The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

I think the point has been lost. I am not currently proposing scientific evidence for creation

That's part of the problem: you can't add negatives together and come up with positive evidence for your claim. Even if you were absolutely right, and you're not, the best you can produce here is a mystery, not evidence for creation. You're not going to get anywhere by just poking holes in the legitimate science.

I am proposing the evidence for evolution is not scientific.

And to do that, you begin talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Those are two different things, you know. But to completely seal off this talk of evolution in the hopes that you'll maybe get your facts straight, here's a link to some proof that matches your criteria anyway. Evolution happens, it's a confirmed, observable, live, fact.

Saying things like "what makes you think that the conditions of earth today at all match the conditions on a prebiotic earth? Because I'll give you a free tip right now: they do not." is not scientific evidence.

Yes, actually, it is: let's just leave aside the huge impact that life has had on the planet, we know that planets form the actual physical planet first, with the atmosphere and so on coming later. It's just simple logistics; things were different on a prebiotic planet, and those conditions were what led to life forming.

To say that science explains everything through observable and experimental evidence and follows certain unbreakable laws to make it trustworthy, that is until it makes what you believe impossible without throwing out those very laws that science is built upon, again makes your argument completely unscientific.

Clearly, someone isn't familiar with the concept of indirect evidence. Bit of an eye roller, but I'll learn you some knowledge: the observable evidence that we have now can lead us to make certain determinations about the past even if we weren't there to observe it. The favorite example is Pluto; we haven't known the former planet existed for long enough for it to complete a full orbital cycle, but we know how long that orbital cycle is because of observations and evidence.

When I say that the conditions of earth were different before life emerged, yes, we weren't there to see it. But, we can take evidence from stars and other observations around us that lead us to certain conclusions.

Any hypothesis that breaks the laws of science would be easily rejectable based upon that criteria alone. Again my problem is that hypotheses are being taught as theories and theories as laws without respect to the scientific method. So what if the theory of evolution violates certain scientific laws, we'll just say those laws didn't exist at certain times and then existed later, whatever suits our theories. This is not science, it is using a disprovable hypothesis to prove a theory.

You not understanding the determinations used within these theories does not mean those theories are invalid science. It means you have a profound misunderstanding that, so far, you don't seem to feel any need to correct.

If I had a hypothesis that stated that mixing sodium with chloride would yield sodium chloride I would test it. I would mix sodium and chloride and get sodium chloride and if I was able to repeat this experiment again and again observing the results and it always became sodium chloride you would allow me to change the hypothesis into a theory and perhaps a law. If I were to say to you that when I mix sodium and chloride I get water you would say there's no way. Then I would say sure it does, you have no idea how elements reacted together billions of years ago when sodium and chloride through the use of an energy source that is no longer available today were able to shed protons and electrons, change molecular shape and become hydrogen and oxygen and thus create water. You would correctly reject it as science. You may say that it's possible, that it's a theory, but not a theory as science defines a theory, a theory as in anything's possible.

And if I were to then show you the best guesses made by science based on real evidence that show that the conditions have changed? Like this, for instance? And this is all beside the point because my initial contention was that simply assuming that, because we don't see abiogenesis happening now the theory is debunked is fallacious, because things were different in the past. Again, you fall victim to the argument from ignorance.

"I've never seen it, therefore it's impossible" is a perfectly valid scientific statement.

No. The correct statement is "I haven't seen it, therefore I haven't seen it." Nobody had ever seen a round fucking earth for hundreds of years, that didn't mean it was impossible. Nobody had seen a man fly, but we've done that! Every last scientific discovery in the history of mankind has been done exactly in spite of the idea that not seeing something means it's impossible, and that alone should demonstrate how fallacious that argument is, but let me do something else too: I've never seen anything created out of nothing, so therefore it's impossible.

Still wishing to proclaim that a valid syllogism, champ?

It must be observable to be scientific. You can make a hypothesis that something is possible but until you prove it according to the scientific method it is not possible.

Except that you're wrong in your premise that the only things that are scientific are things that you can currently see. Clearly you've never heard of taking educated guesses based on incomplete evidence.

Here's what it boils down to. Our criteria for proof is different. Yours is science, so be scientific. Mine is faith so I will be faithful. It's not science or God. Science is a means by which we explain the things that are happening around us. It may be a piece of the knowledge God uses to govern the natural world. My faith does not require scientific proof that is why it is called faith.

Then your position is by definition irrational, and cannot be rationally justified. Similarly, you can't use creation as evidence of anything, if your support for the idea of creation is, um, faith. Cool, we're done here.

If you would like some scientific evidence there are men far more knowledgable on the subject than I but you could look into: In Siberia Russia (in the Tundra) there have been found at least 5 million elephant remains frozen solid in mud hundreds of feet thick. Some of the elephants are carried out as the great Russian rivers the Ob and the Yenisey slash through the tundra on the way to the Arctic Ocean. It has been found they (the elephants) had no erector muscles that would have protected them from Arctic weather. Some also have perfectly preserved tropical plant material in their stomachs. They were semi-tropical animals. They were quick frozen. A wind chill factor of 190 degrees below zero would be required to quick freeze these elephants. They were frozen, then covered in mud, then covered and buried in ice. While not of creation, here is some empirical evidence for the flood.

Except that that's just a wild exaggeration (a lie, in other words) by creationists. It's not true.