in Autumn/The Fall, then evidence for this would be lots of leaves on the ground during Autumn.

Of course, evolutionists don't want us to define evidence because if we define evidence then we then have the knowledge of what to look for if God exists.

Some examples of what evidence should exist if God exists, are as follows;

If God exists, then we should expect to see incredible, mind-blowingly intelligent design. (aerodynamics of birds)

If God exists, then we should expect to see a universe, with order, laws, and clear purpose and function. (function, such as reproduction, or photosynthesis)

If God exists, especially a personal God, then humans will worship and be spiritual if they seek God.

My point is that we could posit many things that should follow if God exists, and those things do follow. Yes, to be fair we say these things posteriori, (after the fact), but that can't be helped.

Now I want to show how hard-atheists qualify evidence for God, so that we can see if they are fair in regards to qualifying evidence;

They might say;

If God exists then we should expect to see nothing that we do see, no matter what it is, everything we see should not be there if God exists, therefore everything shows that there is no evidence for God's existence.

So I will leave it to the readers to decide whether this is a fair way of defining evidence for God, because the atheists I have debated, were unable to state that ANYTHING that exists should evidence God, because they define evidence of God as, "nothing that exists".

As you can see, this is not rational behaviour, if anything it shows us a great denial of reality.